NCAA committee Likes Nebraska better
- Thread starter Fk_Pitt
- Start date
It’s based on the rankings, ratings, top wins, etc.
Not counting my chickens but maybe a top 5 win today would push us over them.
Fun to discuss.
Yeah we have two too 5 matchups this week. If we take care of business will definitely help
I like this Pitt team more than the previous ones. 2 easy set wins so far are much easier on my heart.
Nebraska got bonus points for high attendance, also known as the "Big Pretend Clause" in the voting.
They still have a better top 25 record than we do, even after todays win vs Stanford. And I guess that’s what the committee is looking at. But that’s 2 top 5 wins and sweeps for us now…with a couple more chances left on our schedule if Louisville finds an away to stay inside the top 5 after playing us and SMU(?) next weekend.
Very true. But like basketball, the criteria seems to change often or year to year based on the desired seeding and who makes it outcome.
And the announcers made it a point to say “past success, team history, the league they’re in, and the name on the jersey has nothing to do with it”. But everyone knows it does. Probably more so in basketball.
Here is what is really stupid about their “criteria”: They have Nebraska as 7-0 against ranked teams and Pitt as 5-1 (before today). Both lost to SMU. BUT, they don’t count Nebraska’s loss as a loss to a ranked team because SMU wasn’t ranked at the time. That’s absurd. They also give Nebraska credit for a ranked win over Kansas because Kansas was ranked when they beat them; but Kansas no longer is ranked.
That is the one criterion that got Nebraska ranked ahead of us. If it were based on current rankings, that criterion would be a tie.
Additionally, by not considering Nebraska’s loss to SMU they are in effect saying you are better off losing to an unranked team than to a ranked team. That is beyond stupid.
That is the one criterion that got Nebraska ranked ahead of us. If it were based on current rankings, that criterion would be a tie.
Additionally, by not considering Nebraska’s loss to SMU they are in effect saying you are better off losing to an unranked team than to a ranked team. That is beyond stupid.
Bingo
Like I said above the criteria changes to fit an agenda, and who they want where, like men’s basketball which has gone on for decades.
Volleyball committee is learning quickly as the sports popularity grows
"Josetti also says that because both Pitt and Nebraska lost to SMU, they didn't want to weigh the loss and instead looked at wins"
Probably because Pitt lost a five setter (after sweeping them in the first match) while Nebraska got swept.
One of those is actually better than the other if you are attempting to determine who might be better.
Probably because Pitt lost a five setter (after sweeping them in the first match) while Nebraska got swept.
One of those is actually better than the other if you are attempting to determine who might be better.
I agree with all of the above....and add my two cents. This mid season top 16 seeding was completed on Saturday before Pitt humbled a very good Stanford team 3 sets to 0. Now Pitt faces Louisville Friday......win that one and what was announced today is clearly a sham. This is just midseason blather from the NCAA to generate talk. All Pitt has to do is take it one game at a time and keep winning. I'll pay no further attention to this until Sunday night....December 1st when the real bracket is released before the tournament.
I ignored it before it even was released.
Having said that, it is clear that this Pitt is on a mission to win the National Championship. They have already struck fear in their opponents, regardless of where these teams are ranked.
To me, the bottom line for Pitt is this: 2 teams stand in their way to achieving their goal of a Natty - Louisville and Nebraska. These are the same 2 teams Pitt has lost to in the last 3 National Semifinals.
H2P!
Guess we will find out this week. But I kinda feel Louisville is in the rear view mirror.
