(01-29-2011 08:26 PM)7 Wrote:  No. The only way we make a tournament run is if Silas scores 30+ in every game. Hall has very little to do with it.

Silas is going to get his, that is a given. Hall is the X factor on this team right now.

We have 7 wins this year. Silas has scored 26 or more in 6 of them and 30 or more in 5 of them.

It's a one man team. He has to get 30 a game if we want to win.

(01-29-2011 11:11 PM)7 Wrote:  We have 7 wins this year. Silas has scored 26 or more in 6 of them and 30 or more in 5 of them.

It's a one man team. He has to get 30 a game if we want to win.

If its all Silas though, we usually lose the close one. Thats the problem with the one man team idea. Come crunch time, everyone knows where its going, and its hard to go to your number one option.

(01-29-2011 11:19 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(01-29-2011 11:11 PM)7 Wrote:  We have 7 wins this year. Silas has scored 26 or more in 6 of them and 30 or more in 5 of them.

It's a one man team. He has to get 30 a game if we want to win.

If its all Silas though, we usually lose the close one. Thats the problem with the one man team idea. Come crunch time, everyone knows where its going, and its hard to go to your number one option.

That's just not true.

WMU: 2 point loss
Silas: 23 points
Toler: 18 points (7-11 shooting)
Landers: 12 points (5-7 shooting)

CMU: 3 point loss
Silas: 24 points
Toler: 14 points (5-7 shooting)
Rucker: 12 points (5-9 shooting)

Ball State: 5 point loss
Toler led the team in scoring, 4 players in double figures.

Depaul: 2 point loss
Silas: 34 points
Landers: 14 points (6-6 shooting)
Rucker: 13 points (5-7 shooting)

Bradley: 3 point loss
Silas: 22 points
Rucker: 14 points
Nixon: 11 points

MD, if you look at all the games we've played this year, Silas' supporting cast plays about the same. A few (normally two) other guys scores in the teens in points, and the rest is held to single digits.

With the exception of the Depaul game, we win when Silas goes off. We lose when he doesn't.

MD02, what you are missing is THERE ARE NO GOOD TEAMS IN THE MAC! The MAC is BAD. The "good" teams in the MAC are still BAD.

(01-29-2011 05:54 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  I dont quite understand the negative part of losing to the best or second best team in the conference in a very competitive road game..

...they almost beat the East leader in their place...

Could you really use the phrases "very competitive" and 'almost beat" in regards to a game where NIU never lead at any point, and after the twelve-minute mark the closest NIU got was 8 points, even with UB not making a bucket for a period of around 6 minutes?

(01-29-2011 11:33 PM)RobertN Wrote:   MD02, what you are missing is THERE ARE NO GOOD TEAMS IN THE MAC! The MAC is BAD. The "good" teams in the MAC are still BAD.

No good teams? After a few more games there could be 3-4 MAC teams with sub-100 RPI's. It's those three squads on your side with the sub-300 RPI's that are killing our rep.

(01-30-2011 02:09 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(01-29-2011 05:54 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  I dont quite understand the negative part of losing to the best or second best team in the conference in a very competitive road game..

...they almost beat the East leader in their place...

Could you really use the phrases "very competitive" and 'almost beat" in regards to a game where NIU never lead at any point, and after the twelve-minute mark the closest NIU got was 8 points, even with UB not making a bucket for a period of around 6 minutes?

(01-29-2011 11:33 PM)RobertN Wrote:   MD02, what you are missing is THERE ARE NO GOOD TEAMS IN THE MAC! The MAC is BAD. The "good" teams in the MAC are still BAD.

No good teams? After a few more games there could be 3-4 MAC teams with sub-100 RPI's. It's those three squads on your side with the sub-300 RPI's that are killing our rep.

Sorry, I really don't care what the RPI shows. THere are no good teams in the MAC this year. The best MAC team is average at best(and that is stretching it) but certainly not good.

(01-30-2011 02:09 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  No good teams? After a few more games there could be 3-4 MAC teams with sub-100 RPI's.

That's priceless right there.

Then by what measure would a D-1 team be 'good' in your eyes? I think people are narrow-minded in seeing great teams as good. There are elite High-Major programs who we all know. Then, there are great High-Major and Mid-Major teams who make the tourney every, or nearly, every year (Kent is the closest we have to that). Good teams win ~20 regularly, contend within their conference for titles, and make the post-season, in some fashion. The official NCAA RPI is the best measure of program performance quality, determining BracketBuster TV games and NCAA tounament seedings.

This is the list of sub-100 RPI finishes within the MAC the last few years. Would you say any of these teams were not at least good squads?:

2003 - 3 (CMU, Kent, WMU)
2004 - 4 (WMU, Kent, Miami, Toledo)
2005 - 6 (Buffalo, Miami, Ohio, Kent, Akron, WMU)
2006 - 4 (Kent, Akron, Miami, Ohio)
2007 - 4 (Akron, Kent, Miami, Toledo)
2008 - 4 (Kent, Akron, Ohio, Miami)
2009 - 3 (Miami, Buffalo, Akron)
2010 - 3 (Kent, Ohio, Akron)

ATM, Kent's RPI is 68, putting them above Maryland, Va Tech, and Dayton...and Buffalo beat them by 25. Guess that means there are no good MAC teams.

This had bugged me ever since I joined and used to read NIJ's rants about how lowly the MAC is for basketball (actually for all sports). People look at these MAC teams and compare them to the high major powers. Of course they don't look good. But compare the MAC football teams with the high major football powers and our conference doesn't look like we have any good teams either. The MAC is a mid-major conference, and a decent one at that. Regarding basketball it has dipped a little the past couple years but normally it is in the top half of the conferences nationally. That means that most conferences are WORSE than the MAC. Even with the recent dip in ratings, they are still well above the bottom grouping of conferences. You guys don't realize that the basketball you could be watching really isn't that horrible, comparatively speaking (depending on who you compare it to). It might have its bad moments (like even Duke had yesterday), but in many other D-I conferences we would be doing very well. As it is, we aren't that far off from doing very well in the MAC.