Just realized something

[Gep Dawg]

As Pitt fans this is really the first time we have ever been on the bubble! In the past it seems like we were always definitely in or out. And what I'm realizing is that just because Lunardi or DeCourcey has us on the cut line or has Illinois or Penn Star definitely in doesn't mean the committee does. It's all made up speculation just to keep us locked in and captivated until then.

Regardless, I think the first time ever we are realizing and experiencing how dumb this entire practice.

Really, the NCAA should go to the champions league model and just reward each conference a certain amount of spots based off prior performance in the dance. And just get rid or conference tournaments and have a mini playin tournaments for next best teams that didn't automatically qualify from conference standings.

 

[HailToPitt1985]

As I mentioned before, all that these bracketologists may be good at is maybe getting the teams right and knowing they're in, not in seeding them at all. And I doubt that the committee will use NET that much to seed teams. It's obviously flawed. There are other, more accurate, more predictable indicators they will use that will seed teams more fairly.

 

[str61166]

It’s funny even 2016 feels like so long ago - weren’t we sort of on the bubble for a bit there but solidified our spot by beating Syracuse in the ACCT?

But yeah, also I have to step back and say it’s amazing how into these we all are. All this caring about the different projections, the games that impact things, and then before we know it the season will be over. Not to be a wet blanket but Pitt will most likely either go one and done or win one game.

 

[Pitt2006]

It’s funny even 2016 feels like so long ago - weren’t we sort of on the bubble for a bit there but solidified our spot by beating Syracuse in the ACCT?

But yeah, also I have to step back and say it’s amazing how into these we all are. All this caring about the different projections, the games that impact things, and then before we know it the season will be over. Not to be a wet blanket but Pitt will most likely either go one and done or win one game.

It’s because of the expansion to 68. If no Dayton, then we would clearly be NIT bound right now.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

It's not the first time, but it's the first time in a long time. We were close to the bubble that year we played GW in the NIT, before definitively playing ourselves out down the stretch. But we were definitely on the bubble in that '92-'93 season. Can't recall any after that, though I do remember going to some home NIT games (I wanna say New Orleans, St. Bonaventure, and maybe Mississippi State), so it's possible there was a bubble year in there.

That said, yeah - I find this all more stupid than entertaining. In conjunction with the insane transfer portal, it's a little much to keep up with.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

It’s because of the expansion to 68. If no Dayton, then we would clearly be NIT bound right now.

So you are saying that we are clearly one of the last two at large teams in the field?

I don't think that's true at all. Not that we can't possibly end up there, but just that it's certainly not "clear" at this point.

 

[Pitt2006]

Dayton allows for 4 P6 schools that weren’t there before. 2 more are included because the 16 seed play in games eliminate 2 16 seeds, and 2 more because of the 11 seed play in games. So yes, Pitt is one of the lowest 4 right now. I think they would barely sneak in in the past solely based on road q1, but their bad losses are bad. We can’t lose to 2-3 win conference teams multiple times and expect to get an at large.

 

[303vND]

As Pitt fans this is really the first time we have ever been on the bubble! In the past it seems like we were always definitely in or out. And what I'm realizing is that just because Lunardi or DeCourcey has us on the cut line or has Illinois or Penn Star definitely in doesn't mean the committee does. It's all made up speculation just to keep us locked in and captivated until then.

Regardless, I think the first time ever we are realizing and experiencing how dumb this entire practice.

Really, the NCAA should go to the champions league model and just reward each conference a certain amount of spots based off prior performance in the dance. And just get rid or conference tournaments and have a mini playin tournaments for next best teams that didn't automatically qualify from conference standings.

Are we on the bubble? Or have we just bought into the talking heads that really don't have any real insight into what the committee is actually doing.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Dayton allows for 4 P6 schools that weren’t there before. 2 more are included because the 16 seed play in games eliminate 2 16 seeds, and 2 more because of the 11 seed play in games. So yes, Pitt is one of the lowest 4 right now. I think they would barely sneak in in the past solely based on road q1, but their bad losses are bad. We can’t lose to 2-3 win conference teams multiple times and expect to get an at large.

No, it doesn't. Dayton allowed them to add two more auto bids for conferences that don't really deserve them, at the "expense" of adding two more at large teams to the mix. Because they knew if they just added two autobid and it was the First Two, and those two were something like FDU versus Howard and Grambling versus Northern Kentucky that no one would care about those games, and the networks wouldn't want to broadcast those games.

The compromise was two extra auto bid and two extra at large bids so that they could get people interested and watching.

 

[UPitt '89]

Dayton allows for 4 P6 schools that weren’t there before. 2 more are included because the 16 seed play in games eliminate 2 16 seeds, and 2 more because of the 11 seed play in games. So yes, Pitt is one of the lowest 4 right now. I think they would barely sneak in in the past solely based on road q1, but their bad losses are bad. We can’t lose to 2-3 win conference teams multiple times and expect to get an at large.

We didn't "lose to 2-3 win conference teams multiple times"

Our 7 ACC losses were to:

14-win Clemson
7-win FSU
7-win VT
3-win ND
15-win Miami
14-win Duke (twice)

 

[PittMBA]

It’s because of the expansion to 68. If no Dayton, then we would clearly be NIT bound right now.

I’m don’t about that - Palm , The Athletic , DeCoucey , others have us in last 4 Byes

 

[PittMan 72]

We didn't "2-3 win conference teams multiple times"

Our 7 ACC losses were to:

14-win Clemson
7-win FSU
7-win VT
3-win ND
15-win Miami
14-win Duke (twice)

Using real factual information to refute fabricated 🐂💩 claims made by uninformed posters is JUST NOT FAIR!

 

[kma0043]

I’m not sure how Illinois and PSU have better resumes than Pitt. I know it’s been brought up many times, but it doesn’t make sense.

 

[KennyHeisman8]

It’s because of the expansion to 68. If no Dayton, then we would clearly be NIT bound right now.

It's not the first time, but it's the first time in a long time. We were close to the bubble that year we played GW in the NIT, before definitively playing ourselves out down the stretch. But we were definitely on the bubble in that '92-'93 season. Can't recall any after that, though I do remember going to some home NIT games (I wanna say New Orleans, St. Bonaventure, and maybe Mississippi State), so it's possible there was a bubble year in there.

That said, yeah - I find this all more stupid than entertaining. In conjunction with the insane transfer portal, it's a little much to keep up with.

I think at Bonnie’s and miss st was the year we ran to the big east tournament final, but we weren’t in the bubble

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

I think at Bonnie’s and miss st was the year we ran to the big east tournament final, but we weren’t in the bubble

Yeah, that would make sense. Pretty sure I remember that being in the Pete. New Orleans was definitely at the Field House... I remember them having a really good player (#33, maybe?). I wanna say we lost at Arkansas the next game.

 

[JD1976]

I’m not sure how Illinois and PSU have better resumes than Pitt. I know it’s been brought up many times, but it doesn’t make sense.

Penn State has 5 Q1 wins in March alone. I’d say their resume is firm.

 

[Dointhatrag]

Yes “quad 1” wins over a bunch of average inflated big ten teams.

Always remember that you he acc won the acc/big 10 challenge

 

[HailToPitt1985]

Penn State has 5 Q1 wins in March alone. I’d say their resume is firm.

I hate PissU as much as any Pitt fan. But they are impressive and very well-coached. They can play defense with anybody and they have good offensive sets with guys that know how to play as a team. It just proves once again that with a decent coach and lock down defense, you will be in most games and have chances to win all of them.

 

[JD1976]

I hate PissU as much as any Pitt fan. But they are impressive and very well-coached. They can play defense with anybody and they have good offensive sets with guys that know how to play as a team. It just proves once again that with a decent coach and lock down defense, you will be in most games and have chances to win all of them.

And having a guy like Pickett who can do anything with the ball is the cherry on top. Man, I’d love to see him and Burton go head to head.

 

[Fredact]

I hate PissU as much as any Pitt fan. But they are impressive and very well-coached. They can play defense with anybody and they have good offensive sets with guys that know how to play as a team. It just proves once again that with a decent coach and lock down defense, you will be in most games and have chances to win all of them.

I’ll take the ACC vs the B10 win percentage in the tournament. Where can I bet on that?

 

[Black Panther]

I think at Bonnie’s and miss st was the year we ran to the big east tournament final, but we weren’t in the bubble

2001

 

[Black Panther]

Yeah, that would make sense. Pretty sure I remember that being in the Pete. New Orleans was definitely at the Field House... I remember them having a really good player (#33, maybe?). I wanna say we lost at Arkansas the next game.

Willard was still coach when they lost at Arkansas. (1997)