Pitt loses at home by seven to NC State

[domestu]

Pitt is now 1-7 against top 68 RPI teams and has beaten nobody of note since knocking off Stanford back in November. I know that the ACC wants to see at least five schools make the Big Dance, but how deserving of a bid are the Panthers?

There is not one school from a major conference or any of the higher mid-majors that is in the hunt for an at-large bid this season that has beaten fewer good teams. A lot of people have posted here about Ohio State but the Buckeyes are 4-4 against top 50 RPI opponents and 6-5 vs. the top 68. Even St. Johns 1-7 vs. the top 50 and 4-9 vs. top 68 RPI opponents has a better resume than the Panthers.

 

[jncuse]

Well the last two teams that are out on the Matrix are Providence and Tennessee. So let's compare them all.

RPI
Tennessee 47
Pitt 52
Providence 56

Top 50
Tennessee 2-5 (Virginia, Xavier (N)
Providence 2-6 (Creighton, Xavier)
Pitt 1-7 (Stanford (N)

So all the teams have bad records. Tennessee and Providence have one top 10 level signature win. Pitt's losses are probably better than the others in aggregate.

Top 51-100
Pitt 4-2
Providence 4-4
Tennessee 5-3

Advantage Pitt in this category which is often used to separate bubble teams -- this is after all the level of those teams.

Bad Losses
Pitt - None
Providence - Seton Hall
Tennessee - UTEP, Texas AM (2)

Another Advantage Pitt.


Conclusion It's close. I would probably eliminate Tennessee first because of the 3 bad losses vs 0.

So it's Providence vs Pitt. Providence has the signature win (Creighton), but it also has a bad loss in Seton Hall. So do they eliminate each other? Maybe, maybe not.

It may come down to the slight edge in the 51-100 range for Pitt.

So Pitt is probably barely in as of today. But as the above shows, if they are in... they are barely in.

 

[jncuse]

Pitt / St. John's is also close. Your use of 68 as a cutoff is rather arbitrary... are San Fran and Marquette really better than Maryland or Clemson. They are all at the same level really.

St. John's has that signature over Creighton (which Pitt does not have), but it also has 2 bad losses in Depaul and Penn St (which Pitt does not have either) Do the losses outweigh that one win... or is it worth the same?

I think Pitt's losses in the top 50 may be better, if that means anything??

In the 51-100 category its basically a draw with both teams at 4-2.

I would go with Pitt by the slightest of margins, because of the two bad losses.

Go Clemson.

 

[jncuse]

Pitt vs Nebraska

3-7 vs top 50 (Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio St)
1-6 vs top 50 (Stanford)

4-1 vs 4-2 in 51-100 category, so a draw

Bad losses for Nebraska - UAB, Purdue, Penn St

We seem to have an ongoing theme -- other teams suck vs top 50, but do have a signature win... but they also tend to have 2 or more bad losses.

Pitt's entire resume lays on the fact that it did not lose to somebody it should not have, which most bubble teams did (i.e a sub 100 loss). I would love to see them lose in their first game in the ACC tourney.

 

[HoustonCuse]

Tennessee has the signature 35 point blowout over UVa. That could gain them some differentiation when Pitt barely scored 35 total against them at home with an extra 5 minutes!

 

[jncuse]

Tennessee has the signature 35 point blowout over UVa. That could gain them some differentiation when Pitt barely scored 35 total against them at home with an extra 5 minutes!

Its a signature win. I don't think they will get extra bonus points for the margin.

You can't isolate to one game... or one common opponent. Pitt has played teams the level of Texas AM and UTEP... and did not lose.

I don't want to defend Pitt too much. They are ahead of the Vols, but not by much.

 

[HoustonCuse]

Its a signature win. I don't think they will get extra bonus points for the margin.

You can't isolate to one game... or one common opponent. Pitt has played teams the level of Texas AM and UTEP... and did not lose.

I don't want to defend Pitt too much. They are ahead of the Vols, but not by much.

You are stepping very close to the line here my friend. I will be watching...

 

[domestu]

Maybe 68 is an arbitrary number but there are 68 teams in the NCAAs so I went with that. Since I don't expect any team with a higher RPI to receive an at-large bid, it seems like a good cutoff number to use for determining tournament worthy schools.

We can look at their record versus the top 100 or 150, but Pitt still has only one victory over a team in the RPI top 68 and it occurred way back in November. Think about how absurd that is.

The only thing boosting their RPI over many of the current bubble teams is that they played five ACC games against top 18 RPI schools. Does Pitt deserve to be in the tournament because they beat all of those league members who aren't going to the NCAAs? They are 11-0 against teams with an RPI worse than 170. Should they be rewarded because they didn't lose those games they should have won?

No team from the old Big East Conference ever would have been considered for the NCAA Tournament with a record like this and a lot of BE schools with far better resumes were shut out over the years. I don't think teams from the power conferences who do not have any quality wins should qualify for an at-large bid solely because they don't have any losses to lousy opponents.

 

[HoustonCuse]

Pitt is circling the drain and the only thing I feel sorry for is the sewer.

 

[sdhusky]

Pitt is circling the drain and the only thing I feel sorry for is the sewer.

Exactly. I predict Pitt self destructing right now and PC make a run in the BET.

 

[jncuse]

Maybe 68 is an arbitrary number but there are 68 teams in the NCAAs so I went with that. Since I don't expect any team with a higher RPI to receive an at-large bid, it seems like a good cutoff number to use for determining tournament worthy schools.

We can look at their record versus the top 100 or 150, but Pitt still has only one victory over a team in the RPI top 68 and it occurred way back in November. Think about how absurd that is.

The only thing boosting their RPI over many of the current bubble teams is that they played five ACC games against top 18 RPI schools. Does Pitt deserve to be in the tournament because they beat all of those league members who aren't going to the NCAAs? They are 11-0 against teams with an RPI worse than 170. Should they be rewarded because they didn't lose those games they should have won?

No team from the old Big East Conference ever would have been considered for the NCAA Tournament with a record like this and a lot of BE schools with far better resumes were shut out over the years. I don't think teams from the power conferences who do not have any quality wins should qualify for an at-large bid solely because they don't have any losses to lousy opponents.

Here is the problem with using top 68.

After last night it's no longer 4 wins to 1.. it's 3-2...marquette is now 70, and NC st is now 62.

And San Francisco is now 68,so st john's may fall to 2. And if Clemson beats pitt, ot may well move into the top 68. So it would be 3 wins pitt vs 2 wins st johns.

That is why I called 68 a harsh cutoff, because so many wins are right around it.

Bad losses matter. You can't only look at wins.

As for a BE team getting in with a comp able bad resume... Sourh Florida in 2012

 

[jncuse]

Further to no Big East team would get in like this... and example of USF.

USF was 19-13, 2-9 vs top 50, and 3 bad losses (sub 100). Is that 1 extra top 50 win worth more than 3 bad losses. Not IMO.

 

[kingtidge]

Pitt is circling the drain and the only thing I feel sorry for is the sewer.

Couldn't happen to a nicer coach...

slick-back dick-back dixon... maybe they can handcheck their way out of the hole...

 

[Madbiker]

Pitt is now 1-7 against top 68 RPI teams and has beaten nobody of note since knocking off Stanford back in November. I know that the ACC wants to see at least five schools make the Big Dance, but how deserving of a bid are the Panthers?

There is not one school from a major conference or any of the higher mid-majors that is in the hunt for an at-large bid this season that has beaten fewer good teams. A lot of people have posted here about Ohio State but the Buckeyes are 4-4 against top 50 RPI opponents and 6-5 vs. the top 68. Even St. Johns 1-7 vs. the top 50 and 4-9 vs. top 68 RPI opponents has a better resume than the Panthers.

Shush, you're devaluing our 2 wins over Pitt. Generally you want to talk up the teams you've beaten.

 

[sabach]

Maybe somebody should post a picture of the Pitt coach on the ESPN website with the title "On the Dixon".

 

[HoustonCuse]

Maybe somebody should post a picture of the Pitt coach on the ESPN website with the title "On the Dixon".

In honor of their famous "Chink in the Armor" headline, they could go with "Greasing the Skids."

 

[domestu]

Once again Pitt's best win came way back in November, they have no quality wins and no quality road victories. I asked if any BE team ever received an at-large bid with this kind of record where its resume was based solely on the standard that they hadn't lost to any lousy teams and you offer up South Florida in 2012.

South Florida was in a better conference that year and played a much tougher out-of-conference schedule than Pitt has this season. The Bulls OOC schedule was ranked 56 that season and included road games at Kansas, VCU and Auburn and Southern Miss. Pitt's non-conference SOS is ranked 246 and they did not play a single road game until conference play began in January.

South Florida's best victories came the last week of February when they beat Cincy and then won at Louisville. That second game gives the Bulls a victory over a top RPI opponent and a quality win on the road.

Can you show me a Big East team that made the NCAA Tournament based solely on the criteria that they won all of their games against lousy teams and beat the teams they should?

 

[jncuse]

Once again Pitt's best win came way back in November, they have no quality wins and no quality road victories. I asked if any BE team ever received an at-large bid with this kind of record where its resume was based solely on the standard that they hadn't lost to any lousy teams and you offer up South Florida in 2012.

To be clear you asked a) for a teams with a similar record to Pitt, and b) said that no Big East teams got in with a worst resume

In my view a 2-9 record vs the top 50, is not that much different than 1-6. They are pretty comparable and I think a very fair team to bring up.

South Florida has more games in part because it played 3 OOC top 50 games which it lost. Let's assume Pitt did the same (certainly they no deserve the benefit of the doubt).

At worse we are comparing 2-9 vs 1-10... both extremely awful for a team making the tournament. As I said all along in my post, USF has one extra victory (marquee one) , a road win vs a 4 seed that is the difference.

The fact that you are hyping the Cincinnati win at home, and downplaying the Stanford win in November seems silly to me. February or November... timeline does not matter to the committee. Those cancel out.

Then we have the 3 losses vs sub 100.. you mentioned extra OOC road games causing this, but at the end of the day, South Florida played 4 road games vs teams ranked 101-200. And Pitt has also played 4 road games against teams ranked 101-200. So extra road games is not the source of that difference.

Both teams are good in the 51-100 range... 4-1 vs 4-2.

• So once again the team had very comparable awful records vs top 50 teams... let says its 2-9 vs 1-10 (giving Pitt losses in all those OOC games that USF played). The differnece is win at Louisville. That one win is significant
• The teams had similar schedules against sub 100 teams. USF lost 3 of them, Pitt lost 0. That is also very significant.

Is one marquee win more important than 3 bad losses?

Over the course of a season that is 3-1 vs 1-3. I think a bad loss should have the same value as an elite win, and in my view committee tends to think the same way.

 

[jncuse]

Can you show me a Big East team that made the NCAA Tournament based solely on the criteria that they won all of their games against lousy teams and beat the teams they should?

Can you show me one Big East team that did not make the tourney after winning all its sub 100 games, and winning all the games they should have above that?

I think we may not be able to find an answer either way, to be honest.

Pitt has a unique resume... its odd to find a team with such a clean dividing line in its resume. NC St at home, was that first little bump against that dividing line. Let's hope the first round in the ACC tournament is the second one... and perhaps a fatal one.