(04-15-2014 09:25 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:41 AM)OUVan Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 09:59 PM)westernwilly Wrote:  Come to think of it, they would be passing out ice water in hell on the day that any East Division school made it to the MACC.

Bowling Green thinks this post is funny.

Quick tally of MAC Champions

West - 6
East - 10

So do Buffalo fans....

For some reason, you are not understanding what this new system would mean. Let me break it down for you. If this was in use in 2008, then the MACC game would have been a game between Ball St. and CMU.....both MAC WEST. UB would never have had a chance at that game!
2009 MACC would have been the same with CMU v Ohio.
2010 MACC would have been NIU v UT..........both MAC West
2011 MACC would have been NIU v UT..........both MAC West
2012 MACC would have been the same with NIU v Kent...fyi,great game
2013 MACC would have been NIU v Ball St.....both MAC West

Do you see a pattern here?

Had this plan been in affect at these times then both UB and BGSU would have been watching the game at home on TV.
Hopefully this clears it up for you. If not, then how the hell did you get into college?

(04-15-2014 07:13 PM)westernwilly Wrote:  For some reason, you are not understanding what this new system would mean. Let me break it down for you. If this was in use in 2008, then the MACC game would have been a game between Ball St. and CMU.....both MAC WEST. UB would never have had a chance at that game!

Wow denial ain't just a river in Egypt..

In 2008 CMU beat UB by *2* points at home after UB missed a last second FG and UB throttled Ball State in the MACC..... So tell me again how Buffalo would not have had a chance against either when we beat one and took the other to the wire in their house?

Quote:2009 MACC would have been the same with CMU v Ohio.
2010 MACC would have been NIU v UT..........both MAC West
2011 MACC would have been NIU v UT..........both MAC West
2012 MACC would have been the same with NIU v Kent...fyi,great game
2013 MACC would have been NIU v Ball St.....both MAC West

Do you see a pattern here?

Had this plan been in affect at these times then both UB and BGSU would have been watching the game at home on TV.

Hopefully this clears it up for you. If not, then how the hell did you get into college?

I get exactly what you are saying, the top two teams in the west are usually the best records in the conference. But here is the rub, in each of those years MAC West #2 already had a chance to beat MAC West #1 *and lost*... Three of the last six MAC East #1 has beaten MAC West #1...

Not understanding the stupidity of your statement is not the same as not acknowledging it..

(04-15-2014 07:13 PM)westernwilly Wrote:  For some reason, you are not understanding what this new system would mean. Let me break it down for you. If this was in use in 2008, then the MACC game would have been a game between Ball St. and CMU.....both MAC WEST. UB would never have had a chance at that game!

No telling who would have been the top two teams if we didn't have division scheduling in 2008, since you are projecting from the W-L record of the games under the divisional scheduling that year to what the W-L would have been without requiring a complete divisional round robin.

(04-15-2014 09:48 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 07:13 PM)westernwilly Wrote:  For some reason, you are not understanding what this new system would mean. Let me break it down for you. If this was in use in 2008, then the MACC game would have been a game between Ball St. and CMU.....both MAC WEST. UB would never have had a chance at that game!

No telling who would have been the top two teams if we didn't have division scheduling in 2008, since you are projecting from the W-L record of the games under the divisional scheduling that year to what the W-L would have been without requiring a complete divisional round robin.

UB played and lost to the MAC West #2 team CMU and the MAC West #3 team WMU in 2008. Those 2 teams also had a better record than UB in 2008. I think that it is pretty clear that UB would not have been playing in that game under this model.

Further, look at the record of regular season games between the East and the West. The East does not fare well. Getting rid of the divisions will mean that the top West teams will have more wins and the East will have more loses.

Do not believe me? Look at the history of the two divisions playing each other over the entire season. Not just one game, but ever game.

FYI, we already do this in basketball and there it is flipped as the East is far better than the West. Most years the BBall MACC comes down to two teams from the East as the West champ watches from the stands.

(04-16-2014 10:22 AM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 09:48 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 07:13 PM)westernwilly Wrote:  For some reason, you are not understanding what this new system would mean. Let me break it down for you. If this was in use in 2008, then the MACC game would have been a game between Ball St. and CMU.....both MAC WEST. UB would never have had a chance at that game!

No telling who would have been the top two teams if we didn't have division scheduling in 2008, since you are projecting from the W-L record of the games under the divisional scheduling that year to what the W-L would have been without requiring a complete divisional round robin.

UB played and lost to the MAC West #2 team CMU and the MAC West #3 team WMU in 2008. Those 2 teams also had a better record than UB in 2008. I think that it is pretty clear that UB would not have been playing in that game under this model.

Lost to WMU in OT after being up big... But you're right clearly Buffalo did not even blong on the field with a team they lost to in OT, a team they lost to on the road by two, and a team they throttled at a neutral site.. Just like Bowling Green did not bleong on the field with NIU despite a better conference record than Toledo and a close loss on the road. It matters not that BG dismantled the huskies..

What 2008 and 2013 needed was a MAC West rematch...

All hail the MAC West...

Quote:Do not believe me? Look at the history of the two divisions playing each other over the entire season. Not just one game, but ever game.

Every team in the east does not play every team in the west, you can't measure it this way. For the B12? sure it makes sense but with 12 teams you need two divisions.

Don't like being left out of the CG? Well win your damn division then..

Quote:FYI, we already do this in basketball and there it is flipped as the East is far better than the West. Most years the BBall MACC comes down to two teams from the East as the West champ watches from the stands.

This is all moot because you cant play round robin, period.

Hoops is quite different than football. Its why in the NBA you have a series of games and in the NFL you have one and done playoff games.

MACC Results over the past six seasons

MAC West 3 - MAC East 3....

Stop trying to turn this argument into something that it is not. I never said that UB did not deserve to be in the 2008 MACC game. I simple have stated that under the proposed system that they are talking about now, then UB would never have had the opportunity to prove themselves in that game.

(04-16-2014 01:03 PM)westernwilly Wrote:  Stop trying to turn this argument into something that it is not. I never said that UB did not deserve to be in the 2008 MACC game. I simple have stated that under the proposed system that they are talking about now, then UB would never have had the opportunity to prove themselves in that game.

Then I misread this..

" If this was in use in 2008, then the MACC game would have been a game between Ball St. and CMU.....both MAC WEST. UB would never have had a chance at that game!"

Apologies..

(04-16-2014 10:22 AM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 09:48 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  No telling who would have been the top two teams if we didn't have division scheduling in 2008, since you are projecting from the W-L record of the games under the divisional scheduling that year to what the W-L would have been without requiring a complete divisional round robin.

UB played and lost to the MAC West #2 team CMU and the MAC West #3 team WMU in 2008. Those 2 teams also had a better record than UB in 2008. I think that it is pretty clear that UB would not have been playing in that game under this model.

There isn't even a guarantee that they would have been playing the same two teams, or at the same time of the season, and if you replay the same schools in the same seasons but under different conditions or at different times in the season, its obvious that a different result is possible. Especially in the cases when the original results were close. Without conference scheduling, who's to say whether they get a chance to play and beat EMU and Toledo in that year.

Play different games under different conditions, you change which team loses which player to injury when, which further scrambles results from the schedule as played in 2008.

And if the argument about how specific results are guaranteed to be identical under different conditions is walked back into a more general argument about the overall strength of the schools in the division, it would be laughable to project from general inter-division strength over a short period of time in the recent past into inter-division strength over the coming decade.

(04-17-2014 01:24 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 10:22 AM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 09:48 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  No telling who would have been the top two teams if we didn't have division scheduling in 2008, since you are projecting from the W-L record of the games under the divisional scheduling that year to what the W-L would have been without requiring a complete divisional round robin.

UB played and lost to the MAC West #2 team CMU and the MAC West #3 team WMU in 2008. Those 2 teams also had a better record than UB in 2008. I think that it is pretty clear that UB would not have been playing in that game under this model.

There isn't even a guarantee that they would have been playing the same two teams, or at the same time of the season, and if you replay the same schools in the same seasons but under different conditions or at different times in the season, its obvious that a different result is possible. Especially in the cases when the original results were close. Without conference scheduling, who's to say whether they get a chance to play and beat EMU and Toledo in that year.

Play different games under different conditions, you change which team loses which player to injury when, which further scrambles results from the schedule as played in 2008.

And if the argument about how specific results are guaranteed to be identical under different conditions is walked back into a more general argument about the overall strength of the schools in the division, it would be laughable to project from general inter-division strength over a short period of time in the recent past into inter-division strength over the coming decade.

Every year, every school plays at least 2 cross over games.
In 2008 those games resulted in in the West winning 14 of them and the East winning only 4. --Akron won 2, BGSU won 1 and Temple one 1.
Do a little research and you will find that most years look like this.

Hell, not every team in the MAC East plays each other due to the 13, so some of these arguments get tricky.

I am not in favor of deregulation. It is just a weak argument/strategy for the weaker P5 conferences to make sure they are represented in the Top 4 playoff.

(04-17-2014 01:47 PM)westernwilly Wrote:  Every year, every school plays at least 2 cross over games.
In 2008 those games resulted in in the West winning 14 of them and the East winning only 4. --Akron won 2, BGSU won 1 and Temple one 1.

Yes, and if the schedule is changed around, there's no guarantee it would be 14-4 to the West, nor that Buffalo would be in the 14 column rather than the 4 column.

And if there is a change, the change won't actually take place in a repeat of the past eight years when the West has been the stronger, but instead it will take place in the coming years. And anybody who has been watching the MAC for two or three decades will understand that balance of power in the recent past is no guarantee of future results.