NET Quad 1 | Page 2 | The Boneyard

NET Quad 1

Vowelguy said:
Note a Quad 1 game isn't necessarily a Quad 1 tomorrow. Or a week from now. And vice versa. Since everyone's rankings are constantly changing, the Quads are as well.

MichSt initially had a Quad 3 loss to Wisconsin. But the Badgers have moved up, so it's now only a Quad 2 loss.

And for Husky fans: if UConn stays unbeaten, this will be irrelevant. An undefeated UConn would be the overall 1, without question.
Expand ...
Unless Vandy remains unbeaten
 
Notre Dame was a quad 1 win when it was played, but not today.
 
Phil said:
Notre Dame was a quad 1 win when it was played, but not today.
Expand ...
Perhaps you can explain. Current Net per NCAA site is 28 for Notre Dame. I thought Quad 1 included home games against the top 30 net ranks.
 
Topdawg said:
Perhaps you can explain. Current Net per NCAA site is 28 for Notre Dame. I thought Quad 1 included home games against the top 30 net ranks.
Expand ...
Unless it has changed the women’s quads are 1/25 home, 1-35 neutral and 1-45 road.

www.ncaa.org

DI Women’s Basketball Committee OKs quadrant-based team sheets, complete seed list - NCAA.org

At its summer meeting this week in Austin, Texas, the NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Committee approved a move to quadrant-based team sheets in 2024-25 and to
www.ncaa.org www.ncaa.org
 
What the heck does Quad 1 mean . . . . let alone net Quad 1?
 
.-.
chj001 said:
What the heck does Quad 1 mean . . . . let alone net Quad 1?
Expand ...
The NET is the computer ranking that guided the selection committee. It also divides teams into a” quads “ with teams 1-25 ( in the NET RANKINGS) being quad 1 wins if you beat them on your home court. 1 through 35 are quad 1 wins if you beat them on a neutral court. 1 through 45 are quad one wins if you beat them on their court.

Quad twos are basically the rest of the top 100 teams. Quad 3s are very weak times and Quad 4s are pretty horrible teams.
Supposedly a tie or decisions between two consecutively ranked teams is decided by the best quad record.
 
Last edited:
Most Quad1 wins; games thru 1/20/26.
1st number is AP rank
  • 03 UCLA 10-1
  • 01 UConn 5-0
  • 04 Texas 5-2
  • 08 Louis 5-3
  • 02 SoCar 4-1
  • 06 L S U 4-2
  • 10 Io wa 4-2
  • 12 Oh St 4-2
  • 13 MchSt 4-1 + quad 2 loss
  • 14 Baylr 4-2 + quad 2 loss
  • 05 Vandy 3-0
  • 09 T C U 3-2
  • 07 Michi 3-3
  • 15 Maryl 3-3
  • 25 Washi 3-3 + quad 2 loss
  • 11 Kntky 3-3
  • 17 Tenne 3-3

Other top 25
2 wins: 19 TxTech, 21 Duke, 22 WV, 23 Bama
1 win: 16 Okla, 18 OleMiss, 20 Prin
0 wins: 24 Nebr
 
Most Quad1 wins; games thru 1/22/26.
1st number is AP rank
  • 03 UC LA 9-1
  • 04 Texas 6-2
  • 01 UConn 5-0
  • 08 Louis 5-3
  • 13 MchSt 5-1 + quad 2 loss
  • 02 SoCar 4-2
  • 06 L S U 4-2
  • 10 Io wa 4-2
  • 12 Oh St 4-2
  • 17 Tenne 4-3
  • 14 Baylr 4-2 + quad 2 loss
  • 05 Vandy 3-0
  • 09 T C U 3-2
  • 07 Michi 3-3
  • 15 Maryl 3-4
  • 11 Kntky 3-4
  • 25 Washi 3-3 + quad 2 loss
Other top 25
2 wins: 16 Okla, 19 TxTech, 21 Duke, 22 WV, 23 Bama
1 win: 18 OleMiss, 20 Prin
0 wins: 24 Nebr
 
Most Quad1 wins; games thru 1/25/26.
1st number is AP rank
  • 02 UCLA 10-1
  • 04 Texas 6-2
  • 08 Io wa 6-2
  • 07 Louis 6-3
  • 01 UConn 5-0
  • 03 SoCar 5-2

  • 13 MchSt 5-1 + quad 2 loss
  • 06 L S U 4-2
  • 11 Oh St 4-3
  • 15 Tenne 4-3
  • 09 Michi 4-3
  • 18 Kntky 4-4 + quad 2 loss

  • 05 Vandy 3-1
  • 14 Baylr 3-2 + quad 2 loss
  • 16 Maryl 3-4
  • xx NC St 3-5 + quad 2 loss
  • 20 Du ke 3-5 + quad 2 loss
  • xx Wisky 3-4 + 2 quad 2 & 2 quad 3 losses

Other top 25
2 wins: 12 TCU, 10 Okla, 21 TxTech, 22 WV, 23 Ga, 24 Bama, 25 Wash
1 win: 17 OleMiss, 19 Prin
0 wins:
 
Last edited:
Only 2 possible Quad 1 games left on the schedule.

For those who aren’t sure what the four Quads are, a brief explanation. There is a list of 363 NCAA teams that have a NET ranking derived from some semi-obscure formula. I included the Big East teams with their ranks below.

In the first chart below, you can see Quad 1 criteria. If the game is at home, the opponent needs to be ranked 25 or lower to be Quad 1. At a neutral site, the opponent needs to be ranked 35 or lower, for an away game, the rank has to be 45 or lower.

As an example: Villanova’s rank is currently 38. If UConn plays them at home, it’s a Quad 2 game but if the game is at Villanova, it’s a Quad 1 game. Keep in mind the formula used to calculate NET includes win-loss, margin of victory and other criteria, so NET rankings can change.

Hope this helps.

IMG_4734.jpeg
 
Last edited:
If UCLA wins out, I'd have to think they'd be the top overall seed in the tourney with that many quad 1 wins though there's still a lot of games to be played.
 
.-.
hoopsfan22 said:
If UCLA wins out, I'd have to think they'd be the top overall seed in the tourney with that many quad 1 wins though there's still a lot of games to be played.
Expand ...
I don’t think so as long as UConn remains undefeated with a number (though smaller) of Q-1 wins but I don’t understand the NET algorithm enough to say that it would always work out that way.

Last year, SCar had by far the stronger Quad record and highest NET rank. Nevertheless, the committee seeded UCLA as number 1 ) despite Dawn’s bitching)
 
I wish this mattered but it doesn't. The committee does whatever it wants, regardless of what their own power rating says.

The brackets will be designed so that UConn has to beat 3 of the top 5 teams to win the championship. One of LSU, Texas, SC or UCLA will be the 2 seed in UConn's bracket.
 
hoopsfan22 said:
If UCLA wins out, I'd have to think they'd be the top overall seed in the tourney with that many quad 1 wins though there's still a lot of games to be played.
Expand ...

If UConn hadn't beaten anyone then probably. But with comfortable wins over current projected 2 seeds Louisville and Iowa, #1 NET, 5-0 quad1 wins, Huskies have proven their quality. Dont see an undefeated team getting passed. Unless UConn play substantially deteriorates and needs OT to beat Xavier, for example. Or UCLA beats Iowa/Mich/OhioSt (which lost to UConn) by 50 points each.
 
Vowelguy said:
If UConn hadn't beaten anyone then probably. But with comfortable wins over current projected 2 seeds Louisville and Iowa, #1 NET, 5-0 quad1 wins, Huskies have proven their quality. Dont see an undefeated team getting passed. Unless UConn play substantially deteriorates and needs OT to beat Xavier, for example. Or UCLA beats Iowa/Mich/OhioSt (which lost to UConn) by 50 points each.
Expand ...
I completely agree with but man, imagine IF this team was passed over for the #1 overall seed, what a chip on their shoulder and what a motivating factor…Woe to the 6 opponents…
 
.-.
visitingcock said:
I don’t think so as long as UConn remains undefeated with a number (though smaller) of Q-1 wins but I don’t understand the NET algorithm enough to say that it would always work out that way.

Last year, SCar had by far the stronger Quad record and highest NET rank. Nevertheless, the committee seeded UCLA as number 1 ) despite Dawn’s bitching)
Expand ...
And UConn beat them both by almost 30.
 
HuskyNan said:
NET is very important in ranking. The committee has to follow the criteria

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/basketball/d1/women/D1WBB_NETFAQ.pdf
Expand ...

I'd quibble about the indicative "has to follow". NET and the other listed data sources are made available to the SelComm but, realistically, members have the independence to base their decisions on anything they want, including lobbying by coaches and conferences. This is made clear in the next paragraph in the link, which says:

"During selection weekend, the committee members independently evaluate a vast pool of
information. It is these subjective opinions, developed after watching hundreds of games,
investing many hours of personal team (or game) observations, review and comparison of
objective data, plus discussions with coaches and campus/conference representatives, that
dictate how each committee member ultimately votes on the selection of the 37 at-large
teams, followed by the seeding and bracketing of the 68-team championship bracket each
year."

Back to the data sources, note that the official 2026 Principles and Procedures document says the following resources (including rankings and polls) are made available to committee members to use as they wish in their independent subjective decisions:

"Among the resources available to the committee are complete box scores, game summaries and notes, various computer rankings, head-to-head results, chronological results, Division I results, non-conference results, home and away results, results in the last twelve games, rankings, polls, injured and available/unavailable reports and the coaches’ regional advisory committee rankings."

Finally, note that for the 2025-26 tournament a new evaluation metric has been added to complement NET, called Wins Above Bubble (WAB). It is explained HERE.
 
Gael said:
I'd quibble about the indicative "has to follow". NET and the other listed data sources are made available to the SelComm but, realistically, members have the independence to base their decisions on anything they want, including lobbying by coaches and conferences. This is made clear in the next paragraph in the link, which says:

"During selection weekend, the committee members independently evaluate a vast pool of
information. It is these subjective opinions, developed after watching hundreds of games,
investing many hours of personal team (or game) observations, review and comparison of
objective data, plus discussions with coaches and campus/conference representatives, that
dictate how each committee member ultimately votes on the selection of the 37 at-large
teams, followed by the seeding and bracketing of the 68-team championship bracket each
year."

Back to the data sources, note that the official 2026 Principles and Procedures document says the following resources (including rankings and polls) are made available to committee members to use as they wish in their independent subjective decisions:

"Among the resources available to the committee are complete box scores, game summaries and notes, various computer rankings, head-to-head results, chronological results, Division I results, non-conference results, home and away results, results in the last twelve games, rankings, polls, injured and available/unavailable reports and the coaches’ regional advisory committee rankings."

Finally, note that for the 2025-26 tournament a new evaluation metric has been added to complement NET, called Wins Above Bubble (WAB). It is explained HERE.
Expand ...
“Independent subjective decisions.”
 
Dogdude said:
So in the end, they just make stuff up...
Expand ...

They could within limits, but I wouldn't be that cynical. I assume they give it the old college try from their salmagundi of sources.

No matter how many sources one has and how diligently studied, however, it seems to me that it must get rather murky and very subjective when trying to select and seed the bottom half of 68 teams. I struggle after the first four.
 
.-.
Woof said:
In 2023 the UConn men were #4 in the Net. That would equate to a 1 seed. They were given a FOUR seed. At best, that equates to #13.
Expand ...
The NET is one important criterion, not the only one.

The 2022-23 men’s team had 8 losses, including ugly ones to Seton Hall and St John’s (at home), they had a 6-5 road record, and didn’t win either the regular season or conference tournament championship, finishing 4th in the Big East. Their Kenpom rating was high but that’s not used for seeding.
 
Woof said:
In 2023 the UConn men were #4 in the Net. That would equate to a 1 seed. They were given a FOUR seed. At best, that equates to #13.
Expand ...

The NET is NOT the sole criteria. It is one of about a dozen items.
 
The thing about the NET is that it’s the most publicly visible of the criteria. It doesn’t have the most weight — far from it. But the committee has some small motivation to avoid departing too much from it and thereby create an impression that their seeding decisions are arbitrary. This means that they’ll have a reason for each departure from it and it doesn’t take much to figure out what it is.
 
I find this whole "quad" discussion to be rather silly. If you are a top 5 team, is there any functional difference between playing 25 or 100? The only difference might be how long you leave your top rotation players in vs lower bench to achieve whatever score you wanted.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,967
Messages
4,547,181
Members
10,430
Latest member
TeganK


Top Bottom