Fun thread on Hawkeye website

[CYUL8R]

we can all agree NIT title game is better for team development than being one of the first four out. hell, no one watches those games either. here's the thing - you're playing fellow-NIT talent. the Cyclones lost some bad ones too, but you can't compare beating JV squads in the JV tourney to success at the varsity level. winning the JV tourney doesn't mean you should have made the varsity team.

I just don't buy this argument that some people seem to throw around as gospel. Other than simply playing a game (hey, you can do that against a scout team) what benefit is there? You're playing against other NIT teams (or JV if you want to follow that analogy) who all are at about the same level as you. Even worse if you're a higher seed where you're most likely playing teams that would drag your RPI down in the non-conference season.

Wouldn't it be better to play games against tougher competition, as a team, to further development? Otherwise, who cares how you do against little sisters of the poor - all it does is create a false 'plateau' for the team to perform at and be 'good enough to win'. No one is pushing you to be better - you're just maintaining!

This is why good programs schedule games against the Kansas, Louisville, Florida, Indiana level of teams in the non-con. Sure, you may lose, but you are PUSHING to define your team's limits, and then work to exceed them.

Count me as a skeptic for the NIT actually making Iowa (or Baylor) better for next year. I just don't see it.

 

[Mr Janny]

I just don't buy this argument that some people seem to throw around as gospel. Other than simply playing a game (hey, you can do that against a scout team) what benefit is there? You're playing against other NIT teams (or JV if you want to follow that analogy) who all are at about the same level as you. Even worse if you're a higher seed where you're most likely playing teams that would drag your RPI down in the non-conference season.

Wouldn't it be better to play games against tougher competition, as a team, to further development? Otherwise, who cares how you do against little sisters of the poor - all it does is create a false 'plateau' for the team to perform at and be 'good enough to win'. No one is pushing you to be better - you're just maintaining!

This is why good programs schedule games against the Kansas, Louisville, Florida, Indiana level of teams in the non-con. Sure, you may lose, but you are PUSHING to define your team's limits, and then work to exceed them.

Count me as a skeptic for the NIT actually making Iowa (or Baylor) better for next year. I just don't see it.

look no further than 2012 champ, Stanford, for evidence that a run in the NIT does not necessarily equal improvement the following year.

 

[CyTwins]

I just don't buy this argument that some people seem to throw around as gospel. Other than simply playing a game (hey, you can do that against a scout team) what benefit is there? You're playing against other NIT teams (or JV if you want to follow that analogy) who all are at about the same level as you. Even worse if you're a higher seed where you're most likely playing teams that would drag your RPI down in the non-conference season.

Wouldn't it be better to play games against tougher competition, as a team, to further development? Otherwise, who cares how you do against little sisters of the poor - all it does is create a false 'plateau' for the team to perform at and be 'good enough to win'. No one is pushing you to be better - you're just maintaining!

This is why good programs schedule games against the Kansas, Louisville, Florida, Indiana level of teams in the non-con. Sure, you may lose, but you are PUSHING to define your team's limits, and then work to exceed them.

Count me as a skeptic for the NIT actually making Iowa (or Baylor) better for next year. I just don't see it.

Couldn't agree more

 

[SplitIdentity]

look no further than 2012 champ, Stanford, for evidence that a run in the NIT does not necessarily equal improvement the following year.

The 2009 runner-ups made the NCAA Elite 8 the following year

 

[Mr Janny]

The 2009 runner-ups made the NCAA Elite 8 the following year

apparently you're not familiar with the phrase "does not necessarily."

 

[SplitIdentity]

apparently you're not familiar with the phrase "does not necessarily."

I wouldn't necessarily say that

Also, I mentioned that because the 09 runner ups were baylor.

 

[CYUL8R]

I wouldn't necessarily say that

Also, I mentioned that because the 09 runner ups were baylor.

Please tell me you had to look that up - or are you an NIT stat junkie? No disrespect, but that would border on addiction to know that offhand.