Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="auror, post: 4560184, member: 1329"] If it's easier to beat a projected 10 seed at home than a bubble team on the road, why is that a more valuable win? Winning on the road is really hard, and the old top 50, etc. system did not do justice to road wins against good but not great teams. UConn's win @Nova would have just been a really mediocre top 100 win in your system. In quads, we know it's Q2 borderline Q1. Adding the @ context in a top 50 list means the person analyzing has to mentally do the adjustment on how difficult the win is. The simplicity of the quad system is that the adjustment is baked in. We're not just making up these "difficulties", either. They're empirically derived based on historical data. The quadrant themselves are arbitrary (based on quad 1 being beating a top 30 team at home equivalency, quad 2 being top 75 at home, and expanding from there), but the cutoffs of the quadrants are really the derived equivalent home/road/neutral ranks. At some point the winning % for tournament teams becomes like 95%+ against Q3 and Q4 teams, but that's why when most people analyze resumes they just ignore those quads and only focus on the bad losses. Just like you would with "200+ wins" or whatever. But yes, Q2 wins are all more difficult than Q3 wins (once you're confident enough in the sample size, but the same is true for top X lists). [/QUOTE]