But it should be noted Akron's other 2 losses were were against a team that hasn't even lost a game yet (Gonzaga) and Creighton, who with a healthy Watson only loss was to Villanova. Nobody is going to hold those games against them or use them as a mark to not allow them in. Mid Tenn didn't have horrific losses, but they did lose to 4 teams that wouldn't have been sniffing the tournament had they not won their conference. You can only say that about 1 Akron loss so far and I suppose that number doubles to 2 if they lose in the conference championship.

I also wouldn't be surprised if Ohio or EMU climb into the top 100 before it's all said and done and for Akron Top 100 win total to climb to 4 (assuming they go 18-0 in MAC play).

I don't think the Gonzaga and Creighton losses hurt Akron, but they don't help. IIRC, Akron failed to even cover the spread in both games, which I doubt they dig deep enough to consider, nor should they, but both losses were expected and occurred so I don't see how they are a factor either way. I would doubt they look further into a single game like Gonzaga very far, especially past the score: it's a 18 point loss. There are lots of ways to get to final scores, but 18 point losses are pretty decisive. (I would also hate to be banking my hopes on not only running the table, but on Ga. Southern running the table, too.)

(01-27-2017 03:00 PM)axeme Wrote:  I don't think the Gonzaga and Creighton losses hurt Akron, but they don't help. IIRC, Akron failed to even cover the spread in both games, which I doubt they dig deep enough to consider, nor should they, but both losses were expected and occurred so I don't see how they are a factor either way. I would doubt they look further into a single game like Gonzaga very far, especially past the score: it's a 18 point loss. There are lots of ways to get to final scores, but 18 point losses are pretty decisive. (I would also hate to be banking my hopes on not only running the table, but on Ga. Southern running the table, too.)

"both losses were expected and occurred"
- The point I was making is Akron is 17-1 in games that were actually winnable. The lone slip up was back in November on the very 1st night of the season. They've beaten everyone else to date. Mid Tenn lost 4 games against teams the committee labeled were worse than at-large caliber. Akron has only lost to 1.

"I would also hate to be banking my hopes on not only running the table"
- It's pretty much the reason why a MAC team hasn't had an at-large bid since 1999. Any team would need to either run the table or come very damn close to doing it. That's assuming their OOC schedule didn't cripple them.

Edit: As I've stated before I don't think Akron will run the table, but I feel it is still useful to discuss what it would take for a MAC team to get in.

I said it before the MAC season started, but it still holds true. The only way a MAC team is getting an at large is to post a gaudy record. Akron could certainly still do that, but given the complete lack of top 50 wins and small number of top 100 wins, they need to completely run the table, and then of course for the at large discussion to be relevant, lose another game. In addition that game probably needs to be the MACC as they will pick up another win to get to the MACC, and their loss is likely to be to a better team than they will face in the first game of the tourney.

Without a doubt a 28-4 Akron team is in the heat of the discussion for an at large even if they don't ultimately get it. Akron (minus the YSU game) is sort of like WMU in football this year. Hard to really get an accurate read because they haven't really beat anyone that's good to legitimize them, but they haven't really lost to anyone that exposes them as pretenders either (ignoring YSU obviously).

As a side note, how much do Akron fans wish that the Bracket Buster still existed? It would give them an opportunity to get a high quality win a couple weeks before selection Sunday.

(01-27-2017 03:19 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 03:00 PM)axeme Wrote:  I don't think the Gonzaga and Creighton losses hurt Akron, but they don't help. IIRC, Akron failed to even cover the spread in both games, which I doubt they dig deep enough to consider, nor should they, but both losses were expected and occurred so I don't see how they are a factor either way. I would doubt they look further into a single game like Gonzaga very far, especially past the score: it's a 18 point loss. There are lots of ways to get to final scores, but 18 point losses are pretty decisive. (I would also hate to be banking my hopes on not only running the table, but on Ga. Southern running the table, too.)

"both losses were expected and occurred"
- The point I was making is Akron is 17-1 in games that were actually winnable. The lone slip up was back in November on the very 1st night of the season. They've beaten everyone else to date. Mid Tenn lost 4 games against teams the committee labeled were worse than at-large caliber. Akron has only lost to 1.

"I would also hate to be banking my hopes on not only running the table"
- It's pretty much the reason why a MAC team hasn't had an at-large bid since 1999. Any team would need to either run the table or come very damn close to doing it. That's assuming their OOC schedule didn't cripple them.

Edit: As I've stated before I don't think Akron will run the table, but I feel it is still useful to discuss what it would take for a MAC team to get in.

I was just reading an article about the MVC (Jerry Palm, for those who care) and how despite WSU and Illinois St. having pretty good seasons, the conference as a whole was so weak that it would most likely be a one bid league this season regardless of how they finish because of the lack of quality wins. There's just no replacing quality wins.

(01-27-2017 04:11 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 03:19 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 03:00 PM)axeme Wrote:  I don't think the Gonzaga and Creighton losses hurt Akron, but they don't help. IIRC, Akron failed to even cover the spread in both games, which I doubt they dig deep enough to consider, nor should they, but both losses were expected and occurred so I don't see how they are a factor either way. I would doubt they look further into a single game like Gonzaga very far, especially past the score: it's a 18 point loss. There are lots of ways to get to final scores, but 18 point losses are pretty decisive. (I would also hate to be banking my hopes on not only running the table, but on Ga. Southern running the table, too.)

"both losses were expected and occurred"
- The point I was making is Akron is 17-1 in games that were actually winnable. The lone slip up was back in November on the very 1st night of the season. They've beaten everyone else to date. Mid Tenn lost 4 games against teams the committee labeled were worse than at-large caliber. Akron has only lost to 1.

"I would also hate to be banking my hopes on not only running the table"
- It's pretty much the reason why a MAC team hasn't had an at-large bid since 1999. Any team would need to either run the table or come very damn close to doing it. That's assuming their OOC schedule didn't cripple them.

Edit: As I've stated before I don't think Akron will run the table, but I feel it is still useful to discuss what it would take for a MAC team to get in.

I was just reading an article about the MVC (Jerry Palm, for those who care) and how despite WSU and Illinois St. having pretty good seasons, the conference as a whole was so weak that it would most likely be a one bid league this season regardless of how they finish because of the lack of quality wins. There's just no replacing quality wins.

Stephen F. Austin is the team to finish with the best record and not make the tournament. They went 23-4 (if you exclude non D-1 games). Subtract the Adrian game Akron would be 29-4 if they were to run the table until the MACC. Stephen F Austin played the 295th ranked schedule while someone posted Akron's would be ~140 when all is said and done. You're arguing against history.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketba...-the-years

(01-27-2017 04:33 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 04:11 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 03:19 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 03:00 PM)axeme Wrote:  I don't think the Gonzaga and Creighton losses hurt Akron, but they don't help. IIRC, Akron failed to even cover the spread in both games, which I doubt they dig deep enough to consider, nor should they, but both losses were expected and occurred so I don't see how they are a factor either way. I would doubt they look further into a single game like Gonzaga very far, especially past the score: it's a 18 point loss. There are lots of ways to get to final scores, but 18 point losses are pretty decisive. (I would also hate to be banking my hopes on not only running the table, but on Ga. Southern running the table, too.)

"both losses were expected and occurred"
- The point I was making is Akron is 17-1 in games that were actually winnable. The lone slip up was back in November on the very 1st night of the season. They've beaten everyone else to date. Mid Tenn lost 4 games against teams the committee labeled were worse than at-large caliber. Akron has only lost to 1.

"I would also hate to be banking my hopes on not only running the table"
- It's pretty much the reason why a MAC team hasn't had an at-large bid since 1999. Any team would need to either run the table or come very damn close to doing it. That's assuming their OOC schedule didn't cripple them.

Edit: As I've stated before I don't think Akron will run the table, but I feel it is still useful to discuss what it would take for a MAC team to get in.

I was just reading an article about the MVC (Jerry Palm, for those who care) and how despite WSU and Illinois St. having pretty good seasons, the conference as a whole was so weak that it would most likely be a one bid league this season regardless of how they finish because of the lack of quality wins. There's just no replacing quality wins.

Stephen F. Austin is the team to finish with the best record and not make the tournament. They went 23-4 (if you exclude non D-1 games). Subtract the Adrian game Akron would be 29-4 if they were to run the table until the MACC. Stephen F Austin played the 295th ranked schedule while someone posted Akron's would be ~140 when all is said and done. You're arguing against history.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketba...-the-years

OK, but you are pointing out teams like SFA and Drexel, etc. that didn't make the tourney. What I would like to see are non-majors that made it in as at-larges without a single quality win, and no wins vs. even lesser power 6 conference teams. Would Akron be the first? (I don't have the schedule nearby--did Akron play any power 6 teams besides Creighton?)

I don't think the metric of the raw number of wins or few losses is as important as you think.

(01-26-2017 01:58 PM)axeme Wrote:  The MAC's at-large ship sailed away in December. There is no path to an at-large resume for anyone because there are no quality wins available now and no one got any OOC. A gaudy W-L record loses out when it gets examined for wins vs. tourney quality teams and there are none. Teams are better off with some shaky losses if it shows that it can beat a ranked or top 40 type team or two along the way.

I think that you are being far too generous. IMHO the MAC at-large ship sailed away around the beginning of the new millennium when an at-large bid became too lucrative thanks to TV dollars to waste on a mid-major school when there were so many "deserving" major programs out there with 10-12 "good" losses.

Well, non-majors do get bids and the formula is fairly straightforward. The MAC 's biggest problem is that it needs to get better relative to its peers. Beat top 50 teams. Show you belong. Anything else is just so much bull**** trying to game the system with teams that really aren't all that good.

(01-27-2017 05:28 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 04:33 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 04:11 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 03:19 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 03:00 PM)axeme Wrote:  I don't think the Gonzaga and Creighton losses hurt Akron, but they don't help. IIRC, Akron failed to even cover the spread in both games, which I doubt they dig deep enough to consider, nor should they, but both losses were expected and occurred so I don't see how they are a factor either way. I would doubt they look further into a single game like Gonzaga very far, especially past the score: it's a 18 point loss. There are lots of ways to get to final scores, but 18 point losses are pretty decisive. (I would also hate to be banking my hopes on not only running the table, but on Ga. Southern running the table, too.)

"both losses were expected and occurred"
- The point I was making is Akron is 17-1 in games that were actually winnable. The lone slip up was back in November on the very 1st night of the season. They've beaten everyone else to date. Mid Tenn lost 4 games against teams the committee labeled were worse than at-large caliber. Akron has only lost to 1.

"I would also hate to be banking my hopes on not only running the table"
- It's pretty much the reason why a MAC team hasn't had an at-large bid since 1999. Any team would need to either run the table or come very damn close to doing it. That's assuming their OOC schedule didn't cripple them.

Edit: As I've stated before I don't think Akron will run the table, but I feel it is still useful to discuss what it would take for a MAC team to get in.

I was just reading an article about the MVC (Jerry Palm, for those who care) and how despite WSU and Illinois St. having pretty good seasons, the conference as a whole was so weak that it would most likely be a one bid league this season regardless of how they finish because of the lack of quality wins. There's just no replacing quality wins.

Stephen F. Austin is the team to finish with the best record and not make the tournament. They went 23-4 (if you exclude non D-1 games). Subtract the Adrian game Akron would be 29-4 if they were to run the table until the MACC. Stephen F Austin played the 295th ranked schedule while someone posted Akron's would be ~140 when all is said and done. You're arguing against history.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketba...-the-years

OK, but you are pointing out teams like SFA and Drexel, etc. that didn't make the tourney. What I would like to see are non-majors that made it in as at-larges without a single quality win, and no wins vs. even lesser power 6 conference teams. Would Akron be the first? (I don't have the schedule nearby--did Akron play any power 6 teams besides Creighton?)

I don't think the metric of the raw number of wins or few losses is as important as you think.

I agree quality wins matter. I unlike you however feel there is an absurd win total which would just be too big to ignore. It's not like the MAC is the Southland and it's not like they scheduled 13 MEAC schools OOC. In fact most of their wins would be against in or around the top 50% of college basketball and would be an above average SOS overall. Mid Tenn got in with 1 top win and it was ~45, barely inside the top 50 which is your magical cutoff. If any other MAC team takes off Akron could have as many as 4 top 4 wins.

Of course there is no realistic scenario. Akron would have to run the table in my estimation which RPIForecast gives them a 1% chance of doing.

I also feel this years bubble is extremely weak.

Palm thinks it will be a very rough year for non-big 6 at large teams: outside of the two WCC teams, he currently sees both the MVC and A-10 as one bid leagues for the first time in many, many years. Can't even remember the last time both had no at larges. Lunardi is a bit more generous.

(01-27-2017 07:47 PM)axeme Wrote:  Palm thinks it will be a very rough year for non-big 6 at large teams: outside of the two WCC teams, he currently sees both the MVC and A-10 as one bid leagues for the first time in many, many years. Can't even remember the last time both had no at larges. Lunardi is a bit more generous.

MVC and A-10 aren't necessarily one bid leagues, depending on who gets the auto. Dayton likely has a good enough resume for an at large. MVC should have ISU and WSU in IMO, but who knows how it all pans out.

There is literally talks of as many as 11 AAC teams and only 3 SEC teams. That means there would be ACC teams with losing conference records that get the nod. This week kind of saw some bubble area teams pull off upsets, but for the most part I feel the top teams have dominated and the middle to bottom parts of the P6 have beat up on one another. As you said it's even a down year for the A10 and MVC. That's why I said I feel the bubble is weak.

(Beware, the following post contains extreme homerism)

I will say UB has finally put it together. After a horrendous beginning, winners of 4 of the last 6, both loses on the road by 1 point, one of which was in Akron no less. 5 of last 8 are at home. Home court in Buffalo isn't what it was when I was a student but I project UB a top 3 and getting Akron with Big Dog playing day 3 and right into UB's hands.