I check it this morning, and we were 4-1, so I’m pretty sure today makes 5 Q1 wins, unless one of our previous Q1 wins dropped to Q2
1 Like
We were 3-1 as of this morning, so we’ll definitely be at least 4-1 tomorrow morning. UCF slipped 2 spots after yesterday’s results to 77. Not sure their win today will get them back to Q1
Quad one is a scam.
Ohio State is 13-18 and ranked high enough that a win in Columbus is quad one for visitors.
Minnesota, ranked 230 in NET won in Columbus. So did Purdue, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan State, and Penn State.
But those wins are better than our home win over Memphis? Get outta here with that.
10 Likes
Yea lol. After last year I just can’t take Q1 wins as serious as the media makes them out to be
Before we ran Illinois and Arizona out of the gym in the tournament the narrative about us was that we should be in the first 4 as an 11 seed ffs
2 Likes
Latest Bracketology by Joe Lunardi:
“ It’s an extremely close call among the top three teams on the new seed list - - Kansas, Alabama and Houston – but the Jayhawks get the nod in this update thanks to their unprecedented
Quadrant 1 record (15-6). I understand it seems counterintuitive to move up after a loss, but KU falling at Texas is less of a negative than Alabama losing at Texas A&M. And Houston simply doesn’t have the necessary wins to pass either the Big 12 or SEC regular-season champions.”
I know Lunardi is just one guy who doesn’t select the teams, but thought I’d share. Not a fan of his take. KU’s record in Q1 is incredible, but who is to say we wouldn’t be the same given we played the competition? Also, Bama should not be seeded over us. That stupid December loss…
1 Like
As usual, they pick and choose the metrics to meet their agenda. How about double-digit, non competitive losses? How about only team in Top 10 of both Oe and DE? How about number of road wins?
10 Likes
Lolol seriously. With how people love to talk about Q1 you’d think Baylor would have done better than needing the refs to even be competitive with a mediocre UNC last year.
As for Bama the Miller incident shattered team chemistry, going from romping the SEC with several 40 point wins to needing refs to escape 3 vastly inferior teams is more than just a slump. They’ll lose in the semis or earlier in the SEC tournament and won’t make it past the S16 in the dance imo
1 Like
All this talk of Kansas being the overall number 1 because of 15 Q1 wins is making me wonder why we have all the other metrics if that is going to be the crowned jewel of determining seeding.
I deal with statistics all the time as a commercial appraiser and I took two statistics classes in grad school and I have to think my professors would have laughed at using Q1 wins as the primary seeding factor. I’d love to see which metric has been most accurate in March Madness seeding. With the poor performance of the Big 10 in the last few years I have to think the quadrant system will not come out on top. I feel like someone on here posted something showing the NET system was the most accurate.
2 Likes
Do you think UH would have the most double digit or 20 point wins if UH played Kansas’ schedule? It’s hard to compare and play the what if game. UH is going to get a #1 seed in some region.
So with how the media was hyping up Baylor last year solely due to Q1 record you think it was okay they lost pretty convincingly to a mediocre UNC team in the R32?
Also saying we would have more Q1 wins as a B12 doesn’t also mean I’m saying we would have several 20 point wins but go ahead with that lame retort only a Jayhawk fan would come up with lmao
1 Like
** What does it take to become #1 seed overall for MARCH MADNESS? **
Wins and respect . . . . .
Strength of Schedule is factored into the metrics, and we’re #1 in most of them, including the 2 most referenced.
4 Likes
What cracks me up is despite our “lack of Q1 wins” we’re still #1 in that poll lol.
2 Likes
I wonder if he realizes games are still going on today. How embarrassing, Eastern Washington is still in his bracket and they were upset at the buzzer tonight.
1 Like
This Lunardi piece was written before today’s games. I don’t know that our win today changes his view, but I suspect it won’t, just like the AP voters who didn’t have us at #1 last week will still vote for someone else this week.
Don’t care.
1 Like
This is hyperbole right? lol
P5 snobbery.
lol it didn’t happen tho. I don’t recall anyone saying that we were a first four/11 seed. We were a Top 15 ranked 29-5 team that was mentioned as just missing the NCAA Top 16 seeding list reveal. No serious pundit that wasn’t trolling would say we were a 11 seed last year.
Sampson and UH have built up lots of tourney equity the last 4-5 years. UH has not lost as a higher seed in the tourney and has won as a lower seed a few times. Previous years shouldn’t matter but the committee is made of humans. It took Gonzaga a while t build up equity from the WCC, but their resume and play could not be ignored. UH has reached that point.
In the Sampson era, we’ve only won as the lower seed twice, vs. Illinois and Arizona last year.