Death to quadrants: North Carolina benefits as NCAA looks past archaic selection system…

Death to quadrants: North Carolina benefits as NCAA looks past archaic selection system… read more

The NCAA Tournament Selection Committee has long adhered to a rigid and often outdated system of evaluating teams for the Big Dance. The “quadrant system,” which divides games into four categories based on opponent strength and location, was intended to provide a structured, objective method for ranking teams. However, as time has passed, it has become clear that this system is far from perfect. Teams like the University of North Carolina (UNC) are prime examples of how the quadrant system can disadvantage deserving programs. The NCAA’s growing trend of moving away from these archaic rankings opens the door for a more balanced and accurate selection process.

 

The quadrant system was designed to account for wins in various locations: home, away, neutral, and conference strength. However, in practice, this system often leads to unfair comparisons between teams. A victory against a top-tier team on the road might be considered less valuable than a home win over a lower-ranked opponent, which seems counterintuitive. While this system attempts to quantify factors like venue and opponent strength, it overlooks the nuances of a season, such as injuries, roster changes, or the context of specific matchups.

 

For a program like North Carolina, which has historically been a powerhouse in college basketball, the quadrant system has posed challenges. UNC, with its prestigious reputation, is often given a tougher schedule, particularly on the road, where the Tar Heels have historically faced some of their most difficult tests. But when evaluated through the quadrant lens, these road wins against high-ranked teams may not receive the full credit they deserve, while home victories over weaker opponents may be given disproportionate weight. This mismatch doesn’t reflect the true value of a team’s performance.

 

The shift away from a strict reliance on the quadrant system allows the committee to evaluate teams more holistically. By considering additional metrics—such as strength of schedule, overall record, and head-to-head results—the committee can paint a fuller picture of a team’s body of work. For instance, UNC’s ability to secure tough wins on the road in hostile environments should be considered a more significant achievement than a home win against a middle-of-the-pack conference rival. The move toward more flexible and comprehensive evaluation methods ultimately benefits teams like North Carolina, who may have faced a more challenging slate but have the talent and pedigree to rise to the occasion.

 

Moreover, the quadrant system tends to penalize teams from smaller conferences, especially when they face limited opportunities to play top-ranked opponents. In recent years, mid-major teams have seen their tournament hopes dashed because of the quadrant system’s inherent bias toward Power Five conferences and marquee matchups. This results in a less inclusive selection process and a tournament field that doesn’t always represent the breadth of talent across college basketball.

 

By eliminating or minimizing the emphasis on quadrants, the NCAA can ensure that the selection process is more reflective of the reality of college basketball. For a program like UNC, this means a more accurate representation of its season and a fairer chance of making it to the tournament. The current trajectory signals a much-needed evolution in how teams are selected, ensuring that merit, not outdated formulas, dictates the path to March Madness. This shift may not only benefit North Carolina, but it could also rejuvenate the tournament by providing a more nuanced and inclusive selection process for teams of all shapes and sizes.