THIS IS A TOURNAMENT TEAM!

[SteelBowl70]

Palm, whom I put more credence than JL, has Clemson as a 6 seed, UVA a 10 and Pitt the first team out. Some random thoughts:
- UVA seems to be a lock even with an expected QF loss to Clemson. Their Quads are good with no bad losses and another Q1 loss won’t hurt them.
- That guarantees the league with the best tourney record by far over the last 2 years (21-10), a minimal 4 bids.
- The Pitt/Wake winner could then get the 5th bid if there is one to be had. Wake isn’t in Palm‘s next 4 out but most brackets have Wake (37) ahead of Pitt (44)
- Pitt‘s poor NCSOS makes it an easy target for the committee to explain away. Pitt beating Wake would also leave Pitt with only 2 wins over tourney teams (although both would be impressive road wins)
- having Syracuse (79) and NC State (80) barely missing the 75 cutoff really skews Pitt’s quads for the worse. Pitt also has Top 100 wins against BC and FSU, if you visually plotted wins using the NET, it might tell a different story than these hard cutoffs. If I was on the committee, I would have a scatter plot visual created for the bubble teams to actually see where the wins and losses fall within the ranges and also color code home and away games. That would make for a more meaningful discussion.

A Pitt-UNC Friday night semifinal would garner a chance for Pitt to score eye test points, even in a loss. I believe that and perhaps the impressive road record could earn a return ticket to Dayton.

 

[HailToPitt1985]

I hate that being 11-3 over the past 1.5 months of ACC, seems to not count as much when compared to the Mizzou and Cuse losses. Not our fault a bunch of P5 teams in the OOD aren’t as good as we thought.

That's what I've been saying for the past month. Our trend has been winning and winning on the road, too. That's what we're doing NOW. But these computer nerds with their NET and metrics just keep putting numbers into computers and spitting out who's in and who isn't. Garbage in, garbage out. Let's use basic human intelligence and reward those teams that as playing outstanding basketball for the last half of the season.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works now in college basketball. Our path to the NCAAT is that we have to beat at least one good team in the ACCT, possibly 2, or we're NIT bound. It really depends on who our first opponent is.

 

[JD1976]

They need to expand the tournament to at least 80 teams and disqualify teams with losing conference records as a start. Even in the heyday of the Big East, there was an unwritten rule you needed to finish above .500 in conference play.

UCONN won a national championship with a .500 Big East record. Syracuse went to a Final 4 in 2016 without a winning conference record. Yeah, I get that those are outliers, but every year really good teams have average conference seasons.

 

[SteelBowl70]

UCONN won a national championship with a .500 Big East record. Syracuse went to a Final 4 in 2016 without a winning conference record. Yeah, I get that those are outliers, but every year really good teams have average conference season

Utah is 9-11 with 2 road wins. They shouldn’t even be in the at large conversation. They have lost 8 of their last 12, but that’s what blind metric analysis serves up.

 

[thebadby2]

Hopefully we take care of business on Thursday and it doesn't matter.

I find it hard to believe that the selection committee is as stupid as lunardi, who somehow jumped Memphis over us yesterday for no reason and still had Utah ahead of us after a bad loss.

The bubble watch writer at ESPN had a comment about us that I thought was accurate: the "bracketologists" get invested in their selections and don't move teams up and down as much as they should. The selection committee has no such bias and should make the right decision based on our metrics and results.

I agree that Pitt, sitting at 4th in the ACC and playing its best basketball down the regular season stretch, has earned a spot in the field.

Lunardi is far from stupid, just because you happen to disagree with him.

I’d add that this has been nothing short of a remarkable turnaround from that first 6 ACC games. If this team could play those over again now they would have won at least 3 of the games they lost. All due credit to Capel for somehow turning it around against the odds.

Now, just care of business in the ACC tourney and leave no doubt.

 

[Pitt79]

But there are just too many teams in the ACC that don't seem to provide the quality of win that moves the needle much. We could beat teams like NC State and Florida State a thousand times and it doesn't seem to impress any of these bracketologists. There are just too many of these underwhelming teams in our conference. We'd probably be better off being 18-13 with two or three more quality wins in one of these other conferences.

So UCF, Oklahoma St, Rutgers, Minnesota, Arkansas, LSU, Georgetown, Butler in the other conferences these teams are so much stronger? How did they figure that?

 

[thebadby2]

GTFOH with that shit. Our defense is fine. Dude was unconscious from three after we were up 17.

Agree. the game was all but over before NCSU made any shots. The defense had been excellent to to that point and didn’t need to be at the end.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

So UCF, Oklahoma St, Rutgers, Minnesota, Arkansas, LSU, Georgetown, Butler in the other conferences these teams are so much stronger? How did they figure that?

Didn't Arkansas beat Duke? I've said many times I don't agree with compacting all the OOC games at the beginning of the season. But these are computers spitting much of this stuff out. Some of you want to believe it's a human conspiracy laced with conference favoritism, and it isn't. It's just a bad model.

 

[thebadby2]

I hear you but how is Michigan ST so much better than say, NCSU? It's all perception and self fufilling prophecy. There is this determination that teams from a conference are considered superior so losses are viewed positively vs. another conference that is not based on anything after January.


Again playing devils advocate, how does one quantify "deserve"?

This Michigan State team has a lot of warts and is one of Izzo’s most frustrating teams ever. But it’s much better than this NCSU team. Much better players, far better coach, better by every measure.

 

[Pitt79]

Didn't Arkansas beat Duke? I've said many times I don't agree with compacting all the OOC games at the beginning of the season. But these are computers spitting much of this stuff out. Some of you want to believe it's a human conspiracy laced with conference favoritism, and it isn't. It's just a bad model.

So what? Pitt beat Duke too, at Duke.

 

[Pitt79]

Much better players, far better coach, better by every measure.

Is this Eye Test stuff? I think Pitt should get in based on Eye Test, if that's what we're doing.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I hear you but how is Michigan ST so much better than say, NCSU?

If you really want an answer, in the non-conference Michigan State beat Baylor, who is pretty good, Butler, who is decent, and Indiana State, who is decent. They also played competitive games with both Duke and Arizona. The best non-conference win NC State has is Vanderbilt. You know, Vanderbilt, the second worst team in the SEC. They only played three decent or better teams, and lost to BYU by 9, Mississippi by 20, and Tennessee by 9. In conference NC State has wins over Clemson and Wake while Michigan State has one over Illinois.

If those two teams played tomorrow on a neutral court, Michigan State would be about a ten point favorite. There isn't any way you can look at the two of them and not come to the conclusion that Michigan State is better, and not just by a little bit.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

So what? Pitt beat Duke too, at Duke.

Yeah that's not the point

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

It's just a bad model.

It isn't even really a bad model. It does exactly what the NCAA wants it to. The fact that some, or many, or most, fans don't think that's what it should be measuring doesn't mean it's bad, it means that some, or many, or most, fans are thinking about this differently than the NCAA does.

(some) Fans think that late season games should count more than early season ones. The NCAA explicitly rejects that. (some) Fans think that margin of victory should not matter. The NCAA thinks that it does. And so on.

The fortunate thing about all this is that the NCAA does not select the team for the tournament based on their NET ranking, and it does not seed the tournament based on the NET rankings.

 

[thebadby2]

I've always railed against the football metrics because of the same kind of preseason rankings that really aren't based on anything but perception.

But I've always felt the NC basketball run was earned given the amount of regular season games and of course the NCAAT, which gives every team a chance.

But lately (and maybe because PITT seems to be on the wrong side), it feels like this sport has become unfairly slanted towards popular perception.

Unfortunately I'm not sure how to fix it, but at some point as @SteelBowl70 demonstrated, when does reality trump perception?

Playing Devil’s advocate, which ACC teams outside of the top 4-5 do you think earned a spot in the field?

I mean, there’s a whole lot of junk in the league once you get below that.

As for the perception bias thing, I think most would agree that Ken Pom’s system and metrics are about the most objective out there. And on that basis, the ACC doesn’t look very good below the top 2.

 

[Ronnyp91]

Palm, whom I put more credence than JL, has Clemson as a 6 seed, UVA a 10 and Pitt the first team out. Some random thoughts:
- UVA seems to be a lock even with an expected QF loss to Clemson. Their Quads are good with no bad losses and another Q1 loss won’t hurt them.
- That guarantees the league with the best tourney record by far over the last 2 years (21-10), a minimal 4 bids.
- The Pitt/Wake winner could then get the 5th bid if there is one to be had. Wake isn’t in Palm‘s next 4 out but most brackets have Wake (37) ahead of Pitt (44)
- Pitt‘s poor NCSOS makes it an easy target for the committee to explain away. Pitt beating Wake would also leave Pitt with only 2 wins over tourney teams (although both would be impressive road wins)
- having Syracuse (79) and NC State (80) barely missing the 75 cutoff really skews Pitt’s quads for the worse. Pitt also has Top 100 wins against BC and FSU, if you visually plotted wins using the NET, it might tell a different story than these hard cutoffs. If I was on the committee, I would have a scatter plot visual created for the bubble teams to actually see where the wins and losses fall within the ranges and also color code home and away games. That would make for a more meaningful discussion.

A Pitt-UNC Friday night semifinal would garner a chance for Pitt to score eye test points, even in a loss. I believe that and perhaps the impressive road record could earn a return ticket to Dayton.

We’re still Palm’s 4th team out.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

It isn't even really a bad model. It does exactly what the NCAA wants it to. The fact that some, or many, or most, fans don't think that's what it should be measuring doesn't mean it's bad, it means that some, or many, or most, fans are thinking about this differently than the NCAA does.

(some) Fans think that late season games should count more than early season ones. The NCAA explicitly rejects that. (some) Fans think that margin of victory should not matter. The NCAA thinks that it does. And so on.

The fortunate thing about all this is that the NCAA does not select the team for the tournament based on their NET ranking, and it does not seed the tournament based on the NET rankings.

I'm referring the the scheduling model. OOC games need to be happening throughout the season, particularly in the age of incessant transferring. Teams are not the same in November as they are in March. It's fine if they want to weight everything equally... but it's not fine if they want to do that AND condense non-con games into the first six weeks of the season. The book on each conference should not be mostly written before the new year. That's a bad model.

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

Playing Devil’s advocate, which ACC teams outside of the top 4-5 do you think earned a spot in the field?

I mean, there’s a whole lot of junk in the league once you get below that.

As for the perception bias thing, I think most would agree that Ken Pom’s system and metrics are about the most objective out there. And on that basis, the ACC doesn’t look very good below the top 2.

You could say the same thing about the Big10, BigEast, and Mountain West once you get past the Top 2 teams.

 

[thebadby2]

Is this Eye Test stuff? I think Pitt should get in based on Eye Test, if that's what we're doing.

Yep. Tested my eyes by looking at Ken Pom’s analytics, which has MSU at 19, NCSU at 76.

You could also look at the roster quality of both teams, it’s not even close. Last, I think most intellectually functional basketball fans would agree that Tom Izzo might be a slightly better coach than Kevin Keatts.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I'm referring the the scheduling model. OOC games need to be happening throughout the season, particularly in the age of incessant transferring. Teams are not the same in November as they are in March. It's fine if they want to weight everything equally... but it's not fine if they want to do that AND condense non-con games into the first six weeks of the season. The book on each conference should not be mostly written before the new year. That's a bad model.

Yeah, maybe, but the NCAA doesn't have anything to do with that. I am sure that the NCAA would be happy if teams played non-conference games throughout the season. It's the schools and the conferences that have little or no interest in that. If you want an illustration of that, there used to be a time that when schools had an open space on their conference schedule they would pretty regularly schedule a non-conference game in that slot.

As an example, Pitt played Robert Morris in February a couple of times back when we stilled played them. We played Duquesne in January and February sometimes back in the Big East days. We played Notre Dame before they were in the Big East in January. We had games with UMass, Arizona, Oklahoma and UCLA in January or February back in those days.

Now, we never play a non-conference game in those open windows in January and February. Almost no one does. This year Gonzaga played at Kentucky in an open window for Kentucky, and that game was notable because of how rare it is anymore, and it only got schedule because CBS wanted it and made it happen.

 

[thebadby2]

You could say the same thing about the Big10, BigEast, and Mountain West once you get past the Top 2 teams.

Unless you put some stock and credibility in Ken Pom’s analytics.

Anyone who’s trying to suggest that the ACC is better than it looks on paper this year has a tough row to hoe.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Yeah, maybe, but the NCAA doesn't have anything to do with that. I am sure that the NCAA would be happy if teams played non-conference games throughout the season. It's the schools and the conferences that have little or no interest in that. If you want an illustration of that, there used to be a time that when schools had an open space on their conference schedule they would pretty regularly schedule a non-conference game in that slot.

As an example, Pitt played Robert Morris in February a couple of times back when we stilled played them. We played Duquesne in January and February sometimes back in the Big East days. We played Notre Dame before they were in the Big East in January. We had games with UMass, Arizona, Oklahoma and UCLA in January or February back in those days.

Now, we never play a non-conference game in those open windows in January and February. Almost no one does. This year Gonzaga played at Kentucky in an open window for Kentucky, and that game was notable because of how rare it is anymore, and it only got schedule because CBS wanted it and made it happen.

It sounds to me like some people need to put their heads together and conclude that this is the fairest method. Do we know for a fact they have no interest in this, or is it just the way it's been for a while so it's what all the cool kids a few doing? College basketball has changed quite a bit recently. Time to implement a scheduling structure to accommodate that.

I would think the power conferences would be especially interested in doing this, because some of these experienced mid-major teams beating P6 teams that are still coming together seems to really be throwing these metrics askew. Let's see FAU beat someone like Arizona today.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

It sounds to me like some people need to put their heads together and conclude that this is the fairest method. Do we know for a fact they have no interest in this, or is it just the way it's been for a while so it's what all the cool kids a few doing? College basketball has changed quite a bit recently. Time to implement a scheduling structure to accommodate that.

I would think the power conferences would be especially interested in doing this, because some of these experienced mid-major teams beating P6 teams that are still coming together seems to really be throwing these metrics askew. Let's see FAU beat someone like Arizona today.

I would say that we know that the schools don't have any interest in it because pretty much all of them could do it, and yet pretty much none of them actually do it.

There is nothing that stopped Pitt from scheduling an OOC game on, say, Saturday, January 13 or Saturday, February 10, both of which were open dates for us. Or, well, nothing other than the fact that we had no desire to do so.

 

[Vader_Storm]

It isn't even really a bad model. It does exactly what the NCAA wants it to. The fact that some, or many, or most, fans don't think that's what it should be measuring doesn't mean it's bad, it means that some, or many, or most, fans are thinking about this differently than the NCAA does.

(some) Fans think that late season games should count more than early season ones. The NCAA explicitly rejects that. (some) Fans think that margin of victory should not matter. The NCAA thinks that it does. And so on.

The fortunate thing about all this is that the NCAA does not select the team for the tournament based on their NET ranking, and it does not seed the tournament based on the NET rankings.

The NCAA did not always reject that. In fact, there was extra weight put on the last 10 games of the season the way tournament seeding used to be.

The problem is the monster 20 game ACC and league schedule. Cut the league schedule back to 16 games, and then we have a much larger and more accurate sample size for non conference games and how good a league is.


3rd, get the NCAA the hell out of decision making. They ripped Pitt off years ago by not making Nike Sibande eligible early on and making the team wait for him to be eligible. They ripped Wake Forest off this year with Efton Reid not being eligible for all those early season losses. This is impacting everything including sites like pomeroy.



An 11 game non conference schedule in the portal era when most teams are losing half their roster is a joke. You cant continue to have this.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

The NCAA did not always reject that. In fact, there was extra weight put on the last 10 games of the season the way tournament seeding used to be.

Yes, 15 years ago the NCAA looked at last ten games (for a while it was actually last 12 games) as one of their criteria. And then they decided that was something that they no longer wanted to do. Because that gave an advantage to the power conference schools to the detriment of the non-power conference schools.

And there are a lot more non-power conference schools than there are power conference schools.

 

[Vader_Storm]

Yes, 15 years ago the NCAA looked at last ten games (for a while it was actually last 12 games) as one of their criteria. And then they decided that was something that they no longer wanted to do. Because that gave an advantage to the power conference schools to the detriment of the non-power conference schools.

And there are a lot more non-power conference schools than there are power conference schools.

The ACC should schedule a head to head meeting with the mountain west conference in the future.


And make those games happen in February. And watch what happens when the 5 star freshmen gain college experience for 3 months and the elite talent builds chemsitry during the season instead of meaningless games in November. Your mountain west is going to get boat raced, I dont care what the numbers say.

 

[pierre93]

The ACC should schedule a head to head meeting with the mountain west conference in the future.


And make those games happen in February. And watch what happens when the 5 star freshmen gain college experience for 3 months and the elite talent builds chemsitry during the season instead of meaningless games in November. Your mountain west is going to get boat raced, I dont care what the numbers say.

Great post but please don't try to argue with trolls, negative nellies that have no life and are always trying to stir the pot. 21 wins and loving it. H2P!!!!!

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

The ACC should schedule a head to head meeting with the mountain west conference in the future.


And make those games happen in February. And watch what happens when the 5 star freshmen gain college experience for 3 months and the elite talent builds chemsitry during the season instead of meaningless games in November. Your mountain west is going to get boat raced, I dont care what the numbers say.

Yeah they should. Even if the Mountain West has no interest. They should schedule the games anyway, and then when the Mountain West teams don't show up we can declare all our teams winners by forfeit!

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

I would say that we know that the schools don't have any interest in it because pretty much all of them could do it, and yet pretty much none of them actually do it.

There is nothing that stopped Pitt from scheduling an OOC game on, say, Saturday, January 13 or Saturday, February 10, both of which were open dates for us. Or, well, nothing other than the fact that we had no desire to do so.

It would have to be a more comprehensive overhaul; I'm not expecting Pitt to randomly insert difficult OOC games down the stretch when no one else is doing it. Obviously the rest days are more valuable at that point.

But how many years did Gonzaga thrive on beating teams like Kentucky/etc., who turned over half their roster, early in the season? Then they'd flame out early in the NCAAT almost every year. Surprise, surprise; it takes a little while to gel, and those Kentucky and Duke teams they beat in November were a lot better by March.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Yeah they should. Even if the Mountain West has no interest. They should schedule the games anyway, and then when the Mountain West teams don't show up we can declare all our teams winners by forfeit!

Yep, Mountain West seems to be making out okay doing what they're doing. No incentive for them to change a damn thing until if and when there is a reason to do so.

 

[Vader_Storm]

Great post but please don't try to argue with trolls, negative nellies that have no life and are always trying to stir the pot. 21 wins and loving it. H2P!!!!!

I dont think Joe is a troll but he loves his pomeroy metrics more than anything.



Ill make it even simpler. If Pitt played a bunch of mountain west teams in November when our 2 freshmen were still green (raw / undeveloped) at the college level we probably lose a bunch of those games. If we played those games now with our 2 freshmen blossoming because of actual college seasoning, Pitt would roll right over that league.

The NCAA Tournament is supposed to be about contenders competing for a final 4 and national championship. Some level of eye test "should" be used and still is. Teams that get better during the year are more relevant than teams that collapse at the end of year.


To some extent, you need to use an actual brain and an eye test. I barely watch football and college football for example, but anyone with a brain knew that Florida State without their QB was not a contender for a national championship, and they lost by about 70 points or whatever to Georgia in their bowl game. Everyone saw that coming, everyone knew FSU without their QB would of got blown out by Alabama who took their bid. Its basic common sense.

Teams like Utah and Villanova should not be in the NCAA Tournament. Pitt even has teams like New Mexico beat up and down the board except the actual NET ranking / pomeroy ranking. Not in the last 10 games however, Pitt is lapping most of the field in the last 10 games of the season in the efficiency metrics.


Im not even saying Pitt should be in right now. Im absolutely saying certain teams should be out right now. Im also saying the eye test is relevant and how you finish the season is way more important than how you start. There are hall of fame coaches like Jim Boeheim that agree with me on this.

 

[4Mark_Marty]

Yeah they should. Even if the Mountain West has no interest. They should schedule the games anyway, and then when the Mountain West teams don't show up we can declare all our teams winners by forfeit!

You are the definition of a jagoff. Plain and simple.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I dont think Joe is a troll but he loves his pomeroy metrics more than anything.

Coming from the guy who quotes offensive ratings, even for single games, all the time, you have to admit that's kind of funny.

I do like looking at sites like Pomeroy and Torvik and others. I also actually watch more college basketball than just about everyone on this board. I do all that because I like college basketball.

Heck, last night I was watched some of the UNLV - Nevada game. And then the end of Utah State's win over New Mexico when New Mexico tied the game late and then Utah State hit a buzzer beating three to win the game. And then I switched over and watched the end of USC's big upset win over Arizona. And then I even watched some of the UCLA - Arizona State game before I went to bed. Because I like watching college basketball.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You are the definition of a jagoff. Plain and simple.

Better a jagoff who knows what they are talking about than a dumbass, I guess.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

I dont think Joe is a troll but he loves his pomeroy metrics more than anything.



Ill make it even simpler. If Pitt played a bunch of mountain west teams in November when our 2 freshmen were still green (raw / undeveloped) at the college level we probably lose a bunch of those games. If we played those games now with our 2 freshmen blossoming because of actual college seasoning, Pitt would roll right over that league.

The NCAA Tournament is supposed to be about contenders competing for a final 4 and national championship. Some level of eye test "should" be used and still is. Teams that get better during the year are more relevant than teams that collapse at the end of year.


To some extent, you need to use an actual brain and an eye test. I barely watch football and college football for example, but anyone with a brain knew that Florida State without their QB was not a contender for a national championship, and they lost by about 70 points or whatever to Georgia in their bowl game. Everyone saw that coming, everyone knew FSU without their QB would of got blown out by Alabama who took their bid. Its basic common sense.

Teams like Utah and Villanova should not be in the NCAA Tournament. Pitt even has teams like New Mexico beat up and down the board except the actual NET ranking / pomeroy ranking. Not in the last 10 games however, Pitt is lapping most of the field in the last 10 games of the season in the efficiency metrics.


Im not even saying Pitt should be in right now. Im absolutely saying certain teams should be out right now. Im also saying the eye test is relevant and how you finish the season is way more important than how you start. There are hall of fame coaches like Jim Boeheim that agree with me on this.

I don’t disagree with a lot of your overall premise, but you start to tread into elitist territory when you convince yourself of some magic eye test that favors the power conferences. There are good games and ugly games all over the place. I could watch a 49-47 UVA vs Wake bout and be convinced the ACC sucks.

I'm in favor of letting the numbers dictate things, but the issue is those numbers are not a fair representation of an entire season right now. The mid-majors can, and do, game (at least benefit from) the system. St. Mary's being #17 in NET is a joke to me. Look at their schedule and tell me they would finish better than 10th in the ACC.

 

[4Mark_Marty]

Better a jagoff who knows what they are talking about than a dumbass, I guess.

You think teams not scheduling conference/ non conference games throughout the season is because they don’t want to? You’re a dumbass if you think that.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You think teams not scheduling conference/ non conference games throughout the season is because they don’t want to? You’re a dumbass if you think that.

Then why do teams not schedule non-conference games throughout January and February like they used to do pretty routinely?

They absolutely could, if they wanted to. They simply don't want to. Coaches would rather have that random open space in the schedule in February to rest their team than to schedule a good non-conference opponent. Which is completely understandable from the coach's point of view. But is also absolutely a choice.

 

[4Mark_Marty]

Then why do teams not schedule non-conference games throughout January and February like they used to do pretty routinely?

They absolutely could, if they wanted to. They simply don't want to. Coaches would rather have that random open space in the schedule in February to rest their team than to schedule a good non-conference opponent. Which is completely understandable from the coach's point of view. But is also absolutely a choice.

You’re wrong. Having over 300 teams to change what they’ve been doing for 80 years takes time. It’s not a matter of wanting to or not. The selection committee just recently overhauled the way it’s done its business in relation to 80 years of doing it one way. It takes time for this big of an organization to change its ways.

 

[Pittisit4me]

The Big 10 has gotten 17 bids the last 2 years and won 15 tournament games (15-17). The ACC has gotten 10 bids and won 21 games (21-10). Pre-determining conference strengths in November and December means little in March and yet the committee never seems to learn,

Yep. We need more Nebraska, Northwestern, and Iowa's. They really help the tournament field. They come practice, play one game and go home where they belong. It's sad, but you know, the committee is infallible.

 

[Usuallyunusual-partdeux]

The Big 10 has gotten 17 bids the last 2 years and won 15 tournament games (15-17). The ACC has gotten 10 bids and won 21 games (21-10). Pre-determining conference strengths in November and December means little in March and yet the committee never seems to learn,

You would think they learned their lesson....but nope. He who controls the narrative controls the perception. Keeps proving itself to be so in all arenas... except politics somehow.....oh well.