Ugh...... Let's just keep giving our anti-sports faculty more reason to crap all over the move.

If we end up in the MAC for all sports, you guys better start recruiting better for basketball.

How do you think Boise State feels about this?

All things considered Boise is in the best conference it could be in outside of the PAC. The Big East was just a silly idea from the start though I don't blame them for trying.

The MWC is a solid conference that is about as regional as it can be in that part of the country and some of those schools have some decent history. Granted it is mostly the old WAC with some other stuff but that old WAC was not a bad place either.

Oh i think they're in a good place, but they can't like the money cap, considering it will probably be them every year in the BCS game from the Group of 5.

(04-10-2013 08:44 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  Ugh...... Let's just keep giving our anti-sports faculty more reason to crap all over the move.

If we end up in the MAC for all sports, you guys better start recruiting better for basketball.

How do you think Boise State feels about this?

says the team that hasn't earned a ticket to the Dance in 15 years while in a league that hands out 5 invites this year.

Marcus Camby left a long time ago.

^ Touche my friend.

But it can't hurt for you guys to start recruiting on the A-10 level. Right?

(04-12-2013 07:50 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  ^ Touche my friend.

But it can't hurt for you guys to start recruiting on the A-10 level. Right?

Nor you guys.

(04-12-2013 07:50 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  ^ Touche my friend.

But it can't hurt for you guys to start recruiting on the A-10 level. Right?

Sure, if it was that easy.

(04-12-2013 08:35 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 07:50 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  ^ Touche my friend.

But it can't hurt for you guys to start recruiting on the A-10 level. Right?

Sure, if it was that easy.

Last night I snuck into the Convo and flipped the "Recruit at A-10 Level" switch from Off to On.

(04-12-2013 08:44 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 08:35 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 07:50 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  ^ Touche my friend.

But it can't hurt for you guys to start recruiting on the A-10 level. Right?

Sure, if it was that easy.

Last night I snuck into the Convo and flipped the "Recruit at A-10 Level" switch from Off to On.

LOL.

I'm just giving you a hard time, I wouldn't want to switch from the A10 to the MAC either. But, if UMass did make the move there are competitive teams, its just not as a deep.

(04-12-2013 09:46 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  I'm just giving you a hard time, I wouldn't want to switch from the A10 to the MAC either. But, if UMass did make the move there are competitive teams, its just not as a deep.

The A10 is also becoming less deep with their departures. With the A10 weakening at some point the arbitrage will close. Might not be bad to see if Duquesne and St. Bonny would come over with UMass as bball only and then the MAC could be stronger than the A10, fill the void between UMass and the rest of the MAC and save Duquesne and St. Bonny travel costs. The basketball only teams would have no effect on football and football money distribution. If the AAC keeps falling apart and Temple is left on an island, maybe even they would hop on at that point.

.

Thought I would look into how good UMass basketball would be if they were in the MAC.

UMass started 7 year run of NCAA appearances in 1992. They had one other appearance in 1962 and have had none since 1998. It was an historic run---they were a 3 seed twice, a 2 seed twice, and a 1 seed in their run to the national championship game in 1996. They had two one-and-done's after '96.

Comparing UMass to MAC team in the 15 succeeding years, how many times would they have been the best team in the conference? RPI is not the be-all and end-all, but it will do for a hypothetical look at this idea.
Bolded years=UMass with best RPI.
Year UMass RPI MAC teams with better RPI
2013 56 Akron 42
2012 77 Ohio 46, Akron 55
2011 105 Kent. St. 78
2010 181 Kent St. 47, Akron 89, Ohio 95, Buffalo 108, Miami 144
2009 152 Miami 80, Buffalo 89, Akron 99
2008 42 Kent St. 21
2007 62 Akron 67
2006 126 Kent St. 48, Akron 70, Miami 84, Ohio 99
2005 136 Miami, 39, Buffalo 46, Ohio 48, Kent St. 61, Akron 70, WMU 98, Toledo 95, BG 107, Ball St. 117
2004 174 WMU 44, Kent St. 76, Toledo 91, Miami 93 +3 others over 130 and less than 174.
2003 209 CMU 44, Kent St 77, and WMU 86 + ALL others but one (UB) under 209.
2002 106 Kent St. 25, BG 58, Ball St. 78
2001 64 Toledo 84, Kent St. 93
2000 108 Kent St. 36, Ball St. 44, BG 76, Ohio 74
1999 108 Miami 21, Kent St. 23, Toledo 62, BG 72, Ohio 73, Akron 99.

Two years out of 15, UMass had the best RPI. Most other years, they would be in the top third. They would be a great addition for basketball. They would most likely be a top half team almost every year, but they would not be a dominant team by any means unless they step up their program, though the same could be said for a number of MAC teams who have been better in the last decade-plus than UMass.

(04-12-2013 07:50 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  ^ Touche my friend.

But it can't hurt for you guys to start recruiting on the A-10 level. Right?

You've got to be kidding if A10 recruiting is considered to be a step above the MAC. Almost every Ohio player recruited in the last 10 years had an offer from an A10 school (most of them lower tier).

Its not like making the same statement as Big East basketball recruiting and ACC basketball recruiting that you need a different level player to compete. Granted a few of the A10 schools have been recruiting on the Big East/ACC level but not the vast majority.

(04-12-2013 11:38 AM)axeme Wrote:  Thought I would look into how good UMass basketball would be if they were in the MAC.

UMass started 7 year run of NCAA appearances in 1992. They had one other appearance in 1962 and have had none since 1998. It was an historic run---they were a 3 seed twice, a 2 seed twice, and a 1 seed in their run to the national championship game in 1996. They had two one-and-done's after '96.

Comparing UMass to MAC team in the 15 succeeding years, how many times would they have been the best team in the conference? RPI is not the be-all and end-all, but it will do for a hypothetical look at this idea.
Bolded years=UMass with best RPI.
Year UMass RPI MAC teams with better RPI
2013 56 Akron 42
2012 77 Ohio 46, Akron 55
2011 105 Kent. St. 78
2010 181 Kent St. 47, Akron 89, Ohio 95, Buffalo 108, Miami 144
2009 152 Miami 80, Buffalo 89, Akron 99
2008 42 Kent St. 21
2007 62 Akron 67
2006 126 Kent St. 48, Akron 70, Miami 84, Ohio 99
2005 136 Miami, 39, Buffalo 46, Ohio 48, Kent St. 61, Akron 70, WMU 98, Toledo 95, BG 107, Ball St. 117
2004 174 WMU 44, Kent St. 76, Toledo 91, Miami 93 +3 others over 130 and less than 174.
2003 209 CMU 44, Kent St 77, and WMU 86 + ALL others but one (UB) under 209.
2002 106 Kent St. 25, BG 58, Ball St. 78
2001 64 Toledo 84, Kent St. 93
2000 108 Kent St. 36, Ball St. 44, BG 76, Ohio 74
1999 108 Miami 21, Kent St. 23, Toledo 62, BG 72, Ohio 73, Akron 99.

Two years out of 15, UMass had the best RPI. Most other years, they would be in the top third. They would be a great addition for basketball. They would most likely be a top half team almost every year, but they would not be a dominant team by any means unless they step up their program, though the same could be said for a number of MAC teams who have been better in the last decade-plus than UMass.

Unfortunately UMass lost to Kentucky in the Final Four in 1996. UMass Basketball has never played in a national championship game.