Team Top 25 or Team NET?

Team Human or Team Computer?

Team Eye Test or Team Analytics?

Which side matters more to the NCAA tournament selection committee is a debate that flares up every year. This season, Memphis basketball might as well be the poster child for it.

Penny Hardaway’s Tigers might have a glowing results-based résumé — they're 15-2 overall (4-0 AAC), with 10 straight wins, and ranked No. 12 in the USA TODAY Sports Coaches Poll (No. 10 in the AP poll). But their body of work doesn’t sparkle as much from the metrics-driven standpoint. As of Wednesday, it sits at No. 46 in KenPom’s pecking order and 40th in the NET hierarchy.

The conversation has been a hot-button topic among Tigers fans in recent weeks. Some have been outspoken in their frustration with the amount of attention given to rankings they might consider arbitrary.

Senior point guard Jahvon Quinerly can relate.

“We’re like 50 in the NET,” he said, smiling and shaking his head after Sunday’s win over Wichita State. “I don’t care about the NET. That’s just numbers. I care about the AP poll and (the bracketology).”

Of all the top-10 teams in the AP poll this week, the Tigers sport the largest gap between poll position and NET ranking with a 30-spot differential. Kentucky (No. 8 in the AP poll and 18th in the NET) has the next biggest discrepancy.

Which begs the questions: What gives? Why is there such a broad divide between how the voters view Memphis and where the metrics have the Tigers slotted? And how much does any of it really matter to the NCAA tournament selection committee?

Results vs. metrics

The information presented to selection committee members comes in the form of a team sheet that includes numbers and rankings widely accepted as the most accurate way to determine NCAA tournament seeding.

Some of the basics — such as record (broken down by overall and conference, as well as home and away) and NET ranking — are included. Other results-based metrics factored in are a team’s strength of résumé (SOR) and its Kevin Pauga Index (KPI) rating. The Tigers, as of Wednesday, are No. 7 and No. 9 in SOR and KPI, respectively.

Predictive metrics that appear on every team sheet are ESPN’s Basketball Power Index (BPI) and KenPom rating. Along with NET, one of the most heavily weighted factors in BPI and KenPom rankings is a combination of margin of victory and strength of schedule.

Memphis sits at No. 46 in both. A big reason why is the team’s close calls in recent weeks against opponents considered to be subpar competition — a two-point win over Vanderbilt at home, a three-point win at Tulsa, a six-point overtime win versus UTSA at home.

Although teams get dinged by KenPom, BPI and the NET because of outcomes like those, some believe the NCAA tournament selection committee’s bottom line is more about wins and losses.

CBS Sports’ Jerry Palm, who is among the sport’s leading bracketologists, published his most recent bracket projection on Monday. In it, the Tigers are a No. 3 seed. He said that’s a reflection of how the selection committee views actual results versus predictive analytics.

“Metrics aren’t everything. In fact, they matter really very little,” Palm said. “(SOR and KPI) probably more accurately represent what the committee is actually looking for than its own (NET) rankings.”

MEMPHIS BASKETBALL VS. USF: Score prediction, scouting report

Most bracketologists agree with Palm. According to the 68 brackets tracked by bracketmatrix.com, Memphis’ average projection is a 4-seed. Dave Ommen, founder of Bracketville, has the Tigers as a 4-seed on his most recent bracket. But, he said, he could make an argument that they are closer to a 3-seed.

“When you get right down to it, you win or lose the game — whether you win by one or you win by 25,” he said.

Why Memphis basketball is such a head-scratcher

Bart Torvik, who has developed his own college hoops analytics website predicated on ranking NCAA tournament teams (T-Rank), believes the explanation for the stark contrast on the Tigers’ team sheet is valid.

“Basically, the humans and the computers are asking different questions,” he said, also noting how common it is for both sides to disagree. “Memphis has several close wins over not-so-good teams, and these games really cleave human opinions from computer evaluations.”

But Torvik agrees with Palm and Ommen that the selection committee should place more emphasis on wins and losses than on computer ratings.

“You play to win the game,” he said. “I think there are some flaws in the way humans, and particularly the selection committee, actually evaluate wins and losses — in particular the quadrant system has serious drawbacks, and instead the focus should be on (SOR) or something like WAB (wins above bubble) — but it's the right idea.”

Reach sports writer Jason Munz at jason.munz@commercialappeal.com or follow him @munzly on X, the social media app formerly known as Twitter.

This article originally appeared on Memphis Commercial Appeal: Why humans, computers can't get on same page about Memphis basketball