KenPom & NET for ACC Today

[DC_Area_Panther]

7--UNC-- (7 NET)
8--Duke--(10 NET)
31--Wake For--(44 NET)
36--Clemson--(36 NET)
41--Pitt--(40 NET)
57--Va Tech--(60 NET)
66--NC St--(68 NET)
68--Virginia--(55 NET)
75--BC
84--Fl St.
88--Syracuse
102--Miami
126--N. Dame
129--Ga Tech
199-Louisville

I am assuming UNC, Duke and Clemson are solidly in the NCAA tourney.

Given the above (I know there are other factors)--why would Virginia nor be clearly out -- the Tony Bennett history/mystique?

Unless NC St beats UNC tonight and steals an ACC bid and/or the ACC only gets 3 bids--why would Pitt not be in as a 4th ACC bid?

UNC favored by 10.5 tonight---Hoping UNC blows a tired NC St out by 20+ tonight--If only just for the Pitt favorable Optics!!

 

[PittMan 72]

7--UNC-- (7 NET)
8--Duke--(10 NET)
31--Wake For--(44 NET)
36--Clemson--(36 NET)
41--Pitt--(40 NET)
57--Va Tech--(60 NET)
66--NC St--(68 NET)
68--Virginia--(55 NET)
75--BC
84--Fl St.
88--Syracuse
102--Miami
126--N. Dame
129--Ga Tech
199-Louisville

I am assuming UNC, Duke and Clemson are solidly in the NCAA tourney.

Given the above (I know there are other factors)--why would Virginia nor be clearly out -- the Tony Bennett history/mystique?

Unless NC St beats UNC tonight and steals an ACC bid and/or the ACC only gets 3 bids--why would Pitt not be in as a 4th ACC bid?

UNC favored by 10.5 tonight---Hoping UNC blows a tired NC St out by 20+ tonight--If only just for the Pitt favorable Optics!!

As misguided wrong as keeping Pitt out would be, equally as misguided and wrong would be including just 3 ACC teams in an NCAAT with 68 teams.

From my observations of watching CBB this season (various conferences) the ACC deserves at least 5 teams in the field. So we’ll see what the Committee does.

 

[Pitt666]

7--UNC-- (7 NET)
8--Duke--(10 NET)
31--Wake For--(44 NET)
36--Clemson--(36 NET)
41--Pitt--(40 NET)
57--Va Tech--(60 NET)
66--NC St--(68 NET)
68--Virginia--(55 NET)
75--BC
84--Fl St.
88--Syracuse
102--Miami
126--N. Dame
129--Ga Tech
199-Louisville

I am assuming UNC, Duke and Clemson are solidly in the NCAA tourney.

Given the above (I know there are other factors)--why would Virginia nor be clearly out -- the Tony Bennett history/mystique?

Unless NC St beats UNC tonight and steals an ACC bid and/or the ACC only gets 3 bids--why would Pitt not be in as a 4th ACC bid?

UNC favored by 10.5 tonight---Hoping UNC blows a tired NC St out by 20+ tonight--If only just for the Pitt favorable Optics!!

We need NCST to stay with top 75 of net though. So maybe a 10-15 comfortable win. If they drop below 75 they lose both a q1 and q2 win.

 

[SteelBowl70]

3 bids for the ACC would be the lowest percentage wise in history since the tournament expanded. The ACC had 4 bids in 2013 with 12 teams (33%) and that was considered a low water mark. 20% is absurd.

 

[Pitt666]

Yes and being 4th in conference Net it would be a joke. MWC I feel will get 5 not 7. Big east likely on outside as well with seton hall and st John’s at risk. Indiana state could be in in a weaker bubble year, but doesn’t cut it this year.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

We need NCST to stay with top 75 of net though. So maybe a 10-15 comfortable win. If they drop below 75 they lose both a q1 and q2 win.

Agreed, but it feels like a team would have to lose pretty freaking badly to fall 8 spots when they're facing the #7 team. I'm too lazy to look at who else hovering around 75ish is playing.

 

[HailToPitt1985]

As misguided wrong as keeping Pitt out would be, equally as misguided and wrong would be including just 3 ACC teams in an NCAAT with 68 teams.

From my observations of watching CBB this season (various conferences) the ACC deserves at least 5 teams in the field. So we’ll see what the Committee does.

At least 5 ACC teams. No one can tell me that some schmuck team from the MEAC or Southern is better qualified to be in the NCAAT than say UVA, VT, WF or Pitt.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Yes and being 4th in conference Net it would be a joke. MWC I feel will get 5 not 7. Big east likely on outside as well with seton hall and st John’s at risk. Indiana state could be in in a weaker bubble year, but doesn’t cut it this year.

I have said that I don't think a Top 4 NET/RPI league has ever got less than 33%. Even with 4, the ACC would only get 26.7%

 

[PittMan 72]

We need NCST to stay with top 75 of net though. So maybe a 10-15 comfortable win. If they drop below 75 they lose both a q1 and q2 win.

@Pitt666
What EXACTLY will be the determinants for the Committee, though?

This excerpted blurb from a 3/7/24 article from the ncaa.com provides a lot of insight. Entire article linked below. (Scroll about half way down the linked article to see the excerpt):

How do they decide which teams get an at-large bid?​

There are a multitude of stats and rankings that the Selection Committee takes into account, but there is no set formula that determines whether a team receives an at-large bid or not.

What is March Madness: The NCAA tournament explained

Here is everything (really!) you might want to know about March Madness — one of the biggest, most exciting and fun events in sports.

www.ncaa.com

 

[33pitt99]

@Pitt666
What EXACTLY will be the determinants for the Committee, though?

This excerpted blurb from a 3/7/24 article from the ncaa.com provides a lot of insight. Entire article linked below. (Scroll about half way down the linked article to see the excerpt):

How do they decide which teams get an at-large bid?​

There are a multitude of stats and rankings that the Selection Committee takes into account, but there is no set formula that determines whether a team receives an at-large bid or not.

What is March Madness: The NCAA tournament explained

Here is everything (really!) you might want to know about March Madness — one of the biggest, most exciting and fun events in sports.

www.ncaa.com

The key metric will be the one used to support the most controversial snub. If it’s Pitt, it will be NCSOS. If it’s UVA, it will be KenPom or another metric they are bad in. It changes every year based on who is in or out, which is why they can never say what the criteria is before the selections are decided. Basically, it’s a crapshoot depending on who has the strongest voice in the room.

 

[Dewey Eye]

The key metric will be the one used to support the most controversial snub. If it’s Pitt, it will be NCSOS. If it’s UVA, it will be KenPom or another metric they are bad in. It changes every year based on who is in or out, which is why they can never say what the criteria is before the selections are decided. Basically, it’s a crapshoot depending on who has the strongest voice in the room.

Exactly. Find a pretext to support getting the "eye test" teams in. This year, hopefully this benefits us

IMO, pitt is playing like a top 25 team right now. I cant fathom that after 32 auto bids are done, pitt isn't the one of the next best 36?

 

[PittMan 72]

The key metric will be the one used to support the most controversial snub. If it’s Pitt, it will be NCSOS. If it’s UVA, it will be KenPom or another metric they are bad in. It changes every year based on who is in or out, which is why they can never say what the criteria is before the selections are decided. Basically, it’s a crapshoot depending on who has the strongest voice in the room.

Pretty much that’s the point. With 32 auto bids going to conference trny winners, the at large field is 36. Add in some bid stealers and it’s less. Add in any potential preference for some “Cinderella darlings” and it’s even LESS.

Once that Committee goes in and shuts the door, they can - and will - do what they want. Regardless of what anyone outside the Committee thinks or professes to have determined via the “metrics”. Then the Committee will explain their decisions as they see fit. After the fact.

 

[Pitt666]

I hope it is like the CFP and they put the best teams in. Texas A&M can hang with anyone. Providence can. St. John’s can. Pitt can.

 

[PittMan 72]

I hope it is like the CFP and they put the best teams in. Texas A&M can hang with anyone. Providence can. St. John’s can. Pitt can.

Yes. Me, too. But of course that refers to the at-large selections only. Because with this list of conferences designated for auto-bids, there is no possible way to get the “best” 68 teams into the NCAAT field:
https://dknetwork.draftkings.com/20...c-bids-mid-major-winners-list-tracker-updates

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

The key metric will be the one used to support the most controversial snub. If it’s Pitt, it will be NCSOS. If it’s UVA, it will be KenPom or another metric they are bad in. It changes every year based on who is in or out, which is why they can never say what the criteria is before the selections are decided. Basically, it’s a crapshoot depending on who has the strongest voice in the room.

Which is exactly how it will always be, right up until they decide that there is one, and only one, factor to determine who makes it and who doesn't. As long as they look at about a dozen things for each team, it's always going to be something different for each different team each different year.

How happy do you suppose it would make people if they decided next year that to avoid the kind of thing that you are complaining about, they use one and only one metric to pick the field? Why did Villanova make it instead of Pitt? Better NET ranking. Why did Indiana State make it instead of Pitt? Better NET ranking. Why did Colorado State make it instead of Pitt? Better NET ranking.

Is that really the sort of thing that you want?

 

[33pitt99]

Which is exactly how it will always be, right up until they decide that there is one, and only one, factor to determine who makes it and who doesn't. As long as they look at about a dozen things for each team, it's always going to be something different for each different team each different year.

How happy do you suppose it would make people if they decided next year that to avoid the kind of thing that you are complaining about, they use one and only one metric to pick the field? Why did Villanova make it instead of Pitt? Better NET ranking. Why did Indiana State make it instead of Pitt? Better NET ranking. Why did Colorado State make it instead of Pitt? Better NET ranking.

Is that really the sort of thing that you want?

Wow, that’s quite the odd interpretation of my comment. Where did I say I wanted one metric? I know people are stressed out right now, but it seems to really be getting to you, so I’m just going to let your comment go. Thanks and take care!

 

[HailToPitt1985]

Yes. Me, too. But of course that refers to the at-large selections only. Because with this list of conferences designated for auto-bids, there is no possible way to get the “best” 68 teams into the NCAAT field:
https://dknetwork.draftkings.com/20...c-bids-mid-major-winners-list-tracker-updates

The best 68 teams are not going to make the NCAAT. There will be many who will be in the NIT also, just because of this nonsense with metrics and a bunch of auto-bids to relatively weak teams getting in where they don't belong. I believe that at least 10 teams that will be in the NIT are NCAAT teams right now, including Pitt.

 

[Pitt2009]

The best 68 teams are not going to make the NCAAT. There will be many who will be in the NIT also, just because of this nonsense with metrics and a bunch of auto-bids to relatively weak teams getting in where they don't belong. I believe that at least 10 teams that will be in the NIT are NCAAT teams right now, including Pitt.

You don’t think Temple is one of the best 68 teams in the country?

 

[TD_6082]

The best 68 teams are not going to make the NCAAT. There will be many who will be in the NIT also, just because of this nonsense with metrics and a bunch of auto-bids to relatively weak teams getting in where they don't belong. I believe that at least 10 teams that will be in the NIT are NCAAT teams right now, including Pitt.

But this isn't anything new.

 

[docpanther26]

Maybe not but one could maybe argue that the NIT field could be one of the strongest in years.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Wow, that’s quite the odd interpretation of my comment. Where did I say I wanted one metric? I know people are stressed out right now, but it seems to really be getting to you, so I’m just going to let your comment go. Thanks and take care!

First of all, the notion that this is getting to me is batshit crazy. I'm laughing at people like you who are spending so much energy bitching about everything that might be used against us instead of them only paying attention to the things that make us look better.

Case in point, I never suggested that you said that they should only use one metric to pick the field. I am pointing out that the upshot of the fact that they don't use one metric to select the field means that there are always going to be different things that they can, and will, talk about when one team gets in and another does not.

What seems pretty obvious over these last couple of weeks is that there are a lot of Pitt fans who think that the NCAA is doing something odd or different this year, and that they need to change things back to how they were back in some mythical time in the past that hasn't existed for literally decades. People think that last ten games should or do matter more, when in fact the NCAA got rid of that 15 years ago. People don't think they should be using computer metrics to help select the field, when they have been doing that since 1981. People don't think that non-conference strength of schedule should matter at all, when the NCAA has been using it for literally decades.

Maybe because we haven't been on the bubble a lot, even back to when we were making the tournament every year, that people haven't paid any attention to what the NCAA has done and is doing. But it's not different by any substantial amount than what they have been doing for literally decades. There are always teams that just miss. The reasons why a particular team misses in a particular year is always different than why some other team missed that season, or a different team missed in a different year.

You can call that a crapshoot, or you can just realize that that's the way the system has been set up for a very long time.

 

[pitt-girl]

 

[HailToPitt1985]

You don’t think Temple is one of the best 68 teams in the country?

LOL! That's a good one!

 

[UPitt '89]

You don’t think Temple is one of the best 68 teams in the country?

Temple isn't one of the best 68 teams in Pennsylvania.

 

[Pitt2009]

Temple isn't one of the best 68 teams in Pennsylvania.

What seed is Temple if they make the tournament? Probably like a 14?

Any way we could be looking at a 10 seed play-in game with the way the AQs happened? I highly doubt any of NC State, Oregon, VCU/Duquesne, UAB/Temple are higher than an 11 seed.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Any way we could be looking at a 10 seed play-in game with the way the AQs happened?

I think it's almost certain that one, if not both, of the play-in games are going to be 10 seeds.