Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
Bracketology 2024
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lv20gt" data-source="post: 1005555" data-attributes="member: 2299"><p>UNC making the Sweet 16 is not an argument that Pitt deserved to be in the tournament. That's an UNC accomplishment, not a Pitt one. Conferences don't play the games. </p><p></p><p>Kentucky losing to Oakland is funny but there is no argument that Kentucky shouldn't have been in the tournament so how is that relevant? Is the argument really Oakland beat Kentucky so Wake should have made it over Mississippi state? </p><p></p><p>People want to look at the results in the post season but somehow overlook Wake played in the NIT and lost in the second round, to an SEC team no less. So how is the "SEC"'s failure to make it out of the second round of the NCAAT somehow more of an argument for Wake being in the NCAAT than Wake not being able to make it out of the second round of the NIT? What about UVA losing by 25 to a double digit seed? If you want to make an argument that Pitt should have replaced a P5 team then why not a team that they had the same record with, beat on the road by 11 points, and who had probably the worse showing of any P5 team in the tournament? the obvious answer is that the desired conclusion isn't because a team that was worthy was left out, but rather you want to argue the ACC should have gotten more bids so GT would have gotten more money. Pitt replacing UVA doesn't achieve that goal. Everyone should want the ACC to have gotten more bids. Doesn't mean the ACC actually deserved it.</p><p></p><p>And what is with trying to use performances in past NCAATs as justification for teams being selected this year. How is that at all relevant? And if it is, then isn't that even more reason for UVA to have not been included given that this was there 4th loss to a double digit seed in the last 5 tournaments they appeared in? Obviously tongue in cheek, but why would what Syracuse did 4 years ago or something matter to any team this year? </p><p></p><p>At best you could argue that Pitt could have been included and it wouldn't have been a travesty. It's also not a travesty that they weren't there. They didn't have an overly strong resume, and probably aren't even the biggest snub.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lv20gt, post: 1005555, member: 2299"] UNC making the Sweet 16 is not an argument that Pitt deserved to be in the tournament. That's an UNC accomplishment, not a Pitt one. Conferences don't play the games. Kentucky losing to Oakland is funny but there is no argument that Kentucky shouldn't have been in the tournament so how is that relevant? Is the argument really Oakland beat Kentucky so Wake should have made it over Mississippi state? People want to look at the results in the post season but somehow overlook Wake played in the NIT and lost in the second round, to an SEC team no less. So how is the "SEC"'s failure to make it out of the second round of the NCAAT somehow more of an argument for Wake being in the NCAAT than Wake not being able to make it out of the second round of the NIT? What about UVA losing by 25 to a double digit seed? If you want to make an argument that Pitt should have replaced a P5 team then why not a team that they had the same record with, beat on the road by 11 points, and who had probably the worse showing of any P5 team in the tournament? the obvious answer is that the desired conclusion isn't because a team that was worthy was left out, but rather you want to argue the ACC should have gotten more bids so GT would have gotten more money. Pitt replacing UVA doesn't achieve that goal. Everyone should want the ACC to have gotten more bids. Doesn't mean the ACC actually deserved it. And what is with trying to use performances in past NCAATs as justification for teams being selected this year. How is that at all relevant? And if it is, then isn't that even more reason for UVA to have not been included given that this was there 4th loss to a double digit seed in the last 5 tournaments they appeared in? Obviously tongue in cheek, but why would what Syracuse did 4 years ago or something matter to any team this year? At best you could argue that Pitt could have been included and it wouldn't have been a travesty. It's also not a travesty that they weren't there. They didn't have an overly strong resume, and probably aren't even the biggest snub. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who made "The Leap" to defeat u(sic)GA in COFH 2016?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
Bracketology 2024
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top