Just read an article about a hypothetical scrap of divisions in the SEC. (Sbnation) The alternative would be a 3 rival system of playing those 3 every season, then playing the other 5 or 6 every other year.

In the MAC- who would be every teams 3 rivals?
For my team I would guess BG, NIU, EMU?

I'd imagine if they were to do that it would be.

WMU, CMU, EMU, Buffalo
NIU, Toledo, BG, Ball State
Akron, Kent, Miami, and Ohio

This would preserve the most rivalries while also for the most part limit travel (sorry Buffalo).

This format doesn't necessarily mean everyone's 3 rivals would need to be neat groups of 4. Teams could have 2 in common and one different. That being said, it is posts like this and the other posts I've read about eliminating BBall divisions (the only place UB has made any inroads at building rivalries) that saddens me how after all these years, Buff is still an outsider in the MAC. Will we ever belong in this conference?

I don't really feel UB isn't accepted. Where they are located they just don't have a natural rival. The only way for them to build a rivalry is for them to consistently play meaningful games against another opponent. That is tough considering Buffalo finds itself at the bottom or somewhere in the middle instead of competing at the top most years.

(06-15-2016 02:25 AM)NickleCity Wrote:  it is posts like this and the other posts I've read about eliminating BBall divisions (the only place UB has made any inroads at building rivalries) that saddens me how after all these years, Buff is still an outsider in the MAC. Will we ever belong in this conference?

I don't see it that way. Buffalo belongs. Your football program gives us fits every year.

I personally hope the MAC adds Stony Brook. That would be an instant trophy game.

Ohio's three would be:

Miami, Miami, Miami

(06-15-2016 08:13 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 02:25 AM)NickleCity Wrote:  it is posts like this and the other posts I've read about eliminating BBall divisions (the only place UB has made any inroads at building rivalries) that saddens me how after all these years, Buff is still an outsider in the MAC. Will we ever belong in this conference?

I don't see it that way. Buffalo belongs. Your football program gives us fits every year.

I personally hope the MAC adds Stony Brook. That would be an instant trophy game.

SB in on long Island... It's not very close to UB. Why would that be a trophy game? NY being an important part I'm guessing?

NIU- Toledo, Ball, CMU
CMU- WMU, EMU, NIU
WMU- CMU, EMU, BG
BALL- NIU, Miami, OU
TOLEDO- BG, NIU, EMU
EMU- WMU, CMU, Toledo
BG- Toledo, Miami, Kent
(Akron- Kent, UB)
OU- Miami, UB, BALL
KENT- Akron, BG, UB
UB- Kent, Akron, OU
MIAMI- OU, Ball, BG

With 12 teams there is naturally one team with 2 rivals.

(06-15-2016 09:53 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  NIU- Toledo, Ball, CMU
CMU- WMU, EMU, NIU
WMU- CMU, EMU, BG
BALL- NIU, Miami, OU
TOLEDO- BG, NIU, EMU
EMU- WMU, CMU, Toledo
BG- Toledo, Miami, Kent
(Akron- Kent, UB)
OU- Miami, UB, BALL
KENT- Akron, BG, UB
UB- Kent, Akron, OU
MIAMI- OU, Ball, BG

With 12 teams there is naturally one team with 2 rivals.

Or you're bad at scheduling.

You have WMU with BG as a rival, but then don't have WMU listed under BG's 3 rivals.

(06-15-2016 02:25 AM)NickleCity Wrote:  This format doesn't necessarily mean everyone's 3 rivals would need to be neat groups of 4. Teams could have 2 in common and one different. That being said, it is posts like this and the other posts I've read about eliminating BBall divisions (the only place UB has made any inroads at building rivalries) that saddens me how after all these years, Buff is still an outsider in the MAC. Will we ever belong in this conference?

NIU's been in the MAC for longer and still doesn't have a rival. Well, we have one Non-rival.

(06-15-2016 11:00 AM)niusfactuary Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 09:53 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  NIU- Toledo, Ball, CMU
CMU- WMU, EMU, NIU
WMU- CMU, EMU, Akron
BALL- NIU, Miami, OU
TOLEDO- BG, NIU, EMU
EMU- WMU, CMU, Toledo
BG- Toledo, Miami, Kent
Akron- Kent, UB, WMU
OU- Miami, UB, BALL
KENT- Akron, BG, UB
UB- Kent, Akron, OU
MIAMI- OU, Ball, BG

Or you're bad at scheduling.

You have WMU with BG as a rival, but then don't have WMU listed under BG's 3 rivals.

That too. FIXED... but not the best.

(06-15-2016 11:00 AM)niusfactuary Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 09:53 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  NIU- Toledo, Ball, CMU
CMU- WMU, EMU, NIU
WMU- CMU, EMU, Akron
BALL- NIU, Miami, OU
TOLEDO- BG, NIU, EMU
EMU- WMU, CMU, Toledo
BG- Toledo, Miami, Kent
Akron- Kent, UB, WMU
OU- Miami, UB, BALL
KENT- Akron, BG, UB
UB- Kent, Akron, OU
MIAMI- OU, Ball, BG

Or you're bad at scheduling.

You have WMU with BG as a rival, but then don't have WMU listed under BG's 3 rivals.

That too. FIXED... but not the best.

I would say Ohio's is more like Miami, Akron, Kent State...especially in men's basketball.

(06-15-2016 12:03 PM)bobcat_backer Wrote:  I would say Ohio's is more like Miami, Akron, Kent State...especially in men's basketball.

I'm inclined to agree. I don't have figures to support this, but I'd say a sizeable chunk of the OU alumnus base is either from or currently resides in northeast Ohio.

(06-15-2016 02:25 AM)NickleCity Wrote:  This format doesn't necessarily mean everyone's 3 rivals would need to be neat groups of 4. Teams could have 2 in common and one different.

Or only each other in common. These are not "pods", they are at the start the core rivals, and then filled out as needed so everyone has a set of regular games and then swap the others in and out.

So:

Kent/Akron
OhioU/MiamiU
Toledo/BGU
CMU/WMU/EMU

On geography, it'd make sense for NIU and Ball State to play, and for Buffalo / Kent State and Akron to play, so you start with:

Buffalo: Kent State, Akron
Kent State: Akron, Buffalo
Akron: Kent State, Buffalo
OhioU: MiamiU
MiamiU: OhioU
Bowling Green: Toledo
Toledo: Bowling Green
EMU: WMU, CMU
CMU: EMU, WMU
WMU: EMU, CMU
Ball State: NIU
NIU: Ball State

Then look for the other pairings that have attraction for one or another or, especially, both. Ball State and MiamiU have made some moves for regular playing (I figure what or in what sport), so maybe:

Buffalo: Kent State, Akron
Kent State: Akron, Buffalo
Akron: Kent State, Buffalo
OhioU: MiamiU
MiamiU: OhioU, Ball State
Bowling Green: Toledo
Toledo: Bowling Green
EMU: WMU, CMU
CMU: EMU, WMU
WMU: EMU, CMU
Ball State: NIU, MiamiU
NIU: Ball State

Note that if it started as above, the third for each of Buffalo, Kent State and Akron should be different then each other, to avoid making a pod.

Some of the pairings in the filled out one above make some sense, others less so, but the starting point should be some reasonably natural pairings first, and only round out to three all around once there is a solid skeleton that gives pairings that are appealing to each school.

(06-15-2016 02:25 AM)NickleCity Wrote:  This format doesn't necessarily mean everyone's 3 rivals would need to be neat groups of 4. Teams could have 2 in common and one different. That being said, it is posts like this and the other posts I've read about eliminating BBall divisions (the only place UB has made any inroads at building rivalries) that saddens me how after all these years, Buff is still an outsider in the MAC. Will we ever belong in this conference?

UB isn't an outside, but rivalries need 2 things-
1. important games
2. time

In regards to football UB has only had 2 winning seasons ('08,'13) since joining the MAC so there just haven't been enough opportunities for Buffalo to play in the type of games where rivalries are formed.

Time is the other key factor, Buffalo joined in 1999. 9 teams have been in the MAC for over 40yrs, 6 for over 60yrs. That's a lot of history, a lot of opportunities to form rivalries.

With that being said, Buffalo NIU and Ball St will all have a hard time developing a primary rival with any of the OH and MI schools because they all have rivalries that date back forever. Geography demands that Akron/Kent St and BGSU/Toledo will always be rivals and Ohio/Miami share a history that goes back +200yrs.

You can't pick a rival, it just sort of happens.

(06-16-2016 05:11 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 02:25 AM)NickleCity Wrote:  This format doesn't necessarily mean everyone's 3 rivals would need to be neat groups of 4. Teams could have 2 in common and one different. That being said, it is posts like this and the other posts I've read about eliminating BBall divisions (the only place UB has made any inroads at building rivalries) that saddens me how after all these years, Buff is still an outsider in the MAC. Will we ever belong in this conference?

UB isn't an outside, but rivalries need 2 things-
1. important games
2. time

In regards to football UB has only had 2 winning seasons ('08,'13) since joining the MAC so there just haven't been enough opportunities for Buffalo to play in the type of games where rivalries are formed.

Time is the other key factor, Buffalo joined in 1999. 9 teams have been in the MAC for over 40yrs, 6 for over 60yrs. That's a lot of history, a lot of opportunities to form rivalries.

With that being said, Buffalo NIU and Ball St will all have a hard time developing a primary rival with any of the OH and MI schools because they all have rivalries that date back forever. Geography demands that Akron/Kent St and BGSU/Toledo will always be rivals and Ohio/Miami share a history that goes back +200yrs.

You can't pick a rival, it just sort of happens.

NIU and Toledo is as natural of a non rivalry as you could think of. 10 times that winner has decided who goes to the MACC since 2000? Something of that sort. It's not geographical, but considering like 2 schools are closer?

(06-17-2016 01:52 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 05:11 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 02:25 AM)NickleCity Wrote:  This format doesn't necessarily mean everyone's 3 rivals would need to be neat groups of 4. Teams could have 2 in common and one different. That being said, it is posts like this and the other posts I've read about eliminating BBall divisions (the only place UB has made any inroads at building rivalries) that saddens me how after all these years, Buff is still an outsider in the MAC. Will we ever belong in this conference?

UB isn't an outside, but rivalries need 2 things-
1. important games
2. time

In regards to football UB has only had 2 winning seasons ('08,'13) since joining the MAC so there just haven't been enough opportunities for Buffalo to play in the type of games where rivalries are formed.

Time is the other key factor, Buffalo joined in 1999. 9 teams have been in the MAC for over 40yrs, 6 for over 60yrs. That's a lot of history, a lot of opportunities to form rivalries.

With that being said, Buffalo NIU and Ball St will all have a hard time developing a primary rival with any of the OH and MI schools because they all have rivalries that date back forever. Geography demands that Akron/Kent St and BGSU/Toledo will always be rivals and Ohio/Miami share a history that goes back +200yrs.

You can't pick a rival, it just sort of happens.

NIU and Toledo is as natural of a non rivalry as you could think of. 10 times that winner has decided who goes to the MACC since 2000? Something of that sort. It's not geographical, but considering like 2 schools are closer?

thats what Im saying, Toledo could very easily be NIU's primary rival but BGSU will always be Toledo's.

I think Kent would want to play Akron, BGSU, and Ohio. I think Buffalo makes a lot of sense too though it has not had time yet to really become something. Give it some time and perhaps it could be something...maybe.

(06-15-2016 01:16 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 12:03 PM)bobcat_backer Wrote:  I would say Ohio's is more like Miami, Akron, Kent State...especially in men's basketball.

I'm inclined to agree. I don't have figures to support this, but I'd say a sizeable chunk of the OU alumnus base is either from or currently resides in northeast Ohio.

At least a third of the alumni base.

Since we've been in the conference 70 years I view all MAC schools as rivals. There was a time where the fans would only get juiced for Miami but they do so for pretty much every MAC game at this point.