These bracketologists dropping teams 2, 3 and 4 spots after one result just aren’t paying attention to the actual selection process. The committee is required to evaluate a team’s entire body of work. Yes they are humans and can be swayed by recency bias, but the reality is the committee doesn’t shuffle teams around based on every game that happens. They have too much work to do when it comes to adhering to the bracketing and selection process and evaluating an entire season.
Weekend Bubble Game Thread
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
Especially not during the conference tournament. This is proven over and over again.
They constantly change these because they need engagement. Pitt is firmly in the field as an 11
Dude stop with the ridiculous hyperbole. Three acc teams?!?!?
Ok let’s keep out all of the following
Clemson. 23-10
Pitt. 22-11
Nc state. 23-10
Unc. 20-13
You act like the ACC is the sun belt or Mac
We were pretty safely in on Thursday at 2PM. Lose to Duke fairly close, still safely in. But the drop in NET caused by the blowout caused people to drop us 4-6 spots. 1 game. 1 loss to a really really good team.....but scoring margin soooooo
I said a SMALL possibility. SMALL.
1 of Pitt, NC State, and Clemson is probably getting in.
Decent chance of 2
Small chance at 0
The good news imo is that there are only 3 locks in the ACC right now accordingly to all the bracketologists, UVA, Duke and Miami. I just can't see the committee only taking 3 teams from the ACC. And Clemson blew their chance yesterday and Pitt is still left in the field by many bracketologists. I am actually more optimistic now given the fact that it would be shocking to see only 3 ACC teams get selected. I think Pitt gets in but unfortunately it probably will be Dayton.
Here's a question for you, how many teams with a NET in the 60's or higher made it in the field last year?
Could come down to Pitt or NC St and what they value more.
Pitt has the head to head (on the road)
Pitt has 1 more win over NCAAT team (@ NW)
Pitt has 2 bad losses ans NC State has 0
Is the NW win and head to head able to overcome the 2 bad losses?
The ACC is the most underrated conference among the P6 and BIG clearly the most overrated. But once a NET baseline was created based on initial ratings and pre-season results, it became a closed system which fed on itself providing out of proportion quadrant values to conference wins and losses. By simply playing around .500 by winning almost exclusively at home, a team could game the system and roll up impressive metrics. And the ultimate has been how the lesser ranked teams continue to advance in the tourney where the last place and 10th place teams could meet in the finals while the ACC tourney has been basically chalk.
Last edited:
Pitt’s biggest advantage is road Quad record with 3 Q1 road wins (3-2, 1-2, 2-1, 1-0 splits) and 7 P6 road wins. NC State is 0-5 Q1 on the road and has only 4 road wins. Road wins are a point of emphasis for the committee.
Miami was 62 and Rutgers was 77 on the site I am looking at now. I have seen other places say Rutgers was 80, but whatever, 77, 80, not really any difference there.
The others in the 50s were Creighton (55), Notre Dame (53) and Wyoming (50).
Damn. Yeah that's why getting blown out by Duke was the worst thing that could have happened to Pitt. We lose by 10 our NET would still be in the 50's or maybe low 60's. Unfortunately a NET of 67 is really high.
Miami was a solid 10 seed with a NET of 62 last year. And went to the Elite Eight.
I wouldn't be surprised if we're slotted very similarly to Miami last year. I wouldn't be surprised if we're in Dayton.
We'll see.
Most important
- Games by quadrant, listing results and upcoming games
- Records by quadrant, away and neutral
- Non-Conference Strength of Schedule (SOS)
- Overall SOS
- Overall road and neutral records
- Non-Division I losses
Some value
- Average NET win and loss
- Overall record
- Non-Conference record, road record
Not nothing, but not very important
- NET and other computer rankings
- Overall home records, non-conference and by quadrant
- Game scoring margins
Not criteria
- Conference records and standings
- AP Top 25, Coaches Poll
- Tournament history
The real problem is that anyone important who saw that game, or even was just keeping up with the score, was thinking that whole game, damn, Duke is like a five or a six seed and Pitt isn't even competitive with them.
That's a really bad thing to leave as your last impression, when important people absolutely are paying attention.
NET ranking in isolation is not really the issue. It’s the fact that when a conference has teams with lower NET rankings, the wins are devalued and losses amplified. So the ACC suffers and BIG thrives.
Also I think the takeaway from anyone important who saw that game was that Duke could have won by 50 if they wanted to. Pitt was so overmatched and had no answers at all it was shocking. I thought Duke would win but for Duke to be that dominant blew me away.
Similar threads
