USC Coach nails it

[nustudent]

11 minutes ago, throwback said:

I think if Q1 and Q2 are all that matter, they need more tiers in that area to make it easier to compare teams. I broke down NU & Texas's Q1 wins in another thread somewhere. No idea where anymore. 

 

NU was 1-5 vs the upper half of Q1, Texas was 0-9

NU was 0-1 vs the bottom half of Q1, Texas was 6-2

 

It's a heck of a lot easier to beat a #70 RPI team on the road than a #10 RPI team, but they're both Q1 games, which makes the current quad breakdown very flawed and easier to game.

 

I understand wanting to use quads to make it easier to compare teams. But it needs to be a combo of metrics, not just RPI, and we need more tiers at the top.

 

EDIT: And I should add, I caught a couple of Stanford games this season. They're awful. Had no idea they would even be under consideration for the NIT. Them getting a #3 is a joke. But the eye test is not a part of any criteria anymore.

 

That's my issue with the quadrants.  Some road/neutral wins are being way too highly valued.   Beating Maryland at home is a tougher game than at Buffalo or Loyola (Chi).   But not according to the quadrants.

[throwback]

Right - the quads basically count a road win at, say, Vermont the same as one at Kansas.

 

Caught Vermont's tournament championship game at home over the weekend. Scrappy team with some nice players. Probably would have blown Iowa out of the gym this year. But there's no way those road wins should be treated the same.

 

(Again, not dissing the Catamounts. Maybe we'll see them at PBA in the NIT Elite Eight.)

 

More tiers at the top, better metrics to go into it, and it may work. But this particular RPI-based quad system is bad, and the committee let it rule things too much.

 

(Well, except with CU. The committee must've mis-read their 2 Q1 wins to give them an 8 seed, since every at-large Power them had more Q1 wins than they did, even all the at-large teams seeded below them, including St Bony with 3. But there's always a WTF team, right?)

 

And the quad system doesn't help mid-majors at all. Thought I read somewhere that was part of the intent of implementing it, but if it was, the NCAA missed badly.

 

[rwmctrofholz]

USC isn't rewarded for finishing 2nd in a weak conference AND Arizona State isn't punished for not even going .500 in the same weak conference?

 

Unreal.

[hskr4life]

Someone was absolutely right when they said we were just being fed a line of fluff to fit our team.  It sounds like the committee was hard set on what they were looking at, but when giving interviews, they wanted as many people with hope as possible.

[rwmctrofholz]

To take it one step further, I'd wager money that with an identical resume, ASU doesn't get in if Bobby Hurley isn't the coach of that team.

[throwback]

Basically, ASU beat Xavier on a neutral site in November, won at Kansas in December and that was enough. They just had to tread water the rest of the way. They had one Q1 win and two Q2 wins after Jan. 1 and got in.

 

Won 2 games vs RPI Top 50 teams after Dec. 10, both at home, and 0 wins against RPI Top 30 teams after Dec. 10.

 

Crazy.

 

[Huskerpapa]

None of this crap makes sense to me...sorry...I am still fuming.

 

[jason2486]

In other words, teams' good wins are rewarded yet those same teams aren't held responsible for questionable losses...makes no sense.