NCAA should add a tier for Quad 5 wins

Donate To GopherHole
B

bhk3yx

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
85
Reaction score
73
Points
18
Opinions on the utility of the system itself aside; while stuck Net Rankings System, a Quad 5 tier should be added for knocking off a #1 team on Away OR Neutral court

Pros:

Raise stakes when any team plays the current #1 team on said team’s home court

Increase turnover of imposter teams at 1 spot— true 1’s will win at home regardless

Rewards bubble teams lacking a proper resume with a crown jewel to stake their claim (i.e. defense against bubble snub)
[think 17-18 gophers prior to knocking off Purdue twice in March in span of 10 days]

Excluding away games inhibits #1 teams from being jobbed on garbage team [x]’s home court

More exciting games for every #1 home game— increased incentive for away team (and away coach e.g. preparation and roster choices) to pull no punches —increased revenue from viewership (nationally) and especially from fan-bases of garbage teams that might otherwise tune out the slaughter opting for Hallmark channel

Useful Metric, home L’s by #1 teams are rare enough to stand out on a tournament resume—does not add just another bullshit meaningless metric to Net Ranking System (Q3 Loss @ #239 vs. Q4 Loss @ #241 is meaningless, who gives a shit, it tells you nothing)


Consider this post a topic for discussion, I don't really care about the proposed change, it's a hot take and I'm sure there are many cons to be pointed out, calling it Q5 for lack of better term obviously it's not a "quad" at 5, never would feel the need to so qualify on a forum but then again—it's this forum—so when I use words like 'increase' I'm not saying the roof will be blown off the structure, I'm saying "marginal" increases that are relevant to stakeholders with the $$

[My quick numbers on past 10 yrs saw an average 3.2 losses at home by #1 teams per year
Highest: 7 home losses for #1 teams in 2015.
Lowest: 0 home losses for #1 teams multiple years]
 
Last edited:

So beating the #2 team on the road by 30 is less important than beating the #1 team at a neutral site by 1 because it wouldn’t be quad 5? That’s an awful system. The #1 team is subjective.
 





rowdaboat said:
I figured you would have argued quad 5 would be the bottom of teams so that big ten gets even less credit for wins over gophers
Click to expand...
Great point. So in terms of best to worst the order proposed is…
5, 1, 2, 3, 4 which is logical AND easy to understand.
 

bhk3yx said:
Opinions on the utility of the system itself aside; while stuck Net Rankings System, a Quad 5 tier should be added for knocking off a #1 team on Away OR Neutral court

Pros:

Raise stakes when any team plays the current #1 team on said team’s home court

Increase turnover of imposter teams at 1 spot— true 1’s will win at home regardless

Rewards bubble teams lacking a proper resume with a crown jewel to stake their claim (i.e. defense against bubble snub)
[think 17-18 gophers prior to knocking off Purdue twice in March in span of 10 days]

Excluding away games inhibits #1 teams from being jobbed on garbage team [x]’s home court

More exciting games for every #1 home game— increased incentive for away team (and away coach e.g. preparation and roster choices) to pull no punches —increased revenue from viewership (nationally) and especially from fan-bases of garbage teams that might otherwise tune out the slaughter opting for Hallmark channel

Useful Metric, home L’s by #1 teams are rare enough to stand out on a tournament resume—does not add just another bullshit meaningless metric to Net Ranking System (Q3 Loss @ #239 vs. Q4 Loss @ #241 is meaningless, who gives a shit, it tells you nothing)


Consider this post a topic for discussion, I don't really care about the proposed change, it's a hot take and I'm sure there are many cons to be pointed out, calling it Q5 for lack of better term obviously it's not a "quad" at 5, never would feel the need to so qualify on a forum but then again—it's this forum—so when I use words like 'increase' I'm not saying the roof will be blown off the structure, I'm saying "marginal" increases that are relevant to stakeholders with the $$

[My quick numbers on past 10 yrs saw an average 3.2 losses at home by #1 teams per year
Highest: 7 home losses for #1 teams in 2015.
Lowest: 0 home losses for #1 teams multiple years]
Click to expand...
Pass
 

If this becomes a reality, then wouldn't you have to change "quad"... to "quint"??
 

Fair to all who responded. Honestly had 0 clue what the reception would be. I do think that it would be helpful if anything in identifying bubble teams that are more likely to thrive in a clutch situation rather than falter. I don't think knocking off a #1 seed on their court happens by accident. Think of this season's gopher's (love them & they'll get better but..) shooting free throws at the end of a game we lead by 6-7 with a min left at sold out Mackey. I fear we might deliver the student section 2-3 free chicken sandwiches by the time it's over.

I dont think anyone knocks off a #1 seed on their own court by accident. This would force committee to take into account where otherwise politics or other unknown factors could be the decisive factor. Some of my favorite athletes of all time simply do not have the clutch gene. If goal is to identify teams that can win in the tourney it makes sense to me.

Naming of whatever the category would be titled aside, why would it be bad to reward beating a #1 seed on their home court, considering the rarity. Is there any variation of this idea that seems better?

I personally am not a fan of the NET system, do you like it?

If not, how would you change the committee's eval/selection process or what would you replace it with altogether if given the chance?
 



bhk3yx said:
Fair to all who responded. Honestly had 0 clue what the reception would be. I do think that it would be helpful if anything in identifying bubble teams that are more likely to thrive in a clutch situation rather than falter. I don't think knocking off a #1 seed on their court happens by accident. Think of this season's gopher's (love them & they'll get better but..) shooting free throws at the end of a game we lead by 6-7 with a min left at sold out Mackey. I fear we might deliver the student section 2-3 free chicken sandwiches by the time it's over.

I dont think anyone knocks off a #1 seed on their own court by accident. This would force committee to take into account where otherwise politics or other unknown factors could be the decisive factor. Some of my favorite athletes of all time simply do not have the clutch gene. If goal is to identify teams that can win in the tourney it makes sense to me.

Naming of whatever the category would be titled aside, why would it be bad to reward beating a #1 seed on their home court, considering the rarity. Is there any variation of this idea that seems better?

I personally am not a fan of the NET system, do you like it?

If not, how would you change the committee's eval/selection process or what would you replace it with altogether if given the chance?
Click to expand...
You realize they do get credit for beating the #1 team…right? It isnt currently ignored. This is an unnecessary addition. You’re trying to invent a better mouse trap.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom