(03-20-2014 02:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  “ In the 1940's, when the N.C.A.A. tournament was less than 10 years old, the National Invitation Tournament, a saturnalia held in New York at Madison Square Garden by The Metropolitan Intercollegiate Basketball Association, was the most glamorous of the post-season tournaments and generally had the better teams. The winner of the National Invitation Tournament was regarded as more of a national champion than the actual, titular, national champion, or winner of the N.C.A.A. tournament. ”

—A Sense of Where You Are: Bill Bradley at Princeton[4]

The irony of that statement. The NIT is all of one year older than the NCAA.

I understand Bill Bradley said that. But the statement simply does not hold water under any objective measure, or at least accepted objective measure (meaning polls and what not, which are not objective, but for a historical record, are as close to objective as we have).

(03-21-2014 11:16 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 02:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  “ In the 1940's, when the N.C.A.A. tournament was less than 10 years old, the National Invitation Tournament, a saturnalia held in New York at Madison Square Garden by The Metropolitan Intercollegiate Basketball Association, was the most glamorous of the post-season tournaments and generally had the better teams. The winner of the National Invitation Tournament was regarded as more of a national champion than the actual, titular, national champion, or winner of the N.C.A.A. tournament. ”

—A Sense of Where You Are: Bill Bradley at Princeton[4]

The irony of that statement. The NIT is all of one year older than the NCAA.

I understand Bill Bradley said that. But the statement simply does not hold water under any objective measure, or at least accepted objective measure (meaning polls and what not, which are not objective, but for a historical record, are as close to objective as we have).

The quote was copied from Wikipedia, where pro-NIT warriors insist on thrusting into every article they can find.

(03-21-2014 11:16 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 02:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  “ In the 1940's, when the N.C.A.A. tournament was less than 10 years old, the National Invitation Tournament, a saturnalia held in New York at Madison Square Garden by The Metropolitan Intercollegiate Basketball Association, was the most glamorous of the post-season tournaments and generally had the better teams. The winner of the National Invitation Tournament was regarded as more of a national champion than the actual, titular, national champion, or winner of the N.C.A.A. tournament. ”

—A Sense of Where You Are: Bill Bradley at Princeton[4]

The irony of that statement. The NIT is all of one year older than the NCAA.

I understand Bill Bradley said that. But the statement simply does not hold water under any objective measure, or at least accepted objective measure (meaning polls and what not, which are not objective, but for a historical record, are as close to objective as we have).

There were no polls in the '40's. At least not until 1949.

(03-21-2014 11:33 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 11:16 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 02:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  “ In the 1940's, when the N.C.A.A. tournament was less than 10 years old, the National Invitation Tournament, a saturnalia held in New York at Madison Square Garden by The Metropolitan Intercollegiate Basketball Association, was the most glamorous of the post-season tournaments and generally had the better teams. The winner of the National Invitation Tournament was regarded as more of a national champion than the actual, titular, national champion, or winner of the N.C.A.A. tournament. ”

—A Sense of Where You Are: Bill Bradley at Princeton[4]

The irony of that statement. The NIT is all of one year older than the NCAA.

I understand Bill Bradley said that. But the statement simply does not hold water under any objective measure, or at least accepted objective measure (meaning polls and what not, which are not objective, but for a historical record, are as close to objective as we have).

The quote was copied from Wikipedia, where pro-NIT warriors insist on thrusting into every article they can find.

So?

(03-20-2014 04:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  And not to make light of UCLA's accomplishments, but they had another advantage besides just having fewer teams in the tourney. During that run, regionals were truly regional.

Those UCLA teams beat everyone from everywhere. They had overwhelming talent and coaching. There wasn't anybody sitting at home who could touch them.

Yeah . . .

That and the fact that UCLA got to play a lot of tournament games on their home court.