With the non-conf season complete, the MAC has really done a phenomenal job, ahead of conferences like the Horizon and Missouri Valley and positioned around 11th or 12th best conference in all of college basketball. Three candidates have stood out as potential at-large candidates and I think the MAC has earned an at-large bid if one of these 3 candidates wins 13+ conference games and doesn't win the tourney:

Candidate 1

Buffalo 9-3
RPI: 35
Top 100 Opponent RPI wins: None
Bad Losses (< 200 Opponent RPI): None
Avg Opponent RPI of all losses (3): 58


Candidate 2

Eastern Michigan 11-2
RPI: 88
Top 100 Opponent RPI wins: #54 Michigan
Bad Losses (< 200 Opponent RPI): None
Avg Opponent RPI of all losses (2): 35


Candidate 3

Central Michigan 10-1
RPI: 99
Top 100 Opponent RPI wins: None
Bad Losses (< 200 Opponent RPI): #279 Bradley
Avg. Opponent RPI of all losses (1): 279

(01-04-2015 03:37 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  With the non-conf season complete, the MAC has really done a phenomenal job, ahead of conferences like the Horizon and Missouri Valley and positioned around 11th or 12th best conference in all of college basketball. Three candidates have stood out as potential at-large candidates and I think the MAC has earned an at-large bid if one of these 3 candidates wins 13+ conference games and doesn't win the tourney:

Candidate 1

Buffalo 9-3
RPI: 35
Top 100 Opponent RPI wins: None
Bad Losses (< 200 Opponent RPI): None
Avg Opponent RPI of all losses (3): 58


Candidate 2

Eastern Michigan 11-2
RPI: 88
Top 100 Opponent RPI wins: #54 Michigan
Bad Losses (< 200 Opponent RPI): None
Avg Opponent RPI of all losses (2): 35


Candidate 3

Central Michigan 10-1
RPI: 99
Top 100 Opponent RPI wins: None
Bad Losses (< 200 Opponent RPI): #279 Bradley
Avg. Opponent RPI of all losses (1): 279

Dunno how u can say the MAC is better than the Valley when they have 2 teams in the top 25 and the MAC doesnt.

(01-04-2015 03:43 PM)NIUSox10 Wrote:  Dunno how u can say the MAC is better than the Valley when they have 2 teams in the top 25 and the MAC doesnt.

Statistically it is very very close. Compositing all of the Massey computers has the MAC at 11 and MVC at 12. What is hurting the MVC is that it is not deep at all this year, in fact down right horrid in the bottom half, whereas the MAC may not have the top 2 standouts the MVC does, it is much much much deeper. Its a near wash with a slight edge to the MAC.

(01-04-2015 03:46 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:43 PM)NIUSox10 Wrote:  Dunno how u can say the MAC is better than the Valley when they have 2 teams in the top 25 and the MAC doesnt.

Statistically it is very very close. Compositing all of the Massey computers has the MAC at 11 and MVC at 12. What is hurting the MVC is that it is not deep at all this year, in fact down right horrid in the bottom half, whereas the MAC may not have the top 2 standouts the MVC does, it is much much much deeper. Its a near wash with a slight edge to the MAC.

Collectively, I agree that it's possible that the MAC is better. However, when putting teams in, I don't think you can/should punish Valley's top 2 teams because their conference lacks depth (See MAC football etc.).

(01-04-2015 03:49 PM)Enaiu Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:46 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:43 PM)NIUSox10 Wrote:  Dunno how u can say the MAC is better than the Valley when they have 2 teams in the top 25 and the MAC doesnt.

Statistically it is very very close. Compositing all of the Massey computers has the MAC at 11 and MVC at 12. What is hurting the MVC is that it is not deep at all this year, in fact down right horrid in the bottom half, whereas the MAC may not have the top 2 standouts the MVC does, it is much much much deeper. Its a near wash with a slight edge to the MAC.

Collectively, I agree that it's possible that the MAC is better. However, when putting teams in, I don't think you can/should punish Valley's top 2 teams because their conference lacks depth (See MAC football etc.).

Plus UNI just got beat by Evansville and wont be ranked tomorrow.

(01-04-2015 03:50 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:49 PM)Enaiu Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:46 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:43 PM)NIUSox10 Wrote:  Dunno how u can say the MAC is better than the Valley when they have 2 teams in the top 25 and the MAC doesnt.

Statistically it is very very close. Compositing all of the Massey computers has the MAC at 11 and MVC at 12. What is hurting the MVC is that it is not deep at all this year, in fact down right horrid in the bottom half, whereas the MAC may not have the top 2 standouts the MVC does, it is much much much deeper. Its a near wash with a slight edge to the MAC.

Collectively, I agree that it's possible that the MAC is better. However, when putting teams in, I don't think you can/should punish Valley's top 2 teams because their conference lacks depth (See MAC football etc.).

Plus UNI just got beat by Evansville and wont be ranked tomorrow.

True but that adds to their depth. Evansville is 11-2.

(01-04-2015 03:55 PM)NIUSox10 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:50 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:49 PM)Enaiu Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:46 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:43 PM)NIUSox10 Wrote:  Dunno how u can say the MAC is better than the Valley when they have 2 teams in the top 25 and the MAC doesnt.

Statistically it is very very close. Compositing all of the Massey computers has the MAC at 11 and MVC at 12. What is hurting the MVC is that it is not deep at all this year, in fact down right horrid in the bottom half, whereas the MAC may not have the top 2 standouts the MVC does, it is much much much deeper. Its a near wash with a slight edge to the MAC.

Collectively, I agree that it's possible that the MAC is better. However, when putting teams in, I don't think you can/should punish Valley's top 2 teams because their conference lacks depth (See MAC football etc.).

Plus UNI just got beat by Evansville and wont be ranked tomorrow.

True but that adds to their depth. Evansville is 11-2.

Yep that is true, its just that middle-bottom portion of the MVC that is keeping it below the MAC right now.

The only thing holding back CMU from a higher RPI is their SOS, it is admittedly awful. The conference slate should actually help them improve SOS

(01-04-2015 03:58 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:55 PM)NIUSox10 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:50 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:49 PM)Enaiu Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:46 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  Statistically it is very very close. Compositing all of the Massey computers has the MAC at 11 and MVC at 12. What is hurting the MVC is that it is not deep at all this year, in fact down right horrid in the bottom half, whereas the MAC may not have the top 2 standouts the MVC does, it is much much much deeper. Its a near wash with a slight edge to the MAC.

Collectively, I agree that it's possible that the MAC is better. However, when putting teams in, I don't think you can/should punish Valley's top 2 teams because their conference lacks depth (See MAC football etc.).

Plus UNI just got beat by Evansville and wont be ranked tomorrow.

True but that adds to their depth. Evansville is 11-2.

Yep that is true, its just that middle-bottom portion of the MVC that is keeping it below the MAC right now.

The only thing holding back CMU from a higher RPI is their SOS, it is admittedly awful. The conference slate should actually help them improve SOS

Lets say if Buffalo, CMU, EMU, Akron dominate the conference to pad their schedules and resume and make the deep push in the tournament, it is possible 2 of the 4 get in. CMU maybe criticized for a weak SOS though.

This is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too early. It needs context. It depends on how all the automatic bids work out (the MAC would need the favorites to win the tourneys) and how many good teams are on the bubble. There's way too many variables to say. And that's assuming the MAC doesn't cannibalize itself.

The biggest problem I see is the 3 teams have combined for 0 Top 50 wins, which is what the committee seems to look for most in bubble teams. CMU has virtually no chance of making it as an at-large with that resume; 0 good wins, 3 of their 10 wins over non-D1 (thus, they don't really count to the committee), and an absolutely horrific loss to Bradley. They're not making it as an at-large. EMU is a longshot, at best, as well.

(01-04-2015 03:37 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  With the non-conf season complete, the MAC has really done a phenomenal job, ahead of conferences like the Horizon and Missouri Valley and positioned around 11th or 12th best conference in all of college basketball. Three candidates have stood out as potential at-large candidates and I think the MAC has earned an at-large bid if one of these 3 candidates wins 13+ conference games and doesn't win the tourney:

Candidate 1

Buffalo 9-3
RPI: 35
Top 100 Opponent RPI wins: None
Bad Losses (< 200 Opponent RPI): None
Avg Opponent RPI of all losses (3): 58


Candidate 2

Eastern Michigan 11-2
RPI: 88
Top 100 Opponent RPI wins: #54 Michigan
Bad Losses (< 200 Opponent RPI): None
Avg Opponent RPI of all losses (2): 35


Candidate 3

Central Michigan 10-1
RPI: 99
Top 100 Opponent RPI wins: None
Bad Losses (< 200 Opponent RPI): #279 Bradley
Avg. Opponent RPI of all losses (1): 279

Strength of Schedule-

97 Buffalo
267 Eastern Michigan
333 Central Michigan


There's only 1 potential at large- Buffalo. EMU and CMU played powder puff schedules, 7 of their combined 21 wins are against non-D1 competition (and those don't even factor into SOS).

(01-04-2015 04:19 PM)UIHuskie Wrote:  The biggest problem I see is the 3 teams have combined for 0 Top 50 wins, which is what the committee seems to look for most in bubble teams. CMU has virtually no chance of making it as an at-large with that resume; 0 good wins, 3 of their 10 wins over non-D1 (thus, they don't really count to the committee), and an absolutely horrific loss to Bradley. They're not making it as an at-large. EMU is a longshot, at best, as well.

Normally Id agree with that CMU schedule, but the only different thing to consider this year is that the stronger MAC non-conf performance as a whole would provide a boost to CMU. If CMU were to go say 14-2 conference, and then 1-1 in the MAC tourney, that would put them at 25-4 with plenty of good MAC wins most likely. Someone on this board posted a link to a site that gives up-to-the-minute RPI and that site is pretty interesting. I cannot say how accurate these results are, but they give a forecasted RPI for possible final records. A 4-loss CMU team would have an RPI around 33, and with a 25-4 mark, that has to get them in. Now can they go 14-2 in MAC play, that's a whole other question, but if they do, I think they are in.


http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Central...higan.html

If Buffalo dominates the MAC (less than 4 losses), and then loses in the semi-finals or finals of the MAC tourney, then yes, OK chance.

That's the only way.

(01-04-2015 04:21 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:37 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

Strength of Schedule-

97 Buffalo
267 Eastern Michigan
333 Central Michigan


There's only 1 potential at large- Buffalo. EMU and CMU played powder puff schedules, 7 of their combined 21 wins are against non-D1 competition (and those don't even factor into SOS).

Yep. Strength of schedule will take the MAC out of any bubble talk and even an RPI of 97 for Buffalo is too weak for an at large. The lowest RPI team to ever make the tournament was USC with an RPI of 67 in 2011.

Wichita State is 10 in RPI with a SOS of 18 and Northern Iowa is 12 in RPI with a SOS of 43.

The MAC is a one bid league again this year, mark it down.

(01-04-2015 05:10 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 04:21 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:37 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

Strength of Schedule-

97 Buffalo
267 Eastern Michigan
333 Central Michigan


There's only 1 potential at large- Buffalo. EMU and CMU played powder puff schedules, 7 of their combined 21 wins are against non-D1 competition (and those don't even factor into SOS).

Yep. Strength of schedule will take the MAC out of any bubble talk and even an RPI of 97 for Buffalo is too weak for an at large. The lowest RPI team to ever make the tournament was USC with an RPI of 67 in 2011.

Wichita State is 10 in RPI with a SOS of 18 and Northern Iowa is 12 in RPI with a SOS of 43.

The MAC is a one bid league again this year, mark it down.

So 17Huskies and Huskietap, are you saying a 25-4 CMU team with a lower 30s RPI would not get in?

I don't think a 25-4 CMU team would get to a low 30 RPI. If they were actually that...then potentially.

(01-04-2015 05:18 PM)17Huskies Wrote:  I don't think a 25-4 CMU team would get to a low 30 RPI. If they were actually that...then potentially.

Yes that's the part Im not sure about, how accurate that RPI forecast is. I do think its believable though given the depth in the MAC, there are quality wins to be had. I think its much more unlikely CMU would go 15-3 in MAC play than it would be for CMU to be denied at 25-4.

(01-04-2015 05:12 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 05:10 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 04:21 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:37 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

Strength of Schedule-

97 Buffalo
267 Eastern Michigan
333 Central Michigan


There's only 1 potential at large- Buffalo. EMU and CMU played powder puff schedules, 7 of their combined 21 wins are against non-D1 competition (and those don't even factor into SOS).

Yep. Strength of schedule will take the MAC out of any bubble talk and even an RPI of 97 for Buffalo is too weak for an at large. The lowest RPI team to ever make the tournament was USC with an RPI of 67 in 2011.

Wichita State is 10 in RPI with a SOS of 18 and Northern Iowa is 12 in RPI with a SOS of 43.

The MAC is a one bid league again this year, mark it down.

So 17Huskies and Huskietap, are you saying a 25-4 CMU team with a lower 30s RPI would not get in?

I don't see it. Buffalo is the only MAC team with an SOS below 100 right now. The MAC has eight team with a 200+ SOS so wins won't pad the resume that much come conference play. It would probably have to be Buffalo running the regular season and losing deep in the MAC tourney to be in the discussion. Everyone else in my opinion is out due to weak OOC scheduling.

(01-04-2015 05:20 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 05:18 PM)17Huskies Wrote:  I don't think a 25-4 CMU team would get to a low 30 RPI. If they were actually that...then potentially.

Yes that's the part Im not sure about, how accurate that RPI forecast is. I do think its believable though given the depth in the MAC, there are quality wins to be had. I think its much more unlikely CMU would go 15-3 in MAC play than it would be for CMU to be denied at 25-4.

Here is where I disagree. What depth? You have one sub 50 team in RPI and the same team is sub 100 in SOS. There are also eight team with a SOS over 200. It seems like the league is filled with average, middle of the pack squads. Buffalo is the only one with a shot to make a run and they would probably need to run the regular season.

(01-04-2015 05:20 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 05:18 PM)17Huskies Wrote:  I don't think a 25-4 CMU team would get to a low 30 RPI. If they were actually that...then potentially.

Yes that's the part Im not sure about, how accurate that RPI forecast is. I do think its believable though given the depth in the MAC, there are quality wins to be had. I think its much more unlikely CMU would go 15-3 in MAC play than it would be for CMU to be denied at 25-4.

I think it'd perhaps take a perfect storm, those losses coming to Eastern and Buffalo, who in turn keep winning a LOT in the MAC...then maybe with CMU. Just don't see it happening.