This Quad System is utterly ridiculous

[arktiger1975 518]

So we played South Carolina yesterday, who was then #48 in the NET. We beat them, momentarily giving us a 2nd quad 1 win. But since we beat them so bad I guess, they dropped to #52, removing it as a quad 1 win. But if we had lost, they would still be quad 1, dropping us to 1-8 in quad 1 games. So we get nothing for beating a projected 5 or 6 seed in the NCAA tournament. Anybody with half a brain can see the stupidity of the quad system. 

Edited March 17 by arktiger1975

[33gles 496]

So do they update the number of 'Quad' wins for everyone at the very end? If so, why bother caring during the season?

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,673]

I think it’s good as a (one) tool for the committee to base their decisions off of. Everyone knew USC was a paper tiger going into that closing stretch that began with us. They were a 9 point dog while being ranked like 6 (?) spots ahead of us in the AP…those drastic swings should come when you’re losing to Bama by 27, losing to Auburn by 40, losing to Auburn by 30, playing nobody during the OOC period…

Btw, the committee is still going to view that as an impressive win. They don’t solely evaluate on Quad wins 

[JuscAUse! 1,410]

But Arky does have a point. SC wasn't a quad 1 win when we beat them early or late, but other SEC teams got quad 1 wins by beating the same team in between our wins over them. Really, that's actually pretty stupid to think about, or I'm just too stupid to understand it.

Whatever. We beat State, and they are a very tough matchup for us. Whoever wins the other semi is also a tough match up for us. A&M may be worse for us than UF. 

 

[phillyeagle 130]

It's just an arbitrary cut-off. It's continually updated as the teams move up and down the rankings. The NET rating algorithm seems to give pretty similar weight to a low Quad 1 and a high Quad 2 opponent. We have a lot of high Quad 2 wins, and our margin of victory maximizes the value of our wins. Otherwise we wouldn't be 5th in the NET with our Quad 1 record.

 

Some people seem to count the Quad 1 wins twice--they look at the NET ranking and then look at the Quad 1 record to judge whether the team is over/underrated. I don't love the NET but that's not the way to use it IMO.

[NCAubs 377]

2 hours ago, JuscAUse! said:

But Arky does have a point. SC wasn't a quad 1 win when we beat them early or late, but other SEC teams got quad 1 wins by beating the same team in between our wins over them. Really, that's actually pretty stupid to think about, or I'm just too stupid to understand it.

 

Incorrect.  If a team falls below the ranking required or rises above the ranking required by the end of the season, it counts or doesn’t count.  Had SC maintained their ranking from yesterday, we would have gotten a Quad 1 win.  Unfortunately, they fell after it was all said and done.  
 

Not arguing the validity of the system but you are correct, you don’t understand it.  

[JuscAUse! 1,410]

1 hour ago, NCAubs said:

Incorrect.  If a team falls below the ranking required or rises above the ranking required by the end of the season, it counts or doesn’t count.  Had SC maintained their ranking from yesterday, we would have gotten a Quad 1 win.  Unfortunately, they fell after it was all said and done.  
 

Not arguing the validity of the system but you are correct, you don’t understand it.  

And that's exactly what I said. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[cheap seats 40]

Correct.  Teams that beat South Carolina at home already had a Quad 2 win and not a Quad 1.  Teams that beat South Carolina at a neutral site saw what was a Quad 1 win yesterday drop to a Quad 2 win when Net updated this morning.  And those that beat South Carolina at South Carolina have a Quad 1 win that did not change.

[arktiger1975 518]

1 hour ago, NCAubs said:

Incorrect.  If a team falls below the ranking required or rises above the ranking required by the end of the season, it counts or doesn’t count.  Had SC maintained their ranking from yesterday, we would have gotten a Quad 1 win.  Unfortunately, they fell after it was all said and done.  
 

Not arguing the validity of the system but you are correct, you don’t understand it.  

If you think about it, we may very well have cost ourselves a couple more Q1 wins due to the simple fact that we have blown so many teams out, causing them to plummet in the NET.

[NCAubs 377]

48 minutes ago, JuscAUse! said:

And that's exactly what I said. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

I understood you to mean that teams got credit for a Quad 1 win against SC and “kept” it even as they fell below the cut lines.  Sorry for the confusion.  

[NCAubs 377]

9 minutes ago, arktiger1975 said:

If you think about it, we may very well have cost ourselves a couple more Q1 wins due to the simple fact that we have blown so many teams out, causing them to plummet in the NET.

Interesting theory.  

[cheap seats 40]

Auburn has 2 Quad 1 wins but ironically Mississippi State is 31 in the net, 1 short of making our home win quad 1 and South Carolina is 51 in the net making our neutral court win 1 short as well 🤷🏼‍♂️.

We may very well be the only team in the country one spot away from two more Quad 1 wins.

[TuscaloosaTiger 284]

Quad 1 and road wins were given primary consideration by Selection Committee per Selection Chairman. Other factors apparently were weighted less.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,673]

12 minutes ago, TuscaloosaTiger said:

Quad 1 and road wins were given primary consideration by Selection Committee per Selection Chairman. Other factors apparently were weighted less.

That makes a ton of sense in terms of why we were slighted then. Not saying I completely agree with the result, but if this was their evaluation, then our season effectively ended after the Tennessee loss in their eyes. I think UF ended up being a Q1 win but I don’t know if that would’ve made any ground 

[Viper 3,132]

2 hours ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

if this was their evaluation, then our season effectively ended after the Tennessee loss in their eyes.

Pretty much. We just needed to win the last three regular season games to keep the 4-seed and avoid a 5-seed.

What happened in the SEC Tourney was always going to be meaningless to them. A 3-seed was never a possibility. Tried to tell folks.

In fact, Lunardi's bracket after the TN loss had AU as a 4-seed in the same bracket as UConn. So our bracket shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

I think the whole system is o.k. during the regular season, but there is no consideration who is playing the best say the last 5 games.  We are scorching hot right now winning our last few regular season games, and then pretty much dominating the SEC Tourney.   If we are going to have an end of season tourney at all, then some consideration needs to go to how teams play in the tournament.  The problem with that is that right now the tournaments run up until about 30 mins. before the bracket reveals, which literally means they have to be pre determined to a point before the league tournaments are completed.  This SUX to me!!!

Why can't the league Tourneys start a day earlier and end on the Saturday before the brackets are all complete so the committee has time to take all the factors available into consideration (including Quad 1 & 2 wins, league records, non conference opponents, strength of schedule, and who is the hottest teams going into the tourney).  If this system or one similar to it was in place we might have even gotten a high 3 seed or low 2 seed.

I don't understand the logic in the current system & definitely don't like it!😡