CSNbbs

MAC finishes 8th, ahead of MWC, SunBelt and C-USA.

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_...p-rankings

(12-06-2012 09:20 AM)exCincy Kid Wrote: [ -> ]MAC finishes 8th, ahead of MWC, SunBelt and C-USA.

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_...p-rankings

What I find amazing is that as the WAC implodes as a conference it wins on the field.

Bowling Green and Toledo get to play the only 2 teams from the WAC that are in a bowl game.

If NIU and Kent are #1 and #2 in the MAC...and a good case could be made for Ball St as the #3, then we have our #4 and #5 teams going up against their two best.

Sign me up, I like our chances.


I do wish we had matchups with the BE. Ranking them ahead of the MAC is somewhat questionable.

(12-06-2012 09:39 AM)EA3 Wrote: [ -> ]I do wish we had matchups with the BE. Ranking them ahead of the MAC is somewhat questionable.

Yeah, I'm not sure how that fell out.

Anyway, are there any more questions of how UMass hurt the conference?

Quote:The WAC finished the year ranked ahead of both the Big East and the MAC. Although the top of the MAC is strong -- as indicated by Northern Illinois’ berth in a BCS bowl game and the thrilling MAC championship game -- the bottom of the conference struggled. Six of its 13 teams did not win more than four games, which brought down its overall ranking as a conference.

I thought only the top of the conference mattered?

(12-06-2012 10:23 AM)The Optimist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:The WAC finished the year ranked ahead of both the Big East and the MAC. Although the top of the MAC is strong -- as indicated by Northern Illinois’ berth in a BCS bowl game and the thrilling MAC championship game -- the bottom of the conference struggled. Six of its 13 teams did not win more than four games, which brought down its overall ranking as a conference.

I thought only the top of the conference mattered?

It does. ESPN has to justify their BS somehow though.

The more teams a conference has, the more teams it will have with very few wins. That's just the way it is. Comparing the WAC and the MAC you have to consider the number of teams in each conference. Of course the MAC is going to have more bottom-feeders.

I just concluded an exhaustive study of every conference going back over the last decade and have determined that the bottom teams in every conference lose a whole lot more games than they win.

My conclusion: if every conference would drop these losers, every team in the conference would have a winning record.

Thank you.

The MACC causes the MAC a -0.8 drop in its rating. Huh?

(12-06-2012 12:15 PM)Okie Chippewa Wrote: [ -> ]The MACC causes the MAC a -0.8 drop in its rating. Huh?

This

(12-06-2012 12:14 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]I just concluded an exhaustive study of every conference going back over the last decade and have determined that the bottom teams in every conference lose a whole lot more games than they win.

My conclusion: if every conference would drop these losers, every team in the conference would have a winning record.

Thank you.

jackpot right there

(12-06-2012 12:27 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2012 12:15 PM)Okie Chippewa Wrote: [ -> ]The MACC causes the MAC a -0.8 drop in its rating. Huh?

This

Top two teams only managed to achieve a combined .500 record last week.

(12-06-2012 10:23 AM)The Optimist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:The WAC finished the year ranked ahead of both the Big East and the MAC. Although the top of the MAC is strong -- as indicated by Northern Illinois’ berth in a BCS bowl game and the thrilling MAC championship game -- the bottom of the conference struggled. Six of its 13 teams did not win more than four games, which brought down its overall ranking as a conference.

I thought only the top of the conference mattered?

Well the BE did have 4 first place teams, we only had one.

Also, their last place team came in 8th, ours came in 13th. So, well, we can all follow that logic.

(12-06-2012 12:14 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]I just concluded an exhaustive study of every conference going back over the last decade and have determined that the bottom teams in every conference lose a whole lot more games than they win.

My conclusion: if every conference would drop these losers, every team in the conference would have a winning record.

Thank you.

Any studies on OOC records during this time?

(12-06-2012 01:20 PM)CMUprof Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2012 10:23 AM)The Optimist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:The WAC finished the year ranked ahead of both the Big East and the MAC. Although the top of the MAC is strong -- as indicated by Northern Illinois’ berth in a BCS bowl game and the thrilling MAC championship game -- the bottom of the conference struggled. Six of its 13 teams did not win more than four games, which brought down its overall ranking as a conference.

I thought only the top of the conference mattered?

Well the BE did have 4 first place teams, we only had one.

Also, their last place team came in 8th, ours came in 13th. So, well, we can all follow that logic.

That truly is ESPN logic.

(12-06-2012 09:50 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2012 09:39 AM)EA3 Wrote: [ -> ]I do wish we had matchups with the BE. Ranking them ahead of the MAC is somewhat questionable.

Yeah, I'm not sure how that fell out.

Anyway, are there any more questions of how UMass hurt the conference?

We helped more teams in the MAC to be bowl eligible.

(12-06-2012 09:50 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ][quote='EA3' pid='8656355' dateline='1354804784']

I do wish we had matchups with the BE. Ranking them ahead of the MAC is somewhat questionable.

Yeah, I'm not sure how that fell out.

Anyway, are there any more questions of how UMass hurt the conference?

Sorry we dragged the mac down in our transitional year, especially with our ooc schedule. What the f*** did u expect? Akron must of been the glue that kept the conference rated so highly this year. Your hard-on for UMass has been duly noted throughout the year.

(12-06-2012 12:08 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote: [ -> ]The more teams a conference has, the more teams it will have with very few wins. That's just the way it is. Comparing the WAC and the MAC you have to consider the number of teams in each conference. Of course the MAC is going to have more bottom-feeders.

The MAC's top 6 would win a majority of games played agasint all Non-AQ conferences top 6 and those from the Big East and ACC.

KAUMASS, can you image what it will be like the day we beat Bowling Green (-:
Perhaps in 2015, just the same will have our fun.

We would have been 3-5 in the CAA this year. Wasn't our best year in regards to talent to move up a division. Frustrating year in terms of records and a few blow-outs, and then on top of that get some heckling from a guy from Bowling Green, none the less. Go figure. We will have our day and I won't be torching anyone at that point, although deserving.

(12-06-2012 05:17 PM)Steve1981 Wrote: [ -> ]KAUMASS, can you image what it will be like the day we beat Bowling Green (-:
Perhaps in 2015, just the same will have our fun.