F the acc

[thebadby2]

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.

Lunardi’s opinions and predictions have zero bearing on the work of the committee.

 

[TD_6082]

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?

That's a very good question.

Obviously can't know for sure, but I think either of those scenarios would be enough to put Pitt in most years. Not sure it would be with the bid stealers we saw yesterday, but it probably would be most years.

I'll say this, replace Mizzou with Auburn or Wisconsin and win, and I definitely think Pitt gets in over UVA.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Lunardi’s opinions and predictions have zero bearing on the work of the committee.

The selection committee are humans and form opinions based on what they are exposed to. I'm not saying they heard Lunardi and decided based off that that Pitt is out but the human brain processes what it hears. Its certainly possible he had SOME influence. That's not to say its his fault we didnt make it. But I've said this before, he is like Fox News telling you how great Trump is or how bad Biden is. They are influencing the voters. And vice versa for CNN/MSNBC.

 

[TD_6082]

The selection committee are humans and form opinions based on what they are exposed to. I'm not saying they heard Lunardi and decided based off that that Pitt is out but the human brain processes what it hears. Its certainly possible he had SOME influence. That's not to say its his fault we didnt make it. But I've said this before, he is like Fox News telling you how great Trump is or how bad Biden is. They are influencing the voters. And vice versa for CNN/MSNBC.

Other way around. Lunardi says what he does because he knows what the selection committee prioritizes.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Other way around. Lunardi says what he does because he knows what the selection committee prioritizes.

That's why, year after year, he's one of the best bracketologist in getting the bracket right.

Wait a second....

 

[TD_6082]

That's why, year after year, he's one of the best bracketologist in getting the bracket right.

Wait a second....

I have no idea about his track record. He's without a doubt the bracketology poster guy though. His name is synonymous with that stuff.

But his point about Pitt and the OOC SOS was spot on. Most other guys that do that sort of thing echoed those sentiments.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I have no idea about his track record. He's without a doubt the bracketology poster guy though. His name is synonymous with that stuff.

But his point about Pitt and the OOC SOS was spot on. Most other guys that do that sort of thing echoed those sentiments.

Credit to him on that. He beat me by 1. He had OU over UVa. I had Pitt & SJU over FAU and UVa. I was way wrong on FAU but it was always the non-con. They love their non-cons. Lunardi had them in Dayton so he was way off too. I was right on Boise and Colorado St being susceptible.

 

[Pittisit4me]

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?

I think they have made it pretty clear that it is better to play good teams in the non-con and lose than play bad ones and win. Ofcourse, playing a bad team like Missouri and still losing is a fatal blow. What is sad is that after our horrible start in non-con plus our 1st 6 conference games, we needed to finish nearly perfect to get in. We really improved and made a run at it, finishing 11-3. There were no more than like 2 teams in the entire country that finished their conference's last 14 games with a better record. We were just in to deep a hole and the committee no longer considers how you finish.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I think they have made it pretty clear that it is better to play good teams in the non-con and lose than play bad ones and win. Ofcourse, playing a bad team like Missouri and still losing is a fatal blow. What is sad is that after our horrible start in non-con plus our 1st 6 conference games, we needed to finish nearly perfect to get in. We really improved and made a run at it, finishing 11-3. There were no more than like 2 teams in the entire country that finished their conference's last 14 games with a better record. We were just in to deep a hole and the committee no longer considers how you finish.

At that time, I said 10-2 and was right.

 

[Islanderpanther]

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

Hick conference run by hicks who don’t know how to play the media and PR game. The lousy public image of ACC FB has now sullied the public perception of ACC hoops.

 

[AirWolf]

Pack fan here. Pitt got screwed. The talking heads and committee used the same BS OCSOS argument against the Pack a few years ago.

If the State hadn't won the ACCT this year, I would have been fine by turning down an NIT bid.