Meanwhile, Cajuns have the best basketball team in LA

[ZoomZoom]

Can we call the NIT a second tier tournament? It just feels right because it's a tournament of champions for the most part, as compared to the pay-to-play tournaments. Those are indeed second rate.

Does the NIT crown the national champion like the NCAA? Nope. It might have more name recognition, but it just has more t*** polish on it that the other non NCAA NC tournaments.

[zephyr]

I'd rather a deep run in the NIT with a possible home game or 2 vs a one and done in the NCAA.

These scenarios are all what ifs. I hate to speculate like this because its like you are saying it has to be one or the other or like any of these scenarios will actually pan out. Nobody knows for sure. My feelings on this are in response to some that claim that the most important games are the 3 played in the conference tourney in order to secure a spot in the NCAA. While it may be that way for some and since we appear to be a one bid league for the NCAA it seems to make sense. However, like I've said a dozen times already, I don't feel that builds a program. We always mention some of the well known mid majors out there and how we strive to be like them well they did it by building something. Simply winning the conference tourney, getting a 15 or 16 seed and losing in the first round of the NCAA is not the way to build your program and I don't really see how it gets us any more exposure.

Kids want to play for a good program. Recruiting is helped by having schools that can consistently win. I think this can enhance scheduling as well as we wouldn't be RPI killers to bigger schools who may be interested in playing us. A focus on winning conference and actually doing it build a winning culture that can carry on from year to year.

The comments about the NIT need to be clarified. Not saying that I would rather it over the NCAA any given year. The scenario was thrown out by someone that they'd take 1 NCAA tourney over 3 straight NIT's right now and I disagreed. That would mean that we would have won conference 3 years straight but maybe missed out on the automatic bid. Winning conference 3 years straight would make my point about building a consistent winner. How many times across the country do you see any particular team win conference 3 years straight? Its a great accomplishment considering the length of the conference schedules these days. That would also show that it helped you in recruiting since you had the players to do it over that long a period of time. The NIT would also give you very good national TV exposure as well with playing hopefully more games than just 1 at Noon on a Thursday in the NCAA.

[zephyr]

How did those consecutive regular season titles and NIT appearances help LA Tech a few years ago?

How did that last random NCAA tournament appearance help us?

[zephyr]

The NIT is for small minded people. NO one remembers who played in the NIT. If you want your coach to move on because he brought your team to the NIT why even play basketball. The goal is to get to the big dance, everything else is just a hoe down.

You are small minded because you are unwilling to read and listen to what people have to say. All these pages of posts and all you got out of it is that we want to go to the NIT over the NCAA? That is not it. That was actually a scenario that was thrown out there by one of your buddies likely. That turned into a debate that we are at now. I won't rehash it but I'll let you go back an read the posts.

[zephyr]

What would the higher ups do differently with a different stated set of goals? Do you mean scheduling (I see no conference change option)? Aside from scheduling... do you think there's a deliberate change in approach (player development, coaching specifics, etc) during the season... based on a specific "focus" over a different "focus"?

I think that in recent years, the purpose of the regular season was to improve on a steady path that would have us peaking come tournament time so we are at our best. We've seen so many conference games where the team just didn't show up and we'd lose to opponents we are supposed to beat etc. that it makes you think were we specifically focused on winning the conference regular season. If the coach has this philosophy and is openly admitting it I believe the players grab on to it as well and there is less success. Winning the conference regular season is a grind. It takes focus, talent and a little luck from time to time. Its hard to have that focus when you have the conference tournament in the back of your mind the whole time.

[CajunEXPRESS]

Yes to all of the above by Zephyr.

We as fans from a fans point of view should accept what Zephyr is preaching, and quit muddying the water with nonsense.

[CharlieK]

I never played a college sport. I was a wanna-be high school athlete, who played whatever they would let me on the team to play, usually poorly. But I hate losing anything. Trivial Pursuit, dominoes, basketball pick up games....anything. I find it inconceivable that college athletes don't try to win every game they are in. If it's so, I want a whole new bunch of athletes to go with the new coach. Working in a coal mine is a grind. Playing basketball when you are in your early 20's is fun.

I'm not disagreeing that what you are saying is true. It just goes against everything I believe about competitors.

[Just1More]

I think that in recent years, the purpose of the regular season was to improve on a steady path that would have us peaking come tournament time so we are at our best. We've seen so many conference games where the team just didn't show up and we'd lose to opponents we are supposed to beat etc. that it makes you think were we specifically focused on winning the conference regular season. If the coach has this philosophy and is openly admitting it I believe the players grab on to it as well and there is less success. Winning the conference regular season is a grind. It takes focus, talent and a little luck from time to time. Its hard to have that focus when you have the conference tournament in the back of your mind the whole time.

That's a good explanation. And your extremely long 3 paragraph post prior was also a very good closing summary of this thread.

One of the reasons that threads like this one linger on and on is due to the extremely limited statements of certain posters. Without context, these back and forth and back and forth strings of misunderstandings and misrepresentations occur. I think that's what a lot of posters like. They don't want 6 sentences that pull together an answer. Very limited attention spans (or slow reading skills) require a "Trump tweet"... so that nothing of substance can be misrepresented by another statement of no substance.

[Turbine]

I never played a college sport. I was a wanna-be high school athlete, who played whatever they would let me on the team to play, usually poorly. But I hate losing anything. Trivial Pursuit, dominoes, basketball pick up games....anything. I find it inconceivable that college athletes don't try to win every game they are in. If it's so, I want a whole new bunch of athletes to go with the new coach. Working in a coal mine is a grind. Playing basketball when you are in your early 20's is fun.

I'm not disagreeing that what you are saying is true. It just goes against everything I believe about competitors.

So on the focus question of 1 NCAA vs 3 NIT runs.

Would the competitive you be happier with 1 game (at the highest level) every 4 years or 12+ games (at a high level) over the same time span?

[Turbine]

That's a good explanation. And your extremely long 3 paragraph post prior was also a very good closing summary of this thread.

One of the reasons that threads like this one linger on and on is due to the extremely limited statements of certain posters. Without context, these back and forth and back and forth strings of misunderstandings and misrepresentations occur. I think that's what a lot of posters like. They don't want 6 sentences that pull together an answer. Very limited attention spans (or slow reading skills) require a "Trump tweet"... so that nothing of substance can be misrepresented by another statement of no substance.

You called?

[Just1More]

I never played a college sport. I was a wanna-be high school athlete, who played whatever they would let me on the team to play, usually poorly. But I hate losing anything. Trivial Pursuit, dominoes, basketball pick up games....anything. I find it inconceivable that college athletes don't try to win every game they are in. If it's so, I want a whole new bunch of athletes to go with the new coach. Working in a coal mine is a grind. Playing basketball when you are in your early 20's is fun.

I'm not disagreeing that what you are saying is true. It just goes against everything I believe about competitors.

Zephyr isn't questioning the heart or goal of the individual players. He's saying that if a coach "signals" or states that the 3 games in March are by far the most important... he is not creating an "every game, every play matters... program building" attitude throughout the season.

In the past, when Marlin saw a lackluster season staring him in the face.. he wanted the fan base and players to ignore the present and instead look forward to the 3 games in March. I think too many fans are taking that as his only mission. What he says on a daily basis to the team is vastly more important than what he says at a press conference.

[Just1More]

You called?

Did you see my PM?