Six Ways To Save Marquette's Season

[PGsHeroes32]

Not really comparable.  In 2010 we were an experienced team and a #6 seed. 

I would like to remind people of my POV.  If I were told beforehand that we would lose in the first round of the NCAAs, OR Final Four of the NIT, I would choose the NIT.  But since we don't know beforehand, I would take the NCAA tournament every single time.

We were 2-5 with a loss to DePaul then too. And we're not gonna have Henry next year so doesn't do much good either way much like Lazar. But Junior got big experience, Jimmy felt the heartbreak of not stopping his guy. DJO and Buycks felt it.

I get your POV. But there just isn't anything beneficial. Again, I saw it with the crappy gophers. Last year with a Vet team off a NIT title they still sucked. Beating bad teams doesn't make you good.

Losing to a good team gives you invaluable experience. Maybe it's a patented MU thriller? All I know is for the first time JJJ, Duane, Luke, Sandy know what it's like to be somewhat successful.

I'd rather build off a loss on the Big stage then hope beating blah teams makes Sandy finally be confident in his shot or Luke to finally go up strong.

And then obviously from a Brand aspect we know which option is better.

[Jay Bee]

I get your POV. But there just isn't anything beneficial. Again, I saw it with the crappy gophers. Last year with a Vet team off a NIT title they still sucked. Beating bad teams doesn't make you good.

Yeah, but the Gophers were a team with a young, inexperienced coach... and we, ummm.. ugh..

[GooooMarquette]

Nobody can give me a substantive basketball reason why it would be more beneficial to lose in the first round.

1.  Exposure.  Potential recruits watch the NCAA.  Far fewer watch the NIT.

2.  Experience on the biggest stage. 

[WarriorPride68]

RPI wizard (based on Sagarin analytic model which NCAA uses for selecting at large bids) has Marquette finishing:

18-13, 120/122 RPI, 90 SOS.

6.89 % chance of winning 20 games.

Interesting site to mess around on:

http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Marquette.html

[brewcity77]

It's two different questions. If you know the result is a NIT Final Four (and two more weeks of meaningful Marquette basketball) or losing our first NCAA game and having the season done by Friday, I'll take the longer season. The only tangible advantage to the NCAA bid is the credits for the league.

But if you don't know the results, take the NCAA bid. No doubt.

[bilsu]

Nonsense.  You take one and done NCAAs (plus, once there you never know), over an NIT championship everyday.

I was not advocating that we turn down an NCAA bid. I still think McGuire was stupid to turn one down. What I was saying is if we do not get an NCAA bid we may actually get to see Henry play more games, which is not all that bad. Of course we could win a first round NCAA game or lose a first round NIT. Nothing is a given.

[brewcity77]

Certainly an interesting debate growing out of a...erm...questionable article

[bilsu]

Nobody can give me a substantive basketball reason why it would be more beneficial to lose in the first round.

I think players that have not been to the NCAA cannot anticipate the level of intensity and that is why a team that has not been there can be rocked at the start of the game. Think of the amigos first year. They got down and lost the game when they came back and Novak miss the game winner.  We lost the first year MacIlvanie, Key & Logterman made the tourney. The same with Wade & Diener's first year. Again another game we missed the game winning shot. So I argue there would be a big advantage to getting NCAA bid, even if we lost the first game, because with the possible exception of Henry we have everyone coming back. I do not think playing in the NIT gives you the same intensity, especially if you are getting home games. We need an NCAA bid, but if not an NIT bid is good and I would not turn down a CBI bid. As far as exposure a first round loss, especially in a play in game, does not give you much exposure. But saying you got a bid should help recruiting. recruits are not looking to play in anything but the NCAA.

[bilsu]

RPI wizard (based on Sagarin analytic model which NCAA uses for selecting at large bids) has Marquette finishing:

18-13, 120/122 RPI, 90 SOS.

6.89 % chance of winning 20 games.

Interesting site to mess around on:

http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Marquette.html

The NIT has to take the conference champions that do not get an NCAA bid. Factoring that in, we will not get an NIT bid with a 120 RPI.

[brewcity77]

The NIT has to take the conference champions that do not get an NCAA bid. Factoring that in, we will not get an NIT bid with a 120 RPI.

Probably need 20 wins for the NIT. 9-9 or 10-8 give us a shot. Probably need to be in the 65-90 RPI range. Let's not forget our 2014 team missed the NIT despite a 9-9 league record and 92 RPI.

[WarriorPride68]

Probably need 20 wins for the NIT. 9-9 or 10-8 give us a shot. Probably need to be in the 65-90 RPI range. Let's not forget our 2014 team missed the NIT despite a 9-9 league record and 92 RPI.

Fudge...I did not remember that.

[bilsu]

Probably need 20 wins for the NIT. 9-9 or 10-8 give us a shot. Probably need to be in the 65-90 RPI range. Let's not forget our 2014 team missed the NIT despite a 9-9 league record and 92 RPI.

I was expecting an NIT bid and was very disappointed when we did not get one. I know the coaching staff was expecting one. I always had the feeling (no proof) that we lost the bid, because we were insisting on a home game.

[brewcity77]

I was expecting an NIT bid and was very disappointed when we did not get one. I know the coaching staff was expecting one. I always had the feeling (no proof) that we lost the bid, because we were insisting on a home game.

I'm sure the four game losing streak that dropped us from 17-11 to 17-15 didn't help matters.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Serious question: why is it we don't count our NIT championship as a NC?

I know that's ridiculous in today's NIT, but I recall lots of references to the NIT being just as prestigious as the NCAAs in the 1970s.

Wasn't alive then so no idea; am I way off with that understanding?

[cheese ball chaser]

Yea, this ain't the NIT of the 70s and 80s. The NIT doesn't matter. NCAA tourney or bust.

What's the difference between 70s/80s NIT and current day NIT?

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

What's the difference between 70s/80s NIT and current day NIT?

I'm one of the worst people here to asl because I'm only 22 but since the NCAA tourney was only 32 teams for a long time, a lot of great teams got snubbed (or just rejected the invite because they didn't like where they were placed)

[dgies9156]

What's the difference between 70s/80s NIT and current day NIT?

In 1970, when we won it, there were 24 teams in the NCAA tournament. Conferences sent only one team. There were about eight at-large bids, two for each region.

There were a lot of teams that were incredibly good that went to the NIT because there was no room for them in the NCAA. The NCAA "got smart" in the 1970s and gradually began expanding the tournament to its present 68 teams.

[MU82]

A pissed-off Al famously rejected the NCAA tournament for the NIT in 1970 because the NCAA wouldn't put him in the region he preferred. (That will never, ever, ever happen again.) The Warriors then pretty much laid waste to the NIT field to win the title. They vanquished Dr. J (UMass) and Pistol Pete (LSU) in the process.

Back then, there wasn't a humongous financial discrepancy between the NCAA and the NIT, and going to MSG to win an NIT title was still considered quite prestigious. Plus, there were only 25 schools in the 1970 NCAA tourney.

However, it wasn't very many years longer that the NCAA tournament started lavishing comparatively big bucks just for participating -- and bigger still for advancing. And it became accepted throughout the basketball world that the NCAA tournament was far superior to the NIT. That characterization came in before 1980 but really took hold as the NCAA tourney expanded from 1979-85. In 1985, when the NCAA expanded to 64 teams, the NIT had all but become a JV event.

If we can't get to the NCAAs this season, Marquette is just the type of program that should embrace an NIT bid. It is a good opportunity for a young team to get 2-3 more weeks together in a competitive environment. It can -- and, historically has -- provided a good springboard for such teams going into the following season.

I do completely understand why veteran teams that have had disappointing seasons might just say "screw it" and skip the NIT.

[brewcity77]

A pissed-off Al famously rejected the NCAA tournament for the NIT in 1970 because the NCAA wouldn't put him in the region he preferred. (That will never, ever, ever happen again.) The Warriors then pretty much laid waste to the NIT field to win the title. They vanquished Dr. J (UMass) and Pistol Pete (LSU) in the process.

Back then, there wasn't a humongous financial discrepancy between the NCAA and the NIT, and going to MSG to win an NIT title was still considered quite prestigious. Plus, there were only 25 schools in the 1970 NCAA tourney.

Al also said after that fact that going to the NIT was a mistake. Not sure I'd say they "laid waste" to the field, they nearly got knocked off in the first round by Dr. J and UMass. Game was tied with 2:00 to play before Marquette pulled away. Would have been a very different memory if Al had turned down the NCAA only to lose in their first NIT game.

[Litehouse]

We're tied for 12th in all-time NCAA appearances with 31.  Any time you get a chance to add to that total you should take it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Tournament_bids_by_school

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Nobody can give me a substantive basketball reason why it would be more beneficial to lose in the first round.

At this point, a multitude of reasons (from several different posters) have been mentioned as to why the NCAAs are far superior to anything relating to the NIT.  Glad we could spur a good discussion, but as I said when we started this discussion, you take the NCAAs every single time, even if you're in the first 4, or if you get your doors blown off in a 12/5 matchup (don't see that happening anyway).

Now, Henry, take us to the promised land, young man.

[jsheim]

Everyone has a formula...and sure, they are all a stretch...and of course there is the "BET hope against hope".

After every loss I recreate a new formula until I have to give up...I gave up after Georgetown#2 last year.

anyway after DePaul, this is what I brewed up to get in:
<Stetson - W>
Butler - W
@SetonHall - W
@Xavier - loss
Providence - W
Creighton - W
@DePaul - W
@Creighton - loss
Villanova - loss
Georgetown - W
@Butler - W
-----------------------
10-8 BE
1-1 BET
-----------------------
22-11

[Hubert Davis]

I know one way: just win baby!

Saturday: great crowd, great performance by the squad and staff. A very nice win for a young team. Man is the big fella Henry impressive. Can they shoot that well consistently? Probably not. But it was a nice win to build off of... lets BEAT SETON HALL

GO WARRIORS

[BM1090]

I do think every game besides @ Xavier is winnable for this team.

But we could also lose every game.

[Herman Cain]

Al also said after that fact that going to the NIT was a mistake. Not sure I'd say they "laid waste" to the field, they nearly got knocked off in the first round by Dr. J and UMass. Game was tied with 2:00 to play before Marquette pulled away. Would have been a very different memory if Al had turned down the NCAA only to lose in their first NIT game.

At the time, the NIT still had prestige, and more importantly for MU, it had big New York media coverage. Remember those were pre cable pre ESPN days so local media was very big. The games were all at the Garden. The finals were televised on national TV again which was a big deal . The Knicks  were doing well in those days and Al was a former Knick and his brother Dick was a Knick legend so the news media was very into this NIT . Al got a lot of publicity for the decision which really benefited MU.

By the way the teams that were invited to the NIT that year :
Army ( Bob Knight coaching)
Cincinnati
Duke
Duquesne
Georgetown
Georgia Tech
LSU
Louisville
Manhattan
Marquette
Massachusetts
Miami (OH)
North Carolina
Oklahoma
St. John's
Utah

Pistol Pete of LSU was a true  legend and that gave the tournament some spice as well.

In my view this was the last NIT that truly had cachet.

NCAA only had 24 teams in those days. It eventually expanded to 32.  NIT continued on with respectability until the NCAA expanded to 64 teams in 1979-80

In our MU history, things worked out that we chose the NIT. So I will just leave it at that.