The metrics used for March Madness bracketology are currently the subject of intense debate. The individuals who preside over these analytics are constantly interrogated on their methodologies and the validity of their findings.
The brainchild of these strategies face criticism from multiple sources, with opposing viewpoints arguing that the systems used are flawed or give undue advantages to certain teams. The main focal point of the controversy is the standard measurements utilised for determining the 68 teams and their seeding in the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. The NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) and its diagnosing metrics, which includes a metric called the quadrants system are at the center of these debates.
The components of the NET include team value index, net efficiency, winning percentage, adjusted win percentage, and scoring margin. Arguably, one of the most contentious is adjusted win percentage, which assesses home, away and neutral site records, subject to opponent’s location. This metric, critics argue, is inherently biased and fails to accurately reflect a team’s strength, thereby limiting its use in tournament seeding.
The integers used in calculating a team’s NET score are then broken down into four different quadrants, each with its varying degrees of value. The primary concern is that some quadrants, particularly Quadrant 1, might provide an unbalanced influence on the NET scores. Quadrant 1 represents home games against top 30 teams, neutral site games against top 50 teams, and road games against top 75 teams. Critics, therefore, claim that such judgments are unfairly weighted and give certain teams an undue advantage.
A counterpoint to the criticism arises from Joe Lunardi, an ESPN bracketologist, who believes that no system is perfect but asserts that the NET is “a substantial improvement” from its predecessor, the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI). He made the point that the new system better utilizes a more accurate representation of predictive analytics and is more updated for today’s basketball game pace.
Still, the conversation and controversy continue in the arena of college basketball. As new data emerges and as March Madness approaches, the debate over the metrics and methods of seeding the NCAA tournament is unlikely to die down. Yet as the key figures behind these analytics maintain, the aim remains to assemble the most fair and competitively balanced tournament possible.
Last modified: March 15, 2025
