(02-27-2014 09:07 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote: (02-27-2014 06:49 AM)Marge Schott Wrote: Pitt doesn't get the shaft. They have the best schedule in the conference. Pitt is also the clear 5th out of those teams so if you don't want to include them, don't. But they're better than ND, UVA, NC State, GT and Wake (or any other traditionally good basketball school in the conference). ND, imo, being 6th, and so on.
And your comment LITERALLY had nothing to do with the entirety of my post.
Sure it did. You said Pitt as marquee. I said they're not. They are no where near the level of the other four. ND, UVA, NC State, GT have been to a Final Four more recent than Pitt.
I also said Pitt gets the shaft from an unbalanced schedule perspective. It could mean the difference between a 4 seed and an 8 seed.
Pitt's been a much better program the last 10-15 years than any of those schools you mentioned. There's no denying that, either. You can throw Wake into the conversation, too, and nothing would change. Like I said, if you don't want to include Pitt then don't. But Pitt vs Cuse and Pitt vs UL were good Big East games and are/will be good ACC games. Pitt vs Duke and Pitt vs UNC will become good ACC games, too. So it's probably time to get used to that.
And no, you didn't actually comment on what my post was about. It was about changing the schedule so that everybody plays more (more quality games for the non-elite schools, and more good vs good matchups for the leaders of the conference). The schedule, I think, is something that needs to be addressed.
Lastly, that one additional game Pitt currently plays could lead to a 4-seed swing? I doubt that very much.
(02-27-2014 11:34 PM)TexanMark Wrote: (02-27-2014 10:51 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: Well the last 10-15 years is a pretty significant time period. Historically Pitt and Cuse are much better football programs than UL, but nobody thinks they're better programs any longer.
That can change quickly...
Not sure which part you're talking about, but I wouldn't expect Pitt or Cuse to magically overtake UL football in the near-term (better on-campus facilities, revenue, fan support and head coach). Nor would I expect NC State, Wake, UVA or GT to overtake Pitt basketball. Although to be fair, if NC State and UVA continue their upward trajectory, they may challenge Pitt (and ND - aside from their down year this year) for that 5th/6th best spot in the ACC. Pitt doesn't have as many advantages over those schools in basketball that UL does in football, so there's that.
(02-28-2014 12:22 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote: (02-27-2014 10:51 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: Well the last 10-15 years is a pretty significant time period. Historically Pitt and Cuse are much better football programs than UL, but nobody thinks they're better programs any longer.
Pitt has been better than Wake for the last five years and a few random years thrown in before that. Remember in the last decade Wake has produced two #1 ranked teams to Pitt's one.
Pitt will have made 12 of the last 13 NCAATs, including at least 5 sweet sixteens, an elite eight, 2 conference tournament titles and 5 regular season titles.
Wake will have made 7 of the last 14 NCAATs (only 2 of the last 9), with no elite eights, just one sweet sixteen and just one conference regular season title.
Pitt's been the better program for the last decade. They had a string of 11-straight years being, at one point, ranked inside the top 10 that may come to an end this year. Yes, Wake's had a handful of solid years (and a couple really good) throughout the period I'm discussing, but every year Pitt had a solid year.
I mean, if we're going to be honest, in the last 10 seasons (2005-2014, yep, arbitrary cutoff), FSU has been better than GT, UVA and Wake, and about as good as NC State. I think one could make a strong argument that Clemson's been about as good as GT, UVA and Wake, too.