Why do the talking heads still keep referring to them as a bubble team? Lunardi has Pitt as a bubble team and Iowa as a lock. Huh? Greenberg and Williams just questioned Pitt too. They are 23-8, 11-7 from a power conference, rpi in the mid-40s and most of their losses were to top 15 teams that went down to the final possession. not a Pitt fan at all but there is zero chance they are on the bubble.
Pitt's NCAA prospects ...
- Thread starter bpo57
- Start date
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,871
- Like
- 34,078
The main case against Pitt was lack of quality wins (one top 50 against Stanford), and a poor OOC schedule. The main case for them is they have basically beat everybody they have played outside of the top 50 (a few exceptions) and they have no bad losses. Even the losses they have are mostly top 25.
So
- Less quality wins than other bubble teams (although the mix of top 50 games they played was high)
- Much better against average and bad teams.
To me they are in. They guaranteed they will not have a "bad loss" this year after beating Wake. No other bubble team can say that. Many have 2 or more.
Historically two factors that separate the bubble are:
1) Top 50 Wins
2) Committee will punish bubble teams that did not schedule well.
The problem is they can get a double punishment. Pushed to the bubble because of lack of 50 wins, and then eliminated purely because of their OOC schedule. And the committee has dismissed bubble teams purely for this reason in the past.
So
- Less quality wins than other bubble teams (although the mix of top 50 games they played was high)
- Much better against average and bad teams.
To me they are in. They guaranteed they will not have a "bad loss" this year after beating Wake. No other bubble team can say that. Many have 2 or more.
Historically two factors that separate the bubble are:
1) Top 50 Wins
2) Committee will punish bubble teams that did not schedule well.
The problem is they can get a double punishment. Pushed to the bubble because of lack of 50 wins, and then eliminated purely because of their OOC schedule. And the committee has dismissed bubble teams purely for this reason in the past.
Good luck finding 36 at large teams that will get in ahead of them. When you look at it that way they are a lock.
Key point you make is they don't have many bad losses. Often times those can kill you.
I would rather have a team with a few good wins, and maybe one or two bad losses, it shows that you can beat tournament caliber teams.
They will probably get in, but if I was Pitt fan, and I didn't win tomorrow, I wouldn't be sleeping too well the rest of the weekend.
Do the math and come up with 36 at large teams ahead of them. In this era of 68 invites you're not going to see a 23-8 team from a power conference and an RPI in the low 40s not get invited. You're hung up on quality wins yet ignore down to the wire losses against teams in the top 15.
SUfaninAZ
All Conference
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,232
- Like
- 4,128
What was our rpi in 07'?
We won 22 games and didn't get in, after 07 I don't know how you would call anyone with that resume a lock. I am hung up over quality wins, you know who else is? The selection committee.
One thing you and BrianCuse are forgetting is that there were 65 teams in the field in 2007 and now there are 68. You can't get to 68 without heaving Pitt in and it's really not that close.
orange2win
2nd String
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 920
- Like
- 540
Although their RPI is #44, it is prior to tonight's game. Their BPI is #17 and Ken Pom has them at #19. If they make a decent showing tomorrow against UNC, they're in for sure. If they get blown out tomorrow, it's still up in the air, despite tonight's win.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,871
- Like
- 34,078
That was an awful end to season. 1-6, and a bad loss to Northwestern today.
But I think with 4 top 50 wins (2 top 25 wins against Michigan and Ohio St), and only bad loss, they will be fine.
Of course if you get 10 cracks at a top 25 win, it shouldn't be that difficult to win 2...
That is true, and I think that they will be getting in. I am just saying that they aren't a lock. If we had the same resume , would you be feeling 100% safe right now?
RandygoCuse
All Conference
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,659
- Like
- 2,950
I would agree with you but with 68 instead of 65 now, I'm sure we get in. I know, it seems like I'm splitting hairs, but I can't see any way they get left out.
Oakland
2022 Iggy Winner: ACC Record
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 2,949
- Like
- 3,502
They are not, but should be. Pitt did exactly what the NCAA said they didn't want to see: schedule easy wins in the OOC. And boy did they ever schedule easy wins - I think DePaul might be embarassed by that schedule! It is too bad that Clemson blew that game because Pitt will now get away with it.
MSOrange
2020 Cali Award Winner, Regular Season Record
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 50,719
- Like
- 124,391
I'd never sleep very well if I was a Pitt fan.
If you left everybody out that scheduled OOC cupcakes then you might have difficulty conducting a tournament. I think if you play 18 games in a power conference then the emphasis placed on games in November/December is way overblown. many teams in March remotely resemble (good and bad) the teams they were in early December.
Similar threads
