Main Menu
collapse

'23-'24 SOTG Tally


2023-24 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro6
Jones, K.6
Mitchell2
Jones, S.1
Joplin1

'22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

Big East Standings

Recent Posts

Server Upgrade - This is the new server by rocky_warrior
[Today at 06:42:59 PM]


Big East 2024 -25 Results by Uncle Rico
[Today at 06:13:16 PM]


Owens out Monday by TAMU, Knower of Ball
[Today at 03:23:08 PM]


Shaka Preseason Availability by Tyler COLEk
[Today at 03:14:12 PM]


Marquette Picked #3 in Big East Conference Preview by Jay Bee
[Today at 02:04:27 PM]


Get to know Ben Steele by Hidden User
[Today at 12:14:10 PM]


Deleted by TallTitan34
[Today at 09:31:48 AM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

Next up: B&G Tip-Off Luncheon

Marquette
Marquette

B&G Luncheon

Date/Time: Oct 31, 2024 11:30am
TV: NA
Schedule for 2023-24
27-10

Silent Verbal

I think the NIT is a waste of time and would rather Marquette make no postseason at all if they don't get into the dance.  The NIT is a loser tournament for also-rans.

Cheeks

#201
Quote from: NickelDimer on March 11, 2019, 04:36:57 PM
No

No, it isn't an achievement?

Please let the university know we are honoring fake achievements....including our new locker room where we call out the NIT Championship.  Should be removed...everyone gets a trophy.







"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me." Al McGuire

Its DJOver

Quote from: Research Report on March 11, 2019, 04:54:35 PM
I think the NIT is a waste of time and would rather Marquette make no postseason at all if they don't get into the dance.  The NIT is a loser tournament for also-rans.

The Dream and Pistol Pete disagree.
Quote from: nyg on May 13, 2024, 02:07:11 PM
I'll stick with my opinion on Gold.  He'll be in foul trouble within the first eight minutes.

NickelDimer

Quote from: Cheeks on March 11, 2019, 04:55:15 PM
No, it isn't an achievement?

Please let the university know we are honoring fake achievements....including our new locker room where we call out the NIT Championship.  Should be removed...everyone gets a trophy.


No to you telling me what I'm doing when discussing the NIT. Don't do that
No Finish Line

Silent Verbal

Quote from: Its DJOver on March 11, 2019, 04:57:13 PM
The Dream and Pistol Pete disagree.

Perhaps one of the older posters could confirm this, but wasn't the NIT a bigger deal back then than it is now?  Like, almost just as good as the NCAA?  I feel like comparing the NIT of 1970 to today's version is apples to oranges, but I could be wrong.

Cheeks

Quote from: NickelDimer on March 11, 2019, 04:46:15 PM
All well and good. And I agree it was great for the development of the team. But it's not a resume builder for Wojo. If his resume consisted of a bunch of NIT appearances and a couple NCAA no one is celebrating that. That's my point. It's the context which NIT was used that I disagreed with

What context was it used?  Young coach, taking team to post season....that is an accomplishment.  I don't see anyone saying we want a bunch of NITs, but a NIT sprinkled in with NCAAs is better than no post season at all.  No doubt there will be some teams in the coming weeks saying they won't participate in the NIT, UCLA will likely be one....it will be said because they aren't going to get a NIT bid anyway and a chance for them to save face.

"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me." Al McGuire

NickelDimer

Quote from: Cheeks on March 11, 2019, 05:03:19 PM
What context was it used?  Young coach, taking team to post season....that is an accomplishment.  I don't see anyone saying we want a bunch of NITs, but a NIT sprinkled in with NCAAs is better than no post season at all.  No doubt there will be some teams in the coming weeks saying they won't participate in the NIT, UCLA will likely be one....it will be said because they aren't going to get a NIT bid anyway and a chance for them to save face.
And yet, this is 100% accurate:

Quote. If his resume consisted of a bunch of NIT appearances and a couple NCAA no one is celebrating that. 
No Finish Line

Its DJOver

Quote from: Research Report on March 11, 2019, 05:02:07 PM
Perhaps one of the older posters could confirm this, but wasn't the NIT a bigger deal back then than it is now?  Like, almost just as good as the NCAA?  I feel like comparing the NIT of 1970 to today's version is apples to oranges, but I could be wrong.

It was a bigger deal mainly because the NCAA hadn't expanded yet and had rules regarding the number of teams per conference (although that obviously didn't effect us).  It doesn't change the fact that you implied that both players were "also rans".   The NIT is not a "waste of time" if for no other reason than the school makes money.  You can ignore the experience and the prestige, or lack thereof, but like most things, it all comes down to $$$.
Quote from: nyg on May 13, 2024, 02:07:11 PM
I'll stick with my opinion on Gold.  He'll be in foul trouble within the first eight minutes.

Cheeks

Quote from: Research Report on March 11, 2019, 05:02:07 PM
Perhaps one of the older posters could confirm this, but wasn't the NIT a bigger deal back then than it is now?  Like, almost just as good as the NCAA?  I feel like comparing the NIT of 1970 to today's version is apples to oranges, but I could be wrong.

Way way way back, yes.  Hasn't been the case in a long time.  The 1995 NIT run MU made, that was fun and good for the program.  TCU won the whole thing in 2017, and in 2018 made their first NCAA appearance in TWENTY years.  Ohio State won it all in 2008, then went to NCAAs 7 straight.  Wichita State won the NIT in 2011, then went on a great NCAA run of 7 straight.  There are countless examples of this, not just the winner of the NIT, but young teams or teams that need to learn how to win in pressure situations.

Let's put it this way, MU was better off going through a one and done situation three times last year in the NIT then having to do it this year in the NCAAs.  Doesn't mean we win, but I'd much rather have guys that have multiple lose and your out games under their belt then showing up for the first time in that situation.  By no means is it a waste of time or a loser tournament of also-rans.  Pathetic statement.

"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me." Al McGuire

Galway Eagle

Quote from: Cheeks on March 11, 2019, 04:55:15 PM
No, it isn't an achievement?

Please let the university know we are honoring fake achievements....including our new locker room where we call out the NIT Championship.  Should be removed...everyone gets a trophy.





Technically that sign should say 33 ncaa selections
Maigh Eo for Sam

CTWarrior

Quote from: Cheeks on March 11, 2019, 05:12:43 PM
Doesn't mean we win, but I'd much rather have guys that have multiple lose and your out games under their belt then showing up for the first time in that situation.  By no means is it a waste of time or a loser tournament of also-rans.  Pathetic statement.
I agree with you 100% Cheeks.  NIT is very worthwhile, especially if you have a younger team.  Here in CT Jim Calhoun has said repeatedly that the 1988 NIT championship was the springboard for UConn's future success.  Besides, more basketball and any championship, even if it is second tier like the NIT, is worth pursuing if the primary NCAA dream is not met.  Like everyone, rather be in the NCAA than the NIT, but would rather be in the NIT than nothing.
Calvin:  I'm a genius.  But I'm a misunderstood genius. 
Hobbes:  What's misunderstood about you?
Calvin:  Nobody thinks I'm a genius.

dgies9156

Quote from: Its DJOver on March 11, 2019, 05:10:11 PM
It was a bigger deal mainly because the NCAA hadn't expanded yet and had rules regarding the number of teams per conference (although that obviously didn't effect us).  It doesn't change the fact that you implied that both players were "also rans".   The NIT is not a "waste of time" if for no other reason than the school makes money.  You can ignore the experience and the prestige, or lack thereof, but like most things, it all comes down to $$$.

In 1970, there were 24 teams in the NCAA tournament. The major conferences all got byes and the Major Independents, of which we were one, had to play conferences that today we would call the Mid-Majors. The only way a team got in was to win their conference or be one of the very best independents in their region of the country.

Keep in mind this was almost a decade before the Big East, so schools like Syracuse, St. John's, Boston College, Marquette, Notre Dame etc., were all major independents.

The competition in the 1970 NIT was on par with what one would see today in the NCAA. Most of the teams that were in the NIT we won would have made the NCAA under today's rules and probably been a Top 6 seed. It was that good back then. The NCAA got smart and opened up the tournament, causing the NIT to be a crapfest.

I understand why we went to the NIT back then but also believe it's time has past and should be put down. I'm not a big fan of it and while I like seeing our Warriors play an additional game, I think the NIT rewards mediocrity. If it were up to me, I turn an NIT invite down every time and tell my guys, NCAA -- all the way!

Its DJOver

Quote from: dgies9156 on March 12, 2019, 04:11:54 PM
In 1970, there were 24 teams in the NCAA tournament. The major conferences all got byes and the Major Independents, of which we were one, had to play conferences that today we would call the Mid-Majors. The only way a team got in was to win their conference or be one of the very best independents in their region of the country.

Keep in mind this was almost a decade before the Big East, so schools like Syracuse, St. John's, Boston College, Marquette, Notre Dame etc., were all major independents.

The competition in the 1970 NIT was on par with what one would see today in the NCAA. Most of the teams that were in the NIT we won would have made the NCAA under today's rules and probably been a Top 6 seed. It was that good back then. The NCAA got smart and opened up the tournament, causing the NIT to be a crapfest.

I understand why we went to the NIT back then but also believe it's time has past and should be put down. I'm not a big fan of it and while I like seeing our Warriors play an additional game, I think the NIT rewards mediocrity. If it were up to me, I turn an NIT invite down every time and tell my guys, NCAA -- all the way!

Well then I'm glad that you're not in charge of our Athletic Department because the NIT is always better than no postseason, full stop, no debate needed.
Quote from: nyg on May 13, 2024, 02:07:11 PM
I'll stick with my opinion on Gold.  He'll be in foul trouble within the first eight minutes.

Silent Verbal

Quote from: dgies9156 on March 12, 2019, 04:11:54 PM
In 1970, there were 24 teams in the NCAA tournament. The major conferences all got byes and the Major Independents, of which we were one, had to play conferences that today we would call the Mid-Majors. The only way a team got in was to win their conference or be one of the very best independents in their region of the country.

Keep in mind this was almost a decade before the Big East, so schools like Syracuse, St. John's, Boston College, Marquette, Notre Dame etc., were all major independents.

The competition in the 1970 NIT was on par with what one would see today in the NCAA. Most of the teams that were in the NIT we won would have made the NCAA under today's rules and probably been a Top 6 seed. It was that good back then. The NCAA got smart and opened up the tournament, causing the NIT to be a crapfest.

I understand why we went to the NIT back then but also believe it's time has past and should be put down. I'm not a big fan of it and while I like seeing our Warriors play an additional game, I think the NIT rewards mediocrity. If it were up to me, I turn an NIT invite down every time and tell my guys, NCAA -- all the way!

I agree with this analysis, and thank you for the super informative post!

I'm also an "NCAA or bust" guy.  There's a reason they use the NIT to experiment with rule changes.  Because it no matta.

skianth16

Quote from: dgies9156 on March 12, 2019, 04:11:54 PM
I understand why we went to the NIT back then but also believe it's time has past and should be put down. I'm not a big fan of it and while I like seeing our Warriors play an additional game, I think the NIT rewards mediocrity. If it were up to me, I turn an NIT invite down every time and tell my guys, NCAA -- all the way!

Not unlike the excessive number of bowl games for NCAA football. Allowing more teams to participate in the post-season is a smart move to make more money, but you're right when you say it rewards mediocrity. Sure, the NIT has some fun moments, but the quality of the teams is pretty different than the NCAAs.

Cheeks

Quote from: skianth16 on March 13, 2019, 10:29:37 AM
Not unlike the excessive number of bowl games for NCAA football. Allowing more teams to participate in the post-season is a smart move to make more money, but you're right when you say it rewards mediocrity. Sure, the NIT has some fun moments, but the quality of the teams is pretty different than the NCAAs.

That may be the case, but let's not forget the NCAA tournament doesn't have the 68 best teams.  Last year there were probably 20 some NIT teams that had better power numbers than at least 10 NCAA teams. 

NCAA teams (auto winners)
Texas Southern 243
Radford 170
Lipscomb 167
UMBC 166
Fullerton 162
Wright State 133
Penn 125
Charleston 115
Stephen F Austin 112
Marshall 105
Georgia State 101

NIT teams
Penn State 19
St. Mary's 32
Baylor 34
Notre Dame 35
Middle Tennessee 45
Western Kentucky 47
USC 51
Marquette 53
Mississippi State 54
Nebraska 55

Etc, etc.  There are some solid NIT teams playing that have much better resumes than NCAA teams because of the auto-bid scenario.  There are some NIT teams that have better resumes than at-large NCAA teams, too.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me." Al McGuire

Galway Eagle

Money and post season experience beats no money and no experience every day.

Also while the NIT in 1970 was certainly respectable you can't say it was on par with the NCAA. There were two other ranked teams that went that year Cinci and Utah 18 & 19 respectively. Let's not rewrite history and act like winning that one was beating or playing the best
Maigh Eo for Sam

Cheeks

Quote from: Research Report on March 12, 2019, 05:00:37 PM
I agree with this analysis, and thank you for the super informative post!

I'm also an "NCAA or bust" guy.  There's a reason they use the NIT to experiment with rule changes.  Because it no matta.

The Big East used to have their own rules....6 fouls before disqualification...I guess it no matta.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me." Al McGuire