As a Pitt fan, does NCSU/Clem not getting in scare you?

[Sean Miller Fan]

I know we have discussed this a bit in other threads but I think this specific question/discussion deserved it's own because I think many of us see Pitt as being the next NC State/Clemson in the near future.

As I've said, I have serious concerns about how the ACC being just too tough at the top to generate enough bids for the middle of the pack. As long as Bennett is at UVa, the ACC is going to have 3 super heavyweights that you just aren't going to beat very often. Its just too many built-in losses which isnt being considered fairly enough when looking at how good their NETs are.

The NCAA has spoken loud and clear that if you play in a league with 0 heavyweights (Big East, Big 12, Pac 12), where you have 0 guaranteed losses, where you have a very realistic chance to win every time you step on the floor, you will be in better shape to make the NCAA Tournament.

As a Pitt fan thinking we will be on the bubble in 2 years (heck maybe next year if we can get Sy and a few more pieces), I am concerned the ACC is generating too many losses that the NCAA is not looking at fairly.

To illustrate what I am saying, there was a Twitter post in another thread (post it here please) that shows that the NCAA simply took the last 4 because they had above .500 records in Quad 1 and 2. Well, of course! They dont play Duke, UNC, and UVa. NC State was 22-3 vs teams ranked 17 or worse in NET. Arizona State had 8 losses vs teams ranked 51 or worse.

 

[DiehardPanther]

I know we have discussed this a bit in other threads but I think this specific question/discussion deserved it's own because I think many of us see Pitt as being the next NC State/Clemson in the near future.

As I've said, I have serious concerns about how the ACC being just too tough at the top to generate enough bids for the middle of the pack. As long as Bennett is at UVa, the ACC is going to have 3 super heavyweights that you just aren't going to beat very often. Its just too many built-in losses which isnt being considered fairly enough when looking at how good their NETs are.

The NCAA has spoken loud and clear that if you play in a league with 0 heavyweights (Big East, Big 12, Pac 12), where you have 0 guaranteed losses, where you have a very realistic chance to win every time you step on the floor, you will be in better shape to make the NCAA Tournament.

As a Pitt fan thinking we will be on the bubble in 2 years (heck maybe next year if we can get Sy and a few more pieces), I am concerned the ACC is generating too many losses that the NCAA is not looking at fairly.

To illustrate what I am saying, there was a Twitter post in another thread (post it here please) that shows that the NCAA simply took the last 4 because they had above .500 records in Quad 1 and 2. Well, of course! They dont play Duke, UNC, and UVa. NC State was 22-3 vs teams ranked 17 or worse in NET. Arizona State had 8 losses vs teams ranked 51 or worse.

There will be a lot of moving parts over the next 3-4 years. It might all start with Buzz leaving.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

There will be a lot of moving parts over the next 3-4 years. It might all start with Buzz leaving.

Duke, UNC, Bennett. Add in Louisville once Mack gets settled in. That's too many losses. Buzz leaving may help but they aren't impossible to beat

 

[Ronnyp91]

Hard to say. Thinking differently, I think a UNCG or Lipscomb getting in would scare me more. Specifically thinking about the committee shifting to taking more mid majors. Seeing bad P5 teams like ASU getting in gives me hope that we could be closer than we think.

I do get your point about the ACC bubble teams being left out as being worrisome though.

 

[DiehardPanther]

Duke, UNC, Bennett. Add in Louisville once Mack gets settled in. That's too many losses. Buzz leaving may help but they aren't impossible to beat

FSU, Miami, and VT are 3 teams that could easily fall back with coaching changes that could occur in the near future.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

FSU, Miami, and VT are 3 teams that could easily fall back with coaching changes that could occur in the near future.

Absolutely but you don't get what I am saying. The ACC has 4 locks and many built-in losses with Duke, UNC, Bennett, and Louisville. Throw Syraxuse in there and the other 10 teams are only playing for 2-4 bids.

Look at the Big 12. You have 1 lock every year in KU and maybe 2 guaranteed losses for the most part. The other 9 teams are playing for 5-6 bids. It's an easier league to make it out of

 

[FireballZ]

As Pitt rebuilds its roster, if they can't go 2-2 versus Cuse and Louisville and 10-10 or 11-9 in conference, then they don't deserve it. So, no. No concern at all. The ACC being so good provides myriad opportunities for marquee wins.

NC State played the worst OOC in the nation. The entire nation. Even if they were number 200 instead of ~350, they'd be in at .500 in-conference. That's all on them. Even so, they probably still should be in ahead of SJU.

 

[McKee Place]

No. Get in by being a great team that can beat anybody, maybe not every time, but SOMETIMES. Certainly not the expectation that we'll always LOSE to a significant core of conference teams! Why even field a team if you expect that. "Oh, that's 6 guaranteed losses every year". Sheesh.

 

[levance2]

This is why I said I don’t like the 20-game schedule. The league should be encouraging their teams to go out and beat others, not hand out more losses to ACC teams.

 

[Cap pitt]

No, not at all. Should not be rewarded by beating up on smaller schools

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

This is why I said I don’t like the 20-game schedule. The league should be encouraging their teams to go out and beat others, not hand out more losses to ACC teams.

Swoffy and Co. better evaluate these next 3 years of scheduling and see how it affects "the bottom 10" ACC schools. If we are only getting 2-3 bids per year from these schools then they have to look into some other scheduling format. Maybe have Duke, UNC, UVa, Lou, and Syr play each other twice every year and play only 2 of the bottom 10 twice because it seems like the bottom 10 are being penalized for losing to these teams too much

 

[DiehardPanther]

Absolutely but you don't get what I am saying. The ACC has 4 locks and many built-in losses with Duke, UNC, Bennett, and Louisville. Throw Syraxuse in there and the other 10 teams are only playing for 2-4 bids.

Look at the Big 12. You have 1 lock every year in KU and maybe 2 guaranteed losses for the most part. The other 9 teams are playing for 5-6 bids. It's an easier league to make it out of

Duke, UNC, and SU - any of them could fall back with the wrong coach. The down period probably won’t last long, but I remember UNC did poorly with that big galoot before Roy and Duke lost a bunch of games with the old guy that was their interim coach.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Duke, UNC, and SU - any of them could fall back with the wrong coach. The down period probably won’t last long, but I remember UNC did poorly with that big galoot before Roy and Duke lost a bunch of games with the old guy that was their interim coach.

They are historically great programs with tons of money and resources, so, sorry, no. For a year or 2, sure, but over the long run, those programs are all going to be very good. Even Syracuse with all the money they have from 30K fans game/night can pick whoever they want as their next coach.

 

[DiehardPanther]

They are historically great programs with tons of money and resources, so, sorry, no. For a year or 2, sure, but over the long run, those programs are all going to be very good. Even Syracuse with all the money they have from 30K fans game/night can pick whoever they want as their next coach.

There was a time when people thought the same thing of Indiana Basketball. I agree with you that it probably won’t be for a long period of time, but it would open the door where we could compete with them for a few years.

 

[upj87]

I know we have discussed this a bit in other threads but I think this specific question/discussion deserved it's own because I think many of us see Pitt as being the next NC State/Clemson in the near future.

As I've said, I have serious concerns about how the ACC being just too tough at the top to generate enough bids for the middle of the pack. As long as Bennett is at UVa, the ACC is going to have 3 super heavyweights that you just aren't going to beat very often. Its just too many built-in losses which isnt being considered fairly enough when looking at how good their NETs are.

The NCAA has spoken loud and clear that if you play in a league with 0 heavyweights (Big East, Big 12, Pac 12), where you have 0 guaranteed losses, where you have a very realistic chance to win every time you step on the floor, you will be in better shape to make the NCAA Tournament.

As a Pitt fan thinking we will be on the bubble in 2 years (heck maybe next year if we can get Sy and a few more pieces), I am concerned the ACC is generating too many losses that the NCAA is not looking at fairly.

To illustrate what I am saying, there was a Twitter post in another thread (post it here please) that shows that the NCAA simply took the last 4 because they had above .500 records in Quad 1 and 2. Well, of course! They dont play Duke, UNC, and UVa. NC State was 22-3 vs teams ranked 17 or worse in NET. Arizona State had 8 losses vs teams ranked 51 or worse.

scare me?? Absolutely terrifies me!...I did not sleep a wink last night...today I seem to have tremors and have taken to the drink in the hopes that the lack of sobriety will free me from the horror of the thought of a team I root for not making the dance as a Dayton darling...

 

[Las Panteras]

I know we have discussed this a bit in other threads but I think this specific question/discussion deserved it's own because I think many of us see Pitt as being the next NC State/Clemson in the near future.

As I've said, I have serious concerns about how the ACC being just too tough at the top to generate enough bids for the middle of the pack. As long as Bennett is at UVa, the ACC is going to have 3 super heavyweights that you just aren't going to beat very often. Its just too many built-in losses which isnt being considered fairly enough when looking at how good their NETs are.

The NCAA has spoken loud and clear that if you play in a league with 0 heavyweights (Big East, Big 12, Pac 12), where you have 0 guaranteed losses, where you have a very realistic chance to win every time you step on the floor, you will be in better shape to make the NCAA Tournament.

As a Pitt fan thinking we will be on the bubble in 2 years (heck maybe next year if we can get Sy and a few more pieces), I am concerned the ACC is generating too many losses that the NCAA is not looking at fairly.

To illustrate what I am saying, there was a Twitter post in another thread (post it here please) that shows that the NCAA simply took the last 4 because they had above .500 records in Quad 1 and 2. Well, of course! They dont play Duke, UNC, and UVa. NC State was 22-3 vs teams ranked 17 or worse in NET. Arizona State had 8 losses vs teams ranked 51 or worse.

I got an idea,

Let's run away from playing the best. Let's accept our fate as a middling program ( in everything )

Better yet,

Let's go back to the Big East. Cuse, Louisville arent there anymore. We could win more games......

The Pitt fan's acceptance (or in SMF case, fear) of being great is mind numbing.

 

[PittMBA]

This is why I said I don’t like the 20-game schedule. The league should be encouraging their teams to go out and beat others, not hand out more losses to ACC teams.

Yeah - I don’t like it either. Also, I hate that 2 of the home and home opponents are set in stone. Louisville and Cuse every season compared to say ND getting BC and GT every season seems unfair.

Going 10-10 in conference will be a real accomplishment for most of the league- how will the selection committee treat those teams?

If the ACC has the number one overall seed and 3 of the top 4, you would think NCSU and Clemson are locks given the strength of the league.

 

[pittizit]

Coach K and Williams are in their 70's wont be there forever

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

scare me?? Absolutely terrifies me!...I did not sleep a wink last night...today I seem to have tremors and have taken to the drink in the hopes that the lack of sobriety will free me from the horror of the thought of a team I root for not making the dance as a Dayton darling...

Yea, you know what I mean. Are the "Pitt-like" teams in too tough of a position in the ACC with so many super heavyweights which are so hard to beat in comparison to a random Big 10, Big 12 or SEC team who have solid teams but only 1 real super heavyweight per league?

 

[ameoba defense]

NC St. won 9 games in the ACC, one vs Syracuse, and 8 against the bottom of the league. St. John's beat Villanova, and beat Marquette twice. That's why they're in, and NC St. is in the NIT. The message is, you may not have to beat Duke, Carolina, and Virginia, but if you don't, you better win some vs VT, UL, and Syracuse, especially if you don't test yourself ooc.

 

[DiehardPanther]

NC St. won 9 games in the ACC, one vs Syracuse, and 8 against the bottom of the league. St. John's beat Villanova, and beat Marquette twice. That's why they're in, and NC St. is in the NIT. The message is, you may not have to beat Duke, Carolina, and Virginia, but if you don't, you better win some vs VT, UL, and Syracuse, especially if you don't test yourself ooc.

They beat Auburn. That is the best win of the bunch and the ACC is a far better conference.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

NC St. won 9 games in the ACC, one vs Syracuse, and 8 against the bottom of the league. St. John's beat Villanova, and beat Marquette twice. That's why they're in, and NC St. is in the NIT. The message is, you may not have to beat Duke, Carolina, and Virginia, but if you don't, you better win some vs VT, UL, and Syracuse, especially if you don't test yourself ooc.

So SJU beat a 5 seed twice and a 6 seed. NC State beat a 5 seed, a 6 seed, a PSU team with an outstanding NET, and has a NET rating 40 slots higher. There isnt even a debate.

 

[McKee Place]

I'll say this, i'd rather see more of the P5/P6 bubble teams that actually run a gauntlet of tough in conference games than the unworthy rinky dinks from garbage conferences who play crap, get in and sometimes find a bone. Freak upsets aren't entertaining to me. Quality teams playing each other is more so.

But I know the masses LOVE the prospect of upsets and it won't change. All the rinky dinks will continue to get their mandatory slots.

So what's the alt you guys really are proposing then? To increase the number of teams again? Cut back on the regular or OOC season and have a massive tournament of 128 or 130 or whatever? Maybe dump the NIT and increase it. Play a couple more games each week, these kids don't need so many days off between. That's about the only way to loosen things up enough so that more middling P5 teams get in too.

 

[ameoba defense]

I'll say this, i'd rather see more of the P5/P6 bubble teams that actually run a gauntlet of tough in conference games than the unworthy rinky dinks from garbage conferences who play crap, get in and sometimes find a bone. Freak upsets aren't entertaining to me. Quality teams playing each other is more so.

But I know the masses LOVE the prospect of upsets and it won't change. All the rinky dinks will continue to get their mandatory slots.

So what's the alt you guys really are proposing then? To increase the number of teams again? Cut back on the regular or OOC season and have a massive tournament of 128 or 130 or whatever? Maybe dump the NIT and increase it. Play a couple more games each week, these kids don't need so many days off between. That's about the only way to loosen things up enough so that more middling P5 teams get in too.

If all you really wanted was high quality ball, you could get rid of the little schools, and get rid of the P5 also ran garbage as well. A 16 team, double elimination tournament. It would be great ball, but it might kill every program below the elite level. Would be like college football, where the Central Florida's have no real shot, and the Pitts, Syracuses, and Purdues don't either.

 

[DiehardPanther]

If all you really wanted was high quality ball, you could get rid of the little schools, and get rid of the P5 also ran garbage as well. A 16 team, double elimination tournament. It would be great ball, but it might kill every program below the elite level. Would be like college football, where the Central Florida's have no real shot, and the Pitts, Syracuses, and Purdues don't either.

Get rid of the automatic bid for the MAAC, MEAC, and any other conference that cannot produce at least one team in the Top 150 NET. (Note - UMBC would still have gotten in last year because Vermont would have met the criteria). That will free up a few more spaces. Keep it at 68 teams.

 

[McKee Place]

If all you really wanted was high quality ball, you could get rid of the little schools, and get rid of the P5 also ran garbage as well. A 16 team, double elimination tournament. It would be great ball, but it might kill every program below the elite level. Would be like college football, where the Central Florida's have no real shot, and the Pitts, Syracuses, and Purdues don't either.

Ok, that too.

 

[R-M-U-h-o-o-p-s-f-a-n]

If all you really wanted was high quality ball, you could get rid of the little schools, and get rid of the P5 also ran garbage as well. A 16 team, double elimination tournament. It would be great ball, but it might kill every program below the elite level. Would be like college football, where the Central Florida's have no real shot, and the Pitts, Syracuses, and Purdues don't either.

If that happened, Pitt would probably never make the main tournament again...& then another tournament would have to be created for the other teams.

It would ruin D1 basketball as we know it.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Get rid of the automatic bid for the MAAC, MEAC, and any other conference that cannot produce at least one team in the Top 150 NET. (Note - UMBC would still have gotten in last year because Vermont would have met the criteria). That will free up a few more spaces. Keep it at 68 teams.

Why not just compromise? Put in all the top 64 teams (but don't use a bad rating systems like RPI and NET to pick them) and then put all the auto-bid conference winners not rated in the top 64 into a play-in round. That should solve the problem.

 

[Voice of Danno]

Stupid premise by SMF. You have to win games. That's why Clemson and NCST didn't make it. Clemson best wins were VT, Syracuse, Lipscomb and South Carolina. Only 2 were legitimate NCAA Tourney teams. NCST beat Auburn, Syracuse, Clemson (2). And let's not look like the ACC was this juggernaut of conference. The bottom six (40 percent of the conference schedule) was horrible. NCST played 8 games versus this group and yet only had 9 conference wins.

Conversely Oklahoma was 7 - 11 but they won more Top 70 NET games than NCST and Clemson COMBINED. Why. They PLAYED and BEAT out of conference teams such as Creighton, Wofford, Florida, and Dayton (all top 75 NET teams). Sprinkle in 4 more in conference top 75 NET wins and they are playing this weekend.

In recent years, the ACC, Big East an Big 12 got approximately 60 percent of its teams in the tournament for a season. And guess what? If more were deserving. More would have gotten in. And it wasn't too far fetch three weeks ago that 8 of 10 Big 12 teams would be dancing.

The tougher the conference. The easier to make the tournament. Why? More chances to win games against good teams.

What NC ST did was arrogant. They thought they would do well in the ACC so they didn't schedule shit. Syracuse also does this. It works most of the time but some times it bites you in the ass.

Simple. Schedule good out of conference schedule and win a few of them. Then play decent in conference picking up several wins against the top half of the league.

 

[freddietee511]

There was a time when people thought the same thing of Indiana Basketball. I agree with you that it probably won’t be for a long period of time, but it would open the door where we could compete with them for a few years.

Indiana still recruits well...but they are not the level of duke unc etc...their coaches just suck tbh

 

[DiehardPanther]

Indiana still recruits well...but they are not the level of duke unc etc...their coaches just suck tbh

Sampson has won elsewhere. Crean has won elsewhere. Miller has won elsewhere. You are wrong again.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Stupid premise by SMF. You have to win games. That's why Clemson and NCST didn't make it. Clemson best wins were VT, Syracuse, Lipscomb and South Carolina. Only 2 were legitimate NCAA Tourney teams. NCST beat Auburn, Syracuse, Clemson (2). And let's not look like the ACC was this juggernaut of conference. The bottom six (40 percent of the conference schedule) was horrible. NCST played 8 games versus this group and yet only had 9 conference wins.

Conversely Oklahoma was 7 - 11 but they won more Top 70 NET games than NCST and Clemson COMBINED. Why. They PLAYED and BEAT out of conference teams such as Creighton, Wofford, Florida, and Dayton (all top 75 NET teams). Sprinkle in 4 more in conference top 75 NET wins and they are playing this weekend.

In recent years, the ACC, Big East an Big 12 got approximately 60 percent of its teams in the tournament for a season. And guess what? If more were deserving. More would have gotten in. And it wasn't too far fetch three weeks ago that 8 of 10 Big 12 teams would be dancing.

The tougher the conference. The easier to make the tournament. Why? More chances to win games against good teams.

What NC ST did was arrogant. They thought they would do well in the ACC so they didn't schedule shit. Syracuse also does this. It works most of the time but some times it bites you in the ass.

Simple. Schedule good out of conference schedule and win a few of them. Then play decent in conference picking up several wins against the top half of the league.

Oklahoma deserved to be in. Compare NC St, Clemson, ASU, and SJU. The difference was Clemson and NC State lost too many Q1 games but that was because they played too many really high Q1 teams while the others did not

 

[Bethlehemjohn]

I know we have discussed this a bit in other threads but I think this specific question/discussion deserved it's own because I think many of us see Pitt as being the next NC State/Clemson in the near future.

As I've said, I have serious concerns about how the ACC being just too tough at the top to generate enough bids for the middle of the pack. As long as Bennett is at UVa, the ACC is going to have 3 super heavyweights that you just aren't going to beat very often. Its just too many built-in losses which isnt being considered fairly enough when looking at how good their NETs are.

The NCAA has spoken loud and clear that if you play in a league with 0 heavyweights (Big East, Big 12, Pac 12), where you have 0 guaranteed losses, where you have a very realistic chance to win every time you step on the floor, you will be in better shape to make the NCAA Tournament.

As a Pitt fan thinking we will be on the bubble in 2 years (heck maybe next year if we can get Sy and a few more pieces), I am concerned the ACC is generating too many losses that the NCAA is not looking at fairly.

To illustrate what I am saying, there was a Twitter post in another thread (post it here please) that shows that the NCAA simply took the last 4 because they had above .500 records in Quad 1 and 2. Well, of course! They dont play Duke, UNC, and UVa. NC State was 22-3 vs teams ranked 17 or worse in NET. Arizona State had 8 losses vs teams ranked 51 or worse.

The losses don't matter. Teams can lose 11, 12 or 13 games and still make the tourney. They just need to play a tough schedule and win a few of those tough games.

 

[Pitt79]

Doesn't it all depend somewhat on Capel, what if he becomes the next great coach? If Duke comes calling and Pitt is great, make a huge money offer, significantly bigger.

 

[Pitt79]

The losses don't matter. Teams can lose 11, 12 or 13 games and still make the tourney. They just need to play a tough schedule and win a few of those tough games.

ACC teams will always have a tough schedule.

 

[Delpanther]

I know we have discussed this a bit in other threads but I think this specific question/discussion deserved it's own because I think many of us see Pitt as being the next NC State/Clemson in the near future.

As I've said, I have serious concerns about how the ACC being just too tough at the top to generate enough bids for the middle of the pack. As long as Bennett is at UVa, the ACC is going to have 3 super heavyweights that you just aren't going to beat very often. Its just too many built-in losses which isnt being considered fairly enough when looking at how good their NETs are.

The NCAA has spoken loud and clear that if you play in a league with 0 heavyweights (Big East, Big 12, Pac 12), where you have 0 guaranteed losses, where you have a very realistic chance to win every time you step on the floor, you will be in better shape to make the NCAA Tournament.

As a Pitt fan thinking we will be on the bubble in 2 years (heck maybe next year if we can get Sy and a few more pieces), I am concerned the ACC is generating too many losses that the NCAA is not looking at fairly.

To illustrate what I am saying, there was a Twitter post in another thread (post it here please) that shows that the NCAA simply took the last 4 because they had above .500 records in Quad 1 and 2. Well, of course! They dont play Duke, UNC, and UVa. NC State was 22-3 vs teams ranked 17 or worse in NET. Arizona State had 8 losses vs teams ranked 51 or worse.

Nah, either you're good or a fraud......those 2 teams were frauds. Hopefully Capel delivers teams that are the real deal. Lots of teams ride the bubble now and again

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

ACC teams will always have a tough schedule.

Having a tough schedule is less the problem than the NCAA having a poor rating tool (NET could be worse than the RPI) and a subjective selection committee. How else could St. John's -- Sagarin #66 overall (but Recent Games #151) and Temple #68 (Recent Games # 59 ) teams get at large bids over NC State the Sagarin #25 (Recent Games #33) and Clemson the #30 (Recent Games # 34) teams? That gap is just too great to be reasonable. The St. John's selection over NC State is particularly egregious.

In the past I have often looked to see which Sagarin rated teams in the top 64 have been left out. I have never before seen any left out in favor of at large teams not within the top Sagarin top 64--only ones left out in favor of other similarly rated top 64 at large teams or more often in favor of auto-bid league teams not in the top 64--as the system is designed to do. To the best of my recollection, this is the first time that I ever recall at large teams ranked outside of the top 64 by Sagarin getting in.

This is, and should be, concerning to the ACC as a whole (not just Pitt) because NET appears to have a built in to the system bias against being a middle of the pack team in a very top heavy league. So, making the tourney--especially now when the ACC schedule goes to 20 games--will likely be even more difficult for a middle of the pack ACC team.

 

[Seneca_Valley]

Having a tough schedule is less the problem than the NCAA having a poor rating tool (NET could be worse than the RPI) and a subjective selection committee. How else could St. John's -- Sagarin #66 overall (but Recent Games #151) and Temple #68 (Recent Games # 59 ) teams get at large bids over NC State the Sagarin #25 (Recent Games #33) and Clemson the #30 (Recent Games # 34) teams? That gap is just too great to be reasonable. The St. John's selection over NC State is particularly egregious.

In the past I have often looked to see which Sagarin rated teams in the top 64 have been left out. I have never before seen any left out in favor of at large teams not within the top Sagarin top 64--only ones left out in favor of other similarly rated top 64 at large teams or more often in favor of auto-bid league teams not in the top 64--as the system is designed to do. To the best of my recollection, this is the first time that I ever recall at large teams ranked outside of the top 64 by Sagarin getting in.

This is, and should be, concerning to the ACC as a whole (not just Pitt) because NET appears to have a built in to the system bias against being a middle of the pack team in a very top heavy league. So, making the tourney--especially now when the ACC schedule goes to 20 games--will likely be even more difficult for a middle of the pack ACC team.

I'm not going to get into the weeds over this, but I don't understand the anguish over NC State. Their resume absolutely stinks. Only two wins over tourney teams; most of the conference wins are over bottoms feeders; and the out of conference is an embarrassment. SJU has more tourney team wins, and a better out of conference schedule. I'd rather make a case both don't belong. Just splitting hairs IMO.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I'm not going to get into the weeds over this, but I don't understand the anguish over NC State. Their resume absolutely stinks. Only two wins over tourney teams; most of the conference wins are over bottoms feeders; and the out of conference is an embarrassment. SJU has more tourney team wins, and a better out of conference schedule. I'd rather make a case both don't belong. Just splitting hairs IMO.

Because their resume will soon be ours. We aren't going to beat Duke, UNC, UVa, or Louisville often so that's a ton of Quad 1 losses which they seemed to have penalized NC State for.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

I'm not going to get into the weeds over this, but I don't understand the anguish over NC State. Their resume absolutely stinks. Only two wins over tourney teams; most of the conference wins are over bottoms feeders; and the out of conference is an embarrassment. SJU has more tourney team wins, and a better out of conference schedule. I'd rather make a case both don't belong. Just splitting hairs IMO.

Not concerned over NC State in particular, just the selection process itself. Neither St. John's nor Temple should have gotten in as at large teams. If NC State was passed over for say the #43 team or the like--not much of a problem. But when passed over for a #65, especially a #65 that has recently played like a #151 that is a problem inherent to the selection process itself.