Not sure what the commish had to do with efforting a fifth team in Virginia but this is complete bs. Tobacco Road gonna Tabasco road. There is no sane mind that thinks va is playing better ball not or has a better resume
F the acc
- Thread starter Dointhatrag
- Start date
Virginia obviously has a better resume. Spare me the computer nerd analytics. There is a reason almost every Joe Lunardi wanna-be had Virginia above Pitt. There is a reason Jay Bilas stated Friday night that UVA was in and put qualifiers on Pitt (i.e. Pitt is in my mind a tournament team BUT...)
I agree that Pitt is playing better than UVA lately, but they have enough hard proof on their resume to make up the difference in overall resume.
What about their resume is better? Pitt had a harder SOS and has better wins. Also, I think the 2 teams played.
Check out the OOC schedule. Who did Pitt beat OOC? UVA beat Florida & Texas A&M.
Check out the conference standings.
Head to head is absolutely meaningless in college basketball when judging an overall body of work. Save that for football season discussions.
Last edited:
Lets go game for game:
Pitt beat UVa beat
@ Duke Florida neutral
@ NC St @ Clemson
Wake neutral Texas A&M
NC St NC St
Pretty even, is it not?
Then there's a head to head which is a massive advantage for Pitt.
Lets stop messing around and jump on that FSU lawsuit!
Pitt played UNC twice, Duke twice, Wake 3 times and Clemson twice
UVA played UNC once, Duke once, Wake twice and Clemson once
The conference SOS is not even close
UVA played UNC once, Duke once, Wake twice and Clemson once
The conference SOS is not even close
No. It isn't.
There isn't a lot of difference, but there is a difference.
UVA beat Texas A&M and Florida in the OOC. Pitt beat ??? And they had the nasty loss to Mizzou.
UVA finished 3rd in the ACC, Pitt finished 4th. You can get into a big discussion about who beat who & where, but that's mostly splitting hairs and running in circles.
If you want to ignore everything else and put all the emphasis on one head to head matchup, then Pitt is it. But that's certainly not the way it works.
Everybody that wasn't a die-hard Pitt fan knew UVA had a slight edge in the pecking order. There is nothing about today that is surprising. (except for the fact Virginia made it)
Why are you bringing up the non-con? I am going game for game. Comparing apples to apples. UVa had a tougher non-con. Pitt had a tougher conference schedule so why are we breaking it down? Who did these teams beat? Pitt had the better overall resume? How can you deny that?
Even Bilas got Lunardi to admit Pitt was better than UVA and he’s no diehard Pitt fan
if things are close, then all the reason for head to head
UVA had a much easier ACC schedule which is a big reason they finished third
Pitt had 8 games vs top 6 teams and UVA had 5
Your last line is 100% correct. Bottom line is you can't give the committee a reason to keep you out because if it's close your gone. We gave them a weak non-con and a loss to Mizzou.
Buddy, the OOC is only one metric and Pitt owned them in every other metric.
If you want to count things that don’t matter, like Conference standings, and since you like SOS, you might want to consider that Pitt’s conference SOS was harder due to the unbalanced schedule. Of course the head to head blowout is another.
Pitt beats UVA in just about every team sheet category.
No, UVA didn't have a much easier ACC schedule. It's the same damn conference.
Funny you mention Jay Bilas. Friday night, he said UVA was in the tournament. He didn't even use qualifiers. There was no "In my mind, I get why the selection committee...yada yada yada"
Pitt is playing better than UVA. Pitt is better when it comes to the eye test. UVA has the better overall resume. Which one more suits the selection committee criteria? Either way, these debates is what you get when you put yourself on the bubble.
Maybe if Pitt hadn't went 0-5 against the likes of Syracuse, Clemson, and Miami we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Which is a meaningless debate anyway, as neither Virginia or Pitt are "deserving" of a bid. Both were at the mercy of the committee. One just met the criteria of the selection committee more than the other.
Your first paragraph isn’t really relative to the discussion. And the 2nd paragraph isn’t correct. You’ve been shown frontwards and backwords that it isn’t the case. The team sheets side by side clearly favors Pitt.
Conference Schedules aren‘t the same as I noted. The reason Pitt had a better SOS while havIng a worse NC SOS is because Pitt’s conference SOS was harder, Pitt had more games vs top teams in the ACC than UVA. I spelled it out above.
But I agree that the bubble is perilous.
“Obviously”?
So how do you have a 15 place gap in NET and have a “better resume”?
But also supposedly have a better OOC? Pitt must have had a much tougher mix of in conference opponents and did more with them. Are you saying the NET should be discounted?
Sure it's relevant to the discussion. Are you telling me that if Pitt had went 3-2 in those games instead of 0-5 that UVA would still have went in over Pitt? I don't think so. 2-3 would have probably have done it. Maybe even just a win over Clemson.
The second paragraph is absolutely correct. UVA clearly met the selection committee requirements better than Pitt. I know this to be a fact because the committee selected Virginia over Pitt. Spin it all you want, the OOC schedule made this decision fairly easy for the committee, imo.
The NET isn't the end all be all SMF makes it out to be. If it were, Pitt would have been out last year.
It was obvious to about 90% of the bracketologists out there. This shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.
So by what metric is their resume better? And you can’t just cite a couple OOC games when Pitt played other top ACC teams 3 or 4 more times in aggregate.
Take the bid and run. There is no objective metric that verifies it.
OOC strength. OOC wins. Pitt's OOC SOS was complete garbage.
How many bracketologists told us UVA would be in ahead of Pitt in the pecking order? Most of them.
The first paragraph wasn’t relevant because you used as a way to spin it away from the important criteria that was pointed out to you. And in case you didn’t know, Virginia lost games too. So anyone can spin things the same way you attempted to do. But facts are facts, SOS, road record, KPI, bPI, quadrant results…all the things that are important all favored Pitt, minus 1. You and I both know that the possibility of mistakes or external factors exist in life and it’s obvious in this situation.
I'm not saying Virginia deserves to be in. But they were obviously going to go in before Pitt. Every bracketologist told us so and told us why.
Guy on ESPN tonight said a case could be made for Pitt but there’s no getting around what he called “historically one of the weakest OOC schedules”.
Seems like if we had just lost to one solid P6 tournament team in the OOC instead of Mizzou we’d have made it in.
Explain this. Pitt's overall SOS was stronger than UVa. 79 to 80. But UVa's non-con was significantly stronger. How did Pitt wind up with a stronger SOS? Do you think that maybe, just maybe its because the 22 ACC games that Pitt played was significantly more difficult than the 22 games that UVa played? How are you not understanding this? Can someone explain this to this guy better than I can. I mean its clear as day
South Carolina wasnt supposed to be any good. If we lost to them in the SEC Challenge instead of Mizzou, yea, we're probably in. Another reason they should do these critically important games in Jan or Feb and then give the matchups 2 weeks prior.
Give it up, he is either dumb, or playing dumb to troll us.
Actually, you have zero facts. Pitt had the better résumé on paper. Fact.
And Pitt is the better basketball team. And Pitt is playing better right now. You have not a leg to stand on my man. Give it up.
Pitt's NET was in the 60s last year. Those aren't all that important.
However, this stuff has been fairly consistent through the years. If you're on the bubble, it comes down to OOC SOS, and Pitt's was terrible.
One thing has been a silver lining… Nationally and everywhere you look it is pretty much unanimous that people are saying we should’ve been in over Virginia. Anyone with a brain sees it.
And Jay Bilas went on for two straight minutes about Pitt getting screwed. It was great. He flat out called the committee out and said there were four teams in the field that Pitt was clearly better than it wasn’t even questionable.
And Jay Bilas went on for two straight minutes about Pitt getting screwed. It was great. He flat out called the committee out and said there were four teams in the field that Pitt was clearly better than it wasn’t even questionable.
We played 10/22 games vs the top teams: Duke, UNC, Clem, Wake, NC St. And our game AT Virginia is harder for us mathematically than it is for Virginia at home. UVa played 6/22 of their games vs those teams. Our ACC SOS was significantly more difficult which is why if you are straight up comparing Pitt vs UVa, you have to look at overall SOS and go game for game.
Neither. I told you this this last week.
Joe Lunardi told you to expect this last week and everyone called him an idiot.
I think that's probably correct. The OOC was obviously the deciding factor. There was no getting around that.
The team sheet is all the data points that the committee uses on each team when in the room. The fact that you don’t know that tells me that I’ll end the conversation now because you really can’t keep up here.
This is correct. But it’s supposed to be just one of the criteria. Road wins is also a stated criteria that is supposed to be just as important to the committee. The chair said that tonight and even mentioned it before mentioning OOC SOS. So the whole UVA/Pitt thing is just a weird one that didn’t go our way for whatever reason.
Some say he is not influential at all. However, with his big fat face plastered all over ESPN the last two weeks telling everyone how weak the ACC is overall and going out of his way to mention Pitt's non-con weakness does matter. People watch ESPN during champ week, and some actually form opinions based on what he says. Hopefully the committee ignores him, but you never know. When you are deciding who gets left out it is easier to drop a team out that an ESPN talking fat head is outlining reasons for.
It’s an interesting question given the way this went down for Pitt, and how close we were to getting in. Would we have been in if we had either:
1. Beaten hapless Missouri, or
2. Instead of ever playing Missouri, we played a solid tournament team like a Wisconsin or Auburn, and lost?
Or would neither of those scenarios have done it?
It wasn't just Lunardi. It was almost every bracketologist.
We all woke up this morning with a good idea Pitt was going to be outside looking in.
Similar threads
