Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bilas hit the nail on the head - who cares about 1/3 of your schedule ? The quad system will penalize you anyway if you don’t have enough Q1/Q2 wins. Wins and NET aren’t enough already. This entire argument has been BS.Pitt's SOS was better than UVa because their ACC SOS was SIGNIFICANTLY better than UVa's. Pitt/UVa was so close, I dont get the brownie points that UVa got for their superior non-con SOS when Pitt had the better overall SOS and beat them and "looked" better recently.
UVa's ACC SOS was terrible. They only played 8 games vs UNC, Duke, Clem, Wake, NC St, and Syr. Pitt played 13. That's why we passed them on overall SOS.
huge difference between intentional weak strength of schedule and circumstantial weak strength of schedule...Totally out of Pitt's hands that Missouri decided to crap the bed post November and Huggy cannot download the Uber app for a ride home...Pitt could have scheduled 6 MAC wins instead of WVU, Missouri and Oregon State and would be in by a mile right now...but alas, it is what it is...
Not sure why you're still comparing Pitt/UVA. The committee also had OU, Seton Hall, and Indians State ahead of Pitt in the selection order. Pitt was the last of the first four out.Pitt's SOS was better than UVa because their ACC SOS was SIGNIFICANTLY better than UVa's. Pitt/UVa was so close, I dont get the brownie points that UVa got for their superior non-con SOS when Pitt had the better overall SOS and beat them and "looked" better recently.
UVa's ACC SOS was terrible. They only played 8 games vs UNC, Duke, Clem, Wake, NC St, and Syr. Pitt played 13. That's why we passed them on overall SOS.
I don't have any sympathy for bubble teams. Especially for teams from power conferences that get multiple mulligans. They just need to perform better.Agree with him 100% as I usually do, he's a really knowledgeable, intelligent and logical analyst. This current selection system needs some significant tweaks, simple and easy to implement, that would have prevented what happened to Pitt this year.
Not sure why you're still comparing Pitt/UVA. The committee also had OU, Seton Hall, and Indians State ahead of Pitt in the selection order. Pitt was the last of the first four out.
Not to mention, if you had you're way, you would give North Texas a free spot ahead of Pitt.
I agree with that in part. But--I do think when a team finishes strong as Pitt did that deserves consideration, and it used to get that consideration in the old days.I don't have any sympathy for bubble teams. Especially for teams from power conferences that get multiple mulligans. They just need to perform better.
The champion isn't going to be crowned from the list of bubble teams, regardless of which side they fell on.
Bilas hit the nail on the head - who cares about 1/3 of your schedule ? The quad system will penalize you anyway if you don’t have enough Q1/Q2 wins. Wins and NET aren’t enough already. This entire argument has been BS.
You can look at all the metrics on a team sheet in that room and depending what you focus on, you will select teams differently. If the focus was on quality road wins, then Pitt is in and a team like NW (0-5 Q1 road) is out. It’s almost like the jury goes where the foreperson takes them and this year the committee was led down the red herring path of NC SOS.
I would pay to see Bilas debate some of these committee frauds.
Or maybe they gave it to UVA for finishing third in the league during the regular seasonCame down to Pitt or UVa for ACC 5. I truly believe that. And instead of going game for game since they played similar schedules or looking at head to head, they gave it to UVa for their non-con when Pitt's ACC SOS was substantially harder.
Some of that is just the way the schedule happened to fall. Wake and Clemson were Pitt's only quality opponents down the stretch, while UVA played Wake, UNC, Duke and at VaTech down the stretch. Regardless of how good/bad either team is, VaTech in Blacksburg is almost always going to be a UVA loss.I agree with that in part. But--I do think when a team finishes strong as Pitt did that deserves consideration, and it used to get that consideration in the old days.
Comparing Pitt to just UVA for example--starting with their loss to Pitt on 2/13, they are 4-5 and just barely eked out a couple of their 4 wins over non-tournament opponents. Mixed in there is a blowout loss to VT.
I think the "body of work" clearly favors Pitt more than UVA regardless of the OOC schedule. One of those teams has clearly been better than the other over the last 10-12 games of the season. UVA making it and Pitt getting left out is the one scenario that just doesn't make logical sense. If they're both in, great. If they're both out, that makes sense. if Pitt gets in over UVA, that makes sense given the context--where the two teams are at respecitvely on selection Sunday. UVA limping into selection Sunday while Pitt rolls in gassed up and ready to race, only to get left out while UVA goes is not a good look for the way the at-large field is currently chosen.
Or maybe they gave it to UVA for finishing third in the league during the regular season
That ain't gonna happen. No way, no how. Nice try ...Like if I had a really good MEAC team, I'd schedule 10 P6 road games and 3 winnable home games. Maybe you upset someone on the road, go 17-1 in your league and lose in the conference championship, you probably get in at 23-11 with a bad SOS but the #1 non-con SOS
I honestly don't think we got royally screwed or anything. Like someone else said, they're just going to name something random after the fact to justify why they left you out.
No one is stupid enough to think 11 games against all walks out competition is more important than 22 games against P6 competition within a top 4 league. It would be impossible to be that stupid. Especially when they claim that everything (e.g. when a game is played) is weighted equally.
Do they really say everything is weighted equally? They seem to be saying your non-con is weighted heavier.
makes me wanna barf. this team could have made a deep run.March Madness 2024: Jim Boeheim on Seton Hall, St. John’s snubs: ‘The best teams are not getting in the tournament’
March Madness 2024: Jim Boeheim on Seton Hall, St. John's snubs: 'The best teams are not getting in the tournament'www.nj.com
Boeheim was pretty vocal about Pitt missing out as well saying it’s one of the worst decisions he has ever seen.
Pitt's SOS was better than UVa because their ACC SOS was SIGNIFICANTLY better than UVa's. Pitt/UVa was so close, I dont get the brownie points that UVa got for their superior non-con SOS when Pitt had the better overall SOS and beat them and "looked" better recently.
UVa's ACC SOS was terrible. They only played 7 games vs UNC, Duke, Clem, Wake, NC St, and Syr. Pitt played 13. That's why we passed them on overall SOS.
Does this committee even know it was imbalanced?