Here is where the rest of our schedule falls in terms of Quadrants:
Team (Net Ranking on 2/10) - Quadrant
@ South Florida (115) - Q2
@ SMU (73) - Q1
vs Tulsa (86) - Q3
@ Memphis (59) - Q1
vs Cincy (46) - Q2
@ UConn (71) Q1
vs Memphis (59) Q2
@SMU and @UConn are borderline Q1 and could fall to Q2 depending on how they finish the season. Home vs Tulsa is borderline Q3 and could improve to Q2. The most important games remaining on the schedule are those Q1 games as we are light on Q1 wins (currently just one @ Wichita State) and our home game vs Tulsa as we do not want a Q3 loss on our resume (Currently three Q1 losses and two Q2 losses). Most brackets have us between a 7-9 seed at the moment. My non expert opinion is our best case, if we can finish strong, would be a 5 seed in the tournament.
For those unfamiliar with how quadrants are determined:
NCAA tourney language Explainer:
Quadrant 1 wins: Home games vs. 1-30 NET teams; Neutral-site games vs. 1-50 NET; Away games vs. 1-75 NET
Quadrant 2 wins: Home games vs. 31-75 NET; Neutral-site games vs. 51-100 NET; Away games vs. 76-135 NET
Quadrant 3 wins, losses: Home games vs. 76-160 NET; Neutral-site games vs. 101-200 NET; Away games vs. 136-240 NET
Quadrant 4 wins, losses: Home games vs. 161-plus NET; Neutral-site games vs. 201-plus NET; Away games vs. 241-plus NET
Washington’s complete inability to win a close conference game has been unfortunate. I didn’t foresee that win not being Q1 when we picked it up. They are 60th right now so could still get there if they can ever figure out how to finish off a close game.
South Carolina could become a Q1 win. They are 2 spots outside right now.
The quadrant levels do not change over the course of the season, I don’t believe. What was Quadrant 1 or Quadrant 2 win in November or December stays that way. For that matter, a Quadrant 2 win doesn’t become a Quadrant 1 later on if the team beaten as the former improves to the latter. Oklahoma State will stay a Quad 2 loss and Washington will stay a Quad 1 win even though both are considerably worse now.
I’m pretty sure that’s not right based on my memory of how this worked the last two years.
It also really wouldn’t make sense. If someone is in the top 10 after 2 games but finished #250, it doesn’t seem like beating them at home should get you a Q1 win.
I cannot find a source for this, but I would say that this cannot be correct. The Net Rankings are not released until a few weeks into the season. If this were the case, then that would mean that early games do not count at all, which we know is not true.
The committee doesn’t make any of this super clear though.
Like I said, I’m not sure if the fluctuation factor is accurate. I didn’t think it changed as it would create far too many moving parts for the committee to have to consider. But maybe it does. If it does, Coogs would have zero Quad 1 wins on their ledger.
I can see why quad levels shouldn’t change retroactively: for instance beating memphis when Wiseman was playing is a lot diff than beating them now. Also injuries. Suspensions. Et cet.
But the counter argument is that a team may be overrated to start the season so why reward a team for beating / losing to an Oklahoma State team when they end not being able to beat any team in the Big XII? Or a N Carolina team that was supposed to be very good?
Then you would need to consider the opposite . . . . . a team that begins slow (for many reasons - youth, injuries, suspensions etc), then develops into a top notch team. How do you rate victory/losses over them ? ? ? ? ?
Oh I totally get the overrated thing. I mean jeez in my sentence i had to swallow my tongue a little because Memphis with Wiseman was at #10. Thats stupid. 25-40 ok. Doesn’t mean first eight games they were a 75 net though, which is where they will prolly end up finishing, and an early victory over them, ie Oregon, should be worth more than a late victory.
But yes we will all trust the committee. I have my fattened calf ready to roast and lay at their feet.
