THEORETICALLY SPEAKING
is it better to go to the NCAA Tournament and lose the first game
vs
going to the NIT and winning it all?
Factors
Financial Payments - current and future?
Program Visibility?
Player's perspective?
I know programs - UCLA - have passed on NIT bids
have any ever passed on a NCAA Bid?
That's a good question.
For a larger program like a UCLA, def. the NCAA tournament. More prestigious and an invite to one clearly shows how a program is viewed by the selection committees. For a mid-major and/or building program like ours, I think there's a solid argument at the very least to be made for a Championship vs. a one-and-done.
1. Five post-season games vs. one
2. Potential home game(s)
3. Two weeks heightened fan/community focused interest
4. Two nationally broadcast games in Madison Square Garden
5. A Championship vs. Participation banner
6. Season ends on a high note (win vs. a loss), for me at least, being in the Patriot Center. when we beat Tennessee in '04 was more enjoyable/memorable than being in a bar watching Notre Dame kick our a** in '08
I also think there's an argument that can be made for recruiting too. Five opportunities to say "look how close we are" and "you can get us over the hump" if you come here, as well as invite to come watch the game in-person and get schmoozed.