Pitt "clearly the best team in the BE"

[rocky_warrior]

Love their fans.  Funny, the head to head matchup says otherwise...

From the Pitt board

UPitt '89
Re: tied 68-68..14 sec*   Reply
Even if Marquette pulls this out... this is an embarrassment for them.

One thing you can say about Pitt this season... we have not struggled, even once, with a bad team.

Marquette struggled before beating Valpo... lost to ND State.... and might just lose to USF today.

We are clearly the best team in the BE... by far

Also, while I'm stirring up trouble.  The Hoya fans aren't impressed by Marquette.  I don't really argue that there's not much of a rivalry right now.  But comments like:

as far as i'm concerned that are no different than the depauls of the world - a couple good recruits here and there, but overall, stop fantasizing- can't play with the big boys

and

they'll settle into the league as a Seton Hall/Providence type that can rise up every few years and challenge for the title

make me laugh 

[mviale]

I love that we are the talk of the BE boards.  We were winning that whole Pitt game.  They even had to sit their big fella as they could not keep up with out team.

[rocky_warrior]

Actually, in my trolling, it seems Louisville fans are actually much more rational than Pitt fans.  Maybe we can be friends with UL fans after all 

[mviale]

Pitt has one year left of Ben Howland recruits.  Ole Jamie has not done much since his departure.

[tweakers_suck]

they'll settle into the league as a Seton Hall/Providence type that can rise up every few years and challenge for the title

tee hee, tee hee.  Actually, that quote exactly describes GT for the last 15 years!   Too funny.

[ecompt]

of Patrick Ewing (we don't want to go where he was coming academically out of high school) and Michael Graham, a thug who was brought in as an assassin for one year. Mary Fenlon sitting on the bench. Please. What a disgrace.

[spiral97]

that's all fine.. let em overlook us all the way to the title.. then they'll go "woah! where'd those guys come from?" and talk about us all next season in sentences that start with "What we need to do to compete with teams like...." 

[MarquetteDano]

Either by going with all time wins or winning percentage we are JUST behind them all-time (they were ahead by 50 wins after 95 years, and we are ahead by percentage).  Yet they act like we are some sort of flash in the pan that will have a winning season every 3-4 years or so.

Comical.  See all-time numbers (as of 2004)...

http://www.ncaa.org/stats/m_basketball/all_time_wins/2004_all_time_wins.pdf

[Wareagle]

Are those Pitt fans talking about the same Pitt team that hasn't beaten a ranked opponent?  Or the one whose POY candidate got outscored and outrebounded by Brian Butch?

[Mayor McCheese]

they'll settle into the league as a Seton Hall/Providence type that can rise up every few years and challenge for the title

tee hee, tee hee.  Actually, that quote exactly describes GT for the last 15 years!   Too funny.

I was thinking the same thing about Georgetown...  We have been in the Big East for 2 years, and battled for the title both years.

I guess Pitt fans have a really short memory, because I remember last sunday when Marquette went to Pitt, to the "Zoo", and won.

[NYWarrior]

Are those Pitt fans talking about the same Pitt team that hasn't beaten a ranked opponent?  Or the one whose POY candidate got outscored and outrebounded by Brian Butch?

Classic!  And so darn true.

[UPitt89]

Love their fans.  Funny, the head to head matchup says otherwise...

Based on that theory, NDSU is better than Marquette.

If you're willing to concede that, I'm willing to concede that Marquette is better than Pitt.

Seriously... we all know that just because NDSU defeated MU at the BC doesn't mean that NDSU is a better team than MU. That would be a ridiculous assertion.

Just because MU uncharacteristically (and statistically probably to never happen again) went 15-15 at the FT line down the stretch to win in OT against Pitt doesn't make MU a better team than Pitt.

If Pitt and MU played 10 times, Pitt likely wins 7 or 8 of those.  MU had to execute perfectly down the stretch to beat Pitt... how many times would MU do that, given the same situation?

MU would beat NDSU 99 times out of 100 at home... but since that one happened, and for you to be consistent... since the "head to head matchup says otherwise"... you have to concede that NDSU is better than MU.

Either you judge teams on their head-to-head record alone, in which case... NDSU is better than MU, Mo. St is better than Wisky, and MU is better than Pitt.

or.. you judge teams on their complete body of work.  In which case, Pitt is clearly better than MU...  Just as MU is resoundingly better than NDSU.

Which is it?  Can't be both.   Either Pitt is better than MU, or NDSU is better than MU.  Which logic do you prefer?

[Marquette84]

Either you judge teams on their head-to-head record alone, in which case... NDSU is better than MU, Mo. St is better than Wisky, and MU is better than Pitt.

Which is it?  Can't be both.   Either Pitt is better than MU, or NDSU is better than MU.  Which logic do you prefer?

Convenient for you to try to focus only the head-to-head argument to the conclusion of all other evidence. 

But I believe the point here was that not only did MU beat Pitt head to head, but have also have won 4 of the 5 ranked opponents while Pitt is 0-3.

When you consider a) MU beat Pitt on the road and b) MU is 4-1 against ranked teams, while Pitt is 0-3, the only rational conclusion is that MU is the better team.

[mu03eng]

UPitt,

We were in control of that game until the last couple of minutes and it could be argued that the foul call on Ramon was questionable and we should have won in regulation.  At no time, are we saying that Marquette is head and shoulders above Pitt, in fact I would say we are at the same level.  However for your fans to say that Pitt is clearly the best by far in the BE is laughable.  You say look at total body of work....ok lets do that.

How many top 25 teams have you beaten?
How many road games have you won?
What is your SOS?
What is your RPI?


You bring up NDSU, so you are comparing a non-conference game to HUGE conference game?  Marquette hit a rough patch during non-conference and then early conference play.  Pitt seems to base its opinion on that then what they have seen 6 game winning streak including 4 on the road.....including your place.  I think those numbers speak for themselves.

[StillAWarrior]

Either you judge teams on their head-to-head record alone, in which case... NDSU is better than MU, Mo. St is better than Wisky, and MU is better than Pitt.

or.. you judge teams on their complete body of work.  In which case, Pitt is clearly better than MU...  Just as MU is resoundingly better than NDSU.

Which is it?  Can't be both.   Either Pitt is better than MU, or NDSU is better than MU.  Which logic do you prefer?

What makes it so obvious to you that Pitt is "clearly better" than Marquette when judged on a complete body of work.  Currently, Pitt is one game ahead of Marquette in the league schedule and 1/2 game ahead of Marquette if you look at their over all records.  Pitt hasn't beat a ranked team yet, and its only wins on the road (or neutral) are Auburn, Buffalo, Syracuse, Depaul and Cincy.  Marquette has beat four ranked teams (at the time):  Duke, UConn, West Virginia and Pitt.  Marquette has beat the folowing teams on the road (or neutral):  Texas Tech, Duke, Valpo, UConn, Louisville, Pitt.

If you want to make an argument that Pitt is better, knock yourself out.  You're a Pitt fan, and I would expect you to make that argument.  I think an argument can easily be made for each team.  But, I think when you say that Pitt is "clearly better" in light of the head to head match up and the other results, you sound silly. Marquette is "clearly better" than NDSU, despite the head to head, because the remainder of Marquette's body of work shows that.  I simply don't think Pitt's body of work makes it so easy for you to claim clear superiority.

[UPitt89]

Either you judge teams on their head-to-head record alone, in which case... NDSU is better than MU, Mo. St is better than Wisky, and MU is better than Pitt.

Which is it?  Can't be both.   Either Pitt is better than MU, or NDSU is better than MU.  Which logic do you prefer?

Convenient for you to try to focus only the head-to-head argument to the conclusion of all other evidence. 

But I believe the point here was that not only did MU beat Pitt head to head, but have also have won 4 of the 5 ranked opponents while Pitt is 0-3.

When you consider a) MU beat Pitt on the road and b) MU is 4-1 against ranked teams, while Pitt is 0-3, the only rational conclusion is that MU is the better team.

I wasn't focusing on the head-to-head argument, rocky_warrior was.

My contention is that you judge the complete body of work.  You and I view that differently, of course.

I see Pitt as 8-3 against RPI to 100...  and MU as 8-3 against RPI top 100.  Pretty even there.

"ranked" opponent means little...  UConn was #9 at one time.  Computer rankings matter, not stupid human polls that had the Huskies as a top 10 team.  Top 25 human polls had Louisville as #4 in the country pre-season, LAST year.

Pitt's win at Syracuse is more impressive than MU's win at UConn.. even though UConn was "ranked" at the time.

Pitt's played a slightly tougher schedule, MU has more quality wins ... but also more bad losses... and has struggled mightily against some of the worst teams they've faced (USF and Valpo, for example).

Counting wins over UConn and WVU as wins over "ranked" teams is a joke.

Syracuse and Georgetown are head and shoulders better than either of those teams... and RPI reflects that.

Pitt's wins over Syracuse and Georgetown are better than MU's wins over UConn and WVU.

Pitt also beat UConn... but since they happened to be ranked when MU beat them and unranked when Pitt beat them... that somehow matters?

Come on.. you guys are smarter than that over here.

Duke was a great win...  give it to ya there.  No question.  Artificially inflating the UConn and WVU wins is laughable, though.

I see the Big East as three tiers:

1. Pitt and MU

2. About six teams fighting to stay on the NCAA bubble

3. About eight teams that are not going to do anything of note this season.

I see Pitt as a little better than MU, you see the opposite.  I wouldn't expect anything different.  ;-)

[StillAWarrior]

Pitt's win at Syracuse is more impressive than MU's win at UConn.. even though UConn was "ranked" at the time.

I agree with you there.  I suspect you'd agree that Marquette's win at Pitt is more impressive than Pitt's at Syracuse.

I see Pitt as a little better than MU, you see the opposite.  I wouldn't expect anything different.  ;-)

Of course you do.  But that's not what you said.  You said they are "clearly better."  That's what got people's attention.  I think the teams are fairly even, and I'm looking forward to March 3.




[/quote]

[ONeills Barstool]

I'll go with the assertion that they are both pretty darn good basketball teams and 3/3 is going to be one helluva rematch.  

I'll grant UPITT that the conference record currently indicates that Pitt is the best team in the BE.  Clearly and by far, however, is a BIT of a stretch.

Good luck tonight at Villanova.  You'll need a big road W to remain the best team in the BE.  

[NYWarrior]

If Pitt and MU played 10 times, Pitt likely wins 7 or 8 of those.

LOL.

Of course, this is coming from the fan of a team which has lost to MU 3 of the last 4 times they've met.  heheh

[mu_hilltopper]

UPitt89 .. I do admire your rationality.   No doubt, both teams are high quality. 

 However, I do reject your idea that MU's win @Pitt is somehow tarnished by the fact we were good on the free throw line down the stretch.  Points are points.   We overcame a hostile crowd, and the crushing emotions of having command of a game until the last minute of regulation, the last seconds, letting the home team tie it.  I know, as a fan, I thought it was game over, Pitt was going to roll us in OT.  Takes a high quality team to basically beat you twice in front of a very hostile crowd. -- And the reverse, Pitt had two chances to beat us, once in regulation, once in OT.  They failed to beat us in either period.

Also, the game was very very similar to last year's @Pitt, where MU was up with minutes to go, and failed to withstand the Pitt surge at the end.   We came real close to beating you twice last year, and barring our star PG being injured for 5-6 minutes, we might have pulled it off.  I mention that because the idea that Pitt would beat MU 8 of 10 isn't born out by how we beat you this time, and how we nearly beat you last year.

And, while indeed the best way to compare two teams is to take in their whole body of work .. it's also important to look at the teams right now.  MU's stumble vs. NDSU was the first month of the season.  We're playing some great basketball now .. I don't even count the Duke win as our biggest of the year, as that was neutral court at the beginning of the season.  Our best win was @Pitt, a clash of titans that we won on the loser's home court.

[NYWarrior]

.. it's also important to look at the teams right now.  MU's stumble vs. NDSU was the first month of the season.  We're playing some great basketball now

Six wins in a row in the Big East....in a month when MU played 5 of 8 on the road. 

Good call, Hilltopper

[rocky_warrior]

I see Pitt as a little better than MU, you see the opposite.  I wouldn't expect anything different.  ;-)

Now you're coming around UPitt.  I wasn't so verbose in my initial post, but the reason I "focused" on the head-to-head match up was because the numbers seem to indicate the teams are fairly even, but Marquette had a pretty dominant performance at your place.  Yes it came down to OT and FTs, but the first 38 minutes of the game one team was pretty much in control.  I'm not saying that Marquette is "clearly better" than Pitt, just that the reverse isn't true either.

[gopitt]

Pitt has one year left of Ben Howland recruits.  Ole Jamie has not done much since his departure.

Care to back this up for me?

[NavinRJohnson]

If Pitt and MU played 10 times, Pitt likely wins 7 or 8 of those.  MU had to execute perfectly down the stretch to beat Pitt... how many times would MU do that, given the same situation?

Either you judge teams on their head-to-head record alone, in which case... NDSU is better than MU, Mo. St is better than Wisky, and MU is better than Pitt.

or.. you judge teams on their complete body of work.  In which case, Pitt is clearly better than MU... 

Which logic do you prefer?

I'll take either, because in ither case you are just plain wrong.

The entire body of work? Educate me on your marquee wins. Home against Georgetown? Enlighten me on your road wins. Auburn? Buffalo? Syracuse? DePaul? UC? How is that impressive? Basically, you've feasted on weak competition at home, and lost to just about every good team you've played.

As far as Pitt winning 7 or 8 out of 10, on what ecxactly do you base that? Wishful thinking? Tarrot cards? Blind faith? MU beat Pitt on their home floor, which you seem to assert is only because they shot well from the FT line. Of course Marquette did nothing to be in a position to take advantage of that shooting. There is absolutley no evidence to support your theory of a .700 - .800 winning percentage. Zero. Zip. Nadda. The two will play 2 and perhaps 3 times. Regardless, I have $50 that says MU will beat Pitt twice this year. Of course once that happened, all it would take for Pitt to get those 7 or 8 wins out of 10, would be to win 7 or 8 in a row. Good luck with that. Worry about winning 1 in a row, and then we can talk.

Y'all need to forget about all of the pre-season predictions and pay attention to what is actually happening on the court.

[rocky_warrior]

Pitt has one year left of Ben Howland recruits.  Ole Jamie has not done much since his departure.

Care to back this up for me?

Pitt has some good recruits the past couple years, and more good ones coming in.  Don't think this is (or should be) a matter of debate.