(02-17-2015 02:35 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  I'm not sure if the MAC ever had 3 at-large candidates but I think you're referring to 2005 when Ohio won the auto bid as a 4 seed. Here's how the 3 best remaining teams looked that year-

#46 Buffalo (23-10) overall, 0-2 vs top 50.
#52 Miami (18-11) overall, 2-2 vs top 50.
#66 Kent St (18-13) overall, 2-4 vs top 50.

Sorry, those just aren't good enough for an at-large bid, regardless of conference.

Actually, one of the years I was thinking about was the season Kent State made the Elite 8. Ball State and Bowling Green were well regarded, with the Cardinals beating both Kansas and UCLA and playing Duke tough in OOC. All three of those power teams made it to the tourney that year.

There were a few other years during the late '90s early 00's where the highest rated RPI team left out of the tourney was.... drum roll... a MAC team. Each time there were other teams picked for at-large spots who were ranked lower.

(02-17-2015 02:35 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  However you are wrong that this is a built-in advantage for power conference teams not available to almost everyone else. RPI is a math formula, its not an opinion, there is no bias in the data.

Lastly, it IS almost always a built-in advantage for the power leagues. The MATH is based upon the outcomes of the games played. The power leagues tend to load up on lots of home games OOC; most of which they are heavily favored. Their conference RPI goes up and won't change significantly once in league play. Those leagues know how to do the math in their favor.

(02-17-2015 07:01 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  The long time formula in the Big 10 for success (which is becoming even more exaggerated now) is play as many soft teams as you can at home for OOC, elevate the status of your conference, and then all games played in-conference have extra meaning because all these teams are perceived as good. That is how the Big 10 gets like 7 teams per year.

Just looking at the Big12- Kansas played 10 OOC games vs rpi top 100 opponents, Iowa St played 5, Baylor played 4, Oklahoma played 4, Ok St played 4, WVU played 4, Texas played 6, etc. They're not playing more soft teams than the MAC, but they are definitely playing more tough teams.

(02-17-2015 07:01 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  The MAC really stood out in non-conf games this year going 80-50 I believe it was. When the Big 10 does it, its considered a solid conference, when the MAC does the same thing, its considered "who have you beat".

By comparison the 12 teams of the MAC played a total of 23 top 100 teams, or less than 2 each, and lost all 23. That's why people say "who have you beat?".

Last season Toledo was poisoned by their terrible losses vs. EMU and NIU but some wanted to argue Toledo should make the field based on pure RPI. The only tough team UT played was Kansas. Played em tough away but lost by 8. They had one win vs. a power team (BC) who actually wasn't very good. Anyways... the argument for other Toledo fans was "We cannot control who we play!" "Lots of teams denied to play us, so Toledo did the best with what they could have OOC." Went 12-1.

This year UT went out an got some top notch teams.... Duke, VCU, and Oregon. Lost all 3. We got our shot and blew it. Now we can't complain. But for the teams that don't schedule tough very often there will be those fans who say "we cannot control who we played this year!" In the end you have to win at home, and have to beat teams you're better than. UT should have been 28-3 going into the MAC tourney in my opinion. Losses @Kansas, @WMU and @OU were respectable IMO. Should have beat NIU on the road, and not only should Toledo bot have not gotten killed by 25 @EMU, based on their other meetings they should have won the game outright.

Slip ups matter in college basketball if you don't have the strength of schedule to back you up. This season our two best records (BG and CMU) have played two of the weakest schedules in the conference and won't be going anywhere as at larges but the NIT or CIT.

EMU, Akron, Toledo, and Buffalo have played some decent teams, so if one of these can get in the tourney with less than 10 losses they'll be seeded okay, opposed to if CMU or BG win the MAC with 10 losses.... they'll be 15 seeds. Pure record is holding up our division leaders right now. A body of work holds up our next few teams back.

Here's what our focus needs to be on, regarding tournament play-

We have 6 or 7 teams that will be eligible to play in 1 of the 4 post season tournaments this year and any one of those teams could earn the ticket to the NCAA. What this conference really needs is for the 5 or 6 teams that don't make it to the dance to GET OVER IT in a hurry. Like 24hrs of sulking and no more. I know the CIT and CBI are blah blah blah, whatever, but we need to play for MAC pride and dominate the other 3 tournaments. If we have 5 first round losses and 2 teams turn down invites I'll be disappointed.

Follow the VCU method, after a string of 1 and done post season appearances they got focused and went into the CBI in 2010 and crushed it. The next year they were in the Final Four. Make winning tournament games a habit.

2005- NIT (0-1)
2006- No Tournament
2007- NCAA (1-1)
2008- NIT (0-1)
2009- NCAA (0-1)
2010- CBI (5-0) Champ.
2011- NCAA (5-1) Final Four
2012- NCAA (1-1)
2013- NCAA (1-1)
2014- NCAA (0-1)