HIT vs Olympic Lifting/Free Weights

So I have a topic I would like feedback from the masses on. What is your take on HIT training versus Olympic lifting/free weights, in reference to training athletes (outside of weightlifting).

For those of you who don't know what HIT is, it is a form of training created by Arthur Jones who is also the founder of Nautilus. It involves performing a lift on a machine until volitional fatigue, and then the participant continues to do lifts with the help of a spotter until his or her body cannot complete another lift even with assistance.

Olympic lifting is your competition lifts of the clean & jerk and the snatch.

At Penn State, I know a handful of the strength & conditioning coaches swear by HIT training and it is the only thing they use to train athletes. I also have talked to a handful of professors and strength coaches from Penn State and outside Penn State that say HIT training should not be used for training athletes. It is interesting, from a student perspective, to see such tense and strong opinions on the matter under the same roof (Penn State). You can get a good fiery response from people when you bring up this topic at school.

From my own personal experiences, I definitely am positioned more on the side of Olympic lifts and free weights. I do use machines as part of my workout; yet, I try to recruit more muscle groups during each exercise as I feel this applies more to life and sport. I feel that my body learns to "work together" better by doing lifts that don't involve the stability of a machine. Also, I look at sports and think, "we don't play sports in machines, why should we train in(with) a machine." Our bodies are usually free in sport.

I have no doubts that HIT can produce strength results and help build size; yet, I fail to see its purpose in training athletes.

Feedback on this topic would be greatly appreciated!