A Season Unlike Any Other

In the 64-team NCAA Tournament era, dating back to 1985, only seven teams had begun a season with 28 consecutive victories. The 1990-91 UNLV Runnin’ Rebels, the 2004-05 Illinois Fighting Illini, the 2013-14 Wichita State Shockers, the 2014-15 Kentucky Wildcats, and both the 2016-17 and 2020-21 Gonzaga Bulldogs all earned coveted No. 1 seeds. Miami University has now joined this exclusive club, though a top seed appears unlikely.

The RedHawks’ 31-1 record – recognizing only the 28 Division I wins for NCAA consideration – is a testament to their on-court dominance. Their first, and only, defeat came in a stunning 87-83 loss to UMass in the quarterfinals of the Mid-American Conference Tournament. The upset immediately ignited a firestorm of debate, questioning whether a team with such a pristine record deserves a tournament berth despite perceived weaknesses.

The Metrics Divide: Resume vs. Prediction

The core of the controversy lies in a stark contrast between Miami’s resume and predictive metrics. While their win-loss record is undeniably impressive, the strength of their schedule has been heavily scrutinized. Miami played the 269th-toughest schedule in the nation, failing to secure a single Quad-I victory. This lack of high-level competition raises concerns about the true quality of their wins, as highlighted by Matt Brown of Extra Points.

Predictive metrics – KenPom, T-Rank, and BPI – currently rank the RedHawks 90th, 85th, and 90th, respectively, averaging to 88.3 nationally. These models suggest that Miami would struggle against tougher competition. However, the NCAA’s evaluation tools, focusing on resume, paint a different picture, ranking them 21st, 40th, and 50th, for an average of 37.0. This unprecedented disparity has left analysts and fans alike grappling with how to reconcile these conflicting assessments.

The Gavitt Factor and Wins Above Bubble

Adding another layer to the debate, NCAA Vice President of Basketball Dan Gavitt recently indicated that the committee would prioritize “Wins Above Bubble” when making selection decisions, particularly when differentiating between teams on the bubble. Miami currently boasts a respectable Wins Above Bubble ranking of 33, surpassing power conference contenders like NC State (43) and Auburn (44). This suggests that, based on this metric, the RedHawks have a strong case for inclusion.

However, the question remains: can a team with a dominant record but a weak schedule overcome the skepticism of the committee and secure an at-large bid? The debate is fierce, with passionate arguments on both sides. The chasm between those who believe Miami deserves a chance and those who believe their resume is insufficient is vast.

What role should predictive analytics play in evaluating teams, and how much weight should be given to a team’s overall record?

Is it fair to penalize a team for the strength of its conference, or should the committee focus solely on a team’s performance against the opponents they *did* play?

Frequently Asked Questions About Miami’s Tournament Chances