(03-07-2017 08:49 PM)axeme Wrote: Could you guys give me a recent example of a mid-major team with 4+ losses and without a quality non-conference win who got an at-large? I just don't see it happening.
Like Kreed said, one doesn't exist. I think you are hoping to bait one of us into saying "Murray State" in 2010.
While Murray State likely would've been left out, since they only got a 13 seed after winning the OVC. But the OVC is still a tier below the MAC, so not quite apples to apples.
And there was a lot of talk heading into that OVC championship game about the bubble teams needing to be rooting against Morehead State.
Overall, though, that Murray State example probably only strengthens the argument for a 30-win MAC team getting in. If Murray State lost, they likely would've been NIT bound. That Murray State team only went on to beat No. 4 seeded Vanderbilt in the first round and then lost a nail-biter to a Butler team that ended up 2 points away from a national championship.
A bit closer to home, Kent in 2008 definitely would've been a tournament team even if they lost to Akron in the MAC title game. No way they go from a No. 9 to out of the tournament.
And outside of a win against St. Mary's in the bracket buster (something I think we all agree needs to come back, but won't because the high majors don't want it), Kent's resume wasn't awe-inspiring. ... A couple other nice wins against George Mason and Illinois State, but Kent did suffer three MAC losses. While Akron wouldn't have had any three wins as good as those three for Kent, we were talking about Akron going 18-0 in league play, not 13-3. So, there could have been some precedent there.
Whatever, nobody from the MAC is getting an at-large, but the argument that the MAC can never get a team an at-large unless they pick up some quality non-conference wins is short-sighted.
Once a MAC team goes 30-4 and misses, then I'll buy that there is no way a MAC team can get an at-large without some quality wins.