Before we head into conference play on Tuesday here's a snapshot of current RPIs and SOSs frozen in time for posterity.

Conference rankings (out of 32)
RPI: 15
SOS: 27


RPI (out of 351)
58 Kent St
92 EMU

106 Akron
112 Buffalo
113 NIU
116 Ohio
185 Toledo

229 BGSU
242 Miami
246 WMU
252 Ball St
287 CMU


SOS (out of 351)
51 EMU
65 Buffalo
95 Kent St

178 Miami

206 WMU
209 Ohio
280 CMU
295 NIU

319 Akron
329 Toledo
345 BGSU
349 Ball St


Good Wins (RPI 1-100)
44 Valparaiso (Ball St)
49 UCSB (Akron)
59 Northeastern (Miami)
59 Northeastern (WMU)

Bad Losses (RPI +200)
210 IUPUI (Miami)
212 S Carolina St (Miami)
226 SF Austin (WMU)
234 Loyola Chi (Toledo)
253 North Dakota (BGSU)
267 Bradley (Ball St)
292 FAU (Miami)

Does that mean NIU vs Ohio is a pick em game?
I would take Ohio.

(01-04-2016 09:11 PM)huskie1stdown Wrote:  Does that mean NIU vs Ohio is a pick em game?
I would take Ohio.

Me too. I picked Ohio by 10-12.

What's even more telling than the current RPI is that with the depth of the MAC the conference is projected at 10 overall by years end

(01-05-2016 12:12 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  What's even more telling than the current RPI is that with the depth of the MAC the conference is projected at 10 overall by years end

Just wondering but why would the conference ranking change at all from where it is now since there are no more out of conference games?

I think Ohio is like a lot of teams in the MAC right now- young, talented, but unproven. There's reason for optimism but there are no shortcuts for experience and until that happens it will be hard to predict. Ohio could win by 10, or they could lose by 10. Cautiously hopeful is how I feel.

Ohio was 1-9 in road games last year and is 0-1 in true road games this year.

(01-05-2016 02:13 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 09:11 PM)huskie1stdown Wrote:  Does that mean NIU vs Ohio is a pick em game?
I would take Ohio.

Me too. I picked Ohio by 10-12.

Vegas has it pick'em.

(01-04-2016 06:26 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Good Wins (RPI 1-100)
44 Valparaiso (Ball St)
49 UCSB (Akron)
59 Northeastern (Miami)
59 Northeastern (WMU)

Bad Losses (RPI +200)
210 IUPUI (Miami)
212 S Carolina St (Miami)
226 SF Austin (WMU)
234 Loyola Chi (Toledo)
253 North Dakota (BGSU)
267 Bradley (Ball St)
292 FAU (Miami)

Interesting that three of the teams that have good wins have five of our bad losses as well. Jekyll and Hyde much?

Anyone have all the D1conference current RPI ratings? Just curious as to how we compare to Horizon, C-USA, etc.

(01-06-2016 11:14 AM)exCincy Kid1 Wrote:  Anyone have all the D1conference current RPI ratings? Just curious as to how we compare to Horizon, C-USA, etc.

http://realtimerpi.com/rpi_conf_Men.html

What would the MAC have to do to start getting an at-large bid? They're very close to conferences like the MVC and Big West. It wouldn't take much to jump a couple of those conferences at least.

(01-06-2016 11:47 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  What would the MAC have to do to start getting an at-large bid? They're very close to conferences like the MVC and Big West. It wouldn't take much to jump a couple of those conferences at least.

Schedule the big boys and beat them. That's the best way. MVC teams like Wichita State and UNI seem to beat a top team every OOC season (like North Carolina this year for UNI). Once teams like Akron and Kent start pulling off brutal road wins, then the at-large talk could be real.

It's been about 10 years since an argument could be made that a MAC team not winning the MAC tourney deserved an at-large bid. And even that is a very debatable argument. There are no conspiracy theories needed. MAC teams haven't built resumes better than the other at-large teams in the field.

This year is no exception. No MAC team came close to building an at-large resume in OOC play.

(01-06-2016 02:17 PM)axeme Wrote:  It's been about 10 years since an argument could be made that a MAC team not winning the MAC tourney deserved an at-large bid. And even that is a very debatable argument. There are no conspiracy theories needed. MAC teams haven't built resumes better than the other at-large teams in the field.

This year is no exception. No MAC team came close to building an at-large resume in OOC play.

While correct, a really good conference season could earn a team a bid. If Akron goes 17-1 in conference and then loses in the championship they are getting a bid. Same could be said for several teams. But that's not what happens in the MAC, particularly this year. I'd say there is a better chance every team is 9-9 than one team running away with it.

The problem the MAC has had is that the teams that have done really well in the conference regular season have also gone on to win the tournament. And several teams have come out of December looking like they were primed for a bid only to trip up in the regular conference schedule.

(01-06-2016 03:38 PM)OUVan Wrote:  While correct, a really good conference season could earn a team a bid. If Akron goes 17-1 in conference and then loses in the championship they are getting a bid. Same could be said for several teams. But that's not what happens in the MAC...

The problem the MAC has had is that the teams that have done really well in the conference regular season have also gone on to win the tournament. And several teams have come out of December looking like they were primed for a bid only to trip up in the regular conference schedule.

1) Even with the scenario you describe above for Akron, you can't look at just the MAC. So even if Akron went 17-1 in conference and loses in champ game, if another team in another conference did the same but has a better OOC resume (along with other teams in their conference also having better resumes against OOC competition), it reduces the likelihood of Akron getting a bid.

2) Based on that, it's in the best interest for the MAC's top team to stay motivated and win the tournament, knowing they are not likely to have a resume that is competitive for an at-large.

3) Those December teams that "appeared primed for a bid" most times just padded their win column against low hanging fruit competition.

The MAC isn't that far off from earning an at-large bid, it's not FBS where the institutionalized bias is overwhelming.

Last year the lowest RPI ranked team to earn an at-large bid was #61 Indiana. The highest RPI ranked team to not earn a bid was #29 Colorado State. The MAC's top 2 teams were #28 Buffalo and #70 CMU.

(01-05-2016 01:31 PM)OUVan Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 12:12 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  What's even more telling than the current RPI is that with the depth of the MAC the conference is projected at 10 overall by years end

Just wondering but why would the conference ranking change at all from where it is now since there are no more out of conference games?

It has to do with the predicted finish of the non-conference opponents impacting the MAC's RPI numbers.

Regardless it doesn't project the MAC an at-large rated the #10 conference in the country.

The MAC has to bring in better coaches if it wants to move up in NCAA selection, IMO.

There is the at-large bid but also higher seeds for the MAC tourney winner in the NCAAs that improved performance can allow.