Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Plebe, post: 5150284, member: 6927"] Lots to dispel here. I already said they didn't use quads last year. They certainly [U]did[/U] use NET top 25, top 50, etc. as categories to help evaluate quality of wins and losses. [URL='https://the-boneyard.com/[URL%20unfurl=%22true%22]https%3A//www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/41305156/women-bracketology-march-madness-ncaa-tournament-field-projection-quad-system-2024-2025-season[/URL]']This explanation[/URL] is helpful: [HEADING=1][INDENT=2][SIZE=5]How will using the quads be different?[/SIZE][/INDENT][/HEADING] [INDENT=2]This is just a slightly different way of looking at a win or a loss. The quads present as an easier way to identify that winning on the road is more difficult and is rewarded more substantially. The quadrant ranges essentially replace top-25, top-50 and top-100 records.[/INDENT] [INDENT=2][/INDENT] [INDENT=2]The terminology used by commentators, writers and, especially, bracketologists will change from "South Carolina is 6-0 against the NET top 25 and 17-0 versus the NET top 50" to "South Carolina's record against Quad 1 opponents is 12-0."[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] Also, not that it would have any bearing, but what's your source for claiming that UConn was #1 in NET strength of schedule? The NCAA site showed UConn as #31 in NET SOS and #1 in [U]nonconference[/U] SOS. I'm unclear as to why you feel the committee was obligated to seed teams in strict adherence to the NET. They have never said the NET (or the RPI before it) was the determining factor. Upsets happen in every tournament and do not prove that teams were mis-seeded. The other such #3 seed was NC State -- whose NET ranking was #13 on selection day. So should they have been a #4 seed based on NET ranking, or a #1 seed because they reached the Final Four? Which is it? [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,461

Messages: 4,397,134

Members: 10,210

Latest member: noelle