BUBBLING OVER
Which metrics worked to keep the Panthers out of March Madness?
Pitt found out Sunday evening it wouldn’t make the NCAA tournament, missing out on the opportunity to have back-to-back seasons in the NCAA tournament.
When we analyzed the bubble field prior to selection Sunday, we took into account Pitt among 15 teams (the field was reduced because Oregon won the Pac-12 tournament and was no longer on the bubble) that were generally considered bubble teams to make March Madness.
Now that we know which of those teams did and didn’t make it into the tournament, we can examine the factors that may have favored the teams that earned at-large bids over Pitt. The 2024 field also was impacted by several teams who weren’t considered for at-large bids earning automatic bids to the NCAA tournament via conference tournament championship wins.
Dr. Charles McClelland, chair of the NCAA selection committee, spoke on the CBS Selection Sunday show after the full bracket was revealed and said that there were five teams determined to be bid stealers who punched their tickets by winning their conference tournaments and wouldn’t have been taken otherwise.
McClelland expressed this extreme rarity shrunk the amount of at-large bids available to teams like Pitt.
In addition to Pitt, the 15 bubble teams who we examined were: Colorado State, Texas A&M, TCU, Michigan State, Oklahoma, St. John’s, Virginia, Seton Hall, Indiana State, Providence, Kansas State, Wake Forest, Northwestern and Ohio State.
Out of those teams, six made the NCAA tournament — TCU, Northwestern, Texas A&M, Virginia, Michigan State, and Colorado State. We take a close look at comparable metrics between the Panthers and these teams.
Metrics comparisons
NET: Michigan State (25), Colorado State (37), Pitt (41), Texas A&M (42), TCU (43), Northwestern (54), Virginia (55).
KenPom: Michigan State (20), TCU (32), Colorado State (37), Pitt (40), Texas A&M (44), Northwestern (46), Virginia (69).
Quad 1 wins: Texas A&M (7), Colorado State (6), TCU (5), Northwestern (4), Pitt (4), Michigan State (3), Virginia (2).
Quad 1 + Quad 2 wins: Texas A&M (13), Virginia (10), Colorado State (9), Michigan State (9), Northwestern (9), Pitt (9), TCU (8).
Quad 3 + Quad 4 losses: Michigan State (0), TCU (0), Virginia (0), Colorado State (1), Northwestern (1), Pitt (2), Texas A&M (4).
Strength of schedule: Michigan State (12), Texas A&M (19), TCU (46), Northwestern (49), Colorado State (64), Virginia (77),
Pitt (80).
Non-conference strength of schedule: Colorado State (52), Texas A&M (62), Michigan State (77), Virginia (236), Pitt (340), Northwestern (355), TCU (357).
As multiple bracketologists informed the Post-Gazette before the Panthers’ ACC tournament games, Pitt’s biggest obstacle was its non-conference strength of schedule. It’s an important factor considered by the NCAA selection committee, and the Panthers had one of the worst in the country.
“The [selection] committee has never taken a team with a number like that among its last teams in,” ESPN bracketologist Joe Lunardi told the Post-Gazette last week. “I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, but I’m saying that’s their most consistent trait in all the years I’ve been doing this.”
If it’s true that no bubble team with a non-conference strength of schedule that ranks 340th or lower has ever been awarded an at-large bubble spot, the selection committee made two exceptions in the same year.
TCU and Northwestern both earned 9 -seeds in the Midwest (TCU) and East (Northwestern) regions, and each had a lower non-conference strength of schedule than Pitt.
However, both had stronger overall strength of schedule ratings, while TCU also had more Quad 1 wins and a higher KenPom ranking. Pitt had a higher NET ranking than either team, and either matched or exceeded them in combined Quad 1 and Quad 2 wins.
Bracketologist Rocco Miller told the PostGazette that Pitt’s non-conference strength of schedule rivaled that of another recent ACC team with 20-plus wins who was denied an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament.
Miller compared Pitt to Wake Forest’s 2021-2022 team that finished its preMarch Madness resume with a 23-9 record, but also with a non-conference strength of schedule ranking of 350.
And in that season, one of the eight teams in the country with lower rankings than Wake Forest in its non-conference strength of schedule earned an at-large bid: 18-14 Rutgers. The Scarlet Knights that season ranked 354th out of 358 teams in that category and earned a spot as one of the last four teams in the tournament that year and played in the play-in games in Dayton, Ohio.
So countering Lunardi’s claim, that’s another bubble team with a worse non-conference strength of schedule than Pitt’s 2024 standing of 340 to be awarded an at-large bid. Granted, it was a different season with a lot of other metrics that were in play.
Worst losses
Pitt’s worst loss of the season was undoubtedly against Missouri, which finished its season without a single win in the SEC. The Panthers’ home loss back on Nov. 28 to the Tigers was seen as a noticeable blemish on its resume. Missouri finished 824 on the season with a NET ranking of 158, just shy of being a Quad 4 loss for the Panthers.
Out of the six discussed bubble teams that did make the NCAA tournament, only Northwestern had a Quad 4 loss. The Wildcats’ home loss to Chicago State — which finished with a 296 NET ranking and a 1218 record as an independent team — is arguably a bigger blemish as a single loss than Pitt’s defeat at the hands of Missouri.
But one demerit Pitt has that five of the six bubble teams who made the NCAA tournament don’t is that it has two losses to Quad 3 opponents. The only team that had more Quad 3 losses was Texas A&M, with four.
Virginia
Out of all the other bubble teams to make the NCAA tournament over Pitt, Virginia has arguably the best comparison to the Panthers, as both are ACC teams.
The Cavaliers finished with a 23-10 record — one full game better than Pitt. Virginia finished just one game better in its ACC schedule, as well, earning the 3-seed in the ACC tournament just above Pitt, where both won in the quarterfinals before losing in the semifinals. But Pitt also beat Virginia on the road by double digits in their only meeting, has more Quad 1 wins, and has higher NET and KenPom rankings.
Where Virginia had advantages over Pitt is its better overall strength of schedule, non-conference strength of schedule, and its perfect record against Quad 3 and Quad 4 opponents.
Conclusions
As the Post-Gazette noted before Selection Sunday, Pitt’s best counterarguments to concerns over its strength of schedule demerits were its metrics measured against other bubble teams.
Those metrics put Pitt mostly in the top six of each of the examined categories out of the 15 bubble teams we examined.
Against the six of those teams that made the NCAA tournament, Pitt’s resume advantages are mixed at best.
Out of the seven metrics observed here, Pitt holds no advantages over Colorado State and only one advantage over Michigan State. That’s more than enough to rank either team solidly above the Panthers.
Pitt’s resume against Texas A&M, TCU and Virginia held three advantages against each of those teams, but each of them also hold four advantages over the Panthers.
Against Texas A&M, Pitt’s NET and KenPom rankings beat the Aggies, and the four losses to Quad 3 opponents by Texas A&M were the most of any of the seven teams here. However, Texas A&M’s advantages are in the amount of Quad 1 wins, combined Quad 1 and Quad 2 wins, and in both forms of strength of schedule rankings. According to the committee, that’s what ranks the Aggies above Pitt.
For TCU, the Panthers hold an advantage in NET ranking, combined Quad 1 and Quad 2 wins, and non-conference strength of schedule. The Horned Frogs’ advantages of KenPom ranking, Quad 1 wins, having no Quad 3 or Quad 4 losses, and a better overall strength of schedule all appear to weigh more to the committee.
Pitt’s comparison to Virginia gives the Panthers advantages in NET and KenPom rankings and Quad 1 wins. But the Cavaliers have the advantages of both strength of schedule metrics, combined Quad 1 and Quad 2 wins, and no Quad 3 or Quad 4 losses.
For Virginia to have made the tournament over Pitt, the strength of schedule factors and lack of losses to lesser opponents might’ve outweighed Pitt’s ranking metrics and wins against top opponents — as well as Pitt’s head-to-head road win against Virginia.
The one team Pitt holds more advantages over in these comparisons is Northwestern. The Panthers have three advantages — NET, KenPom and non-conference strength of schedule — to the Wildcats’ two. Both teams tied in Quad 1 wins and combined Quad 1 and Quad 2 wins.
The committee’s selection of Northwestern instead of Pitt suggests that the Wildcats’ lack of bad losses and better overall strength of schedule outweighed Pitt’s nonconference strength of schedule and rankings.
Contradictions, consistencies
But when all four of the teams that got into the NCAA tournament with mixed advantages are compared — Texas A&M, TCU, Virginia and Northwestern — the reasons for each to get in over Pitt contradict each other.
Where having fewer losses against Quad 3 and Quad 4 opponents was enough to prop Northwestern over Pitt despite the Panthers’ better metrics in multiple categories, it wasn’t enough to do the same for Pitt against Texas A&M.
Where TCU having more Quad 1 wins but not more combined Quad 1 and Quad 2 wins was a key advantage to get the Horned Frogs over Pitt, the same didn’t help when the Panthers had that advantage over Virginia.
Meanwhile, Pitt held advantages in NET against all four of those teams, and KenPom against three of the four. That suggests that neither category was held in high enough regard against the other metrics.
The one consistent factor that applied against Pitt in all scenarios was the fact that its overall strength of schedule was the worst of the group — although only marginally so against Virginia.
The rest of the factors illustrate a very mixed picture for the reasons Pitt wasn’t awarded an at-large bid.