sycasey said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Obviously Miami Ohio is having a great year, but it's true that they haven't played anyone. They have had zero games against power-conference teams. Their non-conference schedule was all cupcakes, not even any tough mid-majors. They also haven't exactly been blowing out the MAC schedule, a bunch of their recent wins are by 2 points or in OT.

That's why they are still behind Cal in KenPom despite the undefeated record.

---

They currently have the longest winning streak in the 80-year history of the MAC. The previous record was held by the 2002 Kent State team that ended up getting to the Elite 8.

They did win several close and OT games, but this also indicates that they are a clutch team and good closers, a great quality that is going to make them a dangerous opponent in the Tournament.

As I've mentioned above, they fared better than Miami (FL) vs quad 2 and quad 3 teams, 7-0, vs 6-2 for the ACC Miami team.

---

Again, great job with the winning streak as that is certainly not easy, but the best team they've played is Akron. The games they've won against Quad 2 are near the bottom of Quad 2 (except Akron). The recent run of close games also indicates that they've been a bit lucky to not have dropped a game yet.

Great season and great story, but there's a reason the advanced metrics don't rate them that highly.

---

Sometimes in the case of such outliers as 23-0 Miami(OH), the advanced metrics aren't as reliable as the eyeball test. Being lucky 23 times in a row is no longer a matter of luck.

---

I didn't say they were lucky 23 times in a row. They are clearly good. But they've also had the benefit of an easy schedule and a bit of luck in close games.

That said, I will walk back one claim about their non-conference schedule: it was still loaded with cupcakes mostly, but they did play Wright State who are 1st place in the Horizon League, so that is one tough mid-major. They also have a game against Marshall coming up, which has the highest NET ranking in the Sun Belt. So a couple of decent opponents there.

---

According to Ken Pom, Miami of Ohio's OOC schedule was #363 of 365. Ours was #324, so slightly tougher (we played UCLA and Kansas State).

---

Miami was one of only 19 teams in the NCAA to have managed to sweep all their Q2 and Q3 opponents. It's a feat that only 1 ACC team out of 18 has managed to do, Duke.

---

For the purpose of forensics only. Do you not see schedule at #363 out of #365? That means a fair amount to me. Acknowledge them as doing very well, and easily capable of beating us in a game, but the 23-0 is but one thing that is looked at...

---

I was looking specifically at the fact that they fared better against the better teams they've faced (7-0 vs Q2 and Q3 opposition) than 17 out of 18 ACC teams fared against similar competition (Q2 and Q3).

---

Not all Q2/Q3 teams are equal. For example, Bowling Green on the road was a Q2 win for Miami (OH). Would you say that'd be as impressive a win as Clemson at home? Because they'd both simply show up as Q2 games if you were just looking at those records.

---

Yup. This is the definition of Quad 2 (by NET ranking):

Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135

Those are some pretty large bands. You can play teams from 100-135 and as long as you beat them on the road you get a Quad 2 win. Miami OH beat Bowling Green (128) and Wright State (130) on the road and those account for two of their three Q2 wins. These would not be the same as Cal beating Clemson at home, I think everyone knows. You can say similar things about Q3. Cal beating Notre Dame (86) at home counted as a Quad 3 win the same as Miami OH beating UNC Asheville (226) on the road. Does anyone really think the level of difficulty was the same there?

---

Clearly the modelers who built the NET ranking do think so, since both wins are counted in the same category. That system has been in place for a long time, I would imagine they would have altered it or recalibrated their home and away settings if the model was not being validated.

But even if you think the bands are too large, you're cherrypicking here. Here's my case:

Miami (OH) beat #54 Akron, Miami (FL) lost to #99 Florida State.

There is also the fact of that team having won 23 games in a row. That is a special achievement that the NET model does not account for. Even if many or most of these wins are against UNC Ashevilles, that is still a remarkable achievement. As you yourself have mentioned before, basketball is a game where teams can come in cold and have bad shooting days, while smaller teams can have great nights.

To win 23 in a row including close games week in week out for months on end indicates that that team has some basic quality and consistency, and the capability of closing well. They don't choke, and plan their final minutes well. That's what makes them a more dangerous tournament opponent than ACC Miami.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Obviously Miami Ohio is having a great year, but it's true that they haven't played anyone. They have had zero games against power-conference teams. Their non-conference schedule was all cupcakes, not even any tough mid-majors. They also haven't exactly been blowing out the MAC schedule, a bunch of their recent wins are by 2 points or in OT.

That's why they are still behind Cal in KenPom despite the undefeated record.

---

They currently have the longest winning streak in the 80-year history of the MAC. The previous record was held by the 2002 Kent State team that ended up getting to the Elite 8.

They did win several close and OT games, but this also indicates that they are a clutch team and good closers, a great quality that is going to make them a dangerous opponent in the Tournament.

As I've mentioned above, they fared better than Miami (FL) vs quad 2 and quad 3 teams, 7-0, vs 6-2 for the ACC Miami team.

---

Again, great job with the winning streak as that is certainly not easy, but the best team they've played is Akron. The games they've won against Quad 2 are near the bottom of Quad 2 (except Akron). The recent run of close games also indicates that they've been a bit lucky to not have dropped a game yet.

Great season and great story, but there's a reason the advanced metrics don't rate them that highly.

---

Sometimes in the case of such outliers as 23-0 Miami(OH), the advanced metrics aren't as reliable as the eyeball test. Being lucky 23 times in a row is no longer a matter of luck.

---

I didn't say they were lucky 23 times in a row. They are clearly good. But they've also had the benefit of an easy schedule and a bit of luck in close games.

That said, I will walk back one claim about their non-conference schedule: it was still loaded with cupcakes mostly, but they did play Wright State who are 1st place in the Horizon League, so that is one tough mid-major. They also have a game against Marshall coming up, which has the highest NET ranking in the Sun Belt. So a couple of decent opponents there.

---

According to Ken Pom, Miami of Ohio's OOC schedule was #363 of 365. Ours was #324, so slightly tougher (we played UCLA and Kansas State).

---

Miami was one of only 19 teams in the NCAA to have managed to sweep all their Q2 and Q3 opponents. It's a feat that only 1 ACC team out of 18 has managed to do, Duke.

---

For the purpose of forensics only. Do you not see schedule at #363 out of #365? That means a fair amount to me. Acknowledge them as doing very well, and easily capable of beating us in a game, but the 23-0 is but one thing that is looked at...

---

I was looking specifically at the fact that they fared better against the better teams they've faced (7-0 vs Q2 and Q3 opposition) than 17 out of 18 ACC teams fared against similar competition (Q2 and Q3).

---

Not all Q2/Q3 teams are equal. For example, Bowling Green on the road was a Q2 win for Miami (OH). Would you say that'd be as impressive a win as Clemson at home? Because they'd both simply show up as Q2 games if you were just looking at those records.

---

Yup. This is the definition of Quad 2 (by NET ranking):

Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135

Those are some pretty large bands. You can play teams from 100-135 and as long as you beat them on the road you get a Quad 2 win. Miami OH beat Bowling Green (128) and Wright State (130) on the road and those account for two of their three Q2 wins. These would not be the same as Cal beating Clemson at home, I think everyone knows. You can say similar things about Q3. Cal beating Notre Dame (86) at home counted as a Quad 3 win the same as Miami OH beating UNC Asheville (226) on the road. Does anyone really think the level of difficulty was the same there?

---

Clearly the modelers who built the NET ranking do think so, since both wins are counted in the same category. That system has been in place for a long time, I would imagine they would have altered it or recalibrated their home and away settings if the model was not being validated.

But even if you think the bands are too large, you're cherrypicking here. Here's my case:

Miami (OH) beat #54 Akron, Miami (FL) lost to #99 Florida State.

There is also the fact of that team having won 23 games in a row. That is a special achievement that the NET model does not account for. Even if many or most of these wins are against UNC Ashevilles, that is still a remarkable achievement. As you yourself have mentioned before, basketball is a game where teams can come in cold and have bad shooting days, while smaller teams can have great nights.

To win 23 in a row including close games week in week out for months on end indicates that that team has some basic quality and consistency, and the capability of closing well. They don't choke, and plan their final minutes well. That's what makes them a more dangerous tournament opponent than ACC Miami.

---

The NET system and the Quads are clearly deeply flawed, but it is the system the NCAA and other post season tournaments use. It is kind of like the Electoral College that way.

Clemsen at #31 is a problem. Hopefully we beat them, but regardless of the outcome, we need them to win out afterward so this game becomes a Quad 1. We want them to lose to us, but beat Duke and Louisville.

North Carolina is currently #27. We need them to keep winning and stay in thr Top 30 so our win stays Quad 1.

Stanford is now at #77 makes our win there a Quad 2 now and our home game against them will now be Quad 3. Other than against us, we need Stanford to win and move up to #75.

If we beat Clemson, we won't have to worry too much about what other teams do, we would be 6-5 in the ACC and left with 7 games against the ACC bottom half and one midtier (SMU). A 5-2 finish would give us a solid 11-7 finish, postseason material.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Obviously Miami Ohio is having a great year, but it's true that they haven't played anyone. They have had zero games against power-conference teams. Their non-conference schedule was all cupcakes, not even any tough mid-majors. They also haven't exactly been blowing out the MAC schedule, a bunch of their recent wins are by 2 points or in OT.

That's why they are still behind Cal in KenPom despite the undefeated record.

---

They currently have the longest winning streak in the 80-year history of the MAC. The previous record was held by the 2002 Kent State team that ended up getting to the Elite 8.

They did win several close and OT games, but this also indicates that they are a clutch team and good closers, a great quality that is going to make them a dangerous opponent in the Tournament.

As I've mentioned above, they fared better than Miami (FL) vs quad 2 and quad 3 teams, 7-0, vs 6-2 for the ACC Miami team.

---

Again, great job with the winning streak as that is certainly not easy, but the best team they've played is Akron. The games they've won against Quad 2 are near the bottom of Quad 2 (except Akron). The recent run of close games also indicates that they've been a bit lucky to not have dropped a game yet.

Great season and great story, but there's a reason the advanced metrics don't rate them that highly.

---

Sometimes in the case of such outliers as 23-0 Miami(OH), the advanced metrics aren't as reliable as the eyeball test. Being lucky 23 times in a row is no longer a matter of luck.

---

I didn't say they were lucky 23 times in a row. They are clearly good. But they've also had the benefit of an easy schedule and a bit of luck in close games.

That said, I will walk back one claim about their non-conference schedule: it was still loaded with cupcakes mostly, but they did play Wright State who are 1st place in the Horizon League, so that is one tough mid-major. They also have a game against Marshall coming up, which has the highest NET ranking in the Sun Belt. So a couple of decent opponents there.

---

According to Ken Pom, Miami of Ohio's OOC schedule was #363 of 365. Ours was #324, so slightly tougher (we played UCLA and Kansas State).

---

Miami was one of only 19 teams in the NCAA to have managed to sweep all their Q2 and Q3 opponents. It's a feat that only 1 ACC team out of 18 has managed to do, Duke.

---

For the purpose of forensics only. Do you not see schedule at #363 out of #365? That means a fair amount to me. Acknowledge them as doing very well, and easily capable of beating us in a game, but the 23-0 is but one thing that is looked at...

---

I was looking specifically at the fact that they fared better against the better teams they've faced (7-0 vs Q2 and Q3 opposition) than 17 out of 18 ACC teams fared against similar competition (Q2 and Q3).

---

Not all Q2/Q3 teams are equal. For example, Bowling Green on the road was a Q2 win for Miami (OH). Would you say that'd be as impressive a win as Clemson at home? Because they'd both simply show up as Q2 games if you were just looking at those records.

---

Yup. This is the definition of Quad 2 (by NET ranking):

Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135

Those are some pretty large bands. You can play teams from 100-135 and as long as you beat them on the road you get a Quad 2 win. Miami OH beat Bowling Green (128) and Wright State (130) on the road and those account for two of their three Q2 wins. These would not be the same as Cal beating Clemson at home, I think everyone knows. You can say similar things about Q3. Cal beating Notre Dame (86) at home counted as a Quad 3 win the same as Miami OH beating UNC Asheville (226) on the road. Does anyone really think the level of difficulty was the same there?

---

Clearly the modelers who built the NET ranking do think so, since both wins are counted in the same category. That system has been in place for a long time, I would imagine they would have altered it or recalibrated their home and away settings if the model was not being validated.

But even if you think the bands are too large, you're cherrypicking here. Here's my case:

Miami (OH) beat #54 Akron, Miami (FL) lost to #99 Florida State.

There is also the fact of that team having won 23 games in a row. That is a special achievement that the NET model does not account for. Even if many or most of these wins are against UNC Ashevilles, that is still a remarkable achievement. As you yourself have mentioned before, basketball is a game where teams can come in cold and have bad shooting days, while smaller teams can have great nights.

To win 23 in a row including close games week in week out for months on end indicates that that team has some basic quality and consistency, and the capability of closing well. They don't choke, and plan their final minutes well. That's what makes them a more dangerous tournament opponent than ACC Miami.

---

23 in a row is indeed impressive. They clearly have a good team. It's also easier to win 23 in a row against a weak schedule.

Also, accusing me of cherrypicking while then highlighting what is BY FAR the best win (Akron) of Miami OH's schedule as if it disproves everything else is hilarious.

The NET is relatively new. The committee used to make more use of RPI rankings, which have their own set of flaws. In all cases you need to look deeper within the numbers to have a better understanding.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Obviously Miami Ohio is having a great year, but it's true that they haven't played anyone. They have had zero games against power-conference teams. Their non-conference schedule was all cupcakes, not even any tough mid-majors. They also haven't exactly been blowing out the MAC schedule, a bunch of their recent wins are by 2 points or in OT.

That's why they are still behind Cal in KenPom despite the undefeated record.

---

They currently have the longest winning streak in the 80-year history of the MAC. The previous record was held by the 2002 Kent State team that ended up getting to the Elite 8.

They did win several close and OT games, but this also indicates that they are a clutch team and good closers, a great quality that is going to make them a dangerous opponent in the Tournament.

As I've mentioned above, they fared better than Miami (FL) vs quad 2 and quad 3 teams, 7-0, vs 6-2 for the ACC Miami team.

---

Again, great job with the winning streak as that is certainly not easy, but the best team they've played is Akron. The games they've won against Quad 2 are near the bottom of Quad 2 (except Akron). The recent run of close games also indicates that they've been a bit lucky to not have dropped a game yet.

Great season and great story, but there's a reason the advanced metrics don't rate them that highly.

---

Sometimes in the case of such outliers as 23-0 Miami(OH), the advanced metrics aren't as reliable as the eyeball test. Being lucky 23 times in a row is no longer a matter of luck.

---

I didn't say they were lucky 23 times in a row. They are clearly good. But they've also had the benefit of an easy schedule and a bit of luck in close games.

That said, I will walk back one claim about their non-conference schedule: it was still loaded with cupcakes mostly, but they did play Wright State who are 1st place in the Horizon League, so that is one tough mid-major. They also have a game against Marshall coming up, which has the highest NET ranking in the Sun Belt. So a couple of decent opponents there.

---

According to Ken Pom, Miami of Ohio's OOC schedule was #363 of 365. Ours was #324, so slightly tougher (we played UCLA and Kansas State).

---

Miami was one of only 19 teams in the NCAA to have managed to sweep all their Q2 and Q3 opponents. It's a feat that only 1 ACC team out of 18 has managed to do, Duke.

---

For the purpose of forensics only. Do you not see schedule at #363 out of #365? That means a fair amount to me. Acknowledge them as doing very well, and easily capable of beating us in a game, but the 23-0 is but one thing that is looked at...

---

I was looking specifically at the fact that they fared better against the better teams they've faced (7-0 vs Q2 and Q3 opposition) than 17 out of 18 ACC teams fared against similar competition (Q2 and Q3).

---

Not all Q2/Q3 teams are equal. For example, Bowling Green on the road was a Q2 win for Miami (OH). Would you say that'd be as impressive a win as Clemson at home? Because they'd both simply show up as Q2 games if you were just looking at those records.

---

Yup. This is the definition of Quad 2 (by NET ranking):

Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135

Those are some pretty large bands. You can play teams from 100-135 and as long as you beat them on the road you get a Quad 2 win. Miami OH beat Bowling Green (128) and Wright State (130) on the road and those account for two of their three Q2 wins. These would not be the same as Cal beating Clemson at home, I think everyone knows. You can say similar things about Q3. Cal beating Notre Dame (86) at home counted as a Quad 3 win the same as Miami OH beating UNC Asheville (226) on the road. Does anyone really think the level of difficulty was the same there?

---

Clearly the modelers who built the NET ranking do think so, since both wins are counted in the same category. That system has been in place for a long time, I would imagine they would have altered it or recalibrated their home and away settings if the model was not being validated.

But even if you think the bands are too large, you're cherrypicking here. Here's my case:

Miami (OH) beat #54 Akron, Miami (FL) lost to #99 Florida State.

There is also the fact of that team having won 23 games in a row. That is a special achievement that the NET model does not account for. Even if many or most of these wins are against UNC Ashevilles, that is still a remarkable achievement. As you yourself have mentioned before, basketball is a game where teams can come in cold and have bad shooting days, while smaller teams can have great nights.

To win 23 in a row including close games week in week out for months on end indicates that that team has some basic quality and consistency, and the capability of closing well. They don't choke, and plan their final minutes well. That's what makes them a more dangerous tournament opponent than ACC Miami.

---

23 in a row is indeed impressive. They clearly have a good team. It's also easier to win 23 in a row against a weak schedule.

Also, accusing me of cherrypicking while then highlighting what is BY FAR the best win (Akron) of Miami OH's schedule as if it disproves everything else is hilarious.

---

You did cherrypick, by picking the bottom two teams in the Miami Q2 column and deliberately avoiding their win vs #54 Akron.

Quote:

---

The NET is relatively new. The committee used to make more use of RPI rankings, which have their own set of flaws. In all cases you need to look deeper within the numbers to have a better understanding.

---

The NET ranking has been in place as the primary tool for the NCAA tourney since 2018.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Obviously Miami Ohio is having a great year, but it's true that they haven't played anyone. They have had zero games against power-conference teams. Their non-conference schedule was all cupcakes, not even any tough mid-majors. They also haven't exactly been blowing out the MAC schedule, a bunch of their recent wins are by 2 points or in OT.

That's why they are still behind Cal in KenPom despite the undefeated record.

---

They currently have the longest winning streak in the 80-year history of the MAC. The previous record was held by the 2002 Kent State team that ended up getting to the Elite 8.

They did win several close and OT games, but this also indicates that they are a clutch team and good closers, a great quality that is going to make them a dangerous opponent in the Tournament.

As I've mentioned above, they fared better than Miami (FL) vs quad 2 and quad 3 teams, 7-0, vs 6-2 for the ACC Miami team.

---

Again, great job with the winning streak as that is certainly not easy, but the best team they've played is Akron. The games they've won against Quad 2 are near the bottom of Quad 2 (except Akron). The recent run of close games also indicates that they've been a bit lucky to not have dropped a game yet.

Great season and great story, but there's a reason the advanced metrics don't rate them that highly.

---

Sometimes in the case of such outliers as 23-0 Miami(OH), the advanced metrics aren't as reliable as the eyeball test. Being lucky 23 times in a row is no longer a matter of luck.

---

I didn't say they were lucky 23 times in a row. They are clearly good. But they've also had the benefit of an easy schedule and a bit of luck in close games.

That said, I will walk back one claim about their non-conference schedule: it was still loaded with cupcakes mostly, but they did play Wright State who are 1st place in the Horizon League, so that is one tough mid-major. They also have a game against Marshall coming up, which has the highest NET ranking in the Sun Belt. So a couple of decent opponents there.

---

According to Ken Pom, Miami of Ohio's OOC schedule was #363 of 365. Ours was #324, so slightly tougher (we played UCLA and Kansas State).

---

Miami was one of only 19 teams in the NCAA to have managed to sweep all their Q2 and Q3 opponents. It's a feat that only 1 ACC team out of 18 has managed to do, Duke.

---

For the purpose of forensics only. Do you not see schedule at #363 out of #365? That means a fair amount to me. Acknowledge them as doing very well, and easily capable of beating us in a game, but the 23-0 is but one thing that is looked at...

---

I was looking specifically at the fact that they fared better against the better teams they've faced (7-0 vs Q2 and Q3 opposition) than 17 out of 18 ACC teams fared against similar competition (Q2 and Q3).

---

Not all Q2/Q3 teams are equal. For example, Bowling Green on the road was a Q2 win for Miami (OH). Would you say that'd be as impressive a win as Clemson at home? Because they'd both simply show up as Q2 games if you were just looking at those records.

---

Yup. This is the definition of Quad 2 (by NET ranking):

Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135

Those are some pretty large bands. You can play teams from 100-135 and as long as you beat them on the road you get a Quad 2 win. Miami OH beat Bowling Green (128) and Wright State (130) on the road and those account for two of their three Q2 wins. These would not be the same as Cal beating Clemson at home, I think everyone knows. You can say similar things about Q3. Cal beating Notre Dame (86) at home counted as a Quad 3 win the same as Miami OH beating UNC Asheville (226) on the road. Does anyone really think the level of difficulty was the same there?

---

Clearly the modelers who built the NET ranking do think so, since both wins are counted in the same category. That system has been in place for a long time, I would imagine they would have altered it or recalibrated their home and away settings if the model was not being validated.

But even if you think the bands are too large, you're cherrypicking here. Here's my case:

Miami (OH) beat #54 Akron, Miami (FL) lost to #99 Florida State.

There is also the fact of that team having won 23 games in a row. That is a special achievement that the NET model does not account for. Even if many or most of these wins are against UNC Ashevilles, that is still a remarkable achievement. As you yourself have mentioned before, basketball is a game where teams can come in cold and have bad shooting days, while smaller teams can have great nights.

To win 23 in a row including close games week in week out for months on end indicates that that team has some basic quality and consistency, and the capability of closing well. They don't choke, and plan their final minutes well. That's what makes them a more dangerous tournament opponent than ACC Miami.

---

23 in a row is indeed impressive. They clearly have a good team. It's also easier to win 23 in a row against a weak schedule.

Also, accusing me of cherrypicking while then highlighting what is BY FAR the best win (Akron) of Miami OH's schedule as if it disproves everything else is hilarious.

---

You did cherrypick, by picking the bottom two teams in the Miami Q2 column and deliberately avoiding their win vs #54 Akron.

---

I said those were "two of the three" Q2 wins they had. I said in other posts that Akron was their best win. Not ignoring anything. But hey, if you want to get away from cherrypicking then let's lay it all out.

Miami (FL) vs. Q2 (3-1):

W vs 94 Georgetown (neutral court)
W at 83 Ole Miss
W at 86 Notre Dame
L vs 55 Cal

Miami (OH) vs. Q2 (3-0):

W at 130 Wright St.
W at 128 Bowling Green
W vs 54 Akron

Miami (FL) vs. Q3 (3-1):

W vs 113 Pitt
W vs 143 Georgia Tech
L vs 99 Florida St.
W vs 77 Stanford

Miami (OH) vs. Q3 (4-0):

W at 226 UNC Asheville
W at 163 Toledo
W at 138 Kent St.
W at 167 Buffalo

So in looking at this in context, who really played the tougher slate of Q2 and Q3 games? That's without even looking at Q1, in which Miami (FL) has two wins and Miami (OH) has zero games. Not wins, GAMES. The criticism of Miami (OH)'s schedule is warranted.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Obviously Miami Ohio is having a great year, but it's true that they haven't played anyone. They have had zero games against power-conference teams. Their non-conference schedule was all cupcakes, not even any tough mid-majors. They also haven't exactly been blowing out the MAC schedule, a bunch of their recent wins are by 2 points or in OT.

That's why they are still behind Cal in KenPom despite the undefeated record.

---

They currently have the longest winning streak in the 80-year history of the MAC. The previous record was held by the 2002 Kent State team that ended up getting to the Elite 8.

They did win several close and OT games, but this also indicates that they are a clutch team and good closers, a great quality that is going to make them a dangerous opponent in the Tournament.

As I've mentioned above, they fared better than Miami (FL) vs quad 2 and quad 3 teams, 7-0, vs 6-2 for the ACC Miami team.

---

Again, great job with the winning streak as that is certainly not easy, but the best team they've played is Akron. The games they've won against Quad 2 are near the bottom of Quad 2 (except Akron). The recent run of close games also indicates that they've been a bit lucky to not have dropped a game yet.

Great season and great story, but there's a reason the advanced metrics don't rate them that highly.

---

Sometimes in the case of such outliers as 23-0 Miami(OH), the advanced metrics aren't as reliable as the eyeball test. Being lucky 23 times in a row is no longer a matter of luck.

---

I didn't say they were lucky 23 times in a row. They are clearly good. But they've also had the benefit of an easy schedule and a bit of luck in close games.

That said, I will walk back one claim about their non-conference schedule: it was still loaded with cupcakes mostly, but they did play Wright State who are 1st place in the Horizon League, so that is one tough mid-major. They also have a game against Marshall coming up, which has the highest NET ranking in the Sun Belt. So a couple of decent opponents there.

---

According to Ken Pom, Miami of Ohio's OOC schedule was #363 of 365. Ours was #324, so slightly tougher (we played UCLA and Kansas State).

---

Miami was one of only 19 teams in the NCAA to have managed to sweep all their Q2 and Q3 opponents. It's a feat that only 1 ACC team out of 18 has managed to do, Duke.

---

For the purpose of forensics only. Do you not see schedule at #363 out of #365? That means a fair amount to me. Acknowledge them as doing very well, and easily capable of beating us in a game, but the 23-0 is but one thing that is looked at...

---

I was looking specifically at the fact that they fared better against the better teams they've faced (7-0 vs Q2 and Q3 opposition) than 17 out of 18 ACC teams fared against similar competition (Q2 and Q3).

---

Not all Q2/Q3 teams are equal. For example, Bowling Green on the road was a Q2 win for Miami (OH). Would you say that'd be as impressive a win as Clemson at home? Because they'd both simply show up as Q2 games if you were just looking at those records.

---

Yup. This is the definition of Quad 2 (by NET ranking):

Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135

Those are some pretty large bands. You can play teams from 100-135 and as long as you beat them on the road you get a Quad 2 win. Miami OH beat Bowling Green (128) and Wright State (130) on the road and those account for two of their three Q2 wins. These would not be the same as Cal beating Clemson at home, I think everyone knows. You can say similar things about Q3. Cal beating Notre Dame (86) at home counted as a Quad 3 win the same as Miami OH beating UNC Asheville (226) on the road. Does anyone really think the level of difficulty was the same there?

---

Clearly the modelers who built the NET ranking do think so, since both wins are counted in the same category. That system has been in place for a long time, I would imagine they would have altered it or recalibrated their home and away settings if the model was not being validated.

But even if you think the bands are too large, you're cherrypicking here. Here's my case:

Miami (OH) beat #54 Akron, Miami (FL) lost to #99 Florida State.

There is also the fact of that team having won 23 games in a row. That is a special achievement that the NET model does not account for. Even if many or most of these wins are against UNC Ashevilles, that is still a remarkable achievement. As you yourself have mentioned before, basketball is a game where teams can come in cold and have bad shooting days, while smaller teams can have great nights.

To win 23 in a row including close games week in week out for months on end indicates that that team has some basic quality and consistency, and the capability of closing well. They don't choke, and plan their final minutes well. That's what makes them a more dangerous tournament opponent than ACC Miami.

---

23 in a row is indeed impressive. They clearly have a good team. It's also easier to win 23 in a row against a weak schedule.

Also, accusing me of cherrypicking while then highlighting what is BY FAR the best win (Akron) of Miami OH's schedule as if it disproves everything else is hilarious.

---

You did cherrypick, by picking the bottom two teams in the Miami Q2 column and deliberately avoiding their win vs #54 Akron.

---

I said those were "two of the three" Q2 wins they had. I said in other posts that Akron was their best win. Not ignoring anything. But hey, if you want to get away from cherrypicking then let's lay it all out.

Miami (FL) vs. Q2 (3-1):

W vs 94 Georgetown (neutral court)
W at 83 Ole Miss
W at 86 Notre Dame
L vs 55 Cal

Miami (OH) vs. Q2 (3-0):

W at 130 Wright St.
W at 128 Bowling Green
W vs 54 Akron

Miami (FL) vs. Q3 (3-1):

W vs 113 Pitt
W vs 143 Georgia Tech
L vs 99 Florida St.
W vs 77 Stanford

Miami (OH) vs. Q3 (4-0):

W at 226 UNC Asheville
W at 163 Toledo
W at 138 Kent St.
W at 167 Buffalo

So in looking at this in context, who really played the tougher slate of Q2 and Q3 games? That's without even looking at Q1, in which Miami (FL) has two wins and Miami (OH) has zero games. Not wins, GAMES. The criticism of Miami (OH)'s schedule is warranted.

---

Miami-FL is 2-3 vs Q1, Miami-OH is 0-0
Miami-FL is 3-1 vs Q2, Miami-OH is 3-0
Miami-FL is 3-1 vs Q3, Miami-OH is 4-0
Miami-FL is 9-0 vs Q4, Miami-OH is 13-0

Anyway, I think we've covered this subject for now. My point was that Miami-OH would be at least as dangerous a tourney opponent as Miami-FL, due to the fact that they have shown a great propensity for winning close games week in week out. Looking forward to see how far they get in the tourney, as mentioned above, the previous record holders for longest winning streak in MAC history was 2002 Kent State, they went all the way to the Elite 8.

One great thing about Cal basketball being relevant again is that there is finally more interest in following the field at large and the tourney.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Over and above net, Lunardi has us as the very first team out this morning. Talk about being on the bubble!

---

The ACC has Duke and then a bunch of good teams in the next group. Louisville, UVa, UNC and Clemson all need to close out the season well. Of course we want Cal to beat Clemson. Cal needs to take care of what is in front of them. The other games will go how they go. If Cal goes 6-2 down the strecth with a win over either Clemson or SMU I like their chances. Beat neither Clemson or SMU they will need to win the rest and may need win or 2 in the ACC tourney along with help from elsewhere.

Who you beat matters a lot. As does who you lose to. The schedule provides just 2 games against NCAA caliber opponents. But 6 against teams that are not NCAA bound. You can beat Clemson and lose to BC or Pitt and lose ground in the net.

They must be really deep and balanced because their top scorer only averages 11pts points per game and two others have 10. We have one with 17, and three more averaging 15,14 and 13. They average fewer points per game than we do (76 va 79). But their defense is stellar. They only give up 64 per game. Second only to Duke.

6956bear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Over and above net, Lunardi has us as the very first team out this morning. Talk about being on the bubble!

---

The ACC has Duke and then a bunch of good teams in the next group. Louisville, UVa, UNC and Clemson all need to close out the season well. Of course we want Cal to beat Clemson. Cal needs to take care of what is in front of them. The other games will go how they go. If Cal goes 6-2 down the strecth with a win over either Clemson or SMU I like their chances. Beat neither Clemson or SMU they will need to win the rest and may need win or 2 in the ACC tourney along with help from elsewhere.

Who you beat matters a lot. As does who you lose to. The schedule provides just 2 games against NCAA caliber opponents. But 6 against teams that are not NCAA bound. You can beat Clemson and lose to BC or Pitt and lose ground in the net.

---

I think 6-2 from here on out gets Cal in regardless.

Even if we lose to both Clemson and SMU, a 6-2 record would mean we'd have wins @Syracuse and @Wake Forest, which would both be Q1 wins as it currently stands.

ManBearLion123 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Over and above net, Lunardi has us as the very first team out this morning. Talk about being on the bubble!

---

The ACC has Duke and then a bunch of good teams in the next group. Louisville, UVa, UNC and Clemson all need to close out the season well. Of course we want Cal to beat Clemson. Cal needs to take care of what is in front of them. The other games will go how they go. If Cal goes 6-2 down the strecth with a win over either Clemson or SMU I like their chances. Beat neither Clemson or SMU they will need to win the rest and may need win or 2 in the ACC tourney along with help from elsewhere.

Who you beat matters a lot. As does who you lose to. The schedule provides just 2 games against NCAA caliber opponents. But 6 against teams that are not NCAA bound. You can beat Clemson and lose to BC or Pitt and lose ground in the net.

---

I think 6-2 from here on out gets Cal in regardless.

Even if we lose to both Clemson and SMU, a 6-2 record would mean we'd have wins @Syracuse and @Wake Forest, which would both be Q1 wins as it currently stands.

---

Yeah and in that scenario there would be zero Quad 3 losses. Probably in.

bearsandgiants said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Over and above net, Lunardi has us as the very first team out this morning. Talk about being on the bubble!

---

The ACC has Duke and then a bunch of good teams in the next group. Louisville, UVa, UNC and Clemson all need to close out the season well. Of course we want Cal to beat Clemson. Cal needs to take care of what is in front of them. The other games will go how they go. If Cal goes 6-2 down the strecth with a win over either Clemson or SMU I like their chances. Beat neither Clemson or SMU they will need to win the rest and may need win or 2 in the ACC tourney along with help from elsewhere.

Who you beat matters a lot. As does who you lose to. The schedule provides just 2 games against NCAA caliber opponents. But 6 against teams that are not NCAA bound. You can beat Clemson and lose to BC or Pitt and lose ground in the net.

---

I think 6-2 from here on out gets Cal in regardless.

Even if we lose to both Clemson and SMU, a 6-2 record would mean we'd have wins @Syracuse and @Wake Forest, which would both be Q1 wins as it currently stands.

---

Yeah and in that scenario there would be zero Quad 3 losses. Probably in.

---

I think we're going to have to beat either SMU or Clemson because I don't think we're going to win 4 more road games against anybody. Hate to be a downer, but every one of these games is really tough. This league is good. We're thin on personnel and travel is a grind. I'm worried about Syracuse and especially the Georgia Tech rematch. We need to win Saturday to help offset one of those. We're a good team, but we're a .500 team. Odds are we go 4-4 from here, maybe 5-3. I think we will get in with 5 more wins (as long as one is against SMU or especially Clemson), plus at least one in the ACC Tournament.

---

That's fine, but we were talking about any scenario in which Cal goes 6-2.

5-3 and maybe we have to win our first conference tournament game. 6-2 should get us in, regardless.

The reason I know this is that I'm just making it up. Seriously, I'm still going on the criteria from eight years ago. Haven't paid attention since, because why would I have bothered?

So much also matters of conference tournys, you want no upsets so that teams that would be out get hot at the end and steal spots.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

So much also matters of conference tournys, you want no upsets so that teams that would be out get hot at the end and steal spots.

---

Absolutely. Unless we are that team.

That is why our current position at #55 in NET most likely leaves us outside if we just beat the teams we are currently favored to beat. We need to win those AND beat a team like Clemson tonight. Then we need Clemson to win an get back in the Top 30.

If we end up playing Duke, Clemson or Louisville in the ACC tourney, it will be as far as we could go. Thankfully it should be no earlier than the 2nd round.

We're down to #60 right now, not much wiggle room, with 8 ACC teams in (last being Miami at #37) and VT ahead of us at #55. The ACC usually gets 4-5 teams in, though in the past they had as many as 9, with a smaller conference pre-SMU/Calfurd.

Recent ACC NCAA Tournament Team Counts

• 2025: 4
• 2024: 5
• 2023: 5
• 2022: 5
• 2021: 7
• 2020: N/A (Tournament canceled)
• 2019: 7
• 2018: 9

Dort's presence is the key to our future. If we can survive Syracuse and BC without Lee and have him available for Furd, I like our chances to dance as a last 4 in

Yeah I agree although I'm pretty sure the Net determines the quads not the other way around. I think the Quads are their way of simplifying the viewing of a schedule/resume. But definitely very important for the committee.

NET is important but not the only thing the committee considers. Just a good baseline for judging your chances.

Basically, Cal needs a bunch more wins. 5 or 6 at least most likely (including the ACC Tourney). It's doable given the schedule but not easy. Given preseason expectations, to even be in this position is impressive.

sycasey said:

---

NET is important but not the only thing the committee considers. Just a good baseline for judging your chances.

Basically, Cal needs a bunch more wins. 5 or 6 at least most likely (including the ACC Tourney). It's doable given the schedule but not easy. Given preseason expectations, to even be in this position is impressive.

---

5-2 finish looks vey borderline, 10-8 overall, I think we need 6 wins and 11-7, plus one ACC tourney win. The 2nd tourney game would be against Duke or Clemson, so a loss there would not hurt.

I don't know if we need 24 wins. I think if we were to win the 6 games we wouldn't need the ACC tournament win. Who knows but if we won 23 games in the reg. season we would have 5-6 Q1 wins.

Onebearofpower said:

---

I don't know if we need 24 wins. I think if we were to win the 6 games we wouldn't need the ACC tournament win. Who knows but if we won 23 games in the reg. season we would have 5-6 Q1 wins.

---

23 is likely the magic number, no matter who we beat from here on out. let's get one tomorrow.

Syracuse favored by 4.5. I think that's what Clemson was favored over Cal.

Yeanay listed as questionable! Best news in awhile!

bearsandgiants said:

---

Yeanay listed as questionable! Best news in awhile!

---

Wow! I actually just kinda assumed that the tidbit about Yeanay possibly returning soon was just an exaggeration or a misinterpretation of something Madsen said. To see him questionable is great news.

Dort still being out is a bummer, though expected.

Can't believe Yeanay seems to be closer to returning than Dort...

sycasey said:

---

NET is important but not the only thing the committee considers. Just a good baseline for judging your chances.

Basically, Cal needs a bunch more wins. 5 or 6 at least most likely (including the ACC Tourney). It's doable given the schedule but not easy. Given preseason expectations, to even be in this position is impressive.

---

The last time I felt the need to take a close look at what the Selection Committee does was a long time ago. What are the current criteria for who gets in and who doesn't? How transparent is it?

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

NET is important but not the only thing the committee considers. Just a good baseline for judging your chances.

Basically, Cal needs a bunch more wins. 5 or 6 at least most likely (including the ACC Tourney). It's doable given the schedule but not easy. Given preseason expectations, to even be in this position is impressive.

---

The last time I felt the need to take a close look at what the Selection Committee does was a long time ago. What are the current criteria for who gets in and who doesn't? How transparent is it?

---

It's still not as transparent as it could be, but it the committee definitely factors in NET and, to a certain extent, metrics like KenPom.

It seems as though they've really valued good road/neutral wins in recent seasons.

So those UCLA and Miami wins are very nice for us.

bearsandgiants said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

I don't know if we need 24 wins. I think if we were to win the 6 games we wouldn't need the ACC tournament win. Who knows but if we won 23 games in the reg. season we would have 5-6 Q1 wins.

---

23 is likely the magic number, no matter who we beat from here on out. let's get one tomorrow.

---

Last year SMU went 23-10 (13-7 in the ACC) and went to the NIT (finishing 24-11). That included a win over Syracuse in the ACC Tournament before losing to #10 Clemsen. They were #46 in NET, 0-5 Q1, 6-5 Q2, 12-0 Q3 and 5-0 Q4.

If we win 23 I don't think we will have as good of a NET but we will have better Q1 wins.

Really, it will come down to the others we are competing against for the final at large slots and the whims of the Committee. 23 could be good enough, but it might not. It is still bubble.