Tuesday 2/10
Central Michigan(6-4) @ Ohio(4-6), 7:00pm
Kent State(7-3) @ Akron(7-3), 7:00pm FullCT/ESPN3
Toledo(7-3) @ Buffalo(6-4), 7:00pm ESPN3
Western Michigan(5-5) @ Bowling Green(7-3), 7:00pm FullCT/ESPN3
Miami(3-7) @ Eastern Michigan(3-7), 7:00pm
Ball State(2-8) @ Northern Illinois(3-7), 8:00pm ESPN3

Friday 2/13
Kent State @ Toledo, 6:00pm ESPNU/WatchESPN

Saturday 2/14
Central Michigan @ Buffalo, 2:00pm ESPN3
Akron @ Eastern Michigan, 2:30pm
Ohio @ Miami, 3:30pm FullCT/ESPN3
Northern Illinois @ Western Michigan, 4:30pm
Bowling Green @ Ball State, 4:30pm

The MAC has a problem- the current tournament format does not work with the current conference schedule.

In 2010 the regular season MAC champ and #1 seed Kent State (13-3) was knocked out of the conference tournament in the 2nd Round by #9 Ohio (7-9) which sparked cries for a change in the tournament format. At the time the conference tournament consisted of 4 rounds with the top 4 seeds earning a bye to the 2nd round. The top 2 seeds were given to each division champion with the remaining seeds assigned based on conference record, regardless of division. The bottom 8 teams played the first round on campus on Sunday with the remaining 3 rounds played in Cleveland Thurs-Sat. The argument against this format was that the 1 round bye for the top 4 seeds wasn't a significant enough advantage which devalued the regular season championship. In other words, who cares what your conference record is if everyone basically has the same path to earning a NCAA bid. Is it fair to give the #9 seed virtually the same path to a championship as the #1 seed? The answer was no, it is not.

The decision was made the following season to change the format beginning in 2012. The new format would be 5 rounds instead of 4 and the top 2 seeds, regardless of division, would earn a triple bye to the semifinals, seeds #3 and #4 would receive double byes to the quarterfinals. Under the new format the #1 seed would have to win 2 games to earn a NCAA bid and the #9 seed would have to win 5 games, including 4 in 4 days. This new format achieved two objectives- it increased the odds of the best teams getting to play for a championship and it greatly increased the importance of the regular season conference record.

It's important to note that giving such a huge advantage to the top seeds worked because with a conference format of 2 divisions and a 16 game conference schedule all of the teams had equal schedules- every team played all of their division opponents twice and all of their cross divisional opponents once.

This changed last year, however, when the conference schedule increased from 16 games to 18 games. Now instead of playing every cross divisional opponent once each team would have to play four of them once and 2 of them twice. Which 2 cross divisional opponents each team had to play twice could change their strength of schedule significantly. For example- last year Akron earned the #4 seed at 12-6 and Ohio was #5 at 11-7. The two schools split their two head to head match ups and had identical division records. The difference is Akron's double cross divisional opponents were #5 and #12 and Ohio's were #1 and #2. Ohio lost 3 of those 4 matchups, Akron lost to those teams both times as well. That one additional loss for Ohio against the #1 seeded team was the difference between Akron getting the #4 seed and earning a double bye and Ohio getting the #5 seed and having to play two additional tournament games. A huge difference.

Fast forward to this season. Currently there are 4 teams tied for 1st place and 2 more that are only a game behind. The difference between being a #2 seed and a #3 seed are significant and the difference between #4 and #5 are even greater. Its highly likely that the difference maker once again will be the luck of the draw in which cross divisional opponents each team has to play twice.

Should we go back to the old tournament format where the top 4 teams just get a single bye, should we keep the current tournament format but go back to a more symmetrical 16 game conference schedule, or is this a much to do about nothing and something not worth being concerned about?

(02-08-2015 01:26 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  The MAC has a problem- the current tournament format does not work with the current conference schedule.

In 2010 the regular season MAC champ and #1 seed Kent State (13-3) was knocked out of the conference tournament in the 2nd Round by #9 Ohio (7-9) which sparked cries for a change in the tournament format. At the time the conference tournament consisted of 4 rounds with the top 4 seeds earning a bye to the 2nd round. The top 2 seeds were given to each division champion with the remaining seeds assigned based on conference record, regardless of division. The bottom 8 teams played the first round on campus on Sunday with the remaining 3 rounds played in Cleveland Thurs-Sat. The argument against this format was that the 1 round bye for the top 4 seeds wasn't a significant enough advantage which devalued the regular season championship. In other words, who cares what your conference record is if everyone basically has the same path to earning a NCAA bid. Is it fair to give the #9 seed virtually the same path to a championship as the #1 seed? The answer was no, it is not.

The decision was made the following season to change the format beginning in 2012. The new format would be 5 rounds instead of 4 and the top 2 seeds, regardless of division, would earn a triple bye to the semifinals, seeds #3 and #4 would receive double byes to the quarterfinals. Under the new format the #1 seed would have to win 2 games to earn a NCAA bid and the #9 seed would have to win 5 games, including 4 in 4 days. This new format achieved two objectives- it increased the odds of the best teams getting to play for a championship and it greatly increased the importance of the regular season conference record.

It's important to note that giving such a huge advantage to the top seeds worked because with a conference format of 2 divisions and a 16 game conference schedule all of the teams had equal schedules- every team played all of their division opponents twice and all of their cross divisional opponents once.

This changed last year, however, when the conference schedule increased from 16 games to 18 games. Now instead of playing every cross divisional opponent once each team would have to play four of them once and 2 of them twice. Which 2 cross divisional opponents each team had to play twice could change their strength of schedule significantly. For example- last year Akron earned the #4 seed at 12-6 and Ohio was #5 at 11-7. The two schools split their two head to head match ups and had identical division records. The difference is Akron's double cross divisional opponents were #5 and #12 and Ohio's were #1 and #2. Ohio lost 3 of those 4 matchups, Akron lost to those teams both times as well. That one additional loss for Ohio against the #1 seeded team was the difference between Akron getting the #4 seed and earning a double bye and Ohio getting the #5 seed and having to play two additional tournament games. A huge difference.

Fast forward to this season. Currently there are 4 teams tied for 1st place and 2 more that are only a game behind. The difference between being a #2 seed and a #3 seed are significant and the difference between #4 and #5 are even greater. Its highly likely that the difference maker once again will be the luck of the draw in which cross divisional opponents each team has to play twice.

Should we go back to the old tournament format where the top 4 teams just get a single bye, should we keep the current tournament format but go back to a more symmetrical 16 game conference schedule, or is this a much to do about nothing and something not worth being concerned about?

I'm not in favor of a playoff scheme where two teams need to win two games (to win the tourney) while another team needs to win five.

I'd prefer the top 4 getting a single bye and the other eight playing a round to come up with opponents for the top 4, essentially setting up the 'elite eight' round in the tourney.

(02-08-2015 02:05 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 01:26 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  The MAC has a problem- the current tournament format does not work with the current conference schedule.

In 2010 the regular season MAC champ and #1 seed Kent State (13-3) was knocked out of the conference tournament in the 2nd Round by #9 Ohio (7-9) which sparked cries for a change in the tournament format. At the time the conference tournament consisted of 4 rounds with the top 4 seeds earning a bye to the 2nd round. The top 2 seeds were given to each division champion with the remaining seeds assigned based on conference record, regardless of division. The bottom 8 teams played the first round on campus on Sunday with the remaining 3 rounds played in Cleveland Thurs-Sat. The argument against this format was that the 1 round bye for the top 4 seeds wasn't a significant enough advantage which devalued the regular season championship. In other words, who cares what your conference record is if everyone basically has the same path to earning a NCAA bid. Is it fair to give the #9 seed virtually the same path to a championship as the #1 seed? The answer was no, it is not.

The decision was made the following season to change the format beginning in 2012. The new format would be 5 rounds instead of 4 and the top 2 seeds, regardless of division, would earn a triple bye to the semifinals, seeds #3 and #4 would receive double byes to the quarterfinals. Under the new format the #1 seed would have to win 2 games to earn a NCAA bid and the #9 seed would have to win 5 games, including 4 in 4 days. This new format achieved two objectives- it increased the odds of the best teams getting to play for a championship and it greatly increased the importance of the regular season conference record.

It's important to note that giving such a huge advantage to the top seeds worked because with a conference format of 2 divisions and a 16 game conference schedule all of the teams had equal schedules- every team played all of their division opponents twice and all of their cross divisional opponents once.

This changed last year, however, when the conference schedule increased from 16 games to 18 games. Now instead of playing every cross divisional opponent once each team would have to play four of them once and 2 of them twice. Which 2 cross divisional opponents each team had to play twice could change their strength of schedule significantly. For example- last year Akron earned the #4 seed at 12-6 and Ohio was #5 at 11-7. The two schools split their two head to head match ups and had identical division records. The difference is Akron's double cross divisional opponents were #5 and #12 and Ohio's were #1 and #2. Ohio lost 3 of those 4 matchups, Akron lost to those teams both times as well. That one additional loss for Ohio against the #1 seeded team was the difference between Akron getting the #4 seed and earning a double bye and Ohio getting the #5 seed and having to play two additional tournament games. A huge difference.

Fast forward to this season. Currently there are 4 teams tied for 1st place and 2 more that are only a game behind. The difference between being a #2 seed and a #3 seed are significant and the difference between #4 and #5 are even greater. Its highly likely that the difference maker once again will be the luck of the draw in which cross divisional opponents each team has to play twice.

Should we go back to the old tournament format where the top 4 teams just get a single bye, should we keep the current tournament format but go back to a more symmetrical 16 game conference schedule, or is this a much to do about nothing and something not worth being concerned about?

I'm not in favor of a playoff scheme where two teams need to win two games (to win the tourney) while another team needs to win five.

I'd prefer the top 4 getting a single bye and the other eight playing a round to come up with opponents for the top 4, essentially setting up the 'elite eight' round in the tourney.

Seconded.

I preferred the old tournament format.

My biggest argument against the current format is that in the tightly contested MAC, you could have the 2 & 5 seeds with the same record, one would have to win 2 games, the other 5.

The old format provided a much better tournament experience in Cleveland as well.

(02-08-2015 04:22 PM)Rocket A Wrote:  My biggest argument against the current format is that in the tightly contested MAC, you could have the 2 & 5 seeds with the same record, one would have to win 2 games, the other 5.

The old format provided a much better tournament experience in Cleveland as well.

I agree! I think a mess is on the horizon. The old format made for a lot of fun on Thursday's at the Q.

I liked the old format better, it made for a better tournament experience. However, I do not think that the 18 game schedule is any more skewed to favor one team over another than the old 16 game format. In either format, some teams are going to play an easier schedule than others. Since the East alway seems stronger, the West teams have long played the easier schedule. At least with the 18 game schedule, West teams have to play two more games with East teams, which makes the schedule difference smaller...Unless you play a complete double round vs everybody (22 games), someone inevitably will play an easier schedule.

The calls for the current tournament setup came at a time when there was much more disparity in the conference and a need to protect the top few teams from killing their RPI with additional games against 300+ teams in the tournament. Going back to the 2009-10 season, it looked like this:

Season: Conference RPI Rank; teams with 250+ RPI; teams with top 100 RPI (all data taken from realtimerpi.com)

09-10: 16th in RPI; 2 teams 250+; 3 teams top 100
10-11: 20th in RPI; 4 teams 250+; 1 team top 100
11-12: 17th in RPI; 3 teams 250+; 3 teams top 100
12-13: 18th in RPI; 4 teams 250+; 2 teams top 100
13-14: 12th in RPI; 2 teams 250+; 6 teams top 100
14-15: 11th in RPI; 2 teams 250+; 4 teams top 100 (as of this post)

As you can see, last season the reasoning for the altered tournament format was no longer there. This season is shaping up to be very similar. The current format works for a bad conference with a small handful of good teams. It's not good at all for a conference with many good teams of similar strength.

could just be a coincidence but the spike in conference RPI mirrors the change from 16 conference games to 18.

There are 32 conferences in D1, only 2 (MAC and OVC) divide their schools into divisions. OVC has 12 teams like the MAC and they play a 16 game conference schedule. There are 2 other conferences with 12 members that don't have divisions and one plays an 18 games schedule (Pac12) and the other plays 20 (Big Sky).

Here are how those conferences format their tournaments-
- The OVC tournament only invites the top 8 teams, the bottom 4 are left out. There are 4 rounds played over 4 consecutive days (Wed-Sat). #3 and #4 seeds get a single bye to the quarterfinals and #1 and #2 get a double bye to the semifinals. This is like our current format without the extra round to include the bottom 4.
- The Pac12 tournament invites all 12 teams. There are 4 rounds played over 4 consecutive days and seeds #1-#4 get a single bye to the quarterfinals. This is just like our old format except we used to play the 1st round on Sunday and then the final 3 rounds starting Thursday. Now that I think about it, that's the part that caused the problem, if the teams that play the 1st round have 3 days to rest and prepare it lessens the advantage of having a bye. Would be something to consider if we switched back to this format.
- The Big Sky only invites the top 6 teams, the bottom 6 are left out. There are 3 rounds played over 3 consecutive days. There are no byes.

So basically you've got 1 conference that plays 16 conference games with the new tournament format and 1 that plays 18 conference games with the old tournament format. More evidence to suggest that we need to change either the conf schedule or the tournament format. The more I think about it the more I like the idea of mirroring the Pac12- 18 game conference schedule with tournament that includes all 12 teams and the top 4 seeds get a single bye.

I like the new format, because in a 1 bid league, we need to make sure one of our top teams gets in. Now, I know OU was an exception when they were i think an 8 seed in cleveland then won some ncaa games.

(02-08-2015 08:24 PM)T4C8 Wrote:  I like the new format, because in a 1 bid league, we need to make sure one of our top teams gets in. Now, I know OU was an exception when they were i think an 8 seed in cleveland then won some ncaa games.

The MAC is projected to finish as a top-10 league in RPI this season. That's right on the borderline of a "one bid league", where the outcome of the conference tournament could determine an extra bid.

The new format is meant to protect the top teams from losing RPI points by playing bad teams. But now it's preventing them from boosting each other's positions.

I think the regular seeding should matter. It rewards the body of work and less on a hot team one week. Finishing first or second seed over 18 games is a huge accomplishment. With 18 games the schedule averages out. If you can't get into the top 4 after 18 games you really aren't that good.

(02-08-2015 11:03 PM)OhioBobcatJohn Wrote:  I think the regular seeding should matter. It rewards the body of work and less on a hot team one week. Finishing first or second seed over 18 games is a huge accomplishment. With 18 games the schedule averages out. If you can't get into the top 4 after 18 games you really aren't that good.

You say if you can't get into the top 4 you're not that good. But look at last year's #3, #4 ad #5 seeds-

#3 Buffalo (13-5), 7-3 v MAC East, 2-2 v UA & OU, 1-1 v top two seeds.
#4 Akron (12-6), 6-4 v MAC East, 2-2 v OU & UB, 0-2 v top two seeds.
#5 Ohio (11-7), 6-4 v MAC East, 2-2 v UA & UB, 1-4 vs top two seeds.


Each team had to play 2 West teams twice, chosen at random. Those opponents were-

#3 Buffalo- (3-1) #7 NIU, #12 BSU. Lost to BSU.
#4 Akron- (4-0) #6 EMU, #12 BSU.
#5 Ohio- (1-3) #1 WMU, #2 UT. Lost to UT once and WMU twice.

Buffalo and Akron each played the top 2 seeds once, Buffalo beat WMU and lost UT, Akron lost to both.

Buffalo has the odd distinction of beating the #1 seed and losing to the #12 seed but winning an extra East game over the other two nudges Buffalo into the #3 seed. I think you would agree that the margin of separation between Buffalo and the other two teams is not large. Now look at Akron and Ohio and the margin is even smaller- identical records vs East and head to head, the difference is the two extra games vs the West. Akron gets a second game against EMU and a 2-16 BSU while Ohio has to take on the top 2 seeds twice each. And Ohio managed to win against them, unlike Akron.

It wasn't intentional, it was just the luck of the draw, but at the end of the day 1 game separated the #4 and #5 seeds and things could have gone very differently if Akron played WMU twice or Ohio played BSU twice.

The end result is that because Akron managed to win one more game than Ohio Akron gets to travel to Cleveland on Monday and rest and prepare for their first game on Thursday. Ohio, as the #5 seed, has to play a game at home on Monday night and win it, spend Tuesday traveling and preparing for their next opponent, play a game on Wednesday night and win it, AND THEN they can face a well rested Akron on Thursday. Btw, in that #4 v #5 match up Ohio had the lead for the entire game until the 3:20 mark. When asked how they were able to grab the lead at the end Keith Dambrot said it looked like the previous tournament games had finally caught up to Ohio and they ran out of gas.

We all knew that the gap between #4 and #5 was huge when the change was made, but with the variance in schedules I can't agree with you when you say if a team didn't make it in the top 4 then the reason is because they weren't good enough. If you're going to have schedules that have this large of a variable in strength then you can't have this large of a gap between two seeds.

If this was a one time event I wouldn't bother mentioning it but I don't think it is. In fact, I'm sounding the warning bells right now, this situation is going to repeat itself again this year and its not going to be pretty.

Either equitable conference schedules or equitable tournament structure, we have to have at least one.

according to realtimerpi the mac has 7 teams in the rip top 120. buffalo at 41, bg 70s and toledo 80s, with kent, akron, emu just over 100 and western at 117. looks like mac might have 5 top 100 rip teams. long shot for mac to get a an large this yr, cause none of the teams have strong enough non conf wins. akron has a couple wins against big conf teams, but usc and s carolina are each struggling. toledo had a shot at vci and oregon but let those gams slip away down the stretch. cmu only has a win at a so so northwestern. bg let an upset at dayton slip away late. kent played well against some good teams but lost to the top teams it played non conf. buffalo led wisconsin and kentucky (prob both #1 seeds) at the half but lost both by double digits. they won some road games and beat a few solid teams, but even if they were to finish really strong and come in a close 2nd in the mac tourney they would be a bit of a long shot for the play in games, and i think they will lose 2 or 3 more games in mac play. the good news is the mac has most of the conference playing pretty good basketball. the half empty news is that it will very likely have 1 horse in the cinderella pool of the tourney.

Don't expect a MAC team to get an at-large invite to the tournament unless they get 28 wins. Even Buffalo at a 41 RPI won't get in unless they get to 28 wins, which is no longer possible. Last year, RealTimeRPI.COM had Toledo at 38th in RPI but with a 26-6 didn't get in. Even with 28 wins, they'd probably need an OOC win over a frequent tournament team to get in.

We haven't been 2-bid since 1998-1999, and the seeding has changed a lot since then.

(02-08-2015 07:15 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Could just be a coincidence but the spike in conference RPI mirrors the change from 16 conference games to 18.

It may not be practical, but a 22-game conference regular season where each school plays every other school twice (once home, once away) could benefit the conference in many ways.

Many MAC schools could benefit from an RPI boost as a result. Take four games from WMU's nonconference schedule this season, for example: Aquinas (home), Rochester College (home), Pacific (away), and Northeastern (away). NE has a decent RPI, in the mid-100s. Pacific's RPI is in the mid-200s. Aquinas and Rochester are not D-I schools.

Replace those games with second games against MAC schools WMU currently only plays once: BG (home), Miami (home), Ohio (away), and KSU (away). WMU would not only get an RPI boost, but there would be probably be much greater interest in seeing BG and Miami (in this case) in Kalamazoo, as opposed to Aquinas and Rochester, two games that don't interest fans at all.

I don't know their situations well enough to comment specifically, but I know EMU and CMU would both also benefit from a similar change in scheduling.

This would cut down on the number of nonconference games, yes, but with many teams playing over 30 games now, there would still be plenty of opportunities for 8-10 nonconference games.

If this scenario ever did play out, the conference would have to get creative with scheduling to accommodate the additional conference games on the schedule. Under this scenario, I would recommend playing the first four conference games over the course of the first two weeks in December, while students are still on campus before their holiday breaks. I think this would help to build more interest among students earlier in the season.

As for the tournament format, I'd prefer a return to the old format of the top four schools receiving first-round byes to the quarterfinals. Seeds 1-4 would need three wins to win the championship; seeds 5-12 would need four wins.

Non-D-I schools don't affect RPI.

Here's the number of conference games played by the RPI top 10 conferences-

19 SEC
19 A10
18 Big12
18 Big East
18 ACC
18 B1G
18 Pac12
18 AAC
19 WCC
18MVC

Looks like the most popular number of conference games is 18.

Hurley got t'd up 55 seconds into the game. haha