Does a loss to a team like Pitt matter more....

[KipsBayEagle]

Than a loss to a team like DePaul?  I was thinking about it last night, assuming we only lose to depaul once, most people would look at this game and say "It was an anomaly, there's no way depaul is better than marquette." Whereas after a loss to pitt or Cincinnati, people would say " Pitt is better than Marquette, they beat them."  I know this sounds odd at first, but most people I feel on the selection committee as well as sports writers look at the depaul game and almost throw it out, where as if this were to have happened a middle of the pack team, even though on paper it is a better loss, it carries much more weight with the selection committee and other sports entities.

[BrewCity83]

Well, a win vs. a team like Pitt counts as a "good win".  A loss to a Pitt is kind of expected when at Pitt.  When all is said and done, they are gonna look at the whole picture:  how many good wins vs. how many bad losses.  So, they all matter.

[Marquette84]

Well, a win vs. a team like Pitt counts as a "good win".  A loss to a Pitt is kind of expected when at Pitt.  When all is said and done, they are gonna look at the whole picture:  how many good wins vs. how many bad losses.  So, they all matter.

On the other hand, there is a significantly larger RPI impact for a loss to Pitt this year:

Our loss @ DePaul only counts as 0.6 of a loss in the RPI calculation.
A lossk to Pitt @ home would count as 1.4 losses.

[TJ]

On the other hand, there is a significantly larger RPI impact for a loss to Pitt this year:

Our loss @ DePaul only counts as 0.6 of a loss in the RPI calculation.
A lossk to Pitt @ home would count as 1.4 losses.

They also weigh it by opponent RPI - 1.4 losses against a top 50 team vs. 0.6 losses against a team at around 175.

[RawdogDX]

If I had to choose between beating pitt and having 1 loss to depaul or beting depaul twice and getting beat by pitt I would go with the former.