Clemson got royally screwed

[Fk_Pitt]

It’s simple - they played a truly awful ooc schedule - ooc sos of 300+ is embarrassing. Committee never rewards teams that have such poor ooc schedules .

Ha! I was going to tag you in this thread and tell those guys. You’ve been all over the SOS and nailed this one. You can’t have an OOC schedule at #330, then find yourself on the bubble, and the whine about missing the tourney. These coaches all know that the committee takes it very seriously every single year. And if you have one of the worst schedules in the ncaa, then you better not stumble against the awful teams, and Clemson did a few too many times.

My guess is Clemson will have a much better schedule next year. Just a hunch.

 

[PittPanther44]

Some of these squads just have to show up and get beat. Look at Iowa State.

Lost like 9 games in 5 in a half weeks, and they are the 6.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

My eyes are having a harder time with Nevada.

I don’t have little conference phobia…but one look at USU and Nevadas resume, outside of their NET rankings, shows that they don’t match up well vs the other bubble teams.

 

[Pittisit4me]

They interviewed Chris Reynolds of the committee and one of the categories he said they focused on with the bubble teams was bad losses. Perhaps that doomed Clemson. He also mentioned road wins. I know Clemson got us by 1 at the Pete, not sure if they had any other good road wins.

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

Ha! I was going to tag you in this thread and tell those guys. You’ve been all over the SOS and nailed this one. You can’t have an OOC schedule at #330, then find yourself on the bubble, and the whine about missing the tourney. These coaches all know that the committee takes it very seriously every single year. And if you have one of the worst schedules in the ncaa, then you better not stumble against the awful teams, and Clemson did a few too many times.

My guess is Clemson will have a much better schedule next year. Just a hunch.

Loyola is usually a lot better. They upset Clemson, but then laid an egg the rest of the year. Some of it is bad luck.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Well Clemson and Vanderbilt both beat us, so obviously us. And then Rutgers beat the nitters twice, so they're out too!

That was similar to the sentiment I saw on the Clemson board. Several fans there more upset that Pitt wasn’t the one of the ACC three left out rather than NC State.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

Loyola is usually a lot better. They upset Clemson, but then laid an egg the rest of the year. Some of it is bad luck.

Ok. That’s fair. But #330 is 330. Frankly, I think Pitt’s helped us. If ours weren’t respectable, OSU or Rutgers would have our spot.

 

[Pittisit4me]

Ok. That’s fair. But #330 is 330. Frankly, I think Pitt’s helped us. If ours weren’t respectable, OSU or Rutgers would have our spot.

I really think our shellacking of Northwestern on their court is what got us in the field.

 

[KennyHeisman8]

I don’t have little conference phobia…but one look at USU and Nevadas resume, outside of their NET rankings, shows that they don’t match up well vs the other bubble teams.

Yep. They took KSU to OT, good game but they got handled easily by Oregon.

 

[KennyHeisman8]

That was similar to the sentiment I saw on the Clemson board. Several fans there more upset that Pitt wasn’t the one of the ACC three left out rather than NC State.

NC state should be out. No bad losses but cancelled by the fact they have one q1 win.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

I really think our shellacking of Northwestern on their court is what got us in the field.

No doubt. We had the same amount of q1/q2 wins as Clemson. The difference was that we had a strength of schedule that was about 200 spots better, and 2 less q3/q4 losses. Clemson should not have a beef with our inclusion.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

To me it is all about maximizing your probability to win early games in the nonconference and still help your NET ranking. You seem to know know more than the rest of us, so where would these 5 wins rank in order according to NET?
A) Beating 9-20 San Diego (230 NET) by 18.
B) Beating 7-22 Pepperdine (201 NET) by 14.
C) Beating 17-15 American (262 NET) by 20.
D) Beating 13-13 Wagner (311 NET) by 22.
E) Beating 14-13 Brown (183 NET) by 10.

My guess is that the net results (hahahaha, net results, get it? 🤪 ) of all of those would be approximately the same. I mean your efficiencies are split up between offense and defense and maybe if one or the other of them really helped your offense or your defense, or really hurt one or the other, that it could make a difference. But just speaking in generalities, the worse the team's NET is the more points you would be "expected" to beat them by.

Although the other thing is that there is surely less difference between the teams closer to the middle than the teams closer to the bottom (or the top, for that matter), so that might make the games against the teams closer to the middle, Brown and Pepperdine, better than the teams closer to the bottom like Wagner.

 

[pittbb80]

Conference record is meaningless.

So clearly demonstrating they were the better team is meaningless. So by that measure lets eliminate automatic bids for conference tournament winners

I could see if Nc st finished ahead of them in the conference then perhaps there would be a better argument. But Clemson clearly is the better team. Isn’t that what the tourney is supposed to do is pick the 64 best teams ?

Or is it to make teams schedule better.

 

[Blair_45]

They screwed themselves when they lost to Louisville

I agree that loss is just so hard to overlook. It’s most likely what kept them out of the tournament.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

FWIW, Louisville just landed a 5 star center. Kenny and Nolan gonna recruit. They just won’t coach

 

[Fk_Pitt]

So clearly demonstrating they were the better team is meaningless. So by that measure lets eliminate automatic bids for conference tournament winners

I could see if Nc st finished ahead of them in the conference then perhaps there would be a better argument. But Clemson clearly is the better team. Isn’t that what the tourney is supposed to do is pick the 64 best teams ?

Or is it to make teams schedule better.

Yeah I’m with you. But all I’m saying is when we look at things through the eyes of the committee and NCAA, it becomes pretty evident that NCSU was going to be slotted ahead of Clemson significantly. We may not agree, but there’s a reason why 90% of blogger boy bracketologists had it predicted the same way too.

 

[Blair_45]

That was similar to the sentiment I saw on the Clemson board. Several fans there more upset that Pitt wasn’t the one of the ACC three left out rather than NC State.

Pitt has a better resume then NC State period. If Clemson was gonna get in over any ACC team it should have been NC State not Pitt. Pitt did enough to get in I think at the end of the day NC State I’m not sure did.

 

[MTkeeper23]

Apparently the committee said OK St was left out because of a 6-12 Q1 record.

NC State is 1-6.

Which is better? Surely the 33% win% over the 14%?

 

[Blair_45]

Some of these squads just have to show up and get beat. Look at Iowa State.

Lost like 9 games in 5 in a half weeks, and they are the 6.

Why I like that matchup for Pitt against Iowa State if they get by Miss St.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

I don't think NC State or Clemson should have gotten in. I don't hate our conference or anything weird like that, I just don't think either of those teams are better than Rutgers, injuries be damned. Clemson's schedule was uniquely terrible and NC State let Clemson beat them three times, badly.

 

[pittbb80]

Yeah I’m with you. But all I’m saying is when we look at things through the eyes of the committee and NCAA, it becomes pretty evident that NCSU was going to be slotted ahead of Clemson significantly. We may not agree, but there’s a reason why 90% of blogger boy bracketologists had it predicted the same way too.

I can agree with that even though the logic is flawed. I could get on board with that if the record for Nc. St was significantly better or if Clemson only beat them once.

But it’s crazy to me to weigh OOC or bad losses more than finishing higher in the conference and beating them badly in three head to head games That’s my only point.

 

[wolf0717]

How does NC St get in over them. Clemson beat them 3 times.

Yeah Pitt got shafted but if I were a Clemson fan I’d be pissed.

Also how the hell is Michigan state seeded so high

Or Iowa.

 

[Weavedog469]

Well Clemson and Vanderbilt both beat us, so obviously us. And then Rutgers beat the nitters twice, so they're out too!

So the Nitters bet Illinois three times and are seeded behind them so is Illinois out as well

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

So the Nitters bet Illinois three times and are seeded behind them so is Illinois out as well

I just wonder, once we are done kicking all the teams out how many teams will actually be left?

 

[PittMBA]

Ha! I was going to tag you in this thread and tell those guys. You’ve been all over the SOS and nailed this one. You can’t have an OOC schedule at #330, then find yourself on the bubble, and the whine about missing the tourney. These coaches all know that the committee takes it very seriously every single year. And if you have one of the worst schedules in the ncaa, then you better not stumble against the awful teams, and Clemson did a few too many times.

My guess is Clemson will have a much better schedule next year. Just a hunch.

Lol - it’s been my rant !! It’s also why UNC was just 3rd team out and ahead of Clemson. UNC played a really rough ooc schedule.

 

[PittMBA]

Ok. That’s fair. But #330 is 330. Frankly, I think Pitt’s helped us. If ours weren’t respectable, OSU or Rutgers would have our spot.

And Rutgers had a similarly terrible ooc sos to Clemson.