YOU are cherry picking stats. Which you excused me of. Then said the "eye test". Seriously, how do you function?
ACC getting sh*t on nationally thx to UVA
- Thread starter BballinsiderfromPitt
- Start date
Last 10 Games:
Loss to UNC
W - WF
W - FSU
W - NC State
W- BC
L - Clemson
W - VT
L - Wake
W - Louisville
W - UVA
7-3. 2-2 against teams that eventually got in. So a 50 percent shot had they got in they would've won one game and a 25 percent shot they win 2, 12.5 or lower they win 3.
And those percentages are all being very generous.
Loss to UNC
W - WF
W - FSU
W - NC State
W- BC
L - Clemson
W - VT
L - Wake
W - Louisville
W - UVA
7-3. 2-2 against teams that eventually got in. So a 50 percent shot had they got in they would've won one game and a 25 percent shot they win 2, 12.5 or lower they win 3.
And those percentages are all being very generous.
Have you done an analysis on how many other teams won games against teams that weren't "full strength." Was Pitt at full strength early in ACC conference play? Does anyone care?
Season is over so you've gone full heel on everything Pitt basketball. Weird way to occupy yourself.
You Cut off that Duke win, and that Clemson and UNC losses were tied inside 4 minutes
One bad game which was avenged on a neutral site. Many of the wins sound wins.
Nothing there doesn’t support this teams chance to win a couple games
Correct, I was using your arbitrary metric of last 10 games, which of course hasn't mattered in 15 years. So I cut off the short-handed Duke win and only used the teams they played in the field in the last 10 games. I even included NIT team NC State to try and help your argument! I'm sorry the actual data doesn't support your opinions.
Pitt destroyed ISU last year and I didn’t hear an outcry that the Big 12 stinks and Clemson should be in. We all know this:
- UVa stunk at the end of the year
- Pitt team now would crush the Pitt team of early January mainly due to the vastly improved play (and playing time) of the freshman guards
- Pitt had a better team this year than last year and that team won 2 tournament games so saying this year’s team isn’t tourney worthy is just silly
- the selection process is flawed - expand the tourney to 96 and ditch the NIT and play it out of the floor
- UVa stunk at the end of the year
- Pitt team now would crush the Pitt team of early January mainly due to the vastly improved play (and playing time) of the freshman guards
- Pitt had a better team this year than last year and that team won 2 tournament games so saying this year’s team isn’t tourney worthy is just silly
- the selection process is flawed - expand the tourney to 96 and ditch the NIT and play it out of the floor
It's pretty obvious that your comments have been aggressively anti-Capel and more frequent lately. Just wanted to see if you had a med change or what was up.
Last year's Pitt team was better than this year's. And they were both bubble teams. Last year, every bounce went right when on the bubble. This year's none went right when on the bubble. Easy way to avoid having to sweat those games? Win more games
Aww ... now I see!Yes, DT get on board. Is it coincidence that Clemson announced their lawsuit yesterday with the ACC and Virginia plays so poorly last night. Some minds would say not. It is all a concerted effort by ESPN and Fox to take down the ACC so that the SEC and B1G can continue on without interference. I know the games are on CBS but that doesn’t matter to my facts. So in this tourney UNC and Duke will be successful to ensure they are also a favored few who get chosen in conference rearrangement. What a gift those two schools will be receiving in this tournament. They typically struggle so they are grateful.
So once the ACC is taken down completely next up will be the Big 12.
Mark My Words.
Or ... it could also be that Virginia just isn't that good.
Either way.
I'm not sure last year's team was better. But they are close, and both were indeed bubble teams.
But otherwise ... yes ... win more games. It's that simple.
All I can tell you is that Pitt might have had double 42 points, and at least matched the 67 Colorado State scored at a minimum,
Yup, winning an actual tournament is meaningless, they aren't deserving because NET. KENPOM and Qs matter more than winning 5 games in 5 days
I applaud them for saving Keatts' job and doing what half the fan base didn't want to do, but recency bias is this board's favorite thing. I counted them in the last 10 discussion as a tournament team though.Yup, winning an actual tournament is meaningless, they aren't deserving because NET. KENPOM and Qs matter more than winning 5 games in 5 days
The most deserving teams are all the conference winners, they got in by the #1 metric, winning a championship game.
I agree with most that you’ve posted about this whole mess except…
1.) Last year’s team was absolutely not better than this year’s in March. Carrington/Lowe > Nelly/Burton, Ish > Nike, Fede+G > freshman G… last year’s group just knew how to win games and had some luck but didn’t have the athleticism and high end talent to really compete with good teams.
2.) You have me with the realism when discussing current and past - but I never understand why you need to then throw in such negative predictions?
Like I myself made a post about 1/6 on the pay board. It’s pathetic.
But then you throw in “will be 1/7 after next year”…. Sometimes it almost seems like you are cheering for these things to happen.
Nah. Definitely not cheering for it to happen. I say that when people attack me for even questioning it because it obviously infuriates them further that I think Pitt Basketball can be better than 1 tournament in 6 years. Would love to be wrong. I barely even watched last night I had so little interest in the games and my -2.5 CSU was locked up the second SMF posted the other way.
I'm here, win or lose, good or bad discussing Pitt. I don't go into hiding if I'm wrong like some dudes.
Losing to Syracuse is a bad loss?
Losing to 124 ND is so much worse than 159 Missouri?
OK, so of course context matters, which you don't provide because it hurts your argument.
They were at 124 ND. We were home v 159 Mizzou.
ND was in December. You want to discount losses from November. Why wouldn't you discount a December loss? Your arguments aren't congruent.
"Tony Bennett Ball" is done. He'll still make NCAA Tournaments but the NIL era has made him into a "Dixon 2"
Yes, context does matter. ND was much better later in the season than a bunch of 18 year olds in December. And Missouri wasnt as bad in November as they were later, partly due to losing 3rd best player, Caleb Grill.
So beating ND later in the season doesn't matter but losing to them earlier in the season does?
And losing their 3rd best player caused them to go 0-18? Again, your arguments are not consistent. Either way, it's over and you should move on.
Wow. Of course all of that means absolutely nothing. They didn’t make it. They didn’t win enough and left it up to the committee like last year. Life’s tough, get a helmet.
But again, you are breaking in an entirely new backcourt. Entirely new. Two of which are 18 year old Freshman. Not 20 year old RS FR. There has to be some accounting for the fact that with the portal and NIL, teams change over the course of the season.
But DT, it is obvious now, if we played Kentucky instead of Mizzou and lost, and say we played Kansas instead of WVU and lost at Phog Allen, we would likely be a 9 seed in the tourney.
That's how foolish all of these metrics are. They are too weighted as to who you play, not who you beat.
Expand the view to a full last two months. Now you are talking 2/3 of the meaningful games this season. 15 or 16 games - mostly double digit wins. Some complete drubbings. Once again, only one bad loss to a team we beat two times. The other losses were tied in the final minutes against good teams.
More than valid that the month before that period should hurt the team. Absolutely.
But we aren’t saying Pitt football would have “beaten Michigan” if given the chance.
We are saying that this was a very good team that despite an imperfect resume should have 1) gotten in and 2) likely outperformed that seed based on what the team is now. That isn’t that outlandish.
For sure.All I can tell you is that Pitt might have had double 42 points, and at least matched the 67 Colorado State scored at a minimum,
Pitt was better than Virginia. (Huge disparity in ACC SOS)
Virginia had one player.
The rest of their scorers were basically:
guhoyas.com
Pitt had much more reliable scoring.
Virginia had one player.
The rest of their scorers were basically:
Ismael Massoud - Men's Basketball - Georgetown University Athletics
Ismael Massoud (25) Forward - 2023-2024 Appeared in 26 games for the Hoyas, starting 15 and averaging 5.6 points and 3.0 rebounds per game. Shot 30.1% from
guhoyas.com
Pitt had much more reliable scoring.
I don’t disagree with readdressing the notion of taking into account how a team is playing down the stretch.
Last 16 games, Pitt had 9 wins against Top 96 teams and 4 Q1 wins away from home. They built their entire NCAA resume starting in game 18. Last year Pitt had 11 conference Q3/Q4 games, this year they had 5 so the conference schedule was much tougher. They just beat the 81 NET team on the road 90-65. This team certainly had sweet 16 potential.
Its meaningless if the rest of the ACC does well. The ACC has kicked A** the last couple of NCAA tourneys. All this does, is say Virginia should not have been there. they know they shouldn't be there, and they quit.
1) This year's team is too reliant on the 3 to go far in March. And they simply don't have the bigs to match up with a lot of the better teams.
Goodman seems like a moron. Pitt isn't in it, what is the point of saying they didn't deserve a spot? Why didn't he say Clemson instead? So UVA lost at a neutral site to CSU, they lost to Pitt at home.
It just seems weird to me that he seems to think last night's game is a reflection on Pitt in any way, whether positive or negative.
Goodman hates all Pittsburgh sports teams and this is nothing new. Steelers, Penguins, all of them. He's a Boston guy and this has been going on for decades, probably since the days Lemieux smashed Boston twice in the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
Goodman is an idiot
UVA lost to Furman last year as a 4 seed while Pitt beat MSU and destroyed ISU
and Miami went to the final 4. uVA has been overrated nationally for years.
What did Purdue losing their first round game say about the Big 10?
Nevada State was wiped out last year in their play-in game and 2 other MWC teams lost their first game.
The bigger picture is the ACC is now 22-11 over the last 3 tourneys. UVA is 0-2 That’s see how it plays out.
UVA lost to Furman last year as a 4 seed while Pitt beat MSU and destroyed ISU
and Miami went to the final 4. uVA has been overrated nationally for years.
What did Purdue losing their first round game say about the Big 10?
Nevada State was wiped out last year in their play-in game and 2 other MWC teams lost their first game.
The bigger picture is the ACC is now 22-11 over the last 3 tourneys. UVA is 0-2 That’s see how it plays out.
Last edited:
Similar threads
