Yes. Just curious.
1 Like
The old timers couldnāt handle me wanting Charlie Coleās fired.
Iām just glad we are relevant again.
Football is good, Basketball is good and thereās angst back on this boardā¦ MIAMI IS BACK!
10 Likes
The board has really been missing something since MrG retreated back to whatever fantasy world he emerged from. We donāt even have cats picking games anymore.
6 Likes
We have nine guys averaging over 13 minutes per game and none over 30. All nine are averaging over 5 points per game.
No one cares about your resume only that you DO NOT KNOW BALL.
2 Likes
Arguments from Authority are logical fallacies, but please go on.
In 5 of 18 games so far this year, the leading scorer for Miami came off the bench. Probably the more telling stat is that four different players came off the bench - Byers (2), Luers, Potter, and Skaljac - to lead the team in scoring.
3 Likes
Iāll end this.
āI, CBusHawk/Doug, was wrong. My bad. Go Hawks.ā
I hesitate to even bring this thread back to the topā¦
BUT WE BACK TO TOP 20 (19TH)!
3 Likes
Itās odd that Troy wasnāt in the poll despite the fact they were higher than usā¦maybe itās not scientific. Like when my car wins a JD Power award but then has a recall for a basic part
1 Like
They were higher in one power ranking, NET. Other ratings have different criteria. In this case one is a vote of Mid Major coaches. The NET is all based on stats, and very different criteria than the NCAA used to use with RPI. NET favors power conference schools, RPI was better for mid majors. That is why the P4 did away with it. Our being ranked ahead of Troy in this poll is just as valid as Troy being rated ahead of us in NET.
1 Like
Thanks for the context
Weād be 103 in RPI. Thatās 41 spots higher than NET!
Funnily enough the MAC is also 19th in RPI rankings. Thatās 4 spots higher than kenpom
1 Like
To be fair, RPI is one of the worst predictive computer rankings out there. It doesnāt take margin of victory into account.
Interestingā¦I wouldnāt think the point difference would matter as a win is a win, but then I remember while you were studying analytics, I got sucked into a Tim and Eric marathon, so Iām gonna trust your opinion more than mine!
1 Like
Itās fine to have a metric that ranks teams based solely on W/L, but for it to work you need to have some bearing on how good the teams they play actually are. RPI doesnāt consider margin at all, which means it has no clue. Thatās why something like strength of record is way superior.
1 Like
Quad 1 wins is a big part of NET. Midmajors are almost totally shout out of that. Winning percentage is one thing that mid majors can do. That is why they got rid of RP1. All power conference teams get at least 7 05 8 and most double digit opportunities to get Quad 1 wins. This is a major reason that getting at large bids for mid majors is almost a thing of the past.
1 Like
RPI has 3 components:
- Teamās winning percentage (25%)
- Opponentās winning percentage (50%)
- Opponentās opponentās winning percentage (25%)
That means 75% of the ranking is things out of your teamās control. So 14-10 Indiana (NET: 61 RPI:59) means about as much as 13-8 Kent (NET:130 RPI:102). It also doesnāt care about game location.
1 Like
I think the worst part about NET/Kenpom is if Miami beat Indiana or Michigan (our only Q1 opportunities) they probably wouldnāt be q1 after that since they lost to a Q3/Q4 team.
1 Like
Any computer rankings is ultimately gonna favor one factor or another and therefore help or hurt big or small teams. Ultimately, that is why we play the games.
For what its worth, analysis has shown NET as more predictive of wins and tournament performance than RPI.
What I donāt like is the NCAA sayings NET is a major selection criteria, and then ignoring it when its inconvenient. I do think a committee is still a good idea and better than the strict computer rankings, but when 29th NET ranked Indiana St isnāt selected, thats a problem.
7 Likes
Pollitz? 
2 Likes