Call me old school, but I think this Q1, Q2, Q3 stuff is a bunch of overvalued nonsense. Probably made up by the same guys who developed common core math for our kids and grandkids. I know a tournament team when I see one. I assume the committee does too. I know a team that is playing on a hot streak when you catch them and vice versa. You get beat by a dog (and we have), and they are somehow a Q1 so it is a good loss? I will never buy that. All loses are bad. Some just less bad than others. None are good. I know the committee has to have a formula and justify their choices to those excluded from the Big Dance. Just seems like a lame way to put a team in, that should be out; and a deserving team out, that should be in. I do think the committee generally has made good choices over the years, just do not like this Q1 stuff. Way overhyped for its actual usefulness to me. Mini rant over.
Now, when you're looking at 15 teams, that pretty much all look the exact same and there are only 10 spots in left in the field... you're going to ask 10 people in a room to come to the same conclusion?
There has to be metrics as a determining factor.
Newsflash here. Those metrics are saving us. Our entire season has been propped up by two wins(Texas and UCLA) 3+ months ago and no brutal losses. The metrics work in our favor and are going to get us in the tournament. By using the "eye test", which you are promoting...there's no way that a group of unbiased onlookers would look at us as a tournament team.
Double digit losses to Penn State(twice), Missouri, Northwestern, Indiana and at Ohio State. We've won only two conference road games(Minnesota and Nebraska). We are literally two miracles (Northwestern and Michigan) from being in significant trouble. We shoot the ball terribly, we turn it over at a high rate and we still could potentially finish 9th(??) in the conference.
Much of this is playing devil's advocate, but with an unbiased eye, do we "look" like a tournament team?