Previous largest upset was us defeating #7 Idaho in 1981. H2P!
Largest upset in Pitt basketball history!
- Thread starter HailToPitt725
- Start date
Lol - those seeds could have been flipped if people weren’t obsessed with computers and we didn’t lose to ND.
Is this the first time Pitt has won 2 tourney games in road uniforms? I think so. Back in black Sunday I assume.
It's in the books, but ISU was clearly wildly overseeded.
What are you talking about, clearly the 20th best team in the country...
seed numbers do not determine upsets...wise guys do...but, that being said, that is probably correct as Pitt Basketball has little history of "over" achieving in the tourney..
Objectively, ISU was a 12 seed, not a 6. We could have beaten them by 30 if we had shot just a little bit better. But our defense made the difference in the win.
You don't upset a team that is clearly not as good as you. We upset a 4 point favorite, but that line was wrong, obviously. Computers and odds makers get it wrong most of the time.
The computers are ruining college basketball and the NCAAT.
Is everyone missing the point here? I get what you’re saying, but we just delivered the largest upset (BY SEED LINE) in program history! Thought it was worth mentioning.
We are also the only lower seed to win in the eight afternoon games today.
Yea us!
Which makes perfect sense after all the upsets that went down yesterday… guess they call it March Madness for a reason!
I got your point and it’s a good one!!! Largest upset in NCAA tournament history for the Panthers!!!!!
Yea us INDEED!!!!
Not exclamation point worthy in that Pitt has been rarely a lower seed (no nuns saying rosaries 3 and 4 seeded Pitt teams) for in the last 40 years and the 8/9 line is pretty much a wash as being even..
maybe bring the "!" back out Sunday evening...
FWIW, Dixon never beat a higher seeded team, other than in an 8/9 game.
Wonder if Pitt’s NET Rankings will go up after winning by 18 lol.
lol. I was thinking the same thing about running the score up at the end. Then I remembered it doesn’t matter anymore.
Well it all depends... if the a-holes beat the b-holes , or jag-offs beat the screw-ups and if Kennesaw St was the scene of civil war battle or revolutionary war battle, blah blah blah
Well ISU was from the vaunted Big 12 so they had to have the higher seed, even with 13 losses.
Remember everyone, if a high seed loses they were over seeded by evil Skynet computers that will send Hunter-Killers to eradicate Sarah Connor and Jim Nantz.
First that’s a cool observation in your OT, thanks. Fun to drop on people tomorrow.
You might have been sarcastic in this last post…but the tournament is still massively popular (mostly due to gambling and brackets but still popular). So digitization isn’t ruining it.
But it is making it laughable, because guys gathered in the smoke filled rooms of the past putting the field and the seeds together manually, based on eyeballing the games and players and styles (and certainly some biases) still got things (mostly) right at least as well as reliance on these arbitrary and misguided formulas today influences these bizarro fields and seeds.
But in the long run, people quickly get over the individual seeding stupidities and make those bracket sheets and place those bets. That’s what drives the interest.
The NET (or whatever program ends up inevitably replacing it) is a good bogeyman for jilted teams and message boards.
The funny thing about this is that the NCAA started using the RPI in 1981. And the NCAA used the RPI to actually help select and seed teams, as opposed to the NET that simply is not used that way, as is evidenced by the fact that us and Arizona State both made the tournament when the NET said that we shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near it without buying a ticket.
Even though NET is clearly flawed, I’d bet the NCAA likes that it is. It means more “upsets” because many of these top teams are just shit teams hiding behind a formula. And there’s many good teams like Pitt that end up as 11 seeds. More upsets, more “Cinderella runs” but it’s really just bad seeding.
You can go up and down all of the brackets and see the teams that are poorly seeded and, as you aptly put it, hiding behind a formula. Pitt is one of them. Seeded at 11 partly because of NET but clearly should have been a 7 or 8 minimum. Look at Purdue! They should have been a 5 or 6, not a 1. Arizona not a 2, closer to an 8. WVU not a 9, should have been 11 or 12. I could go on. Computers and their formulas just got most of the seeding wrong.
lol, ok Nostradamus. I shit on the NET a lot, but no one in their right mind would have put Purdue and Arizona below a 3 or 4.
Two of the best shooting and rebounding teams in the country. Both from Power 6s.
Purdue stomped through their P6 OOC, including double-digit wins vs Duke, Gonzaga, and WVU (Also 6-point win vs Marquette).
No, no, you've got it all wrong. Purdue should have been a five or six, which would mean that Duke should have been something like an eight, Gonzaga should have been a seven, and West Virginia should have been a 13. Because clearly the results of one game is proof as to how good a team is.
