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="gtbeak" data-source="post: 1005659" data-attributes="member: 3164"><p>First, thanks for correcting me on Pitt's performance in the ACC tourney. For some reason I was thinking they won two games and played in the championship game. Brain fart on my part.</p><p></p><p>To the discussion...you appear to be throwing the ACC #3 (UVa) in the same bucket as the Big 12 #8 (TCU) and the SEC #7 and #9 (Texas A&M and Mississippi St). You also throw the ACC #4 (Pitt) in the same bucket as the Big 12 #9 (Oklahoma). It really appears that you think the Big12 and the SEC are not just stronger than the ACC, but significantly stronger. Yet on court performance these last 8 days doesn't reflect that. And I know what happened last year shouldn't be considered for this year's selections, but it does show a trend that says these past 8 days probably are not just random results landing in the ACC's favor, but rather a fairly repeatable outcome.</p><p></p><p>To the team resumes, here is what I see (note that these records are prior to the NCAA Tourney):</p><p></p><p>The first bucket....teams who I agree belonged in the tourney, but whose seeding was questionable relative to the ACC equivalent:</p><p></p><p>Texas Tech: 12-8 in Big 12 play, 23-10 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference foes, including 0-0 against teams who ultimately made the tourney, 9-0 against schedule filler.</p><p>BYU: 11-9 in Big 12, 23-10 overall, 3-1 against P6 non-conference + SDSU, including 2-0 against tourney teams, 9-0 against schedule filler.</p><p>UVa: 14-8 in ACC, 23-10 overall, 3-2 against P6 non-conference + Memphis, including 2-1 against tourney teams. Beat Florida head-to-head.</p><p>Florida: 14-8 in SEC, 24-11 overall, 3-3 against P6 non-conference, including 0-2 against tourney teams, 7-0 against schedule filler. Lost to UVa head-to-head.</p><p>Summary: UVa tied for best overall win%, tied for best conference win%, best win% vs. P6 conference teams, played the most eventual tourney teams in non-conference and acquitted themselves well, won the only head-to-head game played amongst this group. To me that equals best resume of these four schools,</p><p></p><p>2nd bucket....teams who are "marginal" to use your term:</p><p></p><p>Texas: 9-10 in Big 12 play, 20-12 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference, including 0-2 against tourney teams, 9-0 against schedule filler. Beat TCU head-to-head.</p><p>TCU: 10-10 in Big 12 play, 21-12 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference + Nevada, including 0-2 against tourney teams, 9-0 against schedule filler. Lost to Texas head-to-head.</p><p>Mississippi St: 10-11 in SEC play, 21-13 overall, 4-1 against P6 non-conference, including 2-0 against tourney teams, 7-1 against schedule filler (lost to Southern). Lost to A&M h-t-h.</p><p>Texas A&M: 11-10 in SEC play, 20-14 overall, 4-4 against P6 non-conference + Memphis & FAU, including 1-3 against tourney teams, 5-0 against schedule filler. Beat Moo-U h-t-h.</p><p>Pitt: 13-9 in ACC play, 22-11 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference, including 0-1 against tourney teams, 7-0 against schedule filler.</p><p>Summary: Pitt had best win% overall and also against P6 competition. The two SEC schools have the best non-conference wins. To me the two Big 12 schools are clearly the bottom of this bucket. Pitt's biggest blemish is only playing one tourney team in non-conference and losing. Mississippi St has the losing SEC record, which IMO should disqualify them from consideration, but I admit they have a nice non-conference record. As I pointed out in my other post yesterday afternoon, that nice non-conference resume was built mostly on two days in November. Still, those two days did happen. My main complaint here is that Texas and Mississippi St not only were selected, but were seeded to win a game. That is just crazy to me. Also, all four of these marginal schools were seeded higher than Virginia because.....?</p><p></p><p>Alrighty, I'm done. I've spent way too much time on this, something that doesn't really matter. TBH, this subject isn't one that usually interests me, but for some reason this thread piqued my curiosity.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gtbeak, post: 1005659, member: 3164"] First, thanks for correcting me on Pitt's performance in the ACC tourney. For some reason I was thinking they won two games and played in the championship game. Brain fart on my part. To the discussion...you appear to be throwing the ACC #3 (UVa) in the same bucket as the Big 12 #8 (TCU) and the SEC #7 and #9 (Texas A&M and Mississippi St). You also throw the ACC #4 (Pitt) in the same bucket as the Big 12 #9 (Oklahoma). It really appears that you think the Big12 and the SEC are not just stronger than the ACC, but significantly stronger. Yet on court performance these last 8 days doesn't reflect that. And I know what happened last year shouldn't be considered for this year's selections, but it does show a trend that says these past 8 days probably are not just random results landing in the ACC's favor, but rather a fairly repeatable outcome. To the team resumes, here is what I see (note that these records are prior to the NCAA Tourney): The first bucket....teams who I agree belonged in the tourney, but whose seeding was questionable relative to the ACC equivalent: Texas Tech: 12-8 in Big 12 play, 23-10 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference foes, including 0-0 against teams who ultimately made the tourney, 9-0 against schedule filler. BYU: 11-9 in Big 12, 23-10 overall, 3-1 against P6 non-conference + SDSU, including 2-0 against tourney teams, 9-0 against schedule filler. UVa: 14-8 in ACC, 23-10 overall, 3-2 against P6 non-conference + Memphis, including 2-1 against tourney teams. Beat Florida head-to-head. Florida: 14-8 in SEC, 24-11 overall, 3-3 against P6 non-conference, including 0-2 against tourney teams, 7-0 against schedule filler. Lost to UVa head-to-head. Summary: UVa tied for best overall win%, tied for best conference win%, best win% vs. P6 conference teams, played the most eventual tourney teams in non-conference and acquitted themselves well, won the only head-to-head game played amongst this group. To me that equals best resume of these four schools, 2nd bucket....teams who are "marginal" to use your term: Texas: 9-10 in Big 12 play, 20-12 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference, including 0-2 against tourney teams, 9-0 against schedule filler. Beat TCU head-to-head. TCU: 10-10 in Big 12 play, 21-12 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference + Nevada, including 0-2 against tourney teams, 9-0 against schedule filler. Lost to Texas head-to-head. Mississippi St: 10-11 in SEC play, 21-13 overall, 4-1 against P6 non-conference, including 2-0 against tourney teams, 7-1 against schedule filler (lost to Southern). Lost to A&M h-t-h. Texas A&M: 11-10 in SEC play, 20-14 overall, 4-4 against P6 non-conference + Memphis & FAU, including 1-3 against tourney teams, 5-0 against schedule filler. Beat Moo-U h-t-h. Pitt: 13-9 in ACC play, 22-11 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference, including 0-1 against tourney teams, 7-0 against schedule filler. Summary: Pitt had best win% overall and also against P6 competition. The two SEC schools have the best non-conference wins. To me the two Big 12 schools are clearly the bottom of this bucket. Pitt's biggest blemish is only playing one tourney team in non-conference and losing. Mississippi St has the losing SEC record, which IMO should disqualify them from consideration, but I admit they have a nice non-conference record. As I pointed out in my other post yesterday afternoon, that nice non-conference resume was built mostly on two days in November. Still, those two days did happen. My main complaint here is that Texas and Mississippi St not only were selected, but were seeded to win a game. That is just crazy to me. Also, all four of these marginal schools were seeded higher than Virginia because.....? Alrighty, I'm done. I've spent way too much time on this, something that doesn't really matter. TBH, this subject isn't one that usually interests me, but for some reason this thread piqued my curiosity. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who was Georgia Tech's starting QB in 2023?
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