It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
The Big East had three legit Final Four contenders mid-January before the injuries hit
(and will have three next year). Coaches make programs, so Pitt's past is irrelevant at this point. They would have battled us and Gtown for 8th or 9th.
That's utter nonsense, Creighton and Xavier were not Final Four contenders anymore than Butler is.
Duke lost more talent to injuries than Creighton and Xavier COMBINED and Duke is better than they are even without Bolden and Giles.
Louisville lost Quentin Snider for a large part of the season and they ripped off like 4 straight wins WITHOUT HIM.
Sumner is not the difference between Xavier barely making the Tourney (their last two regular season wins over the last month were against DePaul) and being a Final Four contender. Some of you are completely clueless. Sumner makes a difference no doubt.
And Pitt is a better job than SJU, Georgetown, Seton hall, Marquette
GTFOH
Pitt is dead in the water without Dixon.
Right, they need to hire a mid-major coach or an assistant coach to be just like Marquette and Seton Hall. In other words put those schools in the ACC and they would be killing it in front of Pitt.
So Jamie Dixon is the only coach that can win at Pitt because their facilities and recent history just suck so bad.
Geez you really have some issues with things like... reality.
Except they're not in the acc so that doesn't mean anything. One BE school gets an up and coming assistant (wojo) the other gets an up and coming young coach (williard at the time) while the other gets a run of the mill sec coach who was on his way out and thats your metric for being a better program?
What, I am not the biggest fan of Stallings but neither Willard or Wojo were much in demand. And neither cost very much. Wojo and Willard are not evidence the middle of the BE is better than the ACC nor is it evidence that either is a better job than Pittsburgh.
Here is your proof, if offered the Pitt job last year do you think Willard would have left SHU? In a NY minute. He would have left in a mili-second and at the same time the Pitt AD would have been hanged in effigy for hiring such a small time coach. Furthermore the fact that Pitt ran out of town such a successful coach whose overall record is light years ahead of the current coaches at SJU, SHU, Marquette, DePaul, Providence etc. shows how much higher their expectations are then most of the BE schools (even if they probably are a little too high).
Put it to you another way if Stallings does not get this turned around quickly (next 2 years) he is almost certainly gone. Willard lasted 5 years without a NCAA bid and got an extension after 1. Do you think that happens at Pitt? He would have been gone before you said MAAC.