2022-2023 #22 Pitt Super Panthers (Football) Sports Thread

[willeyeam]

This bubble talk is crazy. The ACC may be down, but a 9-3 ACC team is 1000% in the tournament

[MrKennethTKangaroo]

This bubble talk is crazy. The ACC may be down, but a 9-3 ACC team is 1000% in the tournament

If duke had 7 losses but two wins against unc, a w against Miami, and a W against UVA, they would not be like 5 or 6 seed

[Morkle]

I don't see how Pitt is even on the bubble. You're telling me they're NOT one of the 60 best teams in the nation? They're close to top 25 maybe even in it.

[willeyeam]

And @ NCST. Btw, this 30 point win @ NW is looking decent now too

[willeyeam]

imo the NET rankings are majorly flawed this season. I'm not sure if it's because of other preseason rankings or too much weight on metrics like KenPom. But. The ACC went 8-6 in the ACC/B1G challenge but every ACC loss is a huge ding to their ranking. Meanwhile in the Big Twelve no one gets penalized for any loss because they're all so good, so you have teams like WVU at like 2-7 in the conference but in the tournament at the moment. Hopefully the committee takes a step back and uses some common sense. The Big 12 may be the best this year, but I think the rankings have gotten a little extreme

[willeyeam]

NET update - Pitt jumped the whole way from #61 to #59 after a quad 1 win @ UNC

[skullman80]

Ridiculous.

[willeyeam]

summoning @Orlando Penguin - any thoughts on the NET? I'm all for analytics, but something seems flawed in this system at the moment. I look at Indiana at 15-7 with a 3-6 record vs quad one @ #23, meanwhile Pitt is 4-2 in quad 1 at #59. Is the loss vs FSU weighted that much? This just seems odd. Even PSU is ahead of Pitt, and 2-4 in quad 1 and 2-4 in quad 2, with another loss on the year. Just don't make no sense to me

[MrKennethTKangaroo]

imo the NET rankings are majorly flawed this season. I'm not sure if it's because of other preseason rankings or too much weight on metrics like KenPom. But. The ACC went 8-6 in the ACC/B1G challenge but every ACC loss is a huge ding to their ranking. Meanwhile in the Big Twelve no one gets penalized for any loss because they're all so good, so you have teams like WVU at like 2-7 in the conference but in the tournament at the moment. Hopefully the committee takes a step back and uses some common sense. The Big 12 may be the best this year, but I think the rankings have gotten a little extreme

I'm pretty sure during the TCU WVU game a few days ago, they specifically said that a wvu loss would still leave them as one of the last 4 in.

[MrKennethTKangaroo]

tOSU is 11-10 overall and 1-6 in the big ten and has a net of like 25

[robbiestoupe]

Yeah these rankings are completely confusing to me. Even as an ACC follower in general, why is Clemson so poorly ranked and Virginia highly ranked? The only explanation is they are taking preseason rankings way too seriously.

[willeyeam]

i get it's a tool, not the tool, I just hope there isn't too much emphasis put on it because it seems clearly flawed imo

[DigitalGypsy66]

Yeah these rankings are completely confusing to me. Even as an ACC follower in general, why is Clemson so poorly ranked and Virginia highly ranked? The only explanation is they are taking preseason rankings way too seriously.

Clemson lost to a bad South Carolina team (as they did in football, ugh), Iowa, and Loyola-Chicago. That hammered their NET rankings or whatever. Their Duke win was excellent, and barely moved the needle.

[robbiestoupe]

Yeah these rankings are completely confusing to me. Even as an ACC follower in general, why is Clemson so poorly ranked and Virginia highly ranked? The only explanation is they are taking preseason rankings way too seriously.

Clemson lost to a bad South Carolina team (as they did in football, ugh), Iowa, and Loyola-Chicago. That hammered their NET rankings or whatever. Their Duke win was excellent, and barely moved the needle.

In years past, the tournament selection committee would weigh recent wins higher than previous wins. Same for losses. Don't know if they still do that, but it made sense. Teams like Pitt have a bunch of new players and it may take a while for them to gel. So the team at the end of the year is more representative of who they really are.

[robbiestoupe]

Oh, and I see that College of Charleston is doing pretty well this year. Have a slight rooting interest there as my cousin is going there now and his mom graduated from there.

[MrKennethTKangaroo]

Some talk on Pantherlair seems to indicate that point differential matters a lot. So a 1 point unc win is nice but 30 point losses to the wvu and Michigan are going to disastrous.

Of course, a reasonable human would observe that this team has changed substantially in the past 2 months and is better than NET indicates

[willeyeam]

Some talk on Pantherlair seems to indicate that point differential matters a lot. So a 1 point unc win is nice but 30 point losses to the wvu and Michigan are going to disastrous.

This is where I wonder if the KenPom type numbers are too influential in NET. For instance, KenPom is valuable in creating a line between two teams. OSU might be 1-10 in conference or whatever but in a head-to-head game, they may be favored vs Pitt based on metrics, and that's fair. But, that shouldn't trump your resume and games you've actually won vs lost imo

[LeopardLetang]

Wins and losses don't matter. It's how you play the game i guess

[Orlando Penguin]

summoning @Orlando Penguin - any thoughts on the NET? I'm all for analytics, but something seems flawed in this system at the moment. I look at Indiana at 15-7 with a 3-6 record vs quad one @ #23, meanwhile Pitt is 4-2 in quad 1 at #59. Is the loss vs FSU weighted that much? This just seems odd. Even PSU is ahead of Pitt, and 2-4 in quad 1 and 2-4 in quad 2, with another loss on the year. Just don't make no sense to me

I was watching Pitt-NC last night and they mentioned that Q4 loss that Pitt had and I had to go to their schedule to look it up. Then I remembered that putrid loss to FSU at home. The NET is not nice to you if you start losing to Q4 teams. That said, the committee is going to put more weight on the amount of Q1 wins you have versus what your final NET number is. It's not like the old RPI days where if you were a certain number, you weren't getting an at-large. There have been years already where a team got in over another with a worse NET number.

[DigitalGypsy66]

More computer **** deciding things. Ugh.

[Beveridge]

Put them all in and have one giant tournament.

[Dickie Dunn]

[willeyeam]

[NAN]

https://www.si.com/college/2023/02/09/p ... ather-lyke

Nice article in SI about the overall state of Pitt athletics and Heather Lyke.

[willeyeam]

First place Panthers