Oregon State beats Utah
- Thread starter Pitt666
- Start date
Well- that’s a pretty big one . Knocks one potential bubble team clearly behind us and strengthens our schedule.
Now- can Oregon State take out Colorado too? Colorado finishes the season at Oregon State.
Maybe the year of Scott Barnes mea culpa - lol- Oregon State knocks off 2 of our chief bubble competitors and a committee with Scott Barnes puts PItt in .
This isnt last year. These bubble teams arent losing enough. This year's bubble is SO MUCH stronger than last year. Remember UNC and OK St were 1st Four Out and didnt have any chance at getting in. This year's team is safely in last year's field. Last year's team probably doesnt make this year's tournament.
We just have to hope committee values BPI, road wins, and how you finish down the stretch. In all, since 1/31, Pitt has had two Q1 road losses. They had the Q2 road loss at Miami on 1/27, but you have to go back to 1/16 for their last bad loss, which will be nearly two months ago come selection Sunday.
Since 1/16 they are 2-2Q1 (2 road wins) 5-1 Q2 (3 road wins; 1 road loss), and 1-0 Q3. That should get them in.
Since 1/16 they are 2-2Q1 (2 road wins) 5-1 Q2 (3 road wins; 1 road loss), and 1-0 Q3. That should get them in.
Last edited:
They are solidly in, but it did bump Pitt up one in the NET. If FSU loses to Miami, there is a chance that loss for Colorado moves back down to Q3. So root for Miami and Oregon State regarding Colorado. But their net is pretty solid at 31.
Utah loses to a garbage team by 7 points and only moves down 1 spot in the NET.
Lunardi must have missed the Utah loss last night, after his bed time. Utah still ahead of us in his updated bubble picture fwiw.
Last week I gave you seven bubble teams and some of their remaining schedules. Between the midweek and the weekend games, every single one of the those teams, and us as well, lost a game.
Bubble teams are losing at the same rate they always lose. Because the bubble is no different this year than in the past.
I wanna see where Pitt is if they win Saturday and get the double bye in the ACC Tournament. I think they are in with a win Saturday as long as they don’t get their doors blown off in that first ACC tourney game. They have done enough in my opinion at this point with the 7 road wins, a top 4 finish, a 12-3 record in their last 15 and a NET near 40. I have a lot of confidence they will hear their name called on St Patrick’s Day in 9 days after 6 o clock.
Just looking that the people that Loonardi has on the bubble:
Colorado State has lost three of their last four.
TCU has lost two of their last three.
Mississippi State has lost three in a row.
Seton Hall has lost two of their last three.
Villanova lost their last game, and has lost two of their last four.
New Mexico has lost two of their last three.
St. John's has won four in a row since their coach ripped them.
Virginia has lost three of their last four.
Providence has lost two of their last three.
Colorado has won five in a row.
Iowa has lost one of their last three.
Utah lost last night, and two of their last four, and five of their last eight.
Memphis has won four in a row, although only one of them was against a decent team, Florida Atlantic at home.
Wake Forest has lost three in a row.
We have lost one of our last three.
Drake has lost one of their last three (Norther Iowa thumped them, and they needed three overtimes to beat a bad Illinois-Chicago team).
So of Loonardi's last four byes, last four in, first four out and next four out, the only ones that haven't lost a game in the last week and a half to two weeks are Colorado, St. John's and Memphis. 13 of the 16 have lost at least once. 10 of the 16 have lost twice or more in the last two weeks.
Yeah, the bubble teams simply are not losing.
Colorado State has lost three of their last four.
TCU has lost two of their last three.
Mississippi State has lost three in a row.
Seton Hall has lost two of their last three.
Villanova lost their last game, and has lost two of their last four.
New Mexico has lost two of their last three.
St. John's has won four in a row since their coach ripped them.
Virginia has lost three of their last four.
Providence has lost two of their last three.
Colorado has won five in a row.
Iowa has lost one of their last three.
Utah lost last night, and two of their last four, and five of their last eight.
Memphis has won four in a row, although only one of them was against a decent team, Florida Atlantic at home.
Wake Forest has lost three in a row.
We have lost one of our last three.
Drake has lost one of their last three (Norther Iowa thumped them, and they needed three overtimes to beat a bad Illinois-Chicago team).
So of Loonardi's last four byes, last four in, first four out and next four out, the only ones that haven't lost a game in the last week and a half to two weeks are Colorado, St. John's and Memphis. 13 of the 16 have lost at least once. 10 of the 16 have lost twice or more in the last two weeks.
Yeah, the bubble teams simply are not losing.
Problem is many of those teams have a ton of Q1s and good NETs. The bubble is far better than last year. Last year's team doesn't make this tournament with a 67 NET and just "ok" quads.
We have a better NET ranking than seven of the other 15 teams on that list. In fact four of those seven are between 14 and 28 spots behind us in the NET.
Which is odd, because the NET ranking was all that was supposed to matter.
The mid-majors and the teams right around .500 who have no shot at making it. That might be Nova this year if they are 17-15. They aint getting in with that.
In other words, all the teams that don't fit your bold proclamation.
Unfortunately, with the other results this week it looks like even if Villanova loses they are most likely to get DePaul in the first game of the Big East tournament. It would take a big upset for them to drop down another spot, and that still only gets them Georgetown. So 17-15 is really unlikely.
18-15, however, is very much in play for them.
Villanova isnt going to get in at 18-15. They need to beat Creighton today. 18-15 would have to be the lowest winning percentage and most losses to ever get an at-large and its not like the Big East was even that tough.
I think Nova gets in—because of it’s history as well as The name Big East
Bracketology = fortune telling.
People are free to believe in it if they want to, of course.
Lunardi, because of ESPN, is one of the most active in terms of SWAGing to manufacture controversy in an attempt to get people to follow him and attract interest so ESPN keeps paying him.
For Pitt? Keep winning. Tonight and as many as they can in the ACCT. Then we’ll see what the actual NCAAT selectors have to say. In the meantime, Joe will keep jabbering on a daily basis.
People are free to believe in it if they want to, of course.
Lunardi, because of ESPN, is one of the most active in terms of SWAGing to manufacture controversy in an attempt to get people to follow him and attract interest so ESPN keeps paying him.
For Pitt? Keep winning. Tonight and as many as they can in the ACCT. Then we’ll see what the actual NCAAT selectors have to say. In the meantime, Joe will keep jabbering on a daily basis.
It's what he always does on this topic.
"All teams get seeded within two seed lines of their NET ranking."
"Well, other than that team with too many losses."
"Oh, yeah, those teams that didn't play a good schedule, them too."
"And we shouldn't forget the teams that played really well or really poorly against the Q1s and Q2s. Them too."
"And of course the teams that have too many losses against the Q4s. Nobody could think that they are a part of the "all teams", could they?"
Really, his position on this is that if you exclude all the teams that don't get seeded within two seed lines of what their NET ranking says they should get seeded, then every team get seeded within two seed lines of their NET ranking.
Which is certainly true, and just as certainly completely meaningless.
Similar threads
