OT: Reputation

[Carolina Cocktail]

The status of the post-season National Invitation Tournament as a "consolation" fixture has led to somewhat of a stigma in the minds of many fans. When teams with tenuous hopes of an NCAA Tournament berth lose away from home late in the season, opposing fans may taunt the players in the closing seconds with chants of "NIT! NIT!" This is done regardless of whether the home team is headed for the NCAA Tournament or not. Irv Moss, a journalist for the Denver Post, once wrote of such a taunt to a defeated team, "The three-letter word... was far more cutting than any four-letter word they could have hollered."

Because the post-season NIT consists of teams that failed to receive a berth in the NCAA Tournament, the NIT has been nicknamed the "Not Invited Tournament", "Not Important Tournament", "Never Important Tournament", "Nobody's Interested Tournament", "Needs Improvement Tournament", "No Important Team", "National Insignificant Tournament," or simply "Not In Tournament". It has also been called a tournament to see who the "69th best team" in the country is (since there are now 68 teams in the NCAA Tournament).

David Thompson, an All-American player from North Carolina State, called the NIT "a loser's tournament" in 1975. NC State, which had been the previous year's NCAA champion, refused to play in the tournament that year, following the precedent set by ACC rival Maryland the previous season after losing the ACC championship game to the top-ranked Wolfpack. In succeeding years, other teams such as Oklahoma State, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Georgetown and LSU have declined to play in the NIT when they did not make the NCAA tournament. One such team was Maryland after being rejected by the NCAA selection committee in 2006, head coach Gary Williams announced that 19-11 Maryland would not go to the NIT, only to be told that the university had previously agreed to use Comcast Center as a venue for the NIT. The Terrapins were eliminated in the first round by the Manhattan College Jaspers. In 2008, however, Williams announced that if invited, the Terps would play, because it would serve as a chance to further develop six freshman players on his squad. At UCLA's Pauley Pavilion, there are individual championship banners for all 11 NCAA titles, various other banners touting many other NCAA and other tournament championships for other sports, but no mention of UCLA's 1985 NIT championship.

For other teams, however, the NIT is perceived as a step up in a program climbing from mediocrity or obscurity, and the response is more enthusiastic.

 

[JDishnell]

The NIT is weird. To my knowledge, college basketball is the only sport that has a tournament for the teams that couldn't make the real tournament. And the winner is called a champion. Just weird all around.

 

[atl-cock]

The NIT is weird. To my knowledge, college basketball is the only sport that has a tournament for the teams that couldn't make the real tournament. And the winner is called a champion. Just weird all around.

NCAA FBS. While bowl games aren't a tournament, they functionally serve the same purpose as the NIT.

 

[Gaimcock]

NCAA FBS. While bowl games aren't a tournament, they functionally serve the same purpose as the NIT.

TrueDat, unfortunately. But truedat.

 

[SCexpat38]

The NIT was founded a year before the NCAA, back in 1930s. I think it was respected at one point but the NCAA -- which was formed to ensure the integrity of college sports -- sort of has this habit of squeezing the life out of anything it doesn't have a moneymaking interest in.

 

[uscg1984]

The NIT is weird. To my knowledge, college basketball is the only sport that has a tournament for the teams that couldn't make the real tournament. And the winner is called a champion. Just weird all around.

The Belk Bowl (and similar) is the equivalent of the NIT in football. Had we won, we would have been crowned Belk Bowl champions.

 

[SC 95]

The NIT meant a lot more when only the conference champion received an NCAA bid.

Yet, it's still Dave Odom's favorite tournament.

Go Gamecocks!

SC 95

 

[Surfside Gamecock]

While the sheer number of FBS bowl games diminishes the status of most of them,so too when 64 teams are invited to the NCAA tourney,the value of an NIT bid is also diminished.These are the equivalent of participation trophies given to kids playing in rec leagues.

 

[JDishnell]

NCAA FBS. While bowl games aren't a tournament, they functionally serve the same purpose as the NIT.

The Belk Bowl (and similar) is the equivalent of the NIT in football. Had we won, we would have been crowned Belk Bowl champions.

Key word is "tournament," so there really is little correlation.

However, I do agree the bowl system is grossly watered down with the vast majoring being meaningless bowls. This does not lend credence to the NIT.

 

[atl-cock]

The NIT was founded a year before the NCAA, back in 1930s. I think it was respected at one point but the NCAA -- which was formed to ensure the integrity of college sports -- sort of has this habit of squeezing the life out of anything it doesn't have a moneymaking interest in.

I guess the bowl mafia is too strong for the NCAA to put the squeeze on them.

 

[SCexpat38]

I guess the bowl mafia is too strong for the NCAA to put the squeeze on them.

College football is too powerful -- I think NCAA is afraid the big boys will break away and do their own thing, like they've threatened in the past.


It would be best thing to happen to the sport, in my opinion.

 

[atl-cock]

College football is too powerful -- I think NCAA is afraid the big boys will break away and do their own thing, like they've threatened in the past.

It would be best thing to happen to the sport, in my opinion.

Many schools actually lose money on bowl games due to expenses and ticket purchasing commitments.

A real 16-team playoff outside of the bowl structure where the higher seeded team hosts until the championship game would reduce expenses and vastly increase revenues. Can the NCAA resist the bowl lobby's efforts to prevent this from happening?

 

[Carolina Cocktail]

when 64 teams are invited to the NCAA tourney, the value of an NIT bid (32) is also diminished.These are the equivalent of participation trophies given to kids playing in rec leagues.

.
Oh!, I don't know, 96 teams seems like a good number. After all, if you can't make one of the top 96 spots you probably just need a little more time. Look at all the jobs it saves. I think what you all are forgetting is that, Frank got us to the second round of the NIT back in 2016. It's not like he's never taken us there before. Besides, I'm not sure the NIT has TV coverage for all their games and with them playing the opening rounds at local venues, just look at the thousands of jobs and millions of dollars that would be injected into the Columbia economy. I know if Iona were playing College of Charleston in the preliminary game prior to us playing NC A&T, I'd go, if I lived in South Carolina.
And talking about 'Participation Trophies', You don't think the parents of these 'kids' deserve some recognition for driving them all over to games and practices??? And 'First Responders', how would we ever thank them for their service???
No, it's important that we expand the NIT so that all of us have someplace to go.
And when ya gotta go, ya gotta go!

 

[BattleshipTexas]

The NIT is weird. To my knowledge, college basketball is the only sport that has a tournament for the teams that couldn't make the real tournament. And the winner is called a champion. Just weird all around.

It just predates the NCAA tourney. It was established in 1938 and its winner was considered the national champion until the NCAA tournament became dominant in the late 1940s or early 1950s. The NCAA tournament didn't expand to 16 teams (previously only 8) until 1950.

 

[ToddFlanders]

I like the NIT as a tournament to watch. There are usually good matchups that you wouldn't see - like Wichita playing clem, Furman and Indiana last season. It's entertaining and the field rarely has any weak teams. With the smaller conference regular season champions that didn't win their conference tourney, and the other schools that couldn't secure an at-large in the NCAA because of the auto-bids to smaller conferences - the field is strong.

Of course it is always a disappointment for any team not to make the NCAA tourney, but I think if you're a college basketball fan you typically like watching. If you are a casual fan though, I can see where it wouldn't be that interesting (much like the lower bowls in football).

 

[BattleshipTexas]

Some NIT info:

Early advantages that the NIT had over the NCAA Tournament
In its early years, the NIT offered some advantages over the NCAA tournament:

• There was limited national media coverage of college basketball in the 1930s and '40s, and playing in New York City provided teams greater media exposure, both with the general public and among high school prospects in its rich recruiting territory.
• The NCAA tournament selection committee invited only one team each from eight national regions, potentially leaving better quality selections and natural rivals out of its field, which would opt for the NIT

At least into the mid-1950s, the NIT was regarded as the most prestigious showcase for college basketball.

As late as 1970, Coach Al McGuire of Marquette, the 8th-ranked team in the final AP poll of the season, spurned an NCAA at-large invitation because the Warriors were going to be placed in the NCAA Midwest Regional (Fort Worth, Texas) instead of closer to home in the Mideast Regional (Dayton, Ohio) The team played in the NIT instead, which it won. This led the NCAA to decree in 1971 that any school to which it offered a bid to the NCAA tournament must accept it or be prohibited from participating in postseason competition, reducing the pool of teams that could accept an NIT invitation.

So today, of course, the NCAA tournament is completely dominant. It wasn't always that way.