Talk:National Invitation Tournament

Untitled
This passage is inaccurate: "The post-season tournament pre-dates the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship tournament by one year; in the tournaments' early years there was often some contention as to which champion was in fact the nation's best collegiate basketball team." During the 1940s, the NIT was unquestionably more prestigious than the NCAA tournament. Over the course of the 1950s, the NCCA tournament gradually overtook the NIT, and by the mid 1960s the NCAA had become the dominant tournament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.59.204.130 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is "Sean Murphy of Vancleave, MS" and why does his opinion matter without a source? Lmeister 13:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was vandalism, and has only now been removed. Danthemankhan 06:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
Teams that win their conference after the reg season and fail to make the NCAA Tournament are automatically invited to the NIT. ...But what about teams that own a share/tie of the conference title after the reg season and fail to make the NCAA Tournament... Do they to automatically make the NIT also? (e.g. Rider in 2008 who tied with Siena). 172.129.221.16 (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Any answer here?????? And what about if a conference is split into divisions... What if a team did not win its conference, but won its division, but was not invited to the NCAA... Will the team get an automatic bid to NIT?74.131.134.42 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the NIT recognizes the "regular season conference champion" as the team with the #1 seed in the conference tournament (I don't know what it does if the Ivy League has co-champs...probably applies the standard tie-breaking procedures). So a team could be a co-champion, but would not get the auto-NIT berth.  Also, a division champ would only get the auto-NIT bid if it had a better record than the other division champ. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Vacated titles
In 1997, 1998 & 2003, the champion's titles where later vacated. Wouldn't that make the runners-up the champions? --rogerd (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. A quick check at the official NIT site shows they still list St. John's as the 2003 winner with no mention of this title being vacated. Would Georgetown won had St. John's not been in the tournament? Hard to say, so maybe there was no official determination that they were the champions. Wschart (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

NCAA Expansion
It's starting to look as if the NCAA is going to expand its tournament to 96 teams. If that happens, anyone know how that will affect the postseason NIT? Will there even BE a post-season NIT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyknightmare (talk • contribs) 21:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Early years
One reason given for the greater prestige in the early years is exposure to NBA scouts. However, the NBA did not exist until post WWII, and I don't think that whatever pro basketball existed during the 1930s was the path to riches the NBA is today. Wschart (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

History: "reason" is unsupported
This statement is made in the article:
 * "Some conferences, such as the Southeastern Conference, were segregated by race; therefore, hosting non-segregated games at their campus sites was problematic."

This appears to stem from an almost identically worded statement at http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=National_Invitation_Tournament that was contributed by user hoosierhistorian in March 2007.

While there are plenty of references to cite regarding racism in college basketball in that era, I am unable to uncover a source for the statement provided in the article at Hoopedia. The following from the website at http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/rupp.html shows one example from the era that extended into the 1960s:


 * "Many basketball teams in the South did not have black players on their rosters or admit black students into their institutions. The Southeastern Conference especially had many member schools so opposed to integration that some schools refused to compete against other schools with black players. Mississippi State at one time had to sneak out of town under the cover of darkness to play in the NCAA Tournament. (This, after ignoring bids in earlier years.)"

In order to support the conclusion stated in Hoopedia (and in this Wikipedia article), there would need to be documentation strongly suggesting either
 * that the administration at a school that fielded black players accepted an invitation to the NIT because it knew that the team would not be chosen by their region's NCAA selectors while a likely opponent that was from a segregated school would be chosen, or similarly,
 * that a participating team in the NIT that had black players in fact was not selected for one of the eight NCAA regions due to the fact that a team from a segregated school was selected in that same region.

Given the fairly small number of teams in the NCAA tournament at the time, I believe it is unlikely, regarding an actual NIT participant with black players, there is clear and specific evidence that this reason was a deciding factor to play in the NIT over and above either of the first two reasons (media exposure and not being the most successful team from its conference).

Therefore, I suggest that this sentence in the article be removed. Jeff in CA 19:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC) -
 * I was able to find one reference to the specific topic. It refers to an incident preceding the 1958 NCAA tournament. On page 663 of the "ESPN Encyclopedia of College Basketball":
 * "Temple's athletic director threatens to move his team, which includes two black starters, to the NIT in New York City to avoid potential 'embarrassing team arrangements' in North Carolina and Kentucky on the way to the finals."
 * Jeff in CA 23:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Can both of these be true?
Can both of these sentences be true?


 * "Nevertheless, the NIT continued to be regarded highly into the 1960s."


 * "References clearly describe NIT only as more or as highly regarded into the 1950s, not 1960s."

In an April 2013 edit, the first sentence was changed to "the 1950s," with the second sentence given as a reason. It seems to me that something can be highly regarded even if it is not as highly regarded as another similar thing. I remember college basketball from the 1960s. Back then the NIT had not yet become the object of derision as a tournament for also-rans, in part because the NCAA invited far fewer teams than today, and at one time excluded teams that were not conference champions. Lots of people, including those involved in college basketball, remember the NIT of the 1960s as highly regarded, even though the NCAA tournament was more highly regarded.

My opinion is that both statements are true. Jeff in CA (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on National Invitation Tournament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930065448/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aMw7OarRcGLI&refer=us to http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aMw7OarRcGLI&refer=us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Invitation Tournament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402173226/http://www.usfdons.com/news/2012/8/9/NationalChampions.aspx?tab=nationalchampionships to http://www.usfdons.com/news/2012/8/9/NationalChampions.aspx?tab=nationalchampionships

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"March Madness"
Actually it would be more accurate to say that the NCAA Division I basketball tournaments are FORMALLY known as "March Madness" since the NCAA has copyrighted the term and applied it to both the men's and women's tournaments, where it appears in signage and on the floors. 2600:1004:B161:C68A:0:34:9942:5001 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)