The Quadrant concept is using the NET rankings to bin the teams into quadrants already. So really, the quadrant concept is just a dumbed down version of the NET rankings themselves.

For example (and this isn't exact because I know Home/Away matters, etc.)

Lets's say Team A beats teams 44,45,46, and 47 (based on NET rankings). They get 4 quadrant 1 wins.

Now Team B, beats teams 20, 22, 55, and 60. They only get two quadrant 1 wins, and 2 quad. 2 wins. But the computers are going to like Team B much better (and rightfully so) in this simple scenario.

That's exactly what's happening right now with Kansas State. The very computers that people are using for this quadrant system rank them WAY behind VT, but their quadrant 1 wins look nice on paper, so people choose one statistic to justify something.

Gonzaga is currently a consensus one-seed amongst the "experts" and top 4 amongst almost all computer rankings. They are 4-2 in Quadrant 1 (or were when I checked recently). Nobody is bumping them down a few seeds and putting Kansas or Purdue (who have significantly better records in Quad. 1) above them because there is such a disparity in rankings otherwise (Kansas is number 20 in the NET).

Yet, that is exactly what's happening with VT. If Kansas State and Virginia Tech were 15/13 in the NET rankings, I would be fine with them being projected as a higher seed based on a metric like Q1 wins. But they are WAY behind us at #24 using the very computers that create the Quadrant Bins in the first place. It's stupid logic that I'm hoping will work itself out when the actual committee sits down to look at everything.