Agree...my guess is we are around the 25th to 30th best team in the nation.
So... better to win NIT or go out in the 32 at NCAA?
- Thread starter N&B4PSU
- Start date
Interesting, because the graphic shown on TV is quite different. Not sure who got it right, but theirs showed EVERY team that won the NIT was seeded in the ncaa tourney the following year with the exception of GW.
That said, perhaps I didn't read it completely and it referred only to teams that made it to the final. For example, it showed UNC as a #2 seed the following year and UNC was the runner up, not the winner. That would make more sense.
Thank you for pointing it out!
Interesting. Was listening to a handicapping podcast and they were discussing this (specifically about PSU for next year), but didn't have the stats handy. I see Norm says only 4 teams made it the next year though.
The podcast guest had PSU power ranked at about #30 in the country and felt that 16 of the NIT teams were good enough to be in the top 64.
I'm pretty certain i presumed they were referencing the winner of the NIT when, most likely, it was the 2 teams that made it to the final. Even so, that's a pretty decent track record of success.
Up to Chambers now to get these kids focused on next year and take it up a notch... or 4.
^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^
Generally speaking, the answer is the NCAA tourney. For PSU in 2018, I think winning the NIT is better. For a young team in a program with low historical success, the NIT run is a huge positive that being one of the last 4 in the NCAA and losing early is not. But, as is posted above, it only matters if PSU can parlay the NIT into success next year in the B1G and make the dance.
This is my take also.. I am happy we won, and I am happy for the team, but in a month or so nobody will remember it. The NCAA will be a lifetime memory.
A month from now, a year from now, even 5 years from now, I will remember how well our team played last night. I don't recall ever seeing a Penn State basketball team play that well. For me at least it was a memorable performance that I won't soon forget.
Fair points. On the one hand, the automatic bids can be seen as a cop-out on the part of the selection committee since they only have to worry about the bubble teams and not about selecting a large proportion of the field (i.e., everyone but the obvious good teams). On the other hand, without automatic bids, many conferences would rarely be represented in the field. This might improve the quality overall, but it also would take away the Cinderella stories that make the big dance so intriguing and memorable. Another relevant question that comes into play here is whether there should be over 300 D-1 programs and, therefore, so many D-1 conferences.
If the ncaa cut the total D-1 field, say in half, then the quality problem is more or less solved. You wouldn't have the debate about an NIT champion or a #16 tournament seed being better. In fact, if the ncaa field consisted of only the major conferences, the NIT might disappear since there would be few big draws left to play in it. The tournament would get all the good teams from the major conferences, and the ones that didn't make the tournament probably wouldn't be worthy of the NIT.
All things considered, I like the way things are now. It isn't perfect, but I like the little guys getting a shot at the big dance. One can always argue about the teams that get left out, but often times, the decision to leave them out is the correct one. I'm sure Penn State could beat several teams that made the big dance this year, but I also believe that Penn State didn't deserve to make the big dance. The NIT run doesn't change my opinion.
Very strong points by Greg.
Technically, the team played 5 extra games in the NIT. They were all valuable experience. In addition, you can't determine how the team might have played in the 1st round of the NCAA based on the Temple game. During the NIT tourney, one of the commentators stated it very well. He basically said that most teams play uninspired in the first game (disappointment from missing the dance), but if they win they wake up and play to their highest level from that point forward.
So after Temple, PSU added two challenging road wins and two "final 4" wins in the Garden. If Carr returns, they are set for a deep run next year. if he leave, there are a lot more questions. I do believe winning the NIT increases the possibility that Carr does return. It adds the dream of a true title to the thought of an extra year of individual development. Even if the team believed they were "close" before the NIT - how close are you if you can't even win that tourney?
Technically, the team played 5 extra games in the NIT. They were all valuable experience. In addition, you can't determine how the team might have played in the 1st round of the NCAA based on the Temple game. During the NIT tourney, one of the commentators stated it very well. He basically said that most teams play uninspired in the first game (disappointment from missing the dance), but if they win they wake up and play to their highest level from that point forward.
So after Temple, PSU added two challenging road wins and two "final 4" wins in the Garden. If Carr returns, they are set for a deep run next year. if he leave, there are a lot more questions. I do believe winning the NIT increases the possibility that Carr does return. It adds the dream of a true title to the thought of an extra year of individual development. Even if the team believed they were "close" before the NIT - how close are you if you can't even win that tourney?
"Also, think about this... if we only play 1 or 2 games in the NCAA, Shep almost assuredly doesn’t get the school record for career 3 point shots made, and doesn’t break the B1G single season record for 3 point shots made. He deserved that, and to go out a winner.
For where the program is now (not where we want it to be), this NIT run was way more valuable to them than a win in the NCAA, or a first round loss".
These are truly excellent points about the team. I never realized that SHEP would never have GARNER(ed) those records without this NIT championship.
But, I'd like to even take it one step further. IMO, for the future of this program, winning the NIT championship the way we did, against the great competition that we played, without one of our best players, was about as good as making the final 4 in the big dance. This championship definitely puts us on the national basketball radar for next season.
For where the program is now (not where we want it to be), this NIT run was way more valuable to them than a win in the NCAA, or a first round loss".
These are truly excellent points about the team. I never realized that SHEP would never have GARNER(ed) those records without this NIT championship.
But, I'd like to even take it one step further. IMO, for the future of this program, winning the NIT championship the way we did, against the great competition that we played, without one of our best players, was about as good as making the final 4 in the big dance. This championship definitely puts us on the national basketball radar for next season.
Isn’t the goal of PSU basketball to make the NCAA on a semi-regular basis?
If that’s the case, then making the NCAA is better because that is your ultimate goal. If you want to argue winning the NIT is better than the First Four and losing there, fine. But no one would trade a Sweet 16 bid or even a round of 32 loss.
I remember when we had Amaker and won the NIT. I would have traded it in a second for a round of 64 loss.
With that said, you should make the NCAA next year and I wouldn’t be surprised if PSU won a game or two (especially if Carr returns).
I agree with you on there being too many D-1 teams...have a 1AA division and let the NIT be their NC tournament. I disagree with you on PSU not being in the tournament, but that’s just personal opinion. I get why they didn’t make it, but I think the committee needs to put more weight in how hot a team is at the end of the year versus those that aren’t. Teams change throughout the year...a team could be on fire early and then have the wheels fall off...that early start shouldn’t get them in the tournament. Conversely, a team could start off slow but then find the right mix and start clicking, so they’re much better come tournament time. Those are the teams that would make the tournament better and give us better games. I also think the Conference strength crap is a bit off...the Big 10 got slammed this year, only got four teams in yet the team that tied for fourth in the regular season is in the Final Four, but the Conference with the most teams in the tournament have no teams in the Final Four.
Last edited:
And I agree (I argue against one-done and/or just winning one and going to 32. If we win and make it to the 16, THAT is light years better than winning the nit.
All I know is Penn State is playing good basketball right now. If PSU played any of the 68 teams that made the tournament today, I bet you they beat all but 25-28 of them. There aren't 68 better teams in college basketball than PSU. The NCAA tourney does not take the 68 best teams.
Every team in the NIT plays uninspired ball for the first game. They are all disappointed about missing the NCAA tournament and inclusion in the NIT means they were somewhat close. They got inspired for game and on and that was Chambers getting them inspired.
Regarding Harrar not playing much earlier...IDK, perhaps he wasn't ready? Losing Watkins gave him an opening and he seized the moment. This was after a full season, so of course both his skills and confidence were better than earlier in the season, which allowed Harrar to shine.
JMO
It's better to win the NIT than go 0-1 in the NCAA tourney.
But it'll always be better to make the NCAA tourney over the NIT
But it'll always be better to make the NCAA tourney over the NIT
I was at the 2009 NIT Championship. And I still remember it.
It will stay with the people who want to remember it.
Totally agree. Fine we represented well in NIT. But no one cares about the NIT. The members here that compare the NCAA to the NIT are idiots. Hey I watched every minute and was pumped about 2 or 3 of our wins but it’s the f’n NIT.
What’s your point? It’s the NIT AWS. We had some good wins but they needed to come in November and December. I watched every minute of every game but I’m not fooling myself about what I was watching.
Nobody is comparing the two. What is being compared is what benefits the team more. One NCAA Tourney game or winning the NIT.
One NCAA is the answer and there’s not one coach(winning coach) in America that would say different.
I believe the comparison came up in multiple posts. But the thread Title leads ya there.
So one loss in the NCAA is better than five wins in the NIT. I disagree.
My point is winning over good teams is always a good thing. What did the teams that were one and done gain from the NCAA tournament? Nothing. Making the tournament would have been nice, but winning the NIT is a pretty good consolation prize.
NCAAs is only the standard and winning any games in NIT is the orange to the Apple discussion. I do agree that there were some good wins over the last two weeks. Hopefully that’s a sign of a better 2018/2019 finally gets us to NCAAs.
Ask Pat what he thinks over a beer with no reporters in the room. You would not last very long as a P5 hoop coach.
Those 5 games really showed how good they could be when they played loose. I think the pressure got to these kids trying to make it to the dance. If they learn from it and apply it next year, the NIT experience could be priceless.
Better to win the NIT. Almost every time.
I think quite a few seasoned college BB fans around the country would agree.
Not understanding why anybody would question that.
I think quite a few seasoned college BB fans around the country would agree.
Not understanding why anybody would question that.
No, zero of them would pick the latter. They might like the extra practice once it happens but that’s it
The last PSU team that won the NIT returned it’s best player, but started 0-10 in the league the following year. Let’s hope we don’t see anything like that
I do not think this team would have beaten a heavyweight in the tournament. After the Temple game some kind of light bulb went off. But if that Temple game was against a tournament team on a neutral court PSU loses by 10
Yeah, so if the automatic bids went bye-bye, and NIT teams were pushed into the NCAA tournament, they'd be 10th-16th seed squads ... and I'm being generous to the NIT squads. Basically, winning the NIT is like beating a series of double-digit NCAA squads. Yippee.
Except, because it's not actually the NCAA Tourney, it doesn't carry with it the same prestige as beating a series of 10th-16th seeds, which is very little to begin with.
Last edited:
Probably the same could be said for most of the first and second round games in the NCAA with 16 games on Thurs & Fri and 8 games on Sat & Sun.
NIT for a senior laden team would suck...5 games in the NIT for a young team is a good thing.
You’re giving way too much credit to the tournament teams. Most of the NCAA tournament teams were the same or worse than the NIT. Some of you are acting as if the NIT was made up of a bunch of D-2 schools. Penn State could be competitive with any team in the NCAA tournament and in a tournament situation, that’s all you need to pull of some wins.
The “NIT squads” were better than a large percentage of the NCAA teams. You post as if the NIT teams we’re horrible and all the NCAA teams were great just because they got into the tournament.
And why are you whining about it now? What good does that do? Shoulda woulda coulda isn't going to change anything.
The kids played their hearts out and won the tournament they got invited to.
Last edited:
