Surprised nobody mentioned these yet-

BSU 71 Toledo 43
Buffalo 78 Akron 65
BGSU 76 Kent St. 70

Kent loses at HOME to Bowling Green.
UB gets revenge on the Zips for the MAC championship game last year.
Toledo is really bad.

Im confused

(01-17-2010 06:41 PM)NIUBIGGS Wrote:  Im confused

Fixed it.

(01-17-2010 06:40 PM)klingon288 Wrote:  Toledo is really bad.

Thanks Captain Obvious, no one knew that already. LOL

(01-17-2010 06:40 PM)klingon288 Wrote:  Surprised nobody mentioned these yet-

BSU 71 Toledo 43
Buffalo 78 Akron 65
BGSU 76 Kent St. 70

Kent loses at HOME to Bowling Green.
UB gets revenge on the Zips for the MAC championship game last year.
Toledo is really bad.

The MAC East looks like it won't be a run away after all. That's good for us fans that want an exciting MAC season. That's going to be bad though for the MAC Tournament winner (and eventual NCAA No. 14 seed).

(01-17-2010 07:15 PM)TheMACer Wrote:  

(01-17-2010 06:40 PM)klingon288 Wrote:  Surprised nobody mentioned these yet-

BSU 71 Toledo 43
Buffalo 78 Akron 65
BGSU 76 Kent St. 70

Kent loses at HOME to Bowling Green.
UB gets revenge on the Zips for the MAC championship game last year.
Toledo is really bad.

The MAC East looks like it won't be a run away after all. That's good for us fans that want an exciting MAC season. That's going to be bad though for the MAC Tournament winner (and eventual NCAA No. 14 seed).

I still don't know why we have divisons in MAC basketball? We don't need them. Even the Big 12 doesn't use divisons for basketball.

(01-17-2010 07:37 PM)utpotts Wrote:  

(01-17-2010 07:15 PM)TheMACer Wrote:  

(01-17-2010 06:40 PM)klingon288 Wrote:  Surprised nobody mentioned these yet-

BSU 71 Toledo 43
Buffalo 78 Akron 65
BGSU 76 Kent St. 70

Kent loses at HOME to Bowling Green.
UB gets revenge on the Zips for the MAC championship game last year.
Toledo is really bad.

The MAC East looks like it won't be a run away after all. That's good for us fans that want an exciting MAC season. That's going to be bad though for the MAC Tournament winner (and eventual NCAA No. 14 seed).

I still don't know why we have divisons in MAC basketball? We don't need them. Even the Big 12 doesn't use divisons for basketball.

i agree with you. they serve no purpose in basketball or really any sport other than football.

(01-17-2010 07:38 PM)bobcat_backer Wrote:  

(01-17-2010 07:37 PM)utpotts Wrote:  

(01-17-2010 07:15 PM)TheMACer Wrote:  

(01-17-2010 06:40 PM)klingon288 Wrote:  Surprised nobody mentioned these yet-

BSU 71 Toledo 43
Buffalo 78 Akron 65
BGSU 76 Kent St. 70

Kent loses at HOME to Bowling Green.
UB gets revenge on the Zips for the MAC championship game last year.
Toledo is really bad.

The MAC East looks like it won't be a run away after all. That's good for us fans that want an exciting MAC season. That's going to be bad though for the MAC Tournament winner (and eventual NCAA No. 14 seed).

I still don't know why we have divisons in MAC basketball? We don't need them. Even the Big 12 doesn't use divisons for basketball.

i agree with you. they serve no purpose in basketball or really any sport other than football.

Helps the RPI for the MAC East teams since they only have to play the West teams once.
And did anybody really think the MAC East would be a runaway?

When there is a lack of any strong teams, any result in the MAC this season should not be a surprise. This is the weakest MAC basketball (and I mean the top 3-5 teams) has been for as long as I can remember. Our tourney winner will probably earn a 14 or even a 15 seed.

On the plus side, it will make for some close games all over the place! Welcome to the MAAC!

(01-17-2010 08:14 PM)axeme Wrote:  When there is a lack of any strong teams, any result in the MAC this season should not be a surprise. This is the weakest MAC basketball (and I mean the top 3-5 teams) has been for as long as I can remember. Our tourney winner will probably earn a 14 or even a 15 seed.

On the plus side, it will make for some close games all over the place! Welcome to the MAAC!

Weak? With 3 (and maybe 4 when the calculations are updated) MAC teams in the Top 100 in the official NCAA RPI?

(01-17-2010 10:56 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(01-17-2010 08:14 PM)axeme Wrote:  When there is a lack of any strong teams, any result in the MAC this season should not be a surprise. This is the weakest MAC basketball (and I mean the top 3-5 teams) has been for as long as I can remember. Our tourney winner will probably earn a 14 or even a 15 seed.

On the plus side, it will make for some close games all over the place! Welcome to the MAAC!

Weak? With 3 (and maybe 4 when the calculations are updated) MAC teams in the Top 100 in the official NCAA RPI?

Very weak. Not worse than last year particularly, another bad year for MAC hoops with no quality teams, but very similar: No MAC team better than RPI #75 as of Monday, another at #88, and one @ #92 and the 4th best at #131. The benchmark for mid-majors is to have your best team in the top 50 at minimum, hopefully in the top 40. (MVC has #15, Horizon has #23, Colonial has #30, #40, and #46, CUSA has #35, and that's not even counting the A10 and the MWC who are de-facto majors and have a combined NINE teams in the top 50, six of those in the top 30.)

As the East teams swing west, those RPI numbers will not improve, either. This is an ugly season for MAC hoops. Combined, the MAC has a total of TWO OOC wins versus teams with two-digit RPI's. Two. (WMU over VCU, KSU over UAB.) UB, arguably the best team at the moment, has a best win over #100, coupled with losses to #136, #137, and #174.

Whoever makes the dance will be facing a #2-3-4 seed and no MAC team has shown they are any threat to beat teams like that. The talent and coaching level here right now are just not very good. No even marginal NBA picks, no coaches being coveted by bigger schools. What is the argument for MAC basketball besides: "it's our basketball and we'll stick up for it"?

And all that said, which is just the reality that the MAC has sunk to the bottom of the mid-major pile (just slightly ahead of the low-major pile), I still have a lot of fun watching my team, win or lose. I like being able to see the other MAC teams increasingly being available online or on TV. The MAC tourney will be great. Many teams will have a reasonable shot at the MAC's one and done this year and will be able to entertain the fantasy of being relevant for 5-6 days. Just like the MAAC. Except they have #35 Siena. And are one spot ahead of the MAC. Sorry MAAC! Didn't mean to insult you by comparing you to the MAC!

We're more like the Big Sky, who has two top 100 teams this season.

I have a friend who is a big fan of High Point U., goes to a lot of their games home and road and follows Big South basketball pretty closely. He has a great time. That's what I'm talking about. I enjoy the hell out of MAC basketball. But I suffer no illusions about its relative quality. I also follow the top 50 teams, whether a MAC team is among them or not. It's fun watching the upper level of college basketball, too. I remember when MAC teams were among them...

quote:

"It's fun watching the upper level of college basketball, too. I remember when MAC teams were among them... "

What makes me sad is that I could not watch the great EMU teams of the 90s because there was so little televsion (I don't live in the midwest). I got whatever I could see on DirecTV.

Now I can watch all home games on EagleVision (webcast) but the quality of our hoops is...

(01-18-2010 06:29 AM)axeme Wrote:  

(01-17-2010 10:56 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(01-17-2010 08:14 PM)axeme Wrote:  When there is a lack of any strong teams, any result in the MAC this season should not be a surprise. This is the weakest MAC basketball (and I mean the top 3-5 teams) has been for as long as I can remember. Our tourney winner will probably earn a 14 or even a 15 seed.

On the plus side, it will make for some close games all over the place! Welcome to the MAAC!

Weak? With 3 (and maybe 4 when the calculations are updated) MAC teams in the Top 100 in the official NCAA RPI?

Very weak. Not worse than last year particularly, another bad year for MAC hoops with no quality teams, but very similar: No MAC team better than RPI #75 as of Monday, another at #88, and one @ #92 and the 4th best at #131. The benchmark for mid-majors is to have your best team in the top 50 at minimum, hopefully in the top 40. (MVC has #15, Horizon has #23, Colonial has #30, #40, and #46, CUSA has #35, and that's not even counting the A10 and the MWC who are de-facto majors and have a combined NINE teams in the top 50, six of those in the top 30.)

As the East teams swing west, those RPI numbers will not improve, either. This is an ugly season for MAC hoops. Combined, the MAC has a total of TWO OOC wins versus teams with two-digit RPI's. Two. (WMU over VCU, KSU over UAB.) UB, arguably the best team at the moment, has a best win over #100, coupled with losses to #136, #137, and #174.

Whoever makes the dance will be facing a #2-3-4 seed and no MAC team has shown they are any threat to beat teams like that. The talent and coaching level here right now are just not very good. No even marginal NBA picks, no coaches being coveted by bigger schools. What is the argument for MAC basketball besides: "it's our basketball and we'll stick up for it"?

And all that said, which is just the reality that the MAC has sunk to the bottom of the mid-major pile (just slightly ahead of the low-major pile), I still have a lot of fun watching my team, win or lose. I like being able to see the other MAC teams increasingly being available online or on TV. The MAC tourney will be great. Many teams will have a reasonable shot at the MAC's one and done this year and will be able to entertain the fantasy of being relevant for 5-6 days. Just like the MAAC. Except they have #35 Siena. And are one spot ahead of the MAC. Sorry MAAC! Didn't mean to insult you by comparing you to the MAC!

We're more like the Big Sky, who has two top 100 teams this season.

I have a friend who is a big fan of High Point U., goes to a lot of their games home and road and follows Big South basketball pretty closely. He has a great time. That's what I'm talking about. I enjoy the hell out of MAC basketball. But I suffer no illusions about its relative quality. I also follow the top 50 teams, whether a MAC team is among them or not. It's fun watching the upper level of college basketball, too. I remember when MAC teams were among them...

Great comments, I agree with them. I to love following MAC basketball, I have since 1979. It seems the overall talent has been dropping. I do think the conference is slightly better than last year but not much. Western and Northern IL. look as though they could be strong enough to win the conference this year.

Divisions are necessary if only for scheduling. I love the fact KSU always plays a home and home with its rivals. Our attendance has never been as good as it should be, but games against Akron, OU and BG often put fans in the seats. BG-Toledo and Miami-Ball State are really the only two matchups that get jobbed year after year and it would be nice to put in some kind of provision to get those to be home and homes.

For KSU, yesterday's 3,600 against BG was good given our attendance history and the fact school does not start until Tuesday. If that is NIU, that number might drop 800 or more.

Official NCAA RPI's 1/18/10

Buffalo 70 (Prev 80)
WMU 86 (63)
Kent St 94 (47)
Akron 128 (172)
BGSU 138 (180)
Miami 150 (193)
Ohio 159 (103)
NIU 212 (256)
CMU 223 (205)
EMU 230 (189)
Ball St 264 (251)
Toledo 322 (301)

(01-19-2010 03:41 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  Official NCAA RPI's 1/18/10

Buffalo 70 (Prev 80)
WMU 86 (63)
Kent St 94 (47)
Akron 128 (172)
BGSU 138 (180)
Miami 150 (193)
Ohio 159 (103)
NIU 212 (256)
CMU 223 (205)
EMU 230 (189)
Ball St 264 (251)
Toledo 322 (301)

The small differences in RPI numbers from the ones I used above are due to some changes the NCAA announced later on Monday in terms of some various games sites being listed as home games for one team or neutral, plus they discovered some errors as well.

Quote: NCAA today, with the following changes:
11/13: Fairfield vs Central Conn at Arena at Harbor Yard, - now home for Fairfield
11/15: East Carolina vs Wake Forest at Myrtle Beach - home for ECU
12/9: St. John's vs Georgia at MSG - Now home for St. John's
12/20: St. John's vs Hofstra at MSG - Now home for St. John's
Also, the Vanderbilt-Western Kentucky game in Nashville will remain neutral, and the Fordham-Villanova game at the Meadowlands will remain home for Fordham.

And then the NCAA's report came out today through Monday with these errors:

1/11 Louisiana Tech @ Boise St - counted twice
1/14 Gardner-Webb @ Liberty - counted twice
1/16 Portland @ St. Mary's - NCAA has neutral

These affected the overall RPI's of everyone ultimately, hence the small differences.

(01-17-2010 07:37 PM)utpotts Wrote:  I still don't know why we have divisons in MAC basketball? We don't need them. Even the Big 12 doesn't use divisons for basketball.

I agree. Unless we have the East winner play the West winner in the championship game, divisions make no sense.

(01-20-2010 09:03 AM)RocketJeff Wrote:  

(01-17-2010 07:37 PM)utpotts Wrote:  I still don't know why we have divisons in MAC basketball? We don't need them. Even the Big 12 doesn't use divisons for basketball.

I agree. Unless we have the East winner play the West winner in the championship game, divisions make no sense.

For the MAC tourney last year, due to difference in strength of the 2 divisions, UB actually benefited from finishing 2nd in the MAC East (via tie-breaker) to BG. In the tourney semis, #3 seed UB faced the the #2 seed, Ball State (top seed out of the West), while the top seed BG faced a much tougher (and eventual winner) Akron.

Had it been in the MAC East, Ball State would have tied Ohio for last with a 7-9 conference record.