We all know that if the committee wants us out they have reasons to keep us out:
-Missouri loss (winless in conference play, 19-game losing streak, 2/24 since playing Pitt)
-343 Net OOC SoS
-Swept by Syracuse
-Miami Loss (1/11 since playing Pitt, 10 game losing streak)
Now if we compare it to last year:
-We had 2 worse losses (Florida St and ND)
-Less Road & Away wins (8 vs 9)
-Our best wins were slightly worse (@Northwestern 41, @NC State 45, @UNC 46, vs Virginia 27, vs Miami 35) vs (@Duke 10, vs WF 44 x2, @Virginia 55, vs NC State 68 x2)
-Semis vs Quarters in the Tournament (+ blown out by 5 seed Duke vs close loss to #1 Seed UNC)
-ACC is much better: 4th this year (avg NET of 76.8), vs 7th last year *avg NET of 110.47), yet is projected to only have 3 or 4 seeds (compared to 5 last year)
Bid Stealers could be the nail in our coffin, but assuming Florida Atlantic wins the AAC and Oregon, NC State & New Mexico lose in the final that would mean there is only 1 bid stealer (compared to the projected 2 by most bracketologists).
Here are some more things to consider that bracketologists do not talk about (because we don't know if it is considered or not):
99% of bracketologists have locked in 9 teams from the Big 12 and 6 teams from the Mountain West because of their great resumes on paper.
The Big 12 is the best conference with Avg Net of 46.21, Mountain West is the 7th best conference with Avg Net of 104.73.
Last year the Big 12 (without Houston) was the best conference with Avg Net of 30.2, Mountain West was the 5th best conference with Avg Net of 83.18.
They had 7 and 4 teams respectively in the tournament.
I truly believe the committee wants to spread out representation in the tournament, and I find it highly unlikely these two conferences take 2 more spots each when they performed worse (by a decent margin) compared to last year.
Not saying these teams don't have solid resumes, just think that the committee might want to find holes in them. Which there are for example Oklahoma only has 2 wins against the field out of 13. That's a 15% win rate and both were at home. They had tons of opportunities and just didn't capitalize, I don't believe that the committee will be motivated to put them in.
Another interesting thing to look at is the record vs the top 100 NET Teams in 2024. This shows who has been performing against decent teams recently:
Once again we see Big 12 and MW teams get a lot of opportunities which looks good on their resume, but they were not taking advantage of these opportunities at the same rate Pitt has.
-Missouri loss (winless in conference play, 19-game losing streak, 2/24 since playing Pitt)
-343 Net OOC SoS
-Swept by Syracuse
-Miami Loss (1/11 since playing Pitt, 10 game losing streak)
Now if we compare it to last year:
-We had 2 worse losses (Florida St and ND)
-Less Road & Away wins (8 vs 9)
-Our best wins were slightly worse (@Northwestern 41, @NC State 45, @UNC 46, vs Virginia 27, vs Miami 35) vs (@Duke 10, vs WF 44 x2, @Virginia 55, vs NC State 68 x2)
-Semis vs Quarters in the Tournament (+ blown out by 5 seed Duke vs close loss to #1 Seed UNC)
-ACC is much better: 4th this year (avg NET of 76.8), vs 7th last year *avg NET of 110.47), yet is projected to only have 3 or 4 seeds (compared to 5 last year)
Bid Stealers could be the nail in our coffin, but assuming Florida Atlantic wins the AAC and Oregon, NC State & New Mexico lose in the final that would mean there is only 1 bid stealer (compared to the projected 2 by most bracketologists).
Here are some more things to consider that bracketologists do not talk about (because we don't know if it is considered or not):
99% of bracketologists have locked in 9 teams from the Big 12 and 6 teams from the Mountain West because of their great resumes on paper.
The Big 12 is the best conference with Avg Net of 46.21, Mountain West is the 7th best conference with Avg Net of 104.73.
Last year the Big 12 (without Houston) was the best conference with Avg Net of 30.2, Mountain West was the 5th best conference with Avg Net of 83.18.
They had 7 and 4 teams respectively in the tournament.
I truly believe the committee wants to spread out representation in the tournament, and I find it highly unlikely these two conferences take 2 more spots each when they performed worse (by a decent margin) compared to last year.
Not saying these teams don't have solid resumes, just think that the committee might want to find holes in them. Which there are for example Oklahoma only has 2 wins against the field out of 13. That's a 15% win rate and both were at home. They had tons of opportunities and just didn't capitalize, I don't believe that the committee will be motivated to put them in.
Another interesting thing to look at is the record vs the top 100 NET Teams in 2024. This shows who has been performing against decent teams recently:
Once again we see Big 12 and MW teams get a lot of opportunities which looks good on their resume, but they were not taking advantage of these opportunities at the same rate Pitt has.
| Team | Wins | Losses | Win % |
| Pitt | 9 | 14 | 64% |
| Florida Atlantic | 5 | 8 | 63% |
| Texas A&M | 9 | 16 | 56% |
| Northwestern | 10 | 18 | 56% |
| Dayton | 6 | 11 | 55% |
| Seton Hall | 8 | 15 | 53% |
| Virginia | 7 | 14 | 50% |
| Indiana St | 2 | 4 | 50% |
| Michigan St | 8 | 17 | 47% |
| New Mexico | 7 | 15 | 47% |
| St Johns | 7 | 16 | 44% |
| Texas | 7 | 16 | 44% |
| Colorado St | 6 | 14 | 43% |
| TCU | 7 | 17 | 41% |
| Mississippi St | 7 | 17 | 41% |
| Oklahoma | 5 | 16 | 31% |
| Providence | 5 | 16 | 31% |
