Bubbles and group think can be dangerous
- Thread starter Fk_Pitt
- Start date
they’re wrong (in that no one will watch it) and not wrong that it will affect ratings. Like it or not, blue bloods do drive ratings because of the casual fandom who claim them
I’d prefer they win a few games and sneak in
I think they’re a fun train wreck to watch
I’d prefer they win a few games and sneak in
I think they’re a fun train wreck to watch
It won’t affect the ratings in any measurable way.
Go look at the history of semi’s with blue bloods vs without. Unc in particular is a draw. As I said, people will watch, but not as many.
The late game always seems to outdraw the early game also.
They are 0-8 in Q1. I hate to agree with Lunardi as even he had them as the 1st team out before yesterday but he said if they weren't called North Carolina, would they even be talked about as a bubble team? 0-8 is really bad. What if Pitt was 0-8 in Q1? They play ND, UVa, FSU, Duke. I think they need to win out. If they dont win out, they probably have to make at least the ACC Final.
They don’t need to win out. If they go 3-1 in those games they’ll get in. The bubble is weak and they’re a name. The NCAA is dying to get them in
Theres also as good of a possibility they go 1-3 in those games as 3-1. They’re not very good or well coached. They just hit shots for 5 games in March last year. Hubie is in over his head.
There are only four teams in D-I who have played more quad 1 games than UNC and are still winless.
Villanova 0-9
California 0-9
Georgetown 0-10
Oregon State 0-11
Surely they're not THAT desperate for ratings?
The NCAA left out the Kentucky team who won the NC prior and got a 1 seed in the NIT and lost to RMU. UNC only gets in if its a "tie" between them and someone else. Lets say they go 3-1 by beating Duke and then lose to say Miami in the quarters. That's 1-10 Q1. No way.
Stronger bubble. WVU is currently on the bubble at 4-10 in conference
If teams like FAU and Charleston lose in their tournaments and have to take at large bids, it becomes different.
FWIW, they’re currently first team out in bracket matrix and in on 43 of the brackets they use. So obviously, 3-1 with a combination of bubble teams losing gets them in.
They are 5-11 Q1/2 and no quad 3 or 4 losses. Assuming only other loss to Miami, If Pitt loses first tourney game they will be 7-8 quad 1/2 with a quad 3 and a quad 4 loss. Not too different.
If they go 3-1 and don’t lose in first round of ACC tourney they’re in. Not sure why anyone would think differently.
When a school goes out on the court it’s taking the ghosts of its past out there with it. Perception and bias based on past teams are shaped by it, no matter what anyone says. Good and bad. Bad in Pitt’s case, good in UNC’s. 2023 Pitt needs to go above and beyond to overcome what the last decade wrought. 2023 UNC can coast. Just how things are.
0 Q1 wins
2-7 on the road
Pitt has 7 road wins and 4 Q1 wins. That is massively different.
We all hate Penn State but why is UNC that far behind UNC? They have the same excact road and overall records but are 3-5 in Q1.
Yep you’re right about that. We see it in football too.
But…this is a nice discussion we are having…however UNC is giving us no indications that they are going to reverse course and play their way in.
Because one says Penn State and one says UNC. This isn’t hard.
UNC needs a minimum of 2 Q1 wins. With only 1, they arent getting in. You can mark that down
They have a quad 3 loss and UNC does not. Some name bias, but UNC hasn’t lost an awful game yet.
Say we’re in the college football playoff hunt and there’s a similar resume between us and Penn State. Penn State is getting in and we’re not. Just the way it is
Yep. Interesting bubble year as UNC beat Charleston early on so it won’t seem as rigged. But they also took Bama to OT and kept Iowa State close. Certainly worse teams to take. Crazy that Clemson is still near the bubble with their third quad 4 loss.
All the metrics said Bama was light years better than TCU. TCU got in.
TCU had 1 loss and Bama had 2 losses. Not comparable as they didn’t have similar resumes. That’s like the difference between 10 and 14 losses in hoops
Right but 100 people out of 100 would have said Bama was better. But their name didn't even get them in the convo.
Like I said, they didnt take Kentucky. UNC will only get a little amount of name help. They need 2 Q1s or they're out.
They go 3-1 without a first round ACC loss they’re absolutely in. You continue to compare apples and oranges.
And you continue to worry too much about one aspect of the criteria to get in.
I think the absence of a couple of a UNC, Kentucky or a couple of the usual bluebloods will impact ratings to some extent, but not until maybe the sweet 16 and beyond. Same as when one of those blue bloods exits the tournament earlier than expected.
The entire basketball watching country watches the first 2 rounds of the dance regardless of who's in or out.
I will say that if they can get UNC vs UK in Dayton, they have to figure a way to get that done. Those programs on that Tuesday or Wednesday night would be epic.
If that were true... Alabama would've been in the playoff this year instead of TCU.
The committees in both sports have been pretty good at making sure the most deserving teams are there, and not just the "name" teams.
If the selection were today... UNC would be out. There's no NCAA conspiracy to get them in. They'll have to earn their way in.
Yep. The brackets themselves are the reason for the season to most early on. Most of those casual observers drop their attention as soon as their sheets blow up after the first weekend.
Not saying they won’t get in, but the NCAA would get crucified if they took UNC over another popular bubble team. That being said UNC could get in and easily end up in 16 or 8.
It would have to be a tie for them to get specific consideration. Like in my PSU example, you could argue UNC doesnt have a Q3/4 loss and played a more difficult schedule. But PSU isnt anywhere close to the bubble. And you could argue their resume is better than UNC's.
Listen, UNC needs 2 Q1s. Period. I dont know this for sure but I doubt any P6 has gotten in with 1. Maybe a mid-major who went 28-3 but not a P6.
If they beat Duke and Virginia, they'll have their two QUAD 1s. That's what they need to do.... win out and get to 20-11/12-8 ... with those two QUAD 1 wins. Then win their first game in the ACCT, which will likely be against Syracuse or Wake.
But the blue bloods have exponentially more fans than the non-bluebloods. That's the nature of being a blublood. UNC, Duke and UK have millions of fans that have no connection to the schools, states or even regions. And they also have huge numbers of haters that watch them in hopes that they lose. SO when a blueblood is out, it definitely impacts viewership much more than say, Pitt or Kansas State or Wisconsin failing to advance.
As for this statement:
once your team is out or your bracket is busted, you’re not watching.
I don't know anybody that fits that description, maybe my wife and some friends' wives. You're either a college basketball fan or you're not. If you're a fan, you watch and enjoy the entire tournament, because it's the sport at its purest and most competitive. Frankly it's the best sports event of the year.
Money, NIL deals, NBA draft status, etc. all go out the window for the players and coaches once they lace 'em up for that first NCAA tournament game. They are playing for pure competition, pride, the name on their chest and the love of their teammates.
I would argue that Alabama was more deserving of being in the CFP than TCU. By virtue of the fact that Alabama, even with 2 losses, was a far superior team to TCU in every single way. Not because they are a "name team".
"Superior on paper" should never be the standard. The actual results on the field should be.
Sometimes the best team on paper (1982 Pitt Panthers) ends up a disappointing 9-3. You don't get to make the playoffs on your potential - you have to actually PLAY to that potential.
Alabama's roster was undoubtedly better than TCU's. But TCU had the better resume, based on actually on-field results.
It absolutely is true. Alabama had 2 losses whereas TCU finished the regular season undefeated and played a tough loss in their championship game. Not remotely close. Not sure why people keep incorrectly using this example of 2 regular season losses v zero.
The better example is 2015 when OSU was ranked 6th and either TCU or Baylor was ranked 3rd going into conference championship week, didn’t play, then got left out for OSU.
UNC is the first team out as of right now. If they win 3/4 they’re in without a sweat.
They need to win out. At 3-1, they are going to need to pick up a minimum of 1 Q1 in the ACCT. 0% chance of getting in with only 1 Q1 win.
Wrong, per usual. 3-1 and 1 win in ACC and no FAU or Charleston upsets and they’re a lock
Similar threads
