I think it’s irresponsible to look at all of the quad wins and losses equally. For instance, beating Purdue at their place is much more than your typical Quad 1 win, and likewise losing to Temple (without 2 starters on neutral court)who beat Houston is not your average Quad 3 loss. Our losses against Lafayette and UMass were really bad last year and our loss against Minnesota was a real bad loss this year(not in same category as loss against Lafayette), but the quality of our wins against NW, Indiana, MD, Penn St and Wisconsin should be more than enough to get bye
Looking at the Quads
- Thread starter mugrat86
- Start date
excuses excuses. it’s not irresponsible. it’s the chosen metric blending comparability with granularity. they could well have created a 16 category system (quatro-quad ha ha) but didn’t.
if more granularity would you pine for less if that favored Rutgers?
if more granularity would you pine for less if that favored Rutgers?
Who ever said the committee looks at all them equally? That's exactly the opposite of what they do otherwise they really wouldn't be looking at a team's resume if they stopped there.
If I recall what bac has said, the committee DOES look at upper tier Quad 1 games, like top 15 or 20 NET wins, especially on the road.
Would you go a step further and consider weighting games differently if played when students are home for break-like when R played at Purdue?
Seems like an argument for going to 8 groupings versus quads.
The committee doesn’t look at all quad 1 wins the same.
It’s a metric that helps quantify wins but they do a little bit of digging when it comes to this stuff.
our win against Purdue last year is one of the few things that could have possibly off set those bad losses
It’s a metric that helps quantify wins but they do a little bit of digging when it comes to this stuff.
our win against Purdue last year is one of the few things that could have possibly off set those bad losses
