Heels’ 9th Quad 1 win, help from Vols, Arizona makes No. 1 seed likely

By R.L. Bynum

WASHINGTON — No. 4 North Carolina’s eighth consecutive win and ninth Quad 1 victory Friday night all but assured that the Tar Heels will be a No. 1 seed in the NCAA tournament.

Losses by No. 5 Tennessee (73–56 to Mississippi State in the SEC tournament) and No. 6 Arizona (67–59 to Oregon in the Pac-12 tournament), UNC’s competition for the fourth No. 1 seed, pretty much cemented that outcome.

The most likely scenario has Carolina playing its first- and second-round games in Charlotte, then going to Los Angeles as the No. 1 seed in the West Regional at Crypto.com Arena, with Caleb Love’s Arizona team (25–8) likely the No. 2 seed. ESPN and CBS are both projecting that.

Although the Tar Heels (27–6) are still seventh in the NET ranking after beating Pittsburgh 72–65 in the ACC tournament semifinals, more bracket projections now have them as a No. 1 seed ahead of facing N.C. State (20–14) in the ACC championship game at 8:30 p.m. Saturday in a Quad 2 game.

The Vols only fell one spot in the NET to sixth after the loss, and Arizona held at fourth.

After being predicted to be a No. 1 seed in 19 of 108 projections on Monday on Bracket Matrix, 33 of 105 on Thursday and on 44 of 94 projections Friday, the Tar Heels are listed as a No. 1 seed Saturday on 75 of 111 projections.


Quadrant 1 (UNC is 6–8): Home games against teams with a NET ranking of 30 or better, neutral-site games against teams ranked 50 or better, and road games against teams ranked 75 or better
Quadrant 2 (UNC is 50): Home 31–75, neutral 51–100, road 76–135
Quadrant 3 (UNC is 8–0): Home 76–160, neutral 101–200, road 135–240
Quadrant 4 (UNC is 5–0): Home 161 or lower, neutral 201 or lower, road 241 or lower


Even before the Vols’ Friday loss, Lunardi had moved them to his 2 line. He has the Vols, who lost to UNC 100–92 in Chapel Hill, as the No. 2 seed in the South Region, which will be played in Dallas, where he has No. 1 Houston (29–3) as the top seed.

N.C. State’s NET ranking was 80 before making its run to the ACC tournament championship game. That jumped the Wolfpack to 68th, making the 67–64 victory in Raleigh on Jan. 10 Quad 1. Clemson’s 76–55 loss to Boston College in the second round on Wednesday, however, dropped the Tigers to 36, moving UNC’s 80–76 home loss on Feb. 6 to the Tigers from Quad 1 to Quad 2. Duke stayed at 10th in the NET rankings despite the loss.

UNC is a combined 16–6 in Quad 1 and Quad 2 games.

The NCAA tournament committee uses the NET rankings as one of its metrics to determine who makes the field and how to seed teams. NET rankings will fluctuate throughout the season, and the only quad designation that matters is where your opponents stand on Selection Sunday, not where they ranked when the game was played.



Subscribe for a cleaner, smoother reading experience without the flashing banners, slow-loading elements, or those especially annoying pop‑up ads that interrupt the flow of the story. You’ll also get the first version of each story emailed to you. The only ads you’ll see are static, non-intrusive ads for UNC‑related books, and there are none currently on the site.



UNC’s NCAA résumé

NET ranking: 24
WAB (wins above bubble) rank: 21 (5.37)
High NET: 13 (2 days)
Low NET: 30 (4 days)
Average opponent NET: 93
Average NET win: 113
Average NET loss: 35
NET strength of schedule: 31
KenPom: 29
ESPN’s Basketball Power Index (BPI): 30
Bart Torvik T-Rank: 27


UNC quad schedule breakdown

(Through Saturday games)

DateOpponentNET
ranking
Current quad
designation
Outcome
N3Central Arkansas1664Win
N7Kansas211Win
N11Radford2524Win
N14N.C. Central3424Win
N18Navy1364Win
N25(N) St. Bonaventure1433Win
N27(N) Michigan State111Loss
D2At Kentucky281Win
D7Georgetown903Win
D13USC Upstate3034Win
D16ETSU1393Win
D20(N) Ohio State291Win
D22East Carolina2674Win
D30Florida State622Win
J3At SMU371Loss
J10Wake Forest672Win
J14At Stanford611Loss
J17At California681Loss
J21Notre Dame943Win
J24At Virginia121Win
J31At Georgia Tech1693Win
F2Syracuse863Win
F7Duke11Win
F10At Miami321Loss
F14Pittsburgh1043Win
F17At N.C. State361Loss
F21At Syracuse861Win
F23Louisville161Win
F28Virginia Tech552Win
M3Clemson342Win
M7At Duke11Loss
M12(N) Clemson34 1Loss
Quad designations are according to the current NET rankings. The only designation that matters is the designation on Selection Sunday.

DateMonth/dayScoresOpponent/event
(current ranks)
Record
October
24FridayL, 78–76vs. BYU in SLCExhib.
29WednesdayW, 95–53vs. Winston-Salem St.Exhib.
November
3MondayW, 94–54vs. Central Arkansas1–0
7FridayW, 87–74vs. No. 17 Kansas2–0
11TuesdayW, 89–74vs. Radford3–0
14FridayW, 97–53vs. N.C. Central4–0
18TuesdayW, 73–61vs. Navy5–0
Fort Myers Tip-Off
25TuesdayW, 85–70vs. St. Bonaventure6–0
27ThursdayL, 74–58vs. No. 11 Michigan State6–1
DecemberACC/SEC
Men’s Challenge
2TuesdayW, 67–64at Kentucky7–1
—————————
7SundayW, 81–61vs. Georgetown8–1
13SaturdayW, 80–62vs. USC Upstate9–1
16TuesdayW, 77–58vs. ETSU10–1
CBS Sports Classic
in Atlanta
20SaturdayW, 71–70vs. Ohio State11–1
—————————
22MondayW, 99–51vs. East Carolina12–1
30TuesdayW, 79–66vs. Florida State13–1,
1–0 ACC
January
3SaturdayL, 97–83at SMU13–2, 1–1
10SaturdayW, 87–84vs. Wake Forest14–2, 2–1
14WednesdayL, 95–90at Stanford14–3, 2–2
17SaturdayL, 84–78at California14–4, 2–3
21WednesdayW, 91–69vs. Notre Dame15–4, 3–3
24SaturdayW, 85–80at No. 9 Virginia16–4, 4–3
31SaturdayW, 91–75at Georgia Tech17–4, 5–3
February
2MondayW, 87–77vs. Syracuse18–4, 6–3
7SaturdayW, 71–68vs. No. 1 Duke19–4, 7–3
10TuesdayL, 75–66at No. 25 Miami19–5, 7–4
14SaturdayW, 79–65vs. Pittsburgh20–5, 8–4
17TuesdayL, 82–58at N.C. State20–6, 8–5
21SaturdayW, 77–64at Syracuse21–6, 9–5
23MondayW, 77–74vs. Louisville22–6, 10–5
28SaturdayW, 89–82vs. Virginia Tech23–6, 11–5
March
3TuesdayW, 67–63vs. Clemson24–6, 12–5
7SaturdayL, 76–61at No. 1 Duke24–7, 12–6
10–14Tues.-Sat.ACC
tournament
Spectrum Center,
Charlotte
12ThursdayL, 80–79Quarterfinals:
vs. Clemson
24–8
NCAA
tournament
19ThursdayL, 82–78, OTFirst round: vs. VCU
in Greenville, S.C.
24–9

Photo courtesy of the ACC

1 Comment

Leave a Reply