This will only make you mad, but...

[Pitt_Boss]

....nice article in the PG ( yeah that PG ) today about NCAA selection process with respect to ACC teams:
https://www.post-gazette.com/sports...r-wolfpack-pitt-panthers/stories/202404060051

Unfortunately, this article just takes a deeper look at what we already know: For whatever reason, the ACC is intentionally being treated differently than just about every other league. Not just the Big Ten and Big 12, but the SEC, Big East, etc. ACC teams are being held to a different standard than teams from any other multi-bid league.

Bottom line, whatever reason is behind this, it just points out what we already know. Pitt has to win 24 games and/or win the ACC to get a bid in the current climate. As we just saw, 22 wins and a Top 4 ACC finish is not good enough, even though there is zero chance a 22 win/Top 4 team team from Big Ten, SEC, B12, etc would get left out. This is particularly frustrating because I think 22 wins/Top 4 ACC is about the most we can expect from Pitt in the typical season. Sure, we can have a great year and win the league once, but with Duke, UNC, etc looming, most years we looking just to finish Top 4 in the league...which means we are sitting home when the Madness starts.

 

[Pittnerski]

We need our bottom to rise up and teams not to crap the bed in the OOC schedule.

Big NET traps the past few years with Ville, FSU, ND, BC last year …

They need to do away with rhe quadrants. Not all Q4 games are equal. Losing to FSU last year is not equal to losing to Nicholls St

 

[SteelBowl70]

We need our bottom to rise up and teams not to crap the bed in the OOC schedule.

Big NET traps the past few years with Ville, FSU, ND, BC last year …

They need to do away with rhe quadrants. Not all Q4 games are equal. Losing to FSU last year is not equal to losing to Nicholls St

2023 Pitt had 11 Q3/Q4 conference games
Last they had only 5
Conference was much better this year but didn’t get any credit for it.
The freaking 10th place team made the final 4.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

We need our bottom to rise up and teams not to crap the bed in the OOC schedule.

Big NET traps the past few years with Ville, FSU, ND, BC last year …

They need to do away with rhe quadrants. Not all Q4 games are equal. Losing to FSU last year is not equal to losing to Nicholls St

If they cared that much about NET, wouldn't Indiana State have been in over UVa? Agree on the quadrants though. And need to get out of the gate quicker

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

If they cared that much about NET, wouldn't Indiana State have been in over UVa? Agree on the quadrants though. And need to get out of the gate quicker

They need to get rid of considering quadrants, OOC schedules, etc. and other factors in making selections. The NCAA should just use the overall NET rankings if they are using NET at all. All this use of fuzzy sub-sets of the overall NET rankings are just used to give selection committee members excuses to include or exclude teams for undefined/hidden reasons.

 

[JohnnyGossamer]

I mean, Clemson went 22-11 (11-9) lost their opening game in the ACCT to BC by 22 and was a 6 seed. Not sure I'm buying this.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I mean, Clemson went 22-11 (11-9) lost their opening game in the ACCT to BC by 22 and was a 6 seed. Not sure I'm buying this.

Non-con SOS is really all that matters. They beat Bama, TCU, South Carolina, and Boise. They could have gone 8-12 and gotten in because of that

 

[SteelBowl70]

Non-con SOS is really all that matters. They beat Bama, TCU, South Carolina, and Boise. They could have gone 8-12 and gotten in because of that

The continuous bracketology which starts way too early, is a major culprit to the OOC SOS weighting since it starts solely based on OOC results and creates an intertia and perspective that’s harder to change with in-conference results. Clemson is a great example of a team which started IN and was harder to move down while Pitt started way OUT and it became impossible to move in. In 2023, Pitt was in early enough to survive a shaky finish.

I don’t like that bracketology is no longer simply predictive but actually has impacts on who gets in by tainting the jury pool. When yOu combine this with the subjectivity in the room on what criteria gets prioritized (OOC vs road wins), it’s a real mess. If Bilas had been in the room, Pitt is probably a 9 seed.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The continuous bracketology which starts way too early, is a major culprit to the OOC SOS weighting since it starts solely based on OOC results and creates an intertia and perspective that’s harder to change with in-conference results. Clemson is a great example of a team which started IN and was harder to move down while Pitt started way OUT and it became impossible to move in. In 2023, Pitt was in early enough to survive a shaky finish.

I don’t like that bracketology is no longer simply predictive but actually has impacts on who gets in by tainting the jury pool. When yOu combine this with the subjectivity in the room on what criteria gets prioritized (OOC vs road wins), it’s a real mess. If Bilas had been in the room, Pitt is probably a 9 seed.

Clemson deserved to be in but their non-con was weighted way too heavily. In the ACC, they went 1-5 vs UVa, UNC, Duke, and NC St, and Wake. But did go 2-0 vs Pitt. The emphasis the committee puts on November games when teams dont even know each other's names is maddening.

 

[Pepperdine Fan]

Clemson deserved to be in but their non-con was weighted way too heavily. In the ACC, they went 1-5 vs UVa, UNC, Duke, and NC St, and Wake. But did go 2-0 vs Pitt. The emphasis the committee puts on November games when teams dont even know each other's names is maddening.

Play Better
Coach better
Recruit better


That’s how you do it

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Play Better
Coach better
Recruit better


That’s how you do it

Yes but it is a flawed process when November games are weighted more heavily tha Feb/Mar.

 

[maxxwell]

ACC getting 5 teams was reasonable, or at best a minor slighting of the conference. We here just believe they got the fifth team wrong. The Big East (and maybe others) got totally jobbed. Hopefully the Committee wakes up to the fallacy of unduly crediting certain conferences like the Big 12 and MWC.

 

[TD_6082]

Or maybe the conference just wasn't that good this year. The ACC had 3 #1 seeds back in 2019. There really isn't any anti-ACC conspiracy.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

ACC getting 5 teams was reasonable, or at best a minor slighting of the conference. We here just believe they got the fifth team wrong. The Big East (and maybe others) got totally jobbed. Hopefully the Committee wakes up to the fallacy of unduly crediting certain conferences like the Big 12 and MWC.

Pitt and Wake should have made it. Colorado, Colorado St, Boise St, Dayton, and FAU should not have. Wake lost 3 games before Efton Reid became eligible and were clearly better than those crappy teams. Steve Forbes made a good point that if the CFP can leave out FSU football for not having a key player available, they should consider what would have happened if Reid were available for those 3 losses. Bottom line is they let in too much garbage from outside the Power 6.

And I was impressed with watching BE Tournament play. Maybe it was just the MSG factor but those teams looked good to me. The MWC and American tournaments looked like rec basketball. Tough to watch.

 

[TD_6082]

Pitt and Wake should have made it. Colorado, Colorado St, Boise St, Dayton, and FAU should not have. Wake lost 3 games before Efton Reid became eligible and were clearly better than those crappy teams. Steve Forbes made a good point that if the CFP can leave out FSU football for not having a key player available, they should consider what would have happened if Reid were available for those 3 losses. Bottom line is they let in too much garbage from outside the Power 6.

And I was impressed with watching BE Tournament play. Maybe it was just the MSG factor but those teams looked good to me. The MWC and American tournaments looked like rec basketball. Tough to watch.

Pitt, Wake, and Virginia weren't very good this year.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Pitt, Wake, and Virginia weren't very good this year.

Neither was:

Colorado
Colorado St
Boise
Dayton
FAU
TCU
Northwestern
etc

 

[TD_6082]

Neither was:

Colorado
Colorado St
Boise
Dayton
FAU
TCU
Northwestern
etc

And the committee will sort it out. But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter. Its not like any of those teams had any realistic shot at winning a championship.

 

[Pitt_Boss]

Big East also got jobbed this year, but I don't care about them

 

[Chairman Moe]

It's not like any of those teams had any realistic shot at winning a championship.

@TD_6082, if you look at it that way, why even have a 68-team NCAA Tournament in the first place? Why not just cut to the chase and only invite the teams that DO have a chance at winning a championship?

Despite the popularity of writing down your bracket picks/upset picks prior to the tournament, and all of the hoopla involved with being a part of "the big dance", maybe fewer teams are what's needed now. I know that the push to include more teams was giving the conferences outside of the P5 a chance, but does it, really?

Many of the top teams from conferences outside of the P5 get to play the top teams of the P5 in OOC games. Have those teams (conference winners from outside the P5) play in the NIT, e.g., at the end of the season for a more reasonable shot at winning a trophy/banner. @Sean Miller Fan gets his wish (no "bid stealers" from the mid-majors) and the NCCAT is left to sort out the best teams from the best conferences

Said with TPFIC

 

[Franb]

And the committee will sort it out. But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter. Its not like any of those teams had any realistic shot at winning a championship.

Most of the the 68 teams had no shot at winning the championship.

 

[TD_6082]

@TD_6082, if you look at it that way, why even have a 68-team NCAA Tournament in the first place? Why not just cut to the chase and only invite the teams that DO have a chance at winning a championship?

Despite the popularity of writing down your bracket picks/upset picks prior to the tournament, and all of the hoopla involved with being a part of "the big dance", maybe fewer teams are what's needed now. I know that the push to include more teams was giving the conferences outside of the P5 a chance, but does it, really?

Many of the top teams from conferences outside of the P5 get to play the top teams of the P5 in OOC games. Have those teams (conference winners from outside the P5) play in the NIT, e.g., at the end of the season for a more reasonable shot at winning a trophy/banner. @Sean Miller Fan gets his wish (no "bid stealers" from the mid-majors) and the NCCAT is left to sort out the best teams from the best conferences

Said with TPFIC

They aren't going to contract obviously. It's such a money generator, I suspect they will expand it in the near future.

I just don't have a lot of sympathy for bubble teams. And I hate to be the program that takes home the annual Seth Greenberg/VaTech award for whining about getting left out. Seems like that was a staple of Selection Sunday for a few years

Obviously as a fan, it's better to make the tourney than not, but I just don't think it's a lot of fun knowing your team is limited. And the idea that just making the tournament is a building block for the program... I don't think it means near as much today, given every year is basically a reset.

 

[TD_6082]

Most of the the 68 teams had no shot at winning the championship.

Exactly.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

Pitt, Wake, and Virginia weren't very good this year.

Dude stop. They were better than a lot of the garbage they let in the tournament. Everyone knew the MWC was a complete joke, and they didn't disappoint by bombing tremendously.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

Most of the the 68 teams had no shot at winning the championship.

What is this supposed to mean? They might as well just pick 5 or 6 teams. Throw darts at a board for the rest and be done with it.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

What is this supposed to mean? They might as well just pick 5 or 6 teams. Throw darts at a board for the rest and be done with it.

Seriously, if that's all you want out of March Madness, one of the most exciting sporting events in this country (which brings in casual fans who otherwise pay no attention to basketball), just seed the AP top 16 or so and make that your playoff. No tournament seed above 7 has won a national title since we got the shot clock, guess we shouldn't even have the first few rounds.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Dude stop. They were better than a lot of the garbage they let in the tournament. Everyone knew the MWC was a complete joke, and they didn't disappoint by bombing tremendously.

I am still pissed that the MWC got a win because it got a matchup with Mr. November. Of course, they lost by 70 in Game 2 though.

 

[TD_6082]

Dude stop. They were better than a lot of the garbage they let in the tournament. Everyone knew the MWC was a complete joke, and they didn't disappoint by bombing tremendously.

Not sure they were a lot better than the 3 ACC teams I mentioned . Virginia was hammered by a MWC team & Wake lost their second round NIT game at home to Georgia.

 

[Franb]

It

What is this supposed to mean? They might as well just pick 5 or 6 teams. Throw darts at a board for the rest and be done with it.

It means that since most of the teams in the tournament do not have a realistic chance to win it, making that claim as a reason to bypass certain teams is irrelevant. The tournament is not about inviting only teams that have a chance to win the championship.

 

[JS School]

Pitt and Wake should have made it.

Agree, but Pitt or Wake pulling off an upset or two wouldn't have made them media darlings. The NCAAs love Cinderella stories.