Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="UcMiami, post: 4522061, member: 199"] I think when looking at a tournament ranking, quads are just too broad to be valuable. There are 32 auto qualifiers but really only maybe 6-8 ish that deserve to be in the top 32 seed positions (8 seeds or better.) So really the seeding issues are about 24-26 at large teams plus the also ran at large bids of about 10-12 teams that fill in the 9-11 and the extra play-in teams. And for a top 4 seeding (16 teams) I really am not interested in how many wins they have over at large teams in the 30s or higher in whatever ranking you use. It just isn't that impressive and a loss to anyone outside the top 8 seeds is a real negative. All 'Quad 1' wins and losses are not equal and so using them muddies the water. A win or loss anywhere against say ND does not equate to a win or loss against Oregon State and yet they would both be in Net Quad1 I believe. And while team efficiency is a good way of evaluation, efficiency against the Lipscombs of the world grossly inflates a resume - play their equivalent 10 times OOC and you have an efficiency balance that even a tough conference schedule will not overcome. Same of course goes to win/loss records, SOS calculations, and RPI - how many P5 teams came into conference play with a .750 win percentage and now are struggling below .500 in conference play? That .750 win percentage helps their conference opponents in both SOS and RPI calculations but often meaningless. Texas Tech came into conference at 12-1 and are at 3-5 in conference but still sport a .714 win percentage for the year! [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,457

Messages: 4,396,916

Members: 10,209

Latest member: noelle