forums

Bracketology

Advertisement
ALLoverCANE said:
Maybe the ACC will have a good tournament, but they've had a terrible season. UVA and Miami have been very good, but not elite. Duke and NC St have been solid. Pitt is coming on. Clemson and UNC have NIT resumes. Addressing your other points...

UVA's win vs Houston was at home. But yes, UVA is getting credit for that, hence why they're a 3.

Duke's nonconference was solid but not great. Neutral court wins vs Xavier and Iowa, losses vs Purdue and Kansas. 2-2 vs quad 1. Solid, hence why they're comfortably in the field. But nothing special.

UNC is 0-9 vs quad 1. That's pathetic. The fact you're highlighting that they took Bama to OT shows just how bad a season they've had. (And the eye test is even worse - they look like an NIT team. Love is shooting 30% from 3 on a ton of attempts. Davis is mediocre. They have no one else that scares you besides Bacot.)
Click to expand...

UVa lost to Houston. They did beat Baylor and Illinois on a neutral court in Vegas, but they lost to Houston in Charlottesville.
 
Hotel Ibis said:
UVa lost to Houston. They did beat Baylor and Illinois on a neutral court in Vegas, but they lost to Houston in Charlottesville.
Click to expand...

You're right! I was going off the OP's comment, but I forgot they lost that game. Their big win was vs Baylor, who is a #2 seed currently.
 
Miami the last few seasons has played IMO a horrible noncon which typically has included multiple games against the Ivy League. The ACC Big10 challenge rarely gave them a marquee name. Rutgers this year a good get but again not the name recognition team.
Its easy to say that Duke UNC play a tougher noncon but they’re usually invited to the super matchup tipoffs against the likes of MichSt, Kentucky, Kansas etc.

Hopefully a strong Miami run will get them a signature tourney or tipoff next year to replace the Challenge.
 
RBradleigh said:
Miami the last few seasons has played IMO a horrible noncon which typically has included multiple games against the Ivy League. The ACC Big10 challenge rarely gave them a marquee name. Rutgers this year a good get but again not the name recognition team.
Its easy to say that Duke UNC play a tougher noncon but they’re usually invited to the super matchup tipoffs against the likes of MichSt, Kentucky, Kansas etc.

Hopefully a strong Miami run will get them a signature tourney or tipoff next year to replace the Challenge.
Click to expand...
I know we played providence then lost to Maryland early but would love for us to be invited to something like the battle 4 Atlantis or the Maui
 
Advertisement
[]_[] swag said:
Yea something is off about all this. Maybe ACC teams are just not scheduling difficult enough non conference schedules? That's my only idea here.

UVA has a win over Houston. UNC took Bama to 4OT in the non-conference. Duke played well out of conference as well and was ranked when conference play started. But the beating each other up dropped the perception, where every loss in the big-12 is a "good loss".

I don't think the ACC is a down conference, I fully expect the ACC teams that make the tourney to have success well beyond their seeds, same as last year. All we heard about last year was how great the SEC was and how much better it was than ACC, and we saw how that played out when the teams actually had to play each other.
Click to expand...

The whole problem with the metrics is that it isn’t the difficulty of the non-conference schedule… the efficiency metrics punish you for not demolishing bad teams early in the season. Kenpom actually weights early season games more for some metrics. Lol.

While big margins of victory (not actually measured by the final score differential but measured by offensive and defensive efficiency - which can only be good if you score a lot and hold your lesser opponent to a little, which translates on the score board to a big margin of victory) correlating to good teams sounds great in theory, Coach L doesn’t have the luxury of a roster of McDonald’s all Americans and is interested in figuring out his team in November and much less concerned about RUTSing the games where he’s learning about his team and bench.

The idiocy of efficiency metrics is that some teams have intangibles that help them win games as opposed to a highly metric-ranked teams like WVU that has twelve losses (but metrics liked that they smoked lesser competition and kept most of their losses close).
 
ALLoverCANE said:
This is wrong. We have 9 quad 1+2 wins.

Also, the rest of that group has 13 or more. That's a lot more than 9.

And from that group, only Arizona has a quad 3 loss (which we do vs GT).

We've had a really good season. A 4/5 seed is indicative of that.
Click to expand...

I literally posted the link above to the NCAA net rankings which show we have TEN quad 1+2 wins (6-4 and 4-0).

Not very credible or smart.
 
Advertisement
Efficiency metric rankings are steaming garbage. The fact they are even used to establish rankings for quad wins is stupid.

Pitt ranked way below a Northwestern team who they woodshedded at Northwestern.

Notre Dame smoked Michigan State but can’t win 3 games in the ACC season.

The ACC is so much better than the metrics say… mostly because of coaching which is more reflected in W-L totals rather than margin of victory.
 
Cane since 1060 said:
I’m going to get some of my Italian friends to make a visit✊
Click to expand...
the sopranos smile GIF
 
LPCanes26 said:
I agree with you but this week they did just beat #1 Alabama. But then got smoked by Kentucky. We should move up. 13 ranked teams lost this week. All good for us!
Click to expand...

They did beat Alabama, but lost to UK and I think are 2-4 over their last 6.
 
Advertisement
AmherstCane said:
The whole problem with the metrics is that it isn’t the difficulty of the non-conference schedule… the efficiency metrics punish you for not demolishing bad teams early in the season. Kenpom actually weights early season games more for some metrics. Lol.

While big margins of victory (not actually measured by the final score differential but measured by offensive and defensive efficiency - which can only be good if you score a lot and hold your lesser opponent to a little, which translates on the score board to a big margin of victory) correlating to good teams sounds great in theory, Coach L doesn’t have the luxury of a roster of McDonald’s all Americans and is interested in figuring out his team in November and much less concerned about RUTSing the games where he’s learning about his team and bench.

The idiocy of efficiency metrics is that some teams have intangibles that help them win games as opposed to a highly metric-ranked teams like WVU that has twelve losses (but metrics liked that they smoked lesser competition and kept most of their losses close).
Click to expand...


You make great points. I would add on something very simple.

"Winning by a big margin" sounds great in theory, particularly early in the season. But it's garbage, and here's why.

In this era of "one-and-dones" and the Portal, the concept that a team just rolls the ball out in November and starts to destroy the competition is a joke. There are new players, new roles (Pack playing the point), and an absolute need to start getting minutes for the non-starters.

If you are ahead against a lesser team in November or December, what should a coach do? Chase a blowout to make Kenpom happy? Or give the freshmen minutes while making sure you win the game.

****, look at Miami this year. ONE bad "margin" loss, by 18 to Maryland. Tournament. Neutral site. Early season.

Hasn't happened since. Our other 4 losses (all in-conference) were by 6, 3, 2, and 2.

The REASON that these "Kenpoms" and "Bracketologies" are updated every few days is BECAUSE the season continues to evolve. But we have stats nerds (even some who CLAIM to be Miami fans) come on this board to tell us how some 18-point loss ON NOVEMBER 20 is supposed to define our seeding. Four of our five losses were to teams that are CURRENTLY projected to make the Tournament.

Again, I've made this point over and over and over again. Win games. It's what you're supposed to do. The BCS got rid of "margin of victory" decades ago. You can't change your schedule.

But let's look at the 4 MOST EGREGIOUS teams that are seeded ahead of Miami by the NCAA.

Iowa State - 17-9 (8-6 conference) - Lost 6 of their last 10 - Lost by 18 to UConn, lost by 20 to Iowa, lost by 17 to Mizzou, got SWEPT by Oklahoma State (one of the worst teams in the Big 12), lost by 3 to Texas Tech (one of the worst teams in the Big 12), lost by 5 to WVU (one of the worst teams in the Big 12).

Kansas State - 20-7 (8-6 conference) - Lost 5 of their last 7) - Lost by 12 to Butler, lost by 8 to Texas Tech (one of the worst teams in the Big 12), lost by 14 to Oklahoma (one of the worst teams in the Big 12).

Indiana - 19-8 (10-6 conference) - LOST BY 15 TO RUTGERS (A TEAM MIAMI BEAT), Lost by 19 to Pedo State (one of the worst teams in the Big 10), lost by 11 to Maryland (the team that beat Miami by a "massive" 18 points).

Xavier - 20-7 (12-4 conference) - Lost by 17 to Creighton, Lost by 1 to DePaul (one of the worst teams in the Big East), Lost by 2 to Butler (one of the worst teams in the Big East).

Each of those FOUR teams have 1-2 double-digit losses (comparable to our ONE double-digit loss) and 1 to 3 losses to "one of the worst teams in the conference" (comparable to our ONE bad conference loss to GaTech).

So WHY are we ranked behind those four teams in the initial NCAA seeding?

The first three teams are OUTRAGEOUS for being seeded ahead of Miami. Those are three teams that if ONE (OR TWO for Indiana) conference game(s) had fallen differently, they would be at .500 for the conference. Xavier is the ONLY one of those four that have an ARGUMENT for being seeded ahead of Miami, and they had TWO bad conference losses to Miami's ONE.

**** all the stats nerds. This is some BULL****.
 
Advertisement
Notsince1985 said:
13th in the AP
Click to expand...


Let's look at 4 more teams with FEWER wins and MORE losses than Miami...



Texas - 21-6 (10-4 conference) - lost by 7 to Texas Tech, one of the worst schools in the Big 12, with double-digit losses to K-State, Iowa State, and Tennessee.

Baylor - 20-7 (9-5 conference) - lost by 7 to a UVa team that Miami beat, with double-digit losses to Marquette, Iowa State, and Kansas.

Marquette - 21-6 (13-3 conference) - lost by 5 to a Providence team that Miami beat, with a double-digit loss to UConn.

Tennessee - 20-7 (9-5 conference) - lost by 12 to Colorado, 13 to University of Florida, 1 to Vandy, 1 to Mizzou (Florida, Vandy, and Mizzou are all mid-pack SEC teams), and got SWEPT by Kentucky.



The only team of those four that has EARNED being ranked ahead of Miami is Marquette.


Miami should be ranked, rated, and/or seeded no lower than 10th.
 
Last edited:
Lots of big games this week. As long as the team continues to win the games and handle the things, they have control of.

2/21

#13 Miami @ VT 2/21
#6 Virginia @ BC 2/21

#8 TX vs. ISU 2/21
#9 Baylor @ #14 KSU 2/21

#10 Marq @ #19 Creighton 2/21

#11 Tenn @ #25 TAMU 2/21

2/25

#13 Miami vs. FSU 2/25
#6 Virginia @ UNC 2/25

#7 AZ @ ASU 2/25

#8 TX @ #9 Baylor 2/25
#14 KSU @ OSU 2/25

#12 Gonz vs. #15 Saint Mary's 2/25
 
This will be a gigantic game for VT and an impossible indescribable game of importance for Miami. I am excited but concerned does anyone have a line on the game yet ?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top