Have faith guys. I'm telling you we have a real chance and here's why

[Sean Miller Fan]

I have been doing this for awhile. Not officially and I dont spend the time on it that bracketologists do and I can tell you I've never seen a bubble like this. Usually I joke about how easy this is. It usually is. Its like 4 teams for the last 2 spots in reality and they make bracketology out to be some crazy impossible science. Its easy. But not this year. Read my Saturday Night Analysis Update. Seriously.

The bottom line is we are in unchartered waters. You cant really use past history. There's 12-14 teams who you could make an excellent case as to why they should be out. Usually its like 3-4 teams.

- Dayton has 1 win vs the field.

- FAU has 2 wins against the field, 3 Q4ish losses, and a mediocre NET.

- Indiana State, forget it.

- Texas A&M has 5 Q3 losses and I highly doubt anyone's ever gotten in with that.

- OU is 4-12 in Q1 and I doubt anyone has gotten in with that.

- Pitt had the worst non-con in recorded human history apparently.

- UVa has no high profile wins and lost a crucial head to head.

- Colorado has no bad losses and a great NET but their resume is that they beat Wash St twice and Oregon twice. Is that enough.

- Northwestern beat Purdue about a year ago but I highly doubt an at-large team has had a loss as bad as their's to Chicago State.

- Boise St, Colorado St probably close to locks but their records and SOS's are bad. Boise is only 20-10 due to playing 2 D2 games. Does the committee take a stand?

- SHU and Prov had bad NETs. SJU only has 2 wins vs the field.

Guys, I am telling you there's a chance. I was 90%-95% sure after Thursday afternoon. Now I'd put it at 50%. Its not 0% or 10% like some of you may think. We may not get in but we have a realistic chance. I'm telling you.

 

[Pitt2009]

I have been doing this for awhile. Not officially and I dont spend the time on it that bracketologists do and I can tell you I've never seen a bubble like this. Usually I joke about how easy this is. It usually is. Its like 4 teams for the last 2 spots in reality and they make bracketology out to be some crazy impossible science. Its easy. But not this year. Read my Saturday Night Analysis Update. Seriously.

The bottom line is we are in unchartered waters. You cant really use past history. There's 12-14 teams who you could make an excellent case as to why they should be out. Usually its like 3-4 teams.

- Dayton has 1 win vs the field.

- FAU has 2 wins against the field, 3 Q4ish losses, and a mediocre NET. Indiana State, forget it.

- Texas A&M has 5 Q3 losses and I highly doubt anyone's ever gotten in with that. OU is 4-12 in Q1 and I doubt anyone has gotten in with that.

- Pitt had the worst non-con in recorded human history apparently.

- UVa has no high profile wins and lost a crucial head to head.

- Colorado has no bad losses and a great NET but their resume is that they beat Wash St twice and Oregon twice. Is that enough.

- Northwestern beat Purdue about a year ago but I highly doubt an at-large team has had a loss as bad as their's to Chicago State.

- Boise St, Colorado St probably close to locks but their records and SOS's are bad. Boise is only 20-10 due to playing 2 D2 games. Does the committee take a stand?

- SHU and Prov had bad NETs. SJU only has 2 wins vs the field.

Guys, I am telling you there's a chance. I was 90%-95% sure after Thursday afternoon. Now I'd put it at 50%. Its not 0% or 10% like some of you may think. We may not get in but we have a realistic chance. I'm telling you.

I like the positivity!

 

[UPitt '89]

I have been doing this for awhile. Not officially and I dont spend the time on it that bracketologists do and I can tell you I've never seen a bubble like this. Usually I joke about how easy this is. It usually is. Its like 4 teams for the last 2 spots in reality and they make bracketology out to be some crazy impossible science. Its easy. But not this year. Read my Saturday Night Analysis Update. Seriously.

The bottom line is we are in unchartered waters. You cant really use past history. There's 12-14 teams who you could make an excellent case as to why they should be out. Usually its like 3-4 teams.

- Dayton has 1 win vs the field.

- FAU has 2 wins against the field, 3 Q4ish losses, and a mediocre NET. Indiana State, forget it.

- Texas A&M has 5 Q3 losses and I highly doubt anyone's ever gotten in with that. OU is 4-12 in Q1 and I doubt anyone has gotten in with that.

- Pitt had the worst non-con in recorded human history apparently.

- UVa has no high profile wins and lost a crucial head to head.

- Colorado has no bad losses and a great NET but their resume is that they beat Wash St twice and Oregon twice. Is that enough.

- Northwestern beat Purdue about a year ago but I highly doubt an at-large team has had a loss as bad as their's to Chicago State.

- Boise St, Colorado St probably close to locks but their records and SOS's are bad. Boise is only 20-10 due to playing 2 D2 games. Does the committee take a stand?

- SHU and Prov had bad NETs. SJU only has 2 wins vs the field.

Guys, I am telling you there's a chance. I was 90%-95% sure after Thursday afternoon. Now I'd put it at 50%. Its not 0% or 10% like some of you may think. We may not get in but we have a realistic chance. I'm telling you.

It's 0.01%

 

[HOF Coach]

I have been doing this for awhile. Not officially and I dont spend the time on it that bracketologists do and I can tell you I've never seen a bubble like this. Usually I joke about how easy this is. It usually is. Its like 4 teams for the last 2 spots in reality and they make bracketology out to be some crazy impossible science. Its easy. But not this year. Read my Saturday Night Analysis Update. Seriously.

The bottom line is we are in unchartered waters. You cant really use past history. There's 12-14 teams who you could make an excellent case as to why they should be out. Usually its like 3-4 teams.

- Dayton has 1 win vs the field.

- FAU has 2 wins against the field, 3 Q4ish losses, and a mediocre NET. Indiana State, forget it.

- Texas A&M has 5 Q3 losses and I highly doubt anyone's ever gotten in with that. OU is 4-12 in Q1 and I doubt anyone has gotten in with that.

- Pitt had the worst non-con in recorded human history apparently.

- UVa has no high profile wins and lost a crucial head to head.

- Colorado has no bad losses and a great NET but their resume is that they beat Wash St twice and Oregon twice. Is that enough.

- Northwestern beat Purdue about a year ago but I highly doubt an at-large team has had a loss as bad as their's to Chicago State.

- Boise St, Colorado St probably close to locks but their records and SOS's are bad. Boise is only 20-10 due to playing 2 D2 games. Does the committee take a stand?

- SHU and Prov had bad NETs. SJU only has 2 wins vs the field.

Guys, I am telling you there's a chance. I was 90%-95% sure after Thursday afternoon. Now I'd put it at 50%. Its not 0% or 10% like some of you may think. We may not get in but we have a realistic chance. I'm telling you.

Pitt can beat many teams that the "bracketologists" have ahead of them.

Here's hoping that the committee sees it that way too and proves you right.

 

[Pitt666]

The human element will make us tune in and either crush our hearts or widen our eyes. Why can’t we be that WTH selection that always happens. They can easily say, “Pitt was clearly a different and much more efficient quality team with a healthy Jaland Lowe.”

 

[TD_6082]

Thanks Lloyd Christmas.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

It's 0.01%

Pick a team to put in over Pitt. Make your case and I can counter it. We may not get in. But its 50%. If you made make a prediction right now, I'd say we are in. In a weird way, the NC St win kinda helped us because our NET will increase and it gives us 4 wins vs the field now (if UVa makes it). St. John's has 2. Oklahoma has 2. FAU 2 (if A&M gets in). Dayton 1. Colorado 4 but that includes 2 Oregon

 

[UPitt '89]

Pick a team to put in over Pitt. Make your case and I can counter it. We may not get in. But its 50%. If you made make a prediction right now, I'd say we are in. In a weird way, the NC St win kinda helped us because our NET will increase and it gives us 4 wins vs the field now (if UVa makes it). St. John's has 2. Oklahoma has 2. FAU 2 (if A&M gets in). Dayton 1. Colorado 4 but that includes 2 Oregon

TCU, Michigan State, and Colorado have been pushed to Dayton because of the upsets.

Pitt is out. Pitt might even be a 2-seed in the NIT now, and not a 1. That's how far out we are now.

...and this morning, I had us in as the last team.

SJU, Seton Hall, Pitt, and UVA are all out now. The bid stealers really hurt the ACC and BE.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Pitt can beat many teams that the "bracketologists" have ahead of them.

Here's hoping that the committee sees it that way too and proves you right.

To be fair, they all can beat each other. It comes down to what they value. Pitt has one of the best wins of bubble teams. @ Duke. Hopefully they dont discount it for missing starters. 7 road wins. 9 road/neutral wins. Good analytics. OK SOS. Bad non-con. 12-4 late (not official category). What will they place the most value on?

 

[HOF Coach]

To be fair, they all can beat each other. It comes down to what they value. Pitt has one of the best wins of bubble teams. @ Duke. Hopefully they dont discount it for missing starters. 7 road wins. 9 road/neutral wins. Good analytics. OK SOS. Bad non-con. 12-4 late (not official category). What will they place the most value on?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

View embedded media

What metrics exactly are on the Team Sheet? We are 32 in BPI.

2023-24 Men's College Basketball Power Index - ESPN

View the 2023-24 Men's College Basketball power index on ESPN. The BPI is the best predictor of a team's performance going forward for the rest of the season.

www.espn.com

40 in Ken Pom

2023-24 Men's College Basketball Power Index - ESPN

View the 2023-24 Men's College Basketball power index on ESPN. The BPI is the best predictor of a team's performance going forward for the rest of the season.

www.espn.com

Our predictives are solid

 

[Vader_Storm]

View embedded media

I dont know who this is or what this stuff is, but

Colorado has 4 Q1 wins, not even close to 10.

I stopped reading that after that blatant error. There are literally only 4 teams in all of d1 with 10+ Q1 wins.

 

[Pitt666]

I dont know who this is or what this stuff is, but

Colorado has 4 Q1 wins, not even close to 10.

I stopped reading that after that blatant error. There are literally only 4 teams in all of d1 with 10+ Q1 wins.

he acknowledged it was a typo. Was meant to read 10 q1/2

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I dont know who this is or what this stuff is, but

Colorado has 4 Q1 wins, not even close to 10.

I stopped reading that after that blatant error. There are literally only 4 teams in all of d1 with 10+ Q1 wins.

It drives me mad when people list non-conference data. I dont understand why that is viewed as more important or you get some extra bonus points for that. Its like if we gave bonus points for Tuesday wins or 9PM wins. Pitt has 3 9PM wins this season. That could get us in. Who got to decide that games played outside your conference several 4 months before the NCAAT when you were a different team are worth more than conference games played 2 weeks ago? Make it make sense! FAU had a nice non-con. Good for them. Then they sucked ass in conference, relatively speaking.

 

[TD_6082]

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Grief

I think you're moving on to stage 2.

 

[LGP1989]

I have been doing this for a while guys, not officially. My spider senses tell me that we are so far out, we are almost in!

 

[Pitt666]

Clemson destroyed Boise. Nevada beat GT by 8 at home. We beat them by 8 on the road. Colorado State I think beat BC by 8 on neutral. I think MwC gets three tomorrow. Not sure it gets Pitt in in the end, but I think. ACC gets 5. Partly with VT beating Iowa State as well.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Clemson destroyed Boise. Nevada beat GT by 8 at home. We beat them by 8 on the road. Colorado State I think beat BC by 8 on neutral. I think MwC gets three tomorrow. Not sure it gets Pitt in in the end, but I think. ACC gets 5. Partly with VT beating Iowa State as well.

The only hope with that is if the committee basically says "we're done" regarding their gaming tactics. It would be a bold move but I am pretty confident they are going to get 6. The NETs are just too good and they all split with each other. Who do you leave out. The resumes are all the same?

Off subject, I am watching the CUSA Champ on delay now and UTEP has a CCBC transfer who once scored 81 in a game there.

We are the last team in this bracketologist's bracket. He also has FAU in the First Four. I'm telling you they arent a lock.

x.com

twitter.com

 

[TD_6082]

The only hope with that is if the committee basically says "we're done" regarding their gaming tactics. It would be a bold move but I am pretty confident they are going to get 6. The NETs are just too good and they all split with each other. Who do you leave out. The resumes are all the same?

Off subject, I am watching the CUSA Champ on delay now and UTEP has a CCBC transfer who once scored 81 in a game there.

We are the last team in this bracketologist's bracket. He also has FAU in the First Four. I'm telling you they arent a lock.

x.com

twitter.com

Some dude from Canada with 300 Twitter followers?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The only hope with that is if the committee basically says "we're done" regarding their gaming tactics. It would be a bold move but I am pretty confident they are going to get 6. The NETs are just too good and they all split with each other. Who do you leave out. The resumes are all the same?

Off subject, I am watching the CUSA Champ on delay now and UTEP has a CCBC transfer who once scored 81 in a game there.

We are the last team in this bracketologist's bracket. He also has FAU in the First Four. I'm telling you they arent a lock.

x.com

twitter.com

His twitter followers dont matter. He is ranked 147th out of 174. Lunardi is 98th.

 

[PittPoker]

The only hope with that is if the committee basically says "we're done" regarding their gaming tactics. It would be a bold move but I am pretty confident they are going to get 6. The NETs are just too good and they all split with each other. Who do you leave out. The resumes are all the same?

Off subject, I am watching the CUSA Champ on delay now and UTEP has a CCBC transfer who once scored 81 in a game there.

We are the last team in this bracketologist's bracket. He also has FAU in the First Four. I'm telling you they arent a lock.

x.com

twitter.com

Not anymore he inexplicably swapped Pitt for Northwestern. Ridiculous.

 

[Gep Dawg]

If you look at all these different team sheets on ncaa.com there isn’t much difference between the bubble teams. Any of them could get in. Regardless of what experts are saying. Pit’s big advantages are most road Q1 and Q2 wins. They are impressive. Most of the teams that bracketologists have ahead of us have their biggest Q1/2 wins at home or a neutral court.

As for our non conference record…Rutgers and another team got in last year with a worse non con ranking than us because of a similar type resume as ours. And despite what Lunardi says others have had worse or similar non con records than are ranking this year. It’s one factor they look at but it’s farther down the list. Just because most of internet so called “experts” have doomed us for this metric alone doesn’t mean the committee will. And there is past precedent like Rutgers last year that a profile like ours this year can get in over what experts thought.

So I would say we are about 50/50 getting in. I woke up yesterday morning thinking we are in after the Virginia loss. But I don’t think we are now personally because of all the bid stealers yesterday.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if we were or weren’t. Either way could equally happen.

 

[PittPoker]

If you look at all these different team sheets on ncaa.com there isn’t much difference between the bubble teams. Any of them could get in. Regardless of what experts are saying. Pitts big advantages are most road Q1 and Q2 wins. They are impressive. Most of the teams that bracketologists have ahead of Pitt have their biggest wins at home or neutral.

As for our non conference record. Rutgers and another team got in last year with a worse non con because of a similar type resume as ours. And despite what Lunardi says others have had worse or similar non con records than ours. It’s one factor they look at but it’s farther down the list. Just because most the if the internet so called experts have doomed us for one of many experts doesn’t mean the committee has and there is past precedent as well that a Pitt profile can get in over what experts thought.

So I would say we are about 50/50 getting in. I woke up yesterday morning thinking we are after the Virginia loss. But I don’t think we are now personally because of all the bid stealers yesterday.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if we were or weren’t. Either way could equally happen.

We are out. Bracket Matrix had Pitt in only 10 brackets yesterday out of 174 total. And that was before Saturday's results. I'm sure Pitt will not be in any of the brackets today.

Sorry but Pitt is not getting in. It sucks badly but it's the reality.

 

[Blair_45]

If you look at all these team sheets on ncaa there isn’t much difference. Any of them could get in. Pitts big advantage are road Q1 and Q2 wins. They are impressive. Most of these teams bracketologists have ahead of us have their biggest wins at home or neutral. As for our non conference record. Rutgers and another team got in last year with a worse non con because of a similar type resume as ours. And despite what Lunardi says others have had worse or similar non con records than ours. It’s one factor they look at but it’s farther down the list. I would say we are about 50/50 getting. I don’t think we are. But I wouldn’t be surprised either way.

Yea I feel the same way. I think the 7 road wins are absolutely huge and might be the only leg Pitt has to stand on at this point to get into the tournament. I agree that’s it’s about 50/50 at this point and can go either way. For people to come on here and say their chances are 0.5 percent is a little ridiculous.

 

[Gep Dawg]

We are out. Bracket Matrix had Pitt in only 10 brackets yesterday out of 174 total. And that was before Saturday's results. I'm sure Pitt will not be in any of the brackets today.

Sorry but Pitt is not getting in. It sucks badly but it's the reality.

I hear you and agree for the most part. Bur it was the same thing for Rutgers last year. No one had them in because of their way worse non con and they made it. The experts are not always right and tend to follow each other.

 

[Blair_45]

We are out. Bracket Matrix had Pitt in only 10 brackets yesterday out of 174 total. And that was before Saturday's results. I'm sure Pitt will not be in any of the brackets today.

Sorry but Pitt is not getting in. It sucks badly but it's the reality.

Just looked they are in 8 brackets now down from 10 so that’s where that is now. How these bracketologists have Virginia in 59 brackets and Pitt only in 8 when you compare both teams resumes and seeing how Pitt beat them head to head on the road just makes zero ****ing sense to me at all. Nobody can come up with a good enough reason at this point from where I stand and tell me that Virginia should be in over Pitt now it’s borderline moronic.

 

[PittPoker]

Just looked they are in 8 brackets now down from 10 so that’s where that is now. How these bracketologists have Virginia in 59 brackets and Pitt only in 8 when you compare both teams resumes and seeing how Pitt beat them head to head on the road just makes zero ****ing sense to me at all. Nobody can come up with a good enough reason at this point from where I stand and tell me that Virginia should be in over Pitt now it’s borderline moronic.

Agree with you on Virginia. Pitt should definitely be in over them. If neither Pitt nor Virginia make it I can live with that I guess because of the craziness of the last 2 days. Still would be pissed of course.

But if Virginia gets in tonight and not Pitt I will be fuming. Pitt beats Virginia in just about every conceivable metric except NCSOS. Pitt has a 40 NET and Virginia has a 55 NET. Pitt beat them at their place too. Virginia was terrible down the stretch too.

 

[Blair_45]

I hear you and agree for the most part. Bur it was the same thing for Rutgers last year. No one had them in because of their way worse non con and they made it. The experts are not always right and tend to follow each other.

Are you talking about 2022 Rutgers team that lost to Notre Dame in the First Four?? I know you keep saying last year but Rutgers didn’t make the tournament in 2023 so I’m assuming you are talking about the 2022 team and how they got ok with their terrible strength of schedule.

 

[PittPanther44]

Sunrise this morning. We are getting in:

 

[JohnnyGossamer]

I hear you and agree for the most part. Bur it was the same thing for Rutgers last year. No one had them in because of their way worse non con and they made it. The experts are not always right and tend to follow each other.

Pretty sure Rutgers didn't get in last year.

 

[Gep Dawg]

Pretty sure Rutgers didn't get in last year.

My bad…yes I meant in 2022. Years are flying by these days 😂

 

[Blair_45]

Sunrise this morning. We are getting in:

View embedded media

Pitt and Duquense both are getting in. Man how great would that be from about 3 o clock until 630 that Duquense beats VCU to make the NCAA tourney for the first time in 47 years and then after Pitt finds its way in.

 

[snaphook297]

As always kudos to smf for his yeomans service. In my mind we are in ….until we are not in.

 

[CCHS82]

View embedded media

Lots of info on this page. Enough to make your head spin!

Who knows what “analytics” the individual committee members value most.

In the final analysis, maybe the “eye test” and the human element comes into play more? This may be the default! Who knows!

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Who got to decide that games played outside your conference several 4 months before the NCAAT when you were a different team are worth more than conference games played 2 weeks ago?

No one did. But the NCAA, you know, the people who are responsible for running the tournament, decided a long time ago that games played outside your conference several 4 months before the NCAAT count exactly the same amount as a conference game played 2 weeks ago.

What doesn't make any sense is why the people who run the tournament don't let random fans tell them what they should consider to be more important or less important when they pick the teams for their tournament. The NCAA basketball tournament has to be pretty much the only thing in the world where the people who are in charge of it don't let complete outsiders make all the decisions for them.

Wait, no, hold on a second, that actually doesn't make any sense.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

No one did. But the NCAA, you know, the people who are responsible for running the tournament, decided a long time ago that games played outside your conference several 4 months before the NCAAT count exactly the same amount as a conference game played 2 weeks ago.

What doesn't make any sense is why the people who run the tournament don't let random fans tell them what they should consider to be more important or less important when they pick the teams for their tournament. The NCAA basketball tournament has to be pretty much the only thing in the world where the people who are in charge of it don't let complete outsiders make all the decisions for them.

Wait, no, hold on a second, that actually doesn't make any sense.

They apply more weight to OOC games. Why do you think everyone talks about it? Who the eff cares what your schedule rank is for a completely random set of 11 games? Why isn't Lunardi or Palm talking about a team's Saturday record? That has as much value as an OOC record. Should be total SOS. Not broken into your non-con SOS, Saturday SOS, 9PM SOS.

 

[H-Burg Panther]

It drives me mad when people list non-conference data. I dont understand why that is viewed as more important or you get some extra bonus points for that. It’s like if we gave bonus points for Tuesday wins or 9PM wins. Pitt has 3 9PM wins this season. That could get us in. Who got to decide that games played outside your conference several 4 months before the NCAAT when you were a different team are worth more than conference games played 2 weeks ago? Make it make sense! FAU had a nice non-con. Good for them. Then they sucked ass in conference, relatively speaking.

Exactly! Been saying the same thing to people. Imagine. AFC North wins count less than if you beat an NFC team. You get 3 points for being Edmonton but only 2 for beating the Jersey Devils. The non con stuff is straight NONSENSE. if that’s a real criteria then the whole process is illegitimate.

 

[H-Burg Panther]

Sunrise this morning. We are getting in:

View embedded media

To me that is as valid a criteria as something called “non conference strength of schedule.”

H2P !!!!

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

They apply more weight to OOC games. Why do you think everyone talks about it? Who the eff cares what your schedule rank is for a completely random set of 11 games? Why isn't Lunardi or Palm talking about a team's Saturday record? That has as much value as an OOC record. Should be total SOS. Not broken into your non-con SOS, Saturday SOS, 9PM SOS.

They talk about it because it's one of the metrics on the team sheet. Just like overall SOS is. They talk about it because the NCAA wants teams to challenge themselves in the non-conference. They don't actually want teams going out and scheduling a bunch of crap in the non-conference, because no one is interested in that.

In any event, you spent months, probably years, banging the drum that the only thing that matters is a team's NET rating. So why do you care about non-conference SOS anyway? You, yourself, numerous times, over and over again, said that it doesn't matter. Why the sudden change of heart?