Follow @dan_sostek

Follow @pittnewssports

Pitt fans did not have to wait long into CBS’ Sunday-night broadcast to learn the Panthers’ seed in the NCAA Tournament, and the result wasn’t much of a shock. 

Five minutes into the show, it was revealed that Pitt would be a No. 9 seed in the South Region. The No. 8-seeded Colorado Buffaloes await the Panthers in the second round of the NCAA Tournament this Thursday in Orlando, Fla. 

The winner of the matchup will take on the tournament’s No. 1 overall seed, the Florida Gators.

The seeding shouldn’t have come as a surprise to many. ESPN’s bracketology expert Joe Lunardi had the Panthers slated as the ninth seed in Arizona’s bracket in his final projections, and the consensus of other forecasts had Pitt either slated as a No. 9 or 10 seed, as well.

While a No. 9 slot was expected, there were points in the season in which Pitt was projected for both a higher and lower seed. There are reasons why they sit where they are, as well as arguments for both a higher and lower seed for the Panthers in the Round of 64.

The Case for a Higher Seed

Pitt’s basketball program has had its share of close losses in recent memory, and it seemed that 2013-2014 added a trove of other examples to the already extensive catalog of heartbreak. A loss at the buzzer to the rival Syracuse Orange through a miracle heave by Tyler Ennis at the Petersen Events Center, as well as losses at Syracuse, Virginia (twice), North Carolina and Cincinnati that were decided in the final minute of each game, are the lasting images from Pitt’s season thus far. 

Of course, these defeats counted as losses in the standings, but an argument could be made that these losses actually exhibited that Pitt was teetering just around the level of these teams. While these losses shouldn’t necessarily be pluses for the Panthers, many feel that they shouldn’t be negatives for them, either.

The Case for a Lower Seed

In the same fashion that an argument could be made that the Panthers’ close losses shouldn’t be held against them, there is a strong case that those losses are all indictments of the team’s quality. 

Beating inferior teams is all well and good, but with a nonconference strength of schedule as weak as Pitt’s was, only playing two major-conference tournament teams in nonconference play — Stanford and Cincinnati — more success against top-ranked conference teams was a must. 

Pitt’s season record with losses against tough opponents could be construed as the beneficiary of a number of cupcake victories, while a team like No. 11 seed Nebraska — with wins over Michigan State, Ohio State and Wisconsin — finished 19-12 but had enough impressive victories to offset the Cornhuskers’ high loss total. 

A No. 10 seed wouldn’t have been out of the question for Pitt.

Why Pitt is a Nine

For the Tournament Selection Committee, the question of “quantity versus quality” always arises.

Pitt’s quantity of wins was never in question; 25 wins as a member of the Atlantic Coast Conference would scream “tournament lock” in most scenarios. But the constant theme throughout the Panthers’ entire season was simple: There were no quality wins. 

Despite starting the season 18-3 with a 6-2 record in the ACC, the Panthers were never ranked higher than No. 18 in the AP Poll largely because of their lack of wins over top teams. 

Despite a win over the No. 15 North Carolina Tar Heels in the ACC Tournament, Pitt never was able to completely erase all qualms about their strength of victories. 

But with the Panthers’ bevy of victories, their run to the semifinals of their first-ever ACC tournament and a lackluster — but not horrendous — mark of 5-8 against eventual tournament teams, a No. 9 seed was the logical course of action for the selection committee and ultimately the correct decision.