I looked at how 4 schools (UK, Duke, Auburn, Illinois) have done this year in the Quad system, comparing them graphically/visually. One problem with the Quad system is that breaking 362 teams into just 4 groups. Is a Win at #1 the same as a Win at #75? Of course not, but they both count equally (as Q1 wins). Similarly, are Loses at #135 and at #136 really different? Of course not, but using the Quad system they are.
Unfortunately, I can't get the formatting within this page to show what I've done in Excel, but below is my attempt as explaining it.
First of all, we will drop the Q4 games, they all had 5-7 of them, all at home, and they all won.
If you standardize the Neutral and Road games in a way that you can overlay them with the Home games, and then break each Quad in half, then that improves the precision and seems to make things more comparable.
RECORDS vs:
So, the question really is, what do you VALUE MORE, quality WINS, or bad LOSES?
UK has the 1 Q3 loss, but it is a top-half Q3 loss, and we do not have any lower-half Q2 losses (all 3 others have at least 1). So, looking at the last 3-4 columns Team C is a little worse than B & D, but not much. And it is arguable if Team C is worse than A since A has 2 lower half Q2 losses.
Next let's look at the first 2 columns. Team C is easily the best in top-half Q1, followed by A; B and D did bad here. But Team C did really bad in lower-half Q1, as did D, where as B and A did well.
Basically, vs very good teams, C has the best chance of winning, followed by A, then B, and D has a bad chance.
But vs "just ok" teams, D and B are the best, followed by A and C.
A=Duke
B=Illinois
C=UK
D=Auburn
Unfortunately, I can't get the formatting within this page to show what I've done in Excel, but below is my attempt as explaining it.
First of all, we will drop the Q4 games, they all had 5-7 of them, all at home, and they all won.
If you standardize the Neutral and Road games in a way that you can overlay them with the Home games, and then break each Quad in half, then that improves the precision and seems to make things more comparable.
RECORDS vs:
Top half of Quad 1 | Lower half of Quad 1 | Top half of Quad 2 | Lower half of Quad 2 | Top half of Quad 3 | Lower half of Quad 3 | |
Team A | 2 - 2 | 3 - 1 | 5 - 1 | 1 - 2 | 4 - 0 | 3 - 0 |
Team B | 2 - 5 | 3 - 1 | 5 - 1 | 1 - 1 | 3 - 0 | 4 - 0 |
Team C | 5 - 2 | 0 - 4 | 1 - 1 | 1 - 0 | 5 - 1 | 3 - 0 |
Team D | 1 - 5 | 0 - 2 | 7 - 0 | 1 - 0 | 6 - 0 | 3 - 0 |
So, the question really is, what do you VALUE MORE, quality WINS, or bad LOSES?
UK has the 1 Q3 loss, but it is a top-half Q3 loss, and we do not have any lower-half Q2 losses (all 3 others have at least 1). So, looking at the last 3-4 columns Team C is a little worse than B & D, but not much. And it is arguable if Team C is worse than A since A has 2 lower half Q2 losses.
Next let's look at the first 2 columns. Team C is easily the best in top-half Q1, followed by A; B and D did bad here. But Team C did really bad in lower-half Q1, as did D, where as B and A did well.
Basically, vs very good teams, C has the best chance of winning, followed by A, then B, and D has a bad chance.
But vs "just ok" teams, D and B are the best, followed by A and C.
A=Duke
B=Illinois
C=UK
D=Auburn
Last edited: