NIT or NCAA?

[jncuse]

Didn't feel like starting a new thread.

But on the sidelines, it was a net positive day for Syracuse in terms of getting into the NCAA. Of course some wins shortly would be nice... but the bubble did weaken a bit today.

If you look at the bracket matrix in terms of teams between 8 seed and last 8 out (that is 24 other teams). Seeds per Bracket Matrix.

I counted 8 bad events for the bubble, and only 2 good events for the bubble.

What I consider a bad event
- Losing to a sub 100 team
- Losing to a non tourney team
- Blowing a chance to win against a top 25 at home.

What I consider a good event for a bubble team
- Beating another tournament team (or last 8 out)
- Beating a top 100 team on the road (not so easy)

Beating a non tourney team at home proves nothing and really does not help your resume. And losing to a tourney team on the road is no shame either.





Bad Losses
1. Davidson (Last 4 Out) had a bad loss at St. Joes
2. St. Mary's (Last 8 Out) lost at home vs. a terrible Pepperdine team

Losses to Non-Tourney Teams
1. Stanford (8 Seed) lost at Washington St
2. LSU (9 Seed) lost at Miss St
3. Georgia (8 Seed) lost at South Carolina
4. George Washington (Last 4 In) lost at Rhode Island

Blown Elite Win Opportunities at Home
1. Iowa (11 seed) lost vs Wisconsin (2 seed)
2. Oklahoma St (9 seed) lost vs Oklahoma (6 seed)


Wins over Other Tourney Teams (Not Good for Us) or Top 100 Road Win
1. St. John's (Last 4 in) vs Providence (6 seed). But this was at home and expected
2. Seton Hall (10 Seed) vs Xavier (9 seed). One of the two had to win -- it was unavoidable.

The depth of the Big East is coming through above. Because of their quality OOC play, they have 7 of 10 teams in the tourney, so almost every game results in one side getting a quality win, and the other side not being hurt too bad.





It could have been much better as well. But unfortunately a win is a win.
- NC St (11 seed) had to come back to win in OT at Georgia Tech
- Tulsa (Last 4 In) had to come back and beat an awful South Florida team at home.

 

[Nicknack]

If no post-season ban this year, would you prefer the team go to NIT or NCAA? Please vote from players perspective / opportunity in the poll. Which would be better for this team?

Anyone who would rather see us go to the NIT than the NCAA just because we probably won't make it far in the tourney... please stop by my house so I can kick you in the nuts. Send me a PM and I'll gladly send you my address so we can make that happen.

 

[CaptainJ]

I just wanted to point out the OP asked from a player's perspective, even though it still might not make a difference. Is there any chance we could ever see a day when the teams slighted to the NIT would still have a shot by letting the champions of each play each other? Even if not, I'm curious if anyone think it's possible the NIT champ might have a shot vs the NCAA champ.

 

[Nicknack]

The problem with the NIT is that even if you win the whole thing - NO ONE (besides maybe the team and some die-hard fans) care. It's all about the NCAA tourney because everyone knows that all it takes is to get hot at the right time - anything can happen as year after year teams come out of no where to have incredible and very surprising runs.

As a player, would I rather go to the NIT tourney? I just can't believe for a second that any player in their right mind would have that preference. Remember 1997?? We almost declined to even play in the NIT and in hindsight, should have. As a result, our guys came out uninspired and simply didn't care about being there. We ended up getting throttled by FSU in the first round, playing at home (what a great memory that was).

As for Captain J's question... I sure as hell hope not. I don't really understand why anyone would even think that would be a good idea. I would rather see the team who lost in the championship game get another shot before I would want an NIT team involved. Maybe make it a 2 out of 3 series once getting into the final four or championship game - that kind of scenario wouldn't bother me (so long as the NIT keeps to themselves). Bottom line for me though is that the tourney is absolutely great the way it is and needs no fixin'.

 

[SWC75]

I just wanted to point out the OP asked from a player's perspective, even though it still might not make a difference. Is there any chance we could ever see a day when the teams slighted to the NIT would still have a shot by letting the champions of each play each other? Even if not, I'm curious if anyone think it's possible the NIT champ might have a shot vs the NCAA champ.

They did that three times during WWII to benefit the Red Cross and the NCAA champion won each time.

In 1944 Utah was eliminated in the first round of the NIT and were returning home, disappointed when they were told that and Arkansas team that had been invited to the NCAAs had had a serious bus accident and had to withdraw. The Utes were asked to replace them. They did so and won the NCAA tournament, then won the Red Cross benefit game over the NIT champion.

In 1945, the Red Cross game for the only time pitted Oklahoma State's 7-0 Bob Foothill's Kruland against Depaul's 6-10 George Mikan, the first two "good big men". Kurland out-played Mikan and the Cowboys won.
http://thekeep.eiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=kss_fac

 

[SWC75]

The problem with the NIT is that even if you win the whole thing - NO ONE (besides maybe the team and some die-hard fans) care. It's all about the NCAA tourney because everyone knows that all it takes is to get hot at the right time - anything can happen as year after year teams come out of no where to have incredible and very surprising runs.

As a player, would I rather go to the NIT tourney? I just can't believe for a second that any player in their right mind would have that preference. Remember 1997?? We almost declined to even play in the NIT and in hindsight, should have. As a result, our guys came out uninspired and simply didn't care about being there. We ended up getting throttled by FSU in the first round, playing at home (what a great memory that was).

As for Captain J's question... I sure as hell hope not. I don't really understand why anyone would even think that would be a good idea. I would rather see the team who lost in the championship game get another shot before I would want an NIT team involved. Maybe make it a 2 out of 3 series once getting into the final four or championship game - that kind of scenario wouldn't bother me (so long as the NIT keeps to themselves). Bottom line for me though is that the tourney is absolutely great the way it is and needs no fixin'.

I didn't want to be in the NIT in 2007 or 2008 but I really wanted to win it because we'd never done it and so many of our rivals have and we got robbed of it by the refs in '81.

 

[SBU72]

They did that three times during WWII to benefit the Red Cross and the NCAA champion won each time.

In 1944 Utah was eliminated in the first round of the NIT and were returning home, disappointed when they were told that and Arkansas team that had been invited to the NCAAs had had a serious bus accident and had to withdraw. The Utes were asked to replace them. They did so and won the NCAA tournament, then won the Red Cross benefit game over the NIT champion.

In 1945, the Red Cross game for the only time pitted Oklahoma State's 7-0 Bob Foothill's Kruland against Depaul's 6-10 George Mikan, the first two "good big men". Kurland out-played Mikan and the Cowboys won.
http://thekeep.eiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=kss_fac

What you did not mention was that back then the NIT was the bigger of the two. Also both tournaments took a lot fewer teams combined than the current NCAA. So good teams who finished 2nd or third in their conferences did not usually get in the NIT. Even when the NCAA overtook the NIT in importance, the NIT was still highly valued because of the small size of the NCAA. Also back then a team actually won BOTH, CCNY in 1950.

 

[orangedave]

Anyone who would rather see us go to the NIT than the NCAA just because we probably won't make it far in the tourney... please stop by my house so I can kick you in the nuts. Send me a PM and I'll gladly send you my address so we can make that happen.

If I fell into that category, which I don't, I would expect you to come to my house, not the other way around, to administer the punishment.

 

[SWC75]

What you did not mention was that back then the NIT was the bigger of the two. Also both tournaments took a lot fewer teams combined than the current NCAA. So good teams who finished 2nd or third in their conferences did not usually get in the NIT. Even when the NCAA overtook the NIT in importance, the NIT was still highly valued because of the small size of the NCAA. Also back then a team actually won BOTH, CCNY in 1950.

The NIT had started a year earlier than the NCAA and, more importantly was based in new York. The top eastern teams preferred to go there. In those days playing in New York was a much bigger deal than it is now because that's were the national media was. The population hadn't migrated south and west yet. Transportation and technology was still limited. Pro football and basketball were still in their infancy and college sports were still important in the big cities.

Nowadays the media will go where you are. Playing in New York doesn't mean what it used to and the big cities are more concerned with the professionals. And, as you point out, the current NCAA tournament has more teams in it than the NCAA and NIT combined used to have. Even when the NCAA became more prominent, the difference between the two was like the difference between the teams in the Elite 8 and those who lost in Sweet 16.

 

[jncuse]

Well another good day on the bubble for Syracuse, as the bubble as a whole continues to weaken a bit.

Looking at teams that are 8 seed or worse on the bracket matrix, or amongst the last 8 or so out. These are teams that could conceivably be on the bubble.

Bad - Defined as a bad loss (sub 100 RPI), or a loss to a non tourney team, or a loss at home vs an elite top 25 team.

Good - A win over a tourney team or a win over a top 100 team on the road.

Beating a non tourney team at home is a non event. Won't really shift your resume.

BAD

Cincinnati a current 8 seed lost at RPI #245 East Carolina.

Miami a current 10 seed lost at RPI #124 Florida St

UConn (the current 11th last team out), and not really in great shape, lost at RPI #241 Houston

Washington (the current last team out), loss at home to Cal a non tourney team.

Of course Syracuse needs to keep winning, but with all the bad that occurred this weekend, our end goal may now be 1 game closer than it was before.

 

[SBU72]

The NIT had started a year earlier than the NCAA and, more importantly was based in new York. The top eastern teams preferred to go there. In those days playing in New York was a much bigger deal than it is now because that's were the national media was. The population hadn't migrated south and west yet. Transportation and technology was still limited. Pro football and basketball were still in their infancy and college sports were still important in the big cities.

Nowadays the media will go where you are. Playing in New York doesn't mean what it used to and the big cities are more concerned with the professionals. And, as you point out, the current NCAA tournament has more teams in it than the NCAA and NIT combined used to have. Even when the NCAA became more prominent, the difference between the two was like the difference between the teams in the Elite 8 and those who lost in Sweet 16.

Use to be invitation to the NCAA was by winning conference tournys. SU was part of the EACA a huge loosely organization covering most of the northeast. And in the 60's there was a big controversy in the NCAA because regionals could only take teams in their "region". There was a problem with there being significantly more teams in the east than any other region, leaving out a lot of better teams than those particularly in the west. Then they made the "at-large' bid capable of going to any region when the tourney began to expand.

 

[CaptainJ]

They did that three times during WWII to benefit the Red Cross and the NCAA champion won each time.

In 1944 Utah was eliminated in the first round of the NIT and were returning home, disappointed when they were told that and Arkansas team that had been invited to the NCAAs had had a serious bus accident and had to withdraw. The Utes were asked to replace them. They did so and won the NCAA tournament, then won the Red Cross benefit game over the NIT champion.

In 1945, the Red Cross game for the only time pitted Oklahoma State's 7-0 Bob Foothill's Kruland against Depaul's 6-10 George Mikan, the first two "good big men". Kurland out-played Mikan and the Cowboys won.
http://thekeep.eiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=kss_fac

We've had at least one war going on over a decade, and WWII got 3 games by itself. Somehow I feel shortchanged. I think it could serve both sides of the "expand the field" debate.