Michigan Freeking state?
- Thread starter pittbb80
- Start date
Losing to teams that went 0-18 in their conference didn’t help matters
You can find awful losses for all teams. Michigan state has a lot of them
CBS can’t have a tournament without Izzo. Michigan State draws eyeballs and since Michigan only won 8 games they have to get Michigan State in the tournament for ratings. Same thing with Virginia. Maryland Sucks, Virginia Tech Sucks, Georgetown Sucks. All the teams in that area sucked so add Virginia to ensure some decent ratings.
I just question how good the ACC really is. Guess we will find out quickly. Can you imagine the winless team we had under Stallings beating a tournament team?
Izzo is the Mike Tomlin of college hoops. The national media slurps on him. Michigan St blows just like the rest of the big 10.
Who are Michgian State's awful losses against? Their worst non-conference loss was in the first game of the season (Pitt fans think those don't matter, right?) to a James Madison team that is in the tournament at 31-3. Their worst loss in the Big Ten is either Rutgers at Rutgers or the nitters at home. Are either of those really awful?
I mean they certainly aren't any more awful than losing to Syracuse at home or Miami on the road.
I’m not inspecting their resume - but I shouldn’t have to, because of the quantity of losses. A team that will end the year with 15 losses should not be in this tournament.
And it's great that you feel that way, but the NCAA has never made that a criteria, and they probably never will.
Most especially a team that plays in an overated conference like the big 10
Michigan St. has no business being in the field. There are only two reasons they are in the field. 1) the media and committee bows down to Tom Izzo for what he did previously, which should be no factor.
2) also in because they are ranked in the top 10 in the preseason every year, even though they underachieve every year. Complete travesty.
2) also in because they are ranked in the top 10 in the preseason every year, even though they underachieve every year. Complete travesty.
Exactly. If you have 14 losses, I don’t care if they played an NBA schedule. The Big Ten, the champions of mediocrity.
They are 24 in the NET. No Q3/4 losses. Very strong non-con SOS. We know that your non-con SOS means just about everything
Not officially. But record is always the first look. You absolutely get more leeway in a Power conference than a small one. And sure, the other metrics refine the evaluation. But you aren’t going to look at a team that is (say) 12-19 and keep evaluating them for an at large.
But where is that line? Used to be around 20 wins, and that was with a fewer games.
You start losing 13,14,15 games I don’t care what your schedule is. You just aren’t winning enough.
In fairness they have a very high NET, and we accept that that is a factor. So it’s not just the politics/perception of it.
But if you can lose that much and have such a high NET, maybe the metric (and others like it) need to be modified.
I congratulate and support Pitt's choice to decline the NIT (Nobody's Interested Tournament) Their goal was to make the NCAA. If you discount the start of the season before Jaland Lowe played, Pitt is 21-5 the rest of the season.
If you want teams to play difficult schedules, but then you turn around and punish them if they don't win those games, and you tell teams that if they lose too many games, 13 or whatever number you want to pick, then all you are going to do is ensure that teams stop playing as many games that they think they might not win.
And nobody wants that.
Or, well, nobody who is making any decisions wants that. Maybe there are some fans that would rather see their team play North Carolina A&T rather than, say, West Virginia, because West Virginia might beat you and A&T won't.
