Quad 1-3 Records: a Reason for Hope | Syracusefan.com

Quad 1-3 Records: a Reason for Hope

Cuseball

Starter
Joined
Nov 21, 2011
Messages
1,388
Like
4,857
We actually look really good when looking at our record in Quads 1-3. This speaks to our strength of schedule and the fact that we have not played many Quad 4 teams. If this is part of the selection criteria, it should be a huge differentiator for us. I listed out teams generally assumed ahead of us but near the cut line and also other bubble teams. Of course we need to take care of Va Tech and Ville to even have this matter.

Quad 1-3 Record

  • Miss State 14-7
  • UVA 14-8
  • Florida 13-8
  • Mich State 13-11
  • Cuse 13-10
  • Northwestern 12-7
  • Ole Miss 12-8
  • Wake 12-9
  • Utah 12-11
  • New Mexico 11-6
  • Nevada 11-6
  • TCU 11-8
  • Boise 11-8
  • Nebraska 11-8
  • Colorado 11-9
  • St. Johns 11-12
  • Villanova 11-12
  • Gonzaga 10-6
  • Seton Hall 10-9
  • Texas A&M 10-12
  • Kansas State 9-11
  • Providence 8-9
  • Texas 8-10
  • Cincy 7-11
 
Quad 3 wins are useless. The only positive is they avoid a bad loss. The bad loss actually matters.

They look at Q1 and Q2 for wins and Q3 and 4 for losses. If you want to combine things, people do combine Q1 and q2.

q3 wins have never been deemed relevant by any committee. Nor should they.
 
Quad 3 wins are useless. The only positive is they avoid a bad loss. The bad loss actually matters.

They look at Q1 and Q2 for wins and Q3 and 4 for losses. If you want to combine things, people do combine Q1 and q2.

q3 wins have never been deemed relevant by any committee. Nor should they.

Right - you want a zero in Q3 and Q4 L columns. Simple as that.
 
Quad 3 wins are useless. The only positive is they avoid a bad loss. The bad loss actually matters.

They look at Q1 and Q2 for wins and Q3 and 4 for losses. If you want to combine things, people do combine Q1 and q2.

q3 wins have never been deemed relevant by any committee. Nor should they.
Wrong. A Quad 3 win eliminates a Quad 3 loss.
 
Wrong. A Quad 3 win eliminates a Quad 3 loss.

I explicitly stated that. The positive of a Q3 win is it avoids a bad loss which you will get punished for.

But don’t expect to get a reward itself for that w. Of course you can’t lose them. Q3 games are what I call a nuisance game .. if you lose you get punished by the committee, but the committee doesn’t really reward you for winning.

They aren’t going to have an important metric that includes q3 wins.
 
Last edited:
Some [seed per Bracket Matrix] Big 12 teams in Q1/Q2 games, Q3/4 losses in parenthesis

[8] TCU 7-8 (0)
[8] Oklahoma 7-8 (0)
[9] Texas 6-9 (1)
[Next 4 Out] Cincinnati 5-9 (2)

The Big 12 correctly gamed out that Q3 wins don't matter, and the easiest way to avoid Q3 losses is not to play Q3 games. We not only have a bunch of Q3 games, they're high Q3 games too. If you wanted to come up with a perfectly suboptimal schedule for NET, you couldn't do much better than ours. We're the only P5 team with 10 Q3 games.

Anyway, we are [Not Even Being Discussed] 5-8 (2).

Georgia Tech is 138th, if they get to 135th or higher that becomes a Q2 loss and we lose a bad loss. NC State is 77, if they get to 75 or higher our home win becomes a Q2 and the road win becomes a Q1.

So if those two teams close out strong, we would go to [NEBD] 6-9 (1) with three Q1 wins. Va Tech is a Q2, Clemson is a Q1.

If we can also win these last three regular season games and catch some breaks for GT/NC St, that's...

21-10
7-8 vs Q1/Q2 (1 bad loss)
4 Q1 wins
Probably 5th or 6th in the ACC

If that doesn't put us on the bubble (and on the right side imo) going into the ACCT, the whole thing is a joke.
 
We actually look really good when looking at our record in Quads 1-3. This speaks to our strength of schedule and the fact that we have not played many Quad 4 teams. If this is part of the selection criteria, it should be a huge differentiator for us. I listed out teams generally assumed ahead of us but near the cut line and also other bubble teams. Of course we need to take care of Va Tech and Ville to even have this matter.

Quad 1-3 Record

  • Miss State 14-7
  • UVA 14-8
  • Florida 13-8
  • Mich State 13-11
  • Cuse 13-10
  • Northwestern 12-7
  • Ole Miss 12-8
  • Wake 12-9
  • Utah 12-11
  • New Mexico 11-6
  • Nevada 11-6
  • TCU 11-8
  • Boise 11-8
  • Nebraska 11-8
  • Colorado 11-9
  • St. Johns 11-12
  • Villanova 11-12
  • Gonzaga 10-6
  • Seton Hall 10-9
  • Texas A&M 10-12
  • Kansas State 9-11
  • Providence 8-9
  • Texas 8-10
  • Cincy 7-11
Just keep winning
 
Wrong. A Quad 3 win eliminates a Quad 3 loss.
Im Not No Way GIF
 
We might play 5-6more games against mid teams give me 4-5 wins and I think that’s enough. Can’t lose to someone bad early in the ACCT.
 
Quad 3 wins are useless. The only positive is they avoid a bad loss. The bad loss actually matters.

They look at Q1 and Q2 for wins and Q3 and 4 for losses. If you want to combine things, people do combine Q1 and q2.

q3 wins have never been deemed relevant by any committee. Nor should they.
Knowing you know a lot more about this than me I would still challenge your statement that Q3 wins have never been deemed relevant by any committee nor should they.

If that were true wouldn’t that encourage every team to play complete bottom feeders? Are you saying the committee would value 12 Q4 wins the same as 12 Q3 wins? It would seem to be another level of differentiating when comparing similar teams

Cuse!
 
Quad 3 wins are useless. The only positive is they avoid a bad loss. The bad loss actually matters.

They look at Q1 and Q2 for wins and Q3 and 4 for losses. If you want to combine things, people do combine Q1 and q2.

q3 wins have never been deemed relevant by any committee. Nor should they.
#allquadsmatter
 
Knowing you know a lot more about this than me I would still challenge your statement that Q3 wins have never been deemed relevant by any committee nor should they.

If that were true wouldn’t that encourage every team to play complete bottom feeders? Are you saying the committee would value 12 Q4 wins the same as 12 Q3 wins? It would seem to be another level of differentiating when comparing similar teams

Cuse!
There is a difference between Q3 and Q4 in that a Q4 loss hurts more than a Q3 loss. A win against either is meaningless. You don't load up with either because you need some Q1 and Q2 wins to build a resume.
 
It's a good thing Stanford and Cal aren't in the ACC this year because people would have even more Quad 3 league games to talk about. If the NET rankings had existed in 2011 when the Big East got 11 teams into the Big Dance or this was 2017 or 2018 when the ACC got 9 bids, everyone would be discussing all of our Quad 1 and Quad 2 wins and talking about our seed in the NCAA Tournament. The problem is this is a down year for ACC hoops and the quad rankings reflect the strengths and weaknesses of the teams in the major conferences.

Every game matters to me. Go Cuse! Beat Va Tech!
 
It's a good thing Stanford and Cal aren't in the ACC this year because people would have even more Quad 3 league games to talk about. If the NET rankings had existed in 2011 when the Big East got 11 teams into the Big Dance or this was 2017 or 2018 when the ACC got 9 bids, everyone would be discussing all of our Quad 1 and Quad 2 wins and talking about our seed in the NCAA Tournament. The problem is this is a down year for ACC hoops and the quad rankings reflect the strengths and weaknesses of the teams in the major conferences.

Every game matters to me. Go Cuse! Beat Va Tech!
You're assuming we would have beaten those teams. There was a reason those bids were given then. Those were legitimately tough leagues with good teams. This team would struggle against those schedules.
 
Quad 3 wins are useless. The only positive is they avoid a bad loss. The bad loss actually matters.

They look at Q1 and Q2 for wins and Q3 and 4 for losses. If you want to combine things, people do combine Q1 and q2.

q3 wins have never been deemed relevant by any committee. Nor should they.
But yet the whole big 12 gaming the net is based off them playing 6-8 Q4 home cupcakes
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,964
Messages
4,740,425
Members
5,934
Latest member
bspencer309

Online statistics

Members online
265
Guests online
1,204
Total visitors
1,469


Top Bottom