forums

Still not ranked

Notsince1985

Notsince1985

Retired staff
Premium
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
17,140
Only 3 votes in the AP poll. Equivalent of 38th. 14 votes in the Coaches poll. Equivalent of 32. In fact, in the coaches poll, Miami is behind Wake Forest, which it just beat on the road, and swept on the season.
 
Advertisement
Notsince1985 said:
Only 3 votes in the AP poll. Equivalent of 38th. 14 votes in the Coaches poll. Equivalent of 32. In fact, in the coaches poll, Miami is behind Wake Forest, which it just beat on the road, and swept on the season.
Click to expand...


We won two in a row this week, sure. But the week before, just as we were "others getting votes", we lost two in a row.

We need to win the next six in a row. Then we'll be ranked.
 
Gables Canes said:
Agreed. But it's totally silly that we are behind Wake. Miami has 4 Quad 1 wins. Wake has 1. And Miami swept Wake.
Click to expand...


Agreed. When certain posters tried to justify it with our "one bad loss" to a then-ranked Alabama (from November), I just tolerated it, because we had a smaller sample size then.

At this point, with 6 games left in the regular season, we have a pretty impressive ACC record thus far, and I'm no longer patient enough to "wait until last week". The voters are garbage.
 
Advertisement
It’s the contextually useful efficiency metrics from NET and kenpom that are killing our resume.

It’s actually quite maddening… because the sole purpose of efficiency metrics is to be predictive.

But then they don’t account for the fact that their predictions keep failing (actual wins and losses).

We are 4-1 in quad 1 games with a top 50 SOS. Yet we are ranked outside the top 64 teams… because efficiency metrics predict we will lose the games we already won.
 
AmherstCane said:
It’s the contextually useful efficiency metrics from NET and kenpom that are killing our resume.

It’s actually quite maddening… because the sole purpose of efficiency metrics is to be predictive.

But then they don’t account for the fact that their predictions keep failing (actual wins and losses).

We are 4-1 in quad 1 games with a top 50 SOS. Yet we are ranked outside the top 64 teams… because efficiency metrics predict we will lose the games we already won.
Click to expand...
WHY are the models so bearish on us? That's what I can't figure out.

I don't know much at all about NET, but I know Kenpom's "luck" metric plays a pretty big part in a team's rating. Kenpom thinks we have been extremely lucky - we are in the top 20 nationally in their luck metric. Why? It's not like we've won a bunch of 1 and 2 point games. We've won a few close games that could've gone either way (at FAU, at Penn State, Syracuse, at VT, at Duke, at Wake), but we've also lost a few in that fashion as well (FSU twice, ND, UCF). Just based off of close game performance, we've probably been a little lucky overall. But I don't think we are as lucky as Kenpom thinks.
 
Gables Canes said:
WHY are the models so bearish on us? That's what I can't figure out.

I don't know much at all about NET, but I know Kenpom's "luck" metric plays a pretty big part in a team's rating. Kenpom thinks we have been extremely lucky - we are in the top 20 nationally in their luck metric. Why? It's not like we've won a bunch of 1 and 2 point games. We've won a few close games that could've gone either way (at FAU, at Penn State, Syracuse, at VT, at Duke, at Wake), but we've also lost a few in that fashion as well (FSU twice, ND, UCF). Just based off of close game performance, we've probably been a little lucky overall. But I don't think we are as lucky as Kenpom thinks.
Click to expand...
It's the difference between our strength of record and our overall rating. The predictive ratings don't think we're very good, just decent - somewhere in the 50-70 range. The resume ratings think we are something like the 30-35th best team.

We haven't won a bunch of 1-possession games, but we have won a ton of single digit games.

But any way you slice it...there's no metric that suggests we should be ranked. That doesn't mean we're not having a very good year.
 
Gables Canes said:
WHY are the models so bearish on us? That's what I can't figure out.

I don't know much at all about NET, but I know Kenpom's "luck" metric plays a pretty big part in a team's rating. Kenpom thinks we have been extremely lucky - we are in the top 20 nationally in their luck metric. Why? It's not like we've won a bunch of 1 and 2 point games. We've won a few close games that could've gone either way (at FAU, at Penn State, Syracuse, at VT, at Duke, at Wake), but we've also lost a few in that fashion as well (FSU twice, ND, UCF). Just based off of close game performance, we've probably been a little lucky overall. But I don't think we are as lucky as Kenpom thinks.
Click to expand...
Luck has nothing to do with our record. You make your own luck.
 
Advertisement
Gables Canes said:
WHY are the models so bearish on us? That's what I can't figure out.

I don't know much at all about NET, but I know Kenpom's "luck" metric plays a pretty big part in a team's rating. Kenpom thinks we have been extremely lucky - we are in the top 20 nationally in their luck metric. Why? It's not like we've won a bunch of 1 and 2 point games. We've won a few close games that could've gone either way (at FAU, at Penn State, Syracuse, at VT, at Duke, at Wake), but we've also lost a few in that fashion as well (FSU twice, ND, UCF). Just based off of close game performance, we've probably been a little lucky overall. But I don't think we are as lucky as Kenpom thinks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and this is where the circular BS comes in.

I can understand thinking "hey, they got lucky to beat Team X" in week 1 or 2. But at this point in the season, you pretty much ARE your record. We have six games left, only one of which is a team "on our level", the other 5 are against teams that AT THIS LATE POINT IN THE SEASON, we should beat. Why are we using "predictions" and "expectations" any longer? Why can't we just say "hey, Miami has lost 4 conference games, two of which are to teams with roughly the same records, as well as 2 1-point games to an in-state rival that is a mid-pack conference team with ups and downs"? "Oh, and they also beat three conference tweams with roughly the same records".

THAT would be a pretty good assessment. We have performed slightly above par with 5 other conference teams having nearly-identical conference records (10 or 11 conference wins) and nearly-identical overall records (4 of those 5 teams have 18-21 overall wins).

Still, if these ridiculous methodologies continue to treat our 18 wins and 10 conference wins (with only 6 remaining games) as the product of some outperforming some preconceived expectation and/or "luck", then we will never have a FACTS-BASED method of proving the expectations wrong. You know, a little something called ACTUALLY WINNING THE GAMES.

By this measure, a team picked to finish last in its conference, but which goes undefeated instead, would continue to labor under a poor NET rating.
 
ALLoverCANE said:
It's the difference between our strength of record and our overall rating. The predictive ratings don't think we're very good, just decent - somewhere in the 50-70 range. The resume ratings think we are something like the 30-35th best team.

We haven't won a bunch of 1-possession games, but we have won a ton of single digit games.

But any way you slice it...there's no metric that suggests we should be ranked. That doesn't mean we're not having a very good year.
Click to expand...


Really? Here's a possible metric. Of our 3 OOC losses, 2 were at an early season neutral-site tournament where we had starters sidelined due to COVID. Of our 4 conference losses, we lost two 1-pointers to our biggest in-state rival.

There are 7 ranked teams with 6 losses. There are 2 ranked teams with 7 losses. There is 1 ranked team with 9 losses. We have a ROAD victory over a Top 10 team. 1 of our 3 OOC losses was to a Top 25 ranked team.

The point is, we can analyze all the "metrics" until our heads explode, but two questions remain. First, for how long in any evaluative process should reliance be placed on "expected outcomes" vs. actual outcomes? Second, how many more games do we have to win in our 6 remaining regular season games until we actually get credit for "doing a thing" (winning) rather than merely "exceeding expectations"?
 
Notsince1985 said:
Only 3 votes in the AP poll. Equivalent of 38th. 14 votes in the Coaches poll. Equivalent of 32. In fact, in the coaches poll, Miami is behind Wake Forest, which it just beat on the road, and swept on the season.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Wake being voted ahead of them is a head scratcher but I’d rather them have that chip on their shoulder going into the UVa game
 
Gables Canes said:
WHY are the models so bearish on us? That's what I can't figure out.

I don't know much at all about NET, but I know Kenpom's "luck" metric plays a pretty big part in a team's rating. Kenpom thinks we have been extremely lucky - we are in the top 20 nationally in their luck metric. Why? It's not like we've won a bunch of 1 and 2 point games. We've won a few close games that could've gone either way (at FAU, at Penn State, Syracuse, at VT, at Duke, at Wake), but we've also lost a few in that fashion as well (FSU twice, ND, UCF). Just based off of close game performance, we've probably been a little lucky overall. But I don't think we are as lucky as Kenpom thinks.
Click to expand...
We have won more than our efficiency metrics would predict (weighted points per possession on O & D extrapolated out). The models are bearish because we tend to play close games and our opponents’ offensive rebounding I think really hurts our defensive efficiency (that’s our really bad number on kenpom).

I think “luck” hurts us less than our defensive efficiency… but our tendency to play close games (lack of a front court and lack of depth) sets us back as well.
 
Advertisement
AmherstCane said:
We have won more than our efficiency metrics would predict (weighted points per possession on O & D extrapolated out). The models are bearish because we tend to play close games and our opponents’ offensive rebounding I think really hurts our defensive efficiency (that’s our really bad number on kenpom).

I think “luck” hurts us less than our defensive efficiency… but our tendency to play close games (lack of a front court and lack of depth) sets us back as well.
Click to expand...


As I pointed out on this thread and another thread, the NET rating has changed, and all of those "defensive efficiency" metrics are no longer being used. Ostensibly, the NET rating AS CURRENTLY REVISED does not take those things into account any longer.

Again, I'm not sure why or how, but we keep getting bizarre outcomes, at least how the NET rating is claimed to be used this year. That's not a knock on any poster, it's just me pointing out that it doesn't seem to make much sense. Nothing personal, I'd just like to see us ranked accurately.
 
AtlAtty said:
The rankings are still way too much of a beauty contest which favors the traditional powers. But UM is going to the NCAA tourney and in the end that will matter much more to the program than the ranking in mid-February.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that 'beauty contest' helped us for years in football. Pollsters hoping the old Miami was 'back,' only to see our house of cards collapse.
 
Advertisement
It kills me to watch FSU get destroyed in losing streak right after they swept us.

We had no place in losing to FSU PERIOD, those loses will haunt us till the end this year

GOCANES
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Really? Here's a possible metric. Of our 3 OOC losses, 2 were at an early season neutral-site tournament where we had starters sidelined due to COVID. Of our 4 conference losses, we lost two 1-pointers to our biggest in-state rival.

There are 7 ranked teams with 6 losses. There are 2 ranked teams with 7 losses. There is 1 ranked team with 9 losses. We have a ROAD victory over a Top 10 team. 1 of our 3 OOC losses was to a Top 25 ranked team.

The point is, we can analyze all the "metrics" until our heads explode, but two questions remain. First, for how long in any evaluative process should reliance be placed on "expected outcomes" vs. actual outcomes? Second, how many more games do we have to win in our 6 remaining regular season games until we actually get credit for "doing a thing" (winning) rather than merely "exceeding expectations"?
Click to expand...
That's just not true. Go check the box scores from that tournament. We were completely healthy at that tournament.

ND is ahead of us in the standings and beat us H2H on our home court. Should they be ranked too? Do you want 35 or 40 teams to be ranked?

We have a solid record in the worst P6 conference. I think we can climb to a 7 seed before it's all said and done. But there's nothing right now that suggests we are one of the 25 best teams in the country.
 
This is what we have left

@ Louisville
Virginia
@ Pitt
Virginia Tech
@ Boston College
@ Syracuse

Louisville is 11-13, 5-9 and only 7-6 at home
Virginia is 16-10, 10-6 and only 4-6 on the road
Pitt is 10-16, 5-10 and only 8-8 at home
VT is 16-10, 8-7, 5-5 on the road, but have won 6 in a row since we beat them on the halfcourt shot
BC is 9-14, 4-9 and 8-5 at home
Syracuse is 13-12, 7-7 and 9-3 at home

On paper, we have a favorable schedule, but we need to win the games (obviously). The goal is to get a top 4 seed (which we would have today). The top 4 teams get 2 byes. We'll get one bye, but getting two, and starting in the quarterfinals would be HUGE.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Yeah, and this is where the circular BS comes in.

I can understand thinking "hey, they got lucky to beat Team X" in week 1 or 2. But at this point in the season, you pretty much ARE your record. We have six games left, only one of which is a team "on our level", the other 5 are against teams that AT THIS LATE POINT IN THE SEASON, we should beat. Why are we using "predictions" and "expectations" any longer? Why can't we just say "hey, Miami has lost 4 conference games, two of which are to teams with roughly the same records, as well as 2 1-point games to an in-state rival that is a mid-pack conference team with ups and downs"? "Oh, and they also beat three conference tweams with roughly the same records".

THAT would be a pretty good assessment. We have performed slightly above par with 5 other conference teams having nearly-identical conference records (10 or 11 conference wins) and nearly-identical overall records (4 of those 5 teams have 18-21 overall wins).

Still, if these ridiculous methodologies continue to treat our 18 wins and 10 conference wins (with only 6 remaining games) as the product of some outperforming some preconceived expectation and/or "luck", then we will never have a FACTS-BASED method of proving the expectations wrong. You know, a little something called ACTUALLY WINNING THE GAMES.

By this measure, a team picked to finish last in its conference, but which goes undefeated instead, would continue to labor under a poor NET rating.
Click to expand...
The cliche factory is on overdrive today huh...

We've been good. That's why we're in the vast majority of projected brackets. But being good isn't enough to be ranked. You have to be among the 25 best teams. There's literally nothing that suggests we are one of them.

Our resume is similar to 4 other ACC teams. Our NET is not good. Our Kenpom is the same. Our SOR is much better, but still outside the top 25. We have multiple quad 3 losses. You keep talking about our record - there are 47 teams with better records. Our defense is bad and our rebounding abysmal.

Not everything is a slight against this program. We've been good, just not to 25 good.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top