I don't know why you're surprised. Pitt had 8 wins vs the top 100, 2 of which were top 50 wins, including one at Ohio St. Every Pitt loss except one, was to teams in the top 50. We only had 4 top 100 wins, and lost to an awful Providence team. Not even debateable.

duqkurt wrote:

Sorry I watched both teams all season. They are not better than us. Simply not.

I just am super tired of that family.

Yeah I know they were a lock to make it but I'm not up for hearing logic tonight.

We might indeed be better, but they got it done when they needed to, and we didn't. Villanova wasn't a better team than Georgetown in 85, but they took home the trophy. Just can't lose to teams like PC.
 

Dukes AT Youngstown St.
Wonder if hosting the NCAA tourney cost the Dukes a shot at a home game.

duqkurt wrote:

I think it is 100% the reason we don't have a home game. 

Trying not to go overboard but that is what happens when you value hosting tournaments more than playing in them.

 
The other reason is that participants need to "bid" a guaranteed amount of ticket sales to the WNIT to host a home game. Usually, it is a money losing proposition to host a home game at most schools. Not sure if the Dukes couldn't host due to the NCAA or they just didn't ante up enough.

duq81 wrote:

I don't know why you're surprised. Pitt had 8 wins vs the top 100, 2 of which were top 50 wins, including one at Ohio St. Every Pitt loss except one, was to teams in the top 50. We only had 4 top 100 wins, and lost to an awful Providence team. Not even debateable.

I wasn't really surprised '81. Just venting in a safe won't get me put in jail venue.
 

The Dome wrote:

There is absolutely no question that hosting gave them no opportunity for a home game. Bigger question is what is going on with the A-10 and it promotion of the league. I'm not as well spoken on the woman's side but the men took it on the chin as well. Yesterday I heard John Feinstein ask when did the Big East become one of the top conferences again. I know they had a good overall RPI but to place 6 teams in with the lowest of those seeds being a 9, REALLY. Davidson the A-10 regular season champ gets a 10 seed Xavier finishes 6th in the BE and gets a 6 seed. Seems to me both the Richmond teams got hosed. The A-10 needs to look in mirror this morning and figure out where they dropped the ball in their PR department!!

The Dome, the issue this year was the fact that the top teams in the Atlantic 10 (8th rated conference) were just not very good this year and the Big East's (2nd rated conference) top teams were.  The Big East had 5 teams Pomeroy-rated 28th or better; VCU was the A-10's best at 30th.

It was flipped around last year when the A-10 (8th rated conference) got 6 teams in the tourney and the Big East (5th rated conference) got 4.  Sometimes you have a down year as a conference; it happens.

Phoenix, I get it and realize the ratings game but when I guy like Feinstein who has been coving the tournament forever questions the logic of the committee it gets my attention. Besides once a conference establishes it's spot all the league games do is build upon that rating. I don't know how many BE games you saw this year but frankly other than Villanova and Butler I thought the league was good but not great. The bottom half Seton Hall, DePaul, Creighton and Marquette were bad.

The Dome wrote:

Phoenix, I get it and realize the ratings game but when I guy like Feinstein who has been coving the tournament forever questions the logic of the committee it gets my attention. Besides once a conference establishes it's spot all the league games do is build upon that rating. I don't know how many BE games you saw this year but frankly other than Villanova and Butler I thought the league was good but not great. The bottom half Seton Hall, DePaul, Creighton and Marquette were bad.

To their credit, the BE got it done in the OOC this year. They got off to a great start, beating good teams from other leagues. The payoff was 6 bids. The A10 didn't do great this season, so the number of bids dropped. Duquesne certainly didn't help the league this year OOC.
 

duq81 wrote:

I don't know why you're surprised. Pitt had 8 wins vs the top 100, 2 of which were top 50 wins, including one at Ohio St. Every Pitt loss except one, was to teams in the top 50. We only had 4 top 100 wins, and lost to an awful Providence team. Not even debateable.

 Yes, but who won the head to head matchup?  Duquesne, I believe that should be most important.  I really don't care that Pitt got a bid, but Duquesne should have been in as well.

levon1975 wrote:

 Yes, but who won the head to head matchup?  Duquesne, I believe that should be most important.  I really don't care that Pitt got a bid, but Duquesne should have been in as well.

Then the reverse would have theoretically had to be true also.  WVU was one of the first four out and beat the Dukes.  The rest of the bubble this year was similar OOC beating teams around it as well as losing to teams around it.  There wouldn't be enough bids to go around if this was the criteria.

duqkurt wrote:

The task for mid majors has gotten to be impossible with the P5 firmly in control. They lose to each other and get boasted because of strength of schedule.

You are asking for the what is damn near impossible from teams like DU. Yes the PC loss was a bad loss. But these loses are almost like a single elimination factor for teams like DU.

Playing every game knowing you have no margin for error is what is damn near impossible.

If this is what the NCAA is going to become on men's and women's side then I won't have any interest in watching. UCLA on men's side and Arkansas on women's side get in on strength of losses? Please.

Exactly my feeling regarding the inequities of the selection process.  If you are Duquesne you better win the conference, or beat every top 50 team, lose no game to a lesser opponent.  I agree, the Power 5 teams can lose and lose, but they always get another chance and another chance.  It  takes a total collapse like the PItt men to disqualify yourself if you are a marginal Power 5 team.  They have now begun selecting Power 5 teams with losing records, in conference, who also lost in the first round of their conf. tourney.  It's almost amusing to hear the Chairman of the Selection Committee try and justify these selections of Power 5 teams that have struggled.  They can always find an excuse, or if none, just say it was the "eye test"!  What? 

duq81 wrote:

duqkurt wrote:

The task for mid majors has gotten to be impossible with the P5 firmly in control. They lose to each other and get boasted because of strength of schedule.

You are asking for the what is damn near impossible from teams like DU. Yes the PC loss was a bad loss. But these loses are almost like a single elimination factor for teams like DU.

Playing every game knowing you have no margin for error is what is damn near impossible.

If this is what the NCAA is going to become on men's and women's side then I won't have any interest in watching. UCLA on men's side and Arkansas on women's side get in on strength of losses? Please.

There are basically 2 conferences worth anything in women's hoops. These are the ACC, and SEC. The other P5 leagues are basically what the A10, MWC etc. are on the men's side, with the rest getting what crumbs are left over. The A10 is a 2 bid league, so we better reach the top 2 if we want to dance. We can't get any P5 teams other than Pitt to come to Palumbo, so any top competition has to be played on the road. It's a very tough row to hoe.
 

 Syracuse of the ACC played at Palumbo this season.  I saw some ACC womens action this season, and after ND, I didn't see much in the way of superiority.  The games I saw were sloppy and not the high quality product that I would have expected from the league.