ESPN Bubble Watch regarding Pitt

[SteelBowl70]

Pittsburgh Panthers
One might guess that a 21-10 team with a top-50 NET ranking, vanilla résumé metrics and a win at Duke would land closer to the cut line than "next four out." This dynamic can arise when something worrisome lurks in an otherwise satisfactory profile. Bubble Watch hasn't deduced what that might be in this instance, exactly, even if Pitt did lose at home to Missouri. (Northwestern lost at home to Chicago State. The Wildcats, quite rightly, do fine in mock brackets.) For our purposes it is sufficient to note this is occurring. The mocks tend to anticipate the committee's temperature extremely well.

 

[Pittnerski]

Eff Lunardi and the 4 letters

 

[SteelBowl70]

Gasaway was fair to Pitt last year though

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Eff Lunardi and the 4 letters

ESPN crushes their partner, the ACC. Even though I agreed with FSU getting left out of the CFP, ESPN was totally against the Noles getting in.

 

[SteelBowl70]

"Here's the thing about Pitt - and if there's one thing the committee has been incredibly consistent about over the years," Lunardi said on ESPN. "Let's say this - non-conference schedule for Pitt: 344th at the start of the week. There's never been a bubble team, ever, even close to that, that's gotten in. So I'm not optimistic."

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

This is just another perturbation on the theme of counting early season games equally with late season games. It may have been a sensible criteria prior to the era of unlimited transferring and NIL. But, it no longer makes sense.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

This is just another perturbation on the theme of counting early season games equally with late season games. It may have been a sensible criteria prior to the era of unlimited transferring and NIL. But, it no longer makes sense.

It never really made sense to weight OOC strength of schedule differently than overall schedule SOS. Of course teams like Gonzaga have had to schedule a little heavier OOC when they're beating up on the Little Sisters of the Poor from January to early March.

 

[PittPoker]

Pittsburgh Panthers
One might guess that a 21-10 team with a top-50 NET ranking, vanilla résumé metrics and a win at Duke would land closer to the cut line than "next four out." This dynamic can arise when something worrisome lurks in an otherwise satisfactory profile. Bubble Watch hasn't deduced what that might be in this instance, exactly, even if Pitt did lose at home to Missouri. (Northwestern lost at home to Chicago State. The Wildcats, quite rightly, do fine in mock brackets.) For our purposes it is sufficient to note this is occurring. The mocks tend to anticipate the committee's temperature extremely well.

I truly believe if Duke or North Carolina had our exact record and metrics, Lunardi would have them in 100% and probably a 6 seed maybe higher. I remember just a few years ago when North Carolina lost so many games down the stretch and played theit way out of a bid, Lunardi literally was keeping them in, even with loss after loss. He is a total joke.

 

[Gep Dawg]

I think a lot of this hyperbole. But the ACC has to learn to play the game better with non conference scheduling in both sports. There is no way the ACC should have only 3 locks and 3 teams so close to the cut line with over 20 wins and a winning conference schedule. It's ridiculous.

As for a team never getting in with a Non Con that low...we've only been using NET metrics for like 10 years. And it's not like Pitt didn't try to shedule some good teams. Our non con majors just ended up being unusuallly awful this year. Need to play more hign non majors and go on the road and play NYC, Philly and DC teams every year.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

I truly believe if Duke or North Carolina had our exact record and metrics, Lunardi would have them in 100% and probably a 6 seed maybe higher. I remember just a few years ago when North Carolina lost so many games down the stretch and played theit way out of a bid, Lunardi literally was keeping them in, even with loss after loss. He is a total joke.

This type of reasoning could also explain why bracketologists have Virginia in over Pitt this year-- a Bracket Matrix solid 11 seed.

After all we beat them head to head at their place and their Net rating is not as good at 51 vs Pitt's 44. Also, but probably not a consideration, is that their KenPom rating is 66 vs Pitt's at 46. They did finish 13-7 vs Pitt's 12-8 in the ACC, however. But mainly it must be perception about their past history and being coached by Tony Bennett that has then solidly in the NCAAs.

Should Pitt fans root for them to go 0-1 in the ACCT so they don't make the tourney assuming this could open a spot for Pitt?

 

[Pitt666]

absolutely we want UVa to go down early. Clemson winning doesn’t hurt Pitt at all until the final if they make it.

 

[GaryMcgheeForThree]

Pittsburgh Panthers
One might guess that a 21-10 team with a top-50 NET ranking, vanilla résumé metrics and a win at Duke would land closer to the cut line than "next four out." This dynamic can arise when something worrisome lurks in an otherwise satisfactory profile. Bubble Watch hasn't deduced what that might be in this instance, exactly, even if Pitt did lose at home to Missouri. (Northwestern lost at home to Chicago State. The Wildcats, quite rightly, do fine in mock brackets.) For our purposes it is sufficient to note this is occurring. The mocks tend to anticipate the committee's temperature extremely well.

Back to the original point, the write-up here is asinine.

It basically says “we’re not exactly sure why Pitt should be left out, but all the mock brackets say they are, so they are.”

That’s ridiculous.

 

[AllegeneeGenacGenac]

Back to the original point, the write-up here is asinine.

It basically says “we’re not exactly sure why Pitt should be left out, but all the mock brackets say they are, so they are.”

That’s ridiculous.

That's not my take at all. This is our second bubble watch update in a row that seemed to be poking fun at the bracketologists for failing to update brackets appropriately due to their own bias towards their previous rankings.

That said, it is ridiculous.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

This type of reasoning could also explain why bracketologists have Virginia in over Pitt this year-- a Bracket Matrix solid 11 seed.

After all we beat them head to head at their place and their Net rating is not as good at 51 vs Pitt's 44. Also, but probably not a consideration, is that their KenPom rating is 66 vs Pitt's at 46. They did finish 13-7 vs Pitt's 12-8 in the ACC, however. But mainly it must be perception about their past history and being coached by Tony Bennett that has then solidly in the NCAAs.

Should Pitt fans root for them to go 0-1 in the ACCT so they don't make the tourney assuming this could open a spot for Pitt?

Can't say I get the love for Virginia either.

Q1: 2-6 (same as Pitt, but we have better wins)
Q2: 6-3 (we're 5-2, so we edge them out)
Q3: 8-0 (we're 7-2, so this must have some effect)
Q4: 6-0 (we're 7-0)

SOS is about the same.

 

[Elsalvador]

I truly hope that Pitt athletics/media people REALLY start beating the drum for them. Road conference road, last 15 games in the ACC, Blake Hinson, the freshmen, etc. the old fogies on the committee don’t know a damn thing about Pitt at all.

 

[thebadby2]

Back to the original point, the write-up here is asinine.

It basically says “we’re not exactly sure why Pitt should be left out, but all the mock brackets say they are, so they are.”

That’s ridiculous.

Lunardi identified the reason:

Pitt: 344th at the start of the week. There's never been a bubble team, ever, even close to that, that's gotten in. So I'm not optimistic.

 

[Pitt666]

Lunardi identified the reason:

Pitt: 344th at the start of the week. There's never been a bubble team, ever, even close to that, that's gotten in. So I'm not optimistic.

Yea, but if you factor in two extra conference games, what would that change it to? B12, SEC, and MwC are still at 18.

 

[thebadby2]

Yea, but if you factor in two extra conference games, what would that change it to? B12, SEC, and MwC are still at 18.

I'm not saying I agree with this, and Lunardi's not even agreeing with it, he's just pointing to a data point that doesn't look good for Pitt's odds of making the field.

As I said before, if you have 21 wins and you're 4th in the ACC, you should be in safely IMO. Unfortunately, my opinion doesn;t mean a thing to the people involved in the proceess.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Can't say I get the love for Virginia either.

Q1: 2-6 (same as Pitt, but we have better wins)
Q2: 6-3 (we're 5-2, so we edge them out)
Q3: 8-0 (we're 7-2, so this must have some effect)
Q4: 6-0 (we're 7-0)

SOS is about the same.

Its the Q3s. But come on. Its so close. You give it to the team that won head to head. And its not like they are the last team in. People have them safely in.

 

[curtis0620]

Lunardi identified the reason:

Pitt: 344th at the start of the week. There's never been a bubble team, ever, even close to that, that's gotten in. So I'm not optimistic.

So improving through out the year and some very impressive road wins means nothing? I don’t buy it.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Its the Q3s. But come on. Its so close. You give it to the team that won head to head. And its not like they are the last team in. People have them safely in.

The head to head thing doesn't do it as much for me, because you could play that game into circular logic. If Syracuse wins two or three games this week and we only win one, should they be ahead of us? Then again, this whole thing is overlapping logic. They'll cite NET and quads wins as two different components, as if the quads aren't determined by NET. Same with OOC SOS and overall SOS. And for these lesser one-bid leagues, why even have a regular season? Lol. It's all about who is the best/hottest one week in March. Yeah, I'm going off on a tangent.

 

[Fredact]

This is just another perturbation on the theme of counting early season games equally with late season games. It may have been a sensible criteria prior to the era of unlimited transferring and NIL. But, it no longer makes sense.

I actually have no problem with this. If it's MLB, games in April count just as much as those in September, even with a trade deadline, September callups, etc. The whole season should count.

What I don't like is rewarding things other than winning. Running up the score, close losses, should be irrelevant.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

I actually have no problem with this. If it's MLB, games in April count just as much as those in September, even with a trade deadline, September callus, etc. The whole season should count.

What I don't like is rewarding things other than winning. Running up the score, close loses, should be irrelevant.

Yeah, but it would be a little different if those MLB teams were almost exclusively playing teams in other divisions in April and May, and then from June - Sept they only played games against NL Central opponents, until it was time from some committee to subjectively select who gets to be in the playoffs.

Just my personal opinion, but the NCAA should either weight all games equally and adjust the format (i.e. non-conference games being played all season) or they should keep the same format and adjust the weight they assign to the early games (e.g. games in November count as .75; December is .85; etc.).

 

[thebadby2]

So improving through out the year and some very impressive road wins means nothing? I don’t buy it.

That's how I feel, and how all Pitt fans feel, but we don't get a vote, do we?

Years ago, before this quartile system, stuff like whether a team was hot and peaking at the right time used to matter to the committee. .

 

[PittMan 72]

When are all of next year’s OOC games scheduled?

How does a school know exactly where next year's OOC opponents are going to be ranked at the time the games are scheduled?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The head to head thing doesn't do it as much for me, because you could play that game into circular logic. If Syracuse wins two or three games this week and we only win one, should they be ahead of us? Then again, this whole thing is overlapping logic. They'll cite NET and quads wins as two different components, as if the quads aren't determined by NET. Same with OOC SOS and overall SOS. And for these lesser one-bid leagues, why even have a regular season? Lol. It's all about who is the best/hottest one week in March. Yeah, I'm going off on a tangent.

Syracuse really should be ahead of Pitt but they are not due to their NET rank. They didnt blowout their Q4 teams. If I was unbiased, I'd have Syr over Pitt because I don't care about NET rank. If they make it to Thursday and beat Duke and we lose Thursday, I dont see how you could put Pitt in over Syracuse. Also, I dont think Syracuse has to win the whole thing. If they beat say Duke and UVa and make the final, I'd put them in.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

When are all of next year’s OOC games scheduled?

How does a school know exactly where next year's OOC opponents are going to be ranked at the time the games are scheduled?

Spring/summer

 

[PittMan 72]

When are all of next year’s OOC games scheduled?

How does a school know exactly where next year's OOC opponents are going to be ranked at the time the games are scheduled?

Spring/summer

Uh, huh. There are 2 questions, though. And the answer to the 2nd one is relevant to the 1st one.

 

[Vader_Storm]

Lunardi identified the reason:

Pitt: 344th at the start of the week. There's never been a bubble team, ever, even close to that, that's gotten in. So I'm not optimistic.

Um, what?

Lunardi has Indiana State in the field right now after losing in their conference tournament.

They have the 303rd worst non conference schedule in the country.

They also have 1 Q1 win, 4 Q2 wins, and a Q4 loss.



Pitt has more Q1 wins than that, more Q2 wins than that, and zero Q4 losses. Indiana State has played the 125th overall toughest schedule in the country, which is way worse than Pitt or any ACC team for that matter.

And they are still in per ESPN.


Look, this is all a show right now. It means nothing until the conference tournaments are over.

Indiana State has 1 great thing going for it. Road wins, they have 9 of them. But they still dont have a Duke road win on their resume.

Joe Lunardi is a fraud.

 

[thebadby2]

Um, what?

Lunardi has Indiana State in the field right now after losing in their conference tournament.

They have the 303rd worst non conference schedule in the country.

They also have 1 Q1 win, 4 Q2 wins, and a Q4 loss.



Pitt has more Q1 wins than that, more Q2 wins than that, and zero Q4 losses. Indiana State has played the 125th overall toughest schedule in the country, which is way worse than Pitt or any ACC team for that matter.

And they are still in per ESPN.


Look, this is all a show right now. It means nothing until the conference tournaments are over.

Indiana State has 1 great thing going for it. Road wins, they have 9 of them. But they still dont have a Duke road win on their resume.

Joe Lunardi is a fraud.

They also have a NET of 29 and a 28-6 record. No team with a NET below 33 has ever been left out, which is why Lunardi has them in his “last four in”. Pitt has a NET of 44, so that’s a vulnerability that ISU doesn’t have, and that’s reflected in his treatment of Pitt. His predictions are all based on past treatment of data points by the committee. He’s not just pulling them out of his ass.

But I will grant you that Lunardi didn’t take into account the Bracket Vaderology that you like to throw around on this board like you know what you’re talking about.

 

[Vader_Storm]

They also have a NET of 29 and a 28-6 record. No team with a NET below 33 has ever been left out, which is why Lunardi has them in his “last four in”. Pitt has a NET of 44, so that’s a vulnerability that ISU doesn’t have, and that’s reflected in his treatment of Pitt. His predictions are all based on past treatment of data points by the committee. He’s not just pulling them out of his ass.

But I will grant you that Lunardi didn’t take into account the Bracket Vaderology that you like to throw around on this board like you know what you’re talking about.

@Joe the Panther Fan

You want to take this one? Or have you changed your mind regarding the "Net" ranking.

 

[Vader_Storm]

They also have a NET of 29 and a 28-6 record. No team with a NET below 33 has ever been left out, which is why Lunardi has them in his “last four in”. Pitt has a NET of 44, so that’s a vulnerability that ISU doesn’t have, and that’s reflected in his treatment of Pitt. His predictions are all based on past treatment of data points by the committee. He’s not just pulling them out of his ass.

But I will grant you that Lunardi didn’t take into account the Bracket Vaderology that you like to throw around on this board like you know what you’re talking about.

Regarding Indiana State.

They played 2 power 6 teams and got their doors blown off in both games.

Maybe they should join forces with the mountain west.

 

[thebadby2]

Regarding Indiana State.

They played 2 power 6 teams and got their doors blown off in both games.

Maybe they should join forces with the mountain west.

Bro, I ain’t saying it’s right or that it’s perfect or that a team like ISU should get in over a team like Pitt. I’m just saying this is the way this thing works these days.

In the old days, the committee could look at a major conference team that had struggled early but finished hot and strong and give them some points for that. That’s not how it works now. And if Pitt doesn't make the dance, which would be a minor travesty IMO, the putrid OOC will have been the nail that sealed the coffin.

It’s an imperfect model-it always has been, atl least this one attempts to be data-driven and less subjective—and someone is always gonna have a good argument that they got screwed.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

They also have a NET of 29 and a 28-6 record. No team with a NET below 33 has ever been left out, which is why Lunardi has them in his “last four in”. Pitt has a NET of 44, so that’s a vulnerability that ISU doesn’t have, and that’s reflected in his treatment of Pitt. His predictions are all based on past treatment of data points by the committee. He’s not just pulling them out of his ass.

But I will grant you that Lunardi didn’t take into account the Bracket Vaderology that you like to throw around on this board like you know what you’re talking about.

27-6

The D2 win doesn’t count. And their SOS is 144 compared to 83 for Pitt.

 

[JD1976]

27-6

The D2 win doesn’t count. And their SOS is 144 compared to 83 for Pitt.

What is their non-conference SOS? That tends to matter more based on committee comments in the past because “that’s the portion of the schedule that the team can control.”

 

[AllegeneeGenacGenac]

What is their non-conference SOS? That tends to matter more based on committee comments in the past because “that’s the portion of the schedule that the team can control.”

Then they should evaluate it based on each team's projected record before the season starts, because the actual performance of opponents is out of each team's control.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

What is their non-conference SOS? That tends to matter more based on committee comments in the past because “that’s the portion of the schedule that the team can control.”

304

And there was no intent for it to be better like Pitt with having WVU, Mizz, and OrSt

They will probably get in since there's usually a token bid given away to a MM like this but their resume is terrible. If you play in the MVC and want an at-large, you need to schedule better.

 

[AllegeneeGenacGenac]

Bro, I ain’t saying it’s right or that it’s perfect or that a team like ISU should get in over a team like Pitt. I’m just saying this is the way this thing works these days.

In the old days, the committee could look at a major conference team that had struggled early but finished hot and strong and give them some points for that. That’s not how it works now. And if Pitt doesn't make the dance, which would be a minor travesty IMO, the putrid OOC will have been the nail that sealed the coffin.

It’s an imperfect model-it always has been, atl least this one attempts to be data-driven and less subjective—and someone is always gonna have a good argument that they got screwed.

Bro, Lunardi contradicts himself constantly.

He has the credibility (and performance) of a tarot card reader, but I know you live to support anything and everything anti-pitt so of course you're defending him when he's not high on us

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

304

And there was no intent for it to be better like Pitt with having WVU, Mizz, and OrSt

They will probably get in since there's usually a token bid given away to a MM like this but their resume is terrible. If you play in the MVC and want an at-large, you need to schedule better.

Indiana State and Pitt should both be in. No one wants to see Cream Abdul Jabbar or Blake Hinson get left out. Unfortunately, they could both be left out.

 

[thebadby2]

Bro, Lunardi contradicts himself constantly.

He has the credibility (and performance) of a tarot card reader, but I know you live to support anything and everything anti-pitt so of course you're defending him when he's not high on us

Nah. It's more just about contradicting the kool-aid guzzling slapdicks on the board that either don't have the intellectual capacity to process any data, facts or information that conflict with what they want to believe, or who simply refuse to do so. I have said about 100 times in these threads that I personally believe that Pitt as the 4 team in the ACC and playing its best right now has earned a spot in the Dance, but due to the way the field is chosen based on specific data and metrics, and since the NET and Quartile system, we are in very real danger of being left out. Like it or not, that's a fact.

Here's a little news flash for you--Lunardi isn't the only "bracketologist" who has Pitt in the first four out--it's pretty much everyone at this point. And almost all have ISU as last four in.

But, you're right, you got me....it's just the same anti-Pitt agenda that has had me on the Pitt message board since Harry G and Crazy Paco invented Pitt message boards back in the dial up days.