Better to lose in round one of the NCAA or to win the NIT?

That's a question I've asked myself quite a lot. Being that the ultimate goal is to reach the "Big Dance" one would assume that losing in the first round of the NCAA Tourney would mean more than winning the NIT, however, that would mean that by losing you have accomplished more than a team that has won an NIT championship. When money is bought in to the equation I think reaching the NCAA tournament brings far more exposure to a program, which inevitably leads to more money for the school, so judging by that it is better to lose in round 1 of the NCAA than to win the NIT.

Losing in the first round of the NCAA, because you are one of the final 64 or 65 teams like the news says, which have made it by fighting your way through, while the NIT is where you get an invitation which is sad.

Most money that goes to the schools is through television contracts, Since the NIT is not televised anywhere that I know of I am assuming that the money isn't that great. Also by going to the NCAA tourney you get exposure to not only potential sports recruits but also to potential students which is where most universities make the big money. I should know I've given 30,000 to a college in 3 years and commuted.

Losing in round 1 of NCAA. Like they say, winning the NIT means you are the 66th best team in the country.

i think of that its greater constructive to make the NCAA tourney and lose in the 1st or 2d around, because of the fact it means that a minimum of you had shot at starting to be the suitable group in the rustic even in spite of if that's an prolonged shot. seem at communities like George Mason some years in the past that purely approximately made it to the nationwide championship interest, they lost in the suitable 4. It promises something to construct on for the subsequent season, and facilitates with self assurance. in case you win the NIT no person even cares, you beat a collection of group that didnt make the real adventure.