And went with:
1) The eye test
2) Who is playing the best right now.
There is way too much emphasis on "SOS". Way too much. It doesn't matter if you win, but who you play.
Michigan State (25)
Colorado State (37)
Pitt (41)
Texas A&M (42)
TCU (43)
Northwestern (54)
Virginia (55)
KenPom
Michigan State (20)
TCU (32)
Colorado State (37)
Pitt (40)
Texas A&M (44)
Northwestern (46)
Virginia (69)
Quad 1 wins
Texas A&M (7)
Colorado State (6)
TCU (5)
Northwestern (4)
Pitt (4)
Michigan State (3)
Virginia (2)
Quad 1 + Quad 2 wins
Texas A&M (13)
Virginia (10)
Colorado State (9)
Michigan State (9)
Northwestern (9)
Pitt (9)
TCU (8)
Quad 3 + Quad 4 losses
Michigan State (0)
TCU (0)
Virginia (0)
Colorado State (1)
Northwestern (1)
Pitt (2)
Texas A&M (4)
Strength of schedule
Michigan State (12)
Texas A&M (19)
TCU (46)
Northwestern (49)
Colorado State (64)
Virginia (77)
Pitt (80)
Non-conference strength of schedule
Colorado State (52)
Texas A&M (62)
Michigan State (77)
Virginia (236)
Pitt (340)
Northwestern (355)
TCU (357)
“The [selection] committee has never taken a team with a number like that among its last teams in,” ESPN bracketologist Joe Lunardi told the Post-Gazette last week. “I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, but I’m saying that’s their most consistent trait in all the years I’ve been doing this.”
If it’s true that no bubble team with a non-conference strength of schedule that ranks 340th or lower has ever been awarded an at-large bubble spot, the selection committee made two exceptions in the same year. TCU and Northwestern both earned 9-seeds in the Midwest (TCU) and East (Northwestern) regions, and each had a lower non-conference strength of schedule than Pitt.
However, both had stronger overall strength of schedule ratings, while TCU also had more Quad 1 wins and a higher KenPom ranking. Pitt had a higher NET ranking than either team, and either matched or exceeded them in combined Quad 1 and Quad 2 wins.
Bracketologist Rocco Miller told the Post-Gazette that Pitt’s non-conference strength of schedule rivaled that of another recent ACC team with 20-plus wins who was denied an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament. Miller compared Pitt to Wake Forest’s 2021-2022 team that finished its pre-March Madness resume with a 23-9 record, but also with a non-conference strength of schedule ranking of 350.
And in that season, one of the eight teams in the country with lower rankings than Wake Forest in its non-conference strength of schedule earned an at-large bid: 18-14 Rutgers. The Scarlet Knights that season ranked 354th out of 358 teams in that category and earned a spot as one of the last four teams in the tournament that year and played in the play-in games in Dayton, Ohio.
So countering Lunardi’s claim, that’s another bubble team with a worse non-conference strength of schedule than Pitt’s 2024 standing of 340 to be awarded an at-large bid. Granted, it was a different season with a lot of other metrics that were in play.
1) The eye test
2) Who is playing the best right now.
There is way too much emphasis on "SOS". Way too much. It doesn't matter if you win, but who you play.
Metrics comparisons
NETMichigan State (25)
Colorado State (37)
Pitt (41)
Texas A&M (42)
TCU (43)
Northwestern (54)
Virginia (55)
KenPom
Michigan State (20)
TCU (32)
Colorado State (37)
Pitt (40)
Texas A&M (44)
Northwestern (46)
Virginia (69)
Quad 1 wins
Texas A&M (7)
Colorado State (6)
TCU (5)
Northwestern (4)
Pitt (4)
Michigan State (3)
Virginia (2)
Quad 1 + Quad 2 wins
Texas A&M (13)
Virginia (10)
Colorado State (9)
Michigan State (9)
Northwestern (9)
Pitt (9)
TCU (8)
Quad 3 + Quad 4 losses
Michigan State (0)
TCU (0)
Virginia (0)
Colorado State (1)
Northwestern (1)
Pitt (2)
Texas A&M (4)
Strength of schedule
Michigan State (12)
Texas A&M (19)
TCU (46)
Northwestern (49)
Colorado State (64)
Virginia (77)
Pitt (80)
Non-conference strength of schedule
Colorado State (52)
Texas A&M (62)
Michigan State (77)
Virginia (236)
Pitt (340)
Northwestern (355)
TCU (357)
“The [selection] committee has never taken a team with a number like that among its last teams in,” ESPN bracketologist Joe Lunardi told the Post-Gazette last week. “I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, but I’m saying that’s their most consistent trait in all the years I’ve been doing this.”
If it’s true that no bubble team with a non-conference strength of schedule that ranks 340th or lower has ever been awarded an at-large bubble spot, the selection committee made two exceptions in the same year. TCU and Northwestern both earned 9-seeds in the Midwest (TCU) and East (Northwestern) regions, and each had a lower non-conference strength of schedule than Pitt.
However, both had stronger overall strength of schedule ratings, while TCU also had more Quad 1 wins and a higher KenPom ranking. Pitt had a higher NET ranking than either team, and either matched or exceeded them in combined Quad 1 and Quad 2 wins.
Bracketologist Rocco Miller told the Post-Gazette that Pitt’s non-conference strength of schedule rivaled that of another recent ACC team with 20-plus wins who was denied an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament. Miller compared Pitt to Wake Forest’s 2021-2022 team that finished its pre-March Madness resume with a 23-9 record, but also with a non-conference strength of schedule ranking of 350.
And in that season, one of the eight teams in the country with lower rankings than Wake Forest in its non-conference strength of schedule earned an at-large bid: 18-14 Rutgers. The Scarlet Knights that season ranked 354th out of 358 teams in that category and earned a spot as one of the last four teams in the tournament that year and played in the play-in games in Dayton, Ohio.
So countering Lunardi’s claim, that’s another bubble team with a worse non-conference strength of schedule than Pitt’s 2024 standing of 340 to be awarded an at-large bid. Granted, it was a different season with a lot of other metrics that were in play.
