(12-07-2012 07:50 AM)axeme Wrote:  My God, we are bragging about "potential wins" in games already lost. That's all you need to know about the state of the MAC this year. That's the point--the top of the MAC is not doing much. How is the MAC better this year than its been? It isn't, despite some pre-season expectations.

KSU not being a top team this year has absolutely nothing to do with the football and basketball budgets and everything to do with graduation of 2/3 of the team. There is so little experience on the floor this season, it will be a very up and down year. If KSU is better next year, it won't be because the budget has changed no more than this year can be seen as the fault of the budget.

I agree that Akron and Ohio will be the best two teams in the MAC for this season, but that may be damning with faint praise. They look like the best MAC teams do most years: outside the bubble. If Akron wants to be considered a good team beyond just good relative to the MAC, they have to start winning games against tough competition, maybe even winning an NCAA tourney game sometime in Dambrot's tenure. Who is left on the schedule OOC? Creighton? Must win. There is not a resume win left OOC. So come March, no matter how good Akron or Ohio look compared to the rest of what looks to be a very weak MAC, what do you have? How is this season different from any other season in the last 8 years? Our bad teams are bad and our good teams are not all that good compared to our mid-major peers.

I was hardly bragging about "potential wins", but rather putting things into perspective. Part of the "why is the MAC down" talk centers around Akron (and Ohio) already having two losses. I'll put it like this. If Zeke Marshall hits a free throw in the last minute and Akron wins that game, what does that say about the MAC? Nothing overall, but it would've been the league's No. 2 team by preseason rankings, beating what is a top 20 team without two of its top 6 players.

And using the Kent losing 2/3 of its roster as an example, Akron played the first three games of the season without 5 of the top 8 from last year, and that includes the OT loss to Oklahoma State ... Again, going off the Kent example, Akron was down Cvetnovic (graduation), McClanahan (graduation), Diggs (suspended for the year), Harney (suspended for three games) and Treadwell (suspended for three games). Despite not having 5/8 of its roster from last season, the Zips still played that top 20 team to OT.

And again, does a "what is wrong with the MAC thread" even exist if one of the two teams (Ohio and Akron) anybody thought had a chance in the tournament was beating high-majors? Probably not.

Even with Ohio and Akron's losses, it's still way too early to question what is wrong with the league (or OU or Akron), when it was apparent at the beginning of the year it was a two-horse race between those two schools to begin with. Both have suffered disappointing losses, but both will be in the mix come March.

Overall, I agree with the premise that the MAC is down. But that is due to what I said to begin my last post: It has to do with the money.

Akron and Ohio are the only two schools in the league that have been serious about upgrading their programs. And the results still speak for themselves ... Ohio has won multiple tournament games in the past three years and just landed a coach from what is now a "BCS program", who has had success in the MAC. Akron kept its coach away from an A-10 program in Duquesne that was offering him 600,000 per year (of course part of it had to do with Dambrot's loyalty to Akron, but it didn't come without reassurances from UA that he would have the resources needed to compete on a big stage) ... And look at the class he coming in as proof. The players Akron landed, in years past, would've been headed to bigger leagues ... Same can be said for Ohio. The Bobcats have also upgraded their recruiting.

Until the rest of the league steps up, this is a question that can be put on here every year. It's just seems like it was convenient to put up here when the only two teams everybody knew were the only contenders dropped a couple of early-season games.

Akron is just fine. Ohio is just fine. The rest of the league, and it's no secret, needs to step up. .. and that means investing in the basketball programs.

As for Kent, I can't pull up specific numbers, but I remember reading an article (I believe by Elton Alexander of the Cleveland Plain Dealer) that went into Kent's football vs. basketball spending, and how the basketball program has been left in the dust.

Does simply spending alone have to do with what seems to be a "down year" (by Kent's standards)? Not completely. But if the university has started to redirect more money to the football program at the expense of the basketball program, it could be part of the reason why Kent hasn't been able to build the depth necessary to simply reload (like it had done in the past) even after losing "2/3 of its team".

My point stands, it's all about the money, and only two schools in this league are spending near the level it takes to compete with the other top mid-major programs.

I never suggested that the MAC is down because Akron and Ohio have two losses. It's because neither has any good wins. It's all about how good are the teams you actually do beat. You don't lose a game just because one guy misses a FT, although it makes it seem like it. You lose a close game because of thirty things the team didn't do right. The missed layups, the unforced turnovers, the missed switches, the poor shot selection. In other words, the things better teams do to win games.
Like EMU beating Purdue.

So I'm not sure what mix you are referring to that you say Akron and Ohio will be in come March. In my view, due to their OOC performance this season, it will be the same mix every team in every conference ranked about 15th to 30th will be in: win your conference tourney and take a crapshoot from a bad seed in the NCAA.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point: are you saying Ohio and Akron still both have shots at at-large bids? If so, I disagree. I don't see the OOC résumés typically required of bubble teams. If you are not suggesting at-large potential, then we are really just quibbling about a very small, and not that significant a point. All I am saying is that the best teams in the conference, once again, are not all that good compared to what other mid-major conferences offer. Waiting for the bottom teams to catch up and push the conference forward is a fool's errand, IMHO.


And FYI:
Here are the basketball budgets for the MAC and how they rank nationally.

Quote:Rk MBB Expenses (2011) School

127 $2,162,046 Ohio
146 $1,924,397 Akron
164 $1,693,113 Toledo
175 $1,612,454 Western Michigan
178 $1,602,431 Kent State
184 $1,546,817 Northern Illinois
194 $1,484,331 Miami (Oh.)
197 $1,461,759 Central Michigan
223 $1,325,333 Buffalo
226 $1,307,644 Eastern Michigan
234 $1,261,779 Ball State
251 $1,145,144 Bowling Green

As you can see, the difference in the top 6 budgets above is not that significant, especially when you see how it stacks up against the rest of the country, and once you take out the head coaches' salaries (OU and Akron have the highest paid HC's, and deservedly so) there is very little that separates the top 6 programs budget-wise. We surely can agree that Buffalo, EMU, Ball St. and especially BG need to increase their commitment to mens' basketball, though there is little evidence of which of those schools have the will to do that. Maybe none. I suspect MAC basketball will continue as it has for the last decade: I don't see a great influx of money coming in.

Akron and Ohio have the best teams this season. Extrapolating future seasons from that would not show much understanding of the nature of college basketball, let alone MAC basketball.

Finally, I am baffled that you think there is a comparison between the number of key players Akron brought back this season and the number Kent brought back. I am not even sure how to address that because the way you must look at basketball is very different from what I see. KSU returns Holt and Evans, one of which was a starter and virtually no other key players. Akron brought back how many who played significant minutes last year? You would not be picked to finish 2nd if you only brought back Alex and Zeke and were trying to fill the rest of the lineup with new guys and a couple of marginal returners. I am not sure what you are seeing.

axe
Stop educating the guy. You are spot on.

(12-09-2012 06:31 AM)axeme Wrote:  I never suggested that the MAC is down because Akron and Ohio have two losses. It's because neither has any good wins. It's all about how good are the teams you actually do beat. You don't lose a game just because one guy misses a FT, although it makes it seem like it. You lose a close game because of thirty things the team didn't do right. The missed layups, the unforced turnovers, the missed switches, the poor shot selection. In other words, the things better teams do to win games.
Like EMU beating Purdue.

So I'm not sure what mix you are referring to that you say Akron and Ohio will be in come March. In my view, due to their OOC performance this season, it will be the same mix every team in every conference ranked about 15th to 30th will be in: win your conference tourney and take a crapshoot from a bad seed in the NCAA.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point: are you saying Ohio and Akron still both have shots at at-large bids? If so, I disagree. I don't see the OOC résumés typically required of bubble teams. If you are not suggesting at-large potential, then we are really just quibbling about a very small, and not that significant a point. All I am saying is that the best teams in the conference, once again, are not all that good compared to what other mid-major conferences offer. Waiting for the bottom teams to catch up and push the conference forward is a fool's errand, IMHO.


And FYI:
Here are the basketball budgets for the MAC and how they rank nationally.

Quote:Rk MBB Expenses (2011) School

127 $2,162,046 Ohio
146 $1,924,397 Akron
164 $1,693,113 Toledo
175 $1,612,454 Western Michigan
178 $1,602,431 Kent State
184 $1,546,817 Northern Illinois
194 $1,484,331 Miami (Oh.)
197 $1,461,759 Central Michigan
223 $1,325,333 Buffalo
226 $1,307,644 Eastern Michigan
234 $1,261,779 Ball State
251 $1,145,144 Bowling Green

As you can see, the difference in the top 6 budgets above is not that significant, especially when you see how it stacks up against the rest of the country, and once you take out the head coaches' salaries (OU and Akron have the highest paid HC's, and deservedly so) there is very little that separates the top 6 programs budget-wise. We surely can agree that Buffalo, EMU, Ball St. and especially BG need to increase their commitment to mens' basketball, though there is little evidence of which of those schools have the will to do that. Maybe none. I suspect MAC basketball will continue as it has for the last decade: I don't see a great influx of money coming in.

Akron and Ohio have the best teams this season. Extrapolating future seasons from that would not show much understanding of the nature of college basketball, let alone MAC basketball.

Finally, I am baffled that you think there is a comparison between the number of key players Akron brought back this season and the number Kent brought back. I am not even sure how to address that because the way you must look at basketball is very different from what I see. KSU returns Holt and Evans, one of which was a starter and virtually no other key players. Akron brought back how many who played significant minutes last year? You would not be picked to finish 2nd if you only brought back Alex and Zeke and were trying to fill the rest of the lineup with new guys and a couple of marginal returners. I am not sure what you are seeing.

First of all, good post. I agree with much of what you said, though I'll stick to what I said about both Akron and Ohio having a chance to make a run in March. Despite both teams' struggles (all being either on the road, or playing short-handed), I'll stick with my thought that either can potentially make a Sweet 16 run (something MAC fans of the past want to hang the conference hat on in the 90s) on a neutral court.

Despite some losses to some top 20 teams (I agree no wins, either), but beating top 20 teams in the regular season also doesn't always equate to tourney success, either. Just looking at the talent level of Ohio and Akron, I still believe those are the two best teams in the league, and either are as dangerous come tourney time as any other mid-major conference champ that isn't an at-large lock.

Overall, We are definitely bickering over that non-significant point that you brought up. No way am I advocating that either Akron or Ohio (outside running the rest of the table and losing to the other in the MAC title game), deserve any at-large consideration. Just not feasible. True, not having an at-large contender brings out the "what's wrong with the MAC talk." But when looking at the past, it's really no different than what it has been.

However, like you,I wonder how can the MAC get better?

That is investing in the programs. While that chart you showed is a good gauge (and much appreciated) how much does that, percentage-wise, change from say 2-3 years ago? I don't know for sure, but I imagine that Akron and Ohio are way up, while the other schools are stagnant or down (in Kent's case). So that's where my saying that both Ohio and Akron, who have both recruited well, will continue to get better in comparison to the rest of the league comes into play, unless there is a shift in money. Also are Ohio and Akron at their peak when it comes to investments in basketball compared to the rest of the league?

P.S. Also, I'm not sure how you are "baffled" by me pointing out Akron not having 2/3 of last year's roster for the first three games (two losses) was any different than Kent not having 2/3 of its roster in that same period to begin the season. It's simple mathematics.

Anyway, don't really want to debate that. I think both of us as MAC fans want to see this league become as best as possible. Especially, now that it appears the MAC is as stable as any non-BCS league that offers football (lets all hope for a big bowl season that leads for more money to all our teams' sports). Hopefully, that will lead to not only football money, but also improving everybody's basketball programs.

(12-07-2012 07:53 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:50 AM)axeme Wrote:  come March, no matter how good Akron or Ohio look compared to the rest of what looks to be a very weak MAC, what do you have? How is this season different from any other season in the last 8 years? Our bad teams are bad and our good teams are not all that good compared to our mid-major peers.

What? How many of our mid-major peers have won multiple tournament games the last 3 years?

I still stress that March is the most important factor for evaluating mid-major success on the national level.

(12-11-2012 09:22 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:53 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:50 AM)axeme Wrote:  come March, no matter how good Akron or Ohio look compared to the rest of what looks to be a very weak MAC, what do you have? How is this season different from any other season in the last 8 years? Our bad teams are bad and our good teams are not all that good compared to our mid-major peers.

What? How many of our mid-major peers have won multiple tournament games the last 3 years?

I still stress that March is the most important factor for evaluating mid-major success on the national level.

For individual teams...yes.

For a conference as a whole...yes, but to a much lessor extent.

Ohio's run last year was nice...but until we have teams that can win in the Big Dance on a semi-regular basis...or get multiple bids...our national perception really won't change much.


Don't take this the wrong way, but I am rooting for Ohio to go 27-3 and lose in the MAC tournament. I'm hoping that will get them an at large bid and we will have 2 teams in the tournament for the first time in over a decade.

(12-11-2012 09:22 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:53 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:50 AM)axeme Wrote:  come March, no matter how good Akron or Ohio look compared to the rest of what looks to be a very weak MAC, what do you have? How is this season different from any other season in the last 8 years? Our bad teams are bad and our good teams are not all that good compared to our mid-major peers.

What? How many of our mid-major peers have won multiple tournament games the last 3 years?

I still stress that March is the most important factor for evaluating mid-major success on the national level.

And basketball is a coach's game. The MAC currently has no coaches who have ever won an NCAA game as head coach.

(12-11-2012 10:17 AM)EA3 Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 09:22 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:53 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:50 AM)axeme Wrote:  come March, no matter how good Akron or Ohio look compared to the rest of what looks to be a very weak MAC, what do you have? How is this season different from any other season in the last 8 years? Our bad teams are bad and our good teams are not all that good compared to our mid-major peers.

What? How many of our mid-major peers have won multiple tournament games the last 3 years?

I still stress that March is the most important factor for evaluating mid-major success on the national level.

For individual teams...yes.

For a conference as a whole...yes, but to a much lessor extent.

Ohio's run last year was nice...but until we have teams that can win in the Big Dance on a semi-regular basis...or get multiple bids...our national perception really won't change much.


Don't take this the wrong way, but I am rooting for Ohio to go 27-3 and lose in the MAC tournament. I'm hoping that will get them an at large bid and we will have 2 teams in the tournament for the first time in over a decade.

To whom would you like them to lose in the MAC Tournament? And who to whom is the third regular season loss?

(12-11-2012 12:40 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 10:17 AM)EA3 Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 09:22 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:53 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:50 AM)axeme Wrote:  come March, no matter how good Akron or Ohio look compared to the rest of what looks to be a very weak MAC, what do you have? How is this season different from any other season in the last 8 years? Our bad teams are bad and our good teams are not all that good compared to our mid-major peers.

What? How many of our mid-major peers have won multiple tournament games the last 3 years?

I still stress that March is the most important factor for evaluating mid-major success on the national level.

For individual teams...yes.

For a conference as a whole...yes, but to a much lessor extent.

Ohio's run last year was nice...but until we have teams that can win in the Big Dance on a semi-regular basis...or get multiple bids...our national perception really won't change much.


Don't take this the wrong way, but I am rooting for Ohio to go 27-3 and lose in the MAC tournament. I'm hoping that will get them an at large bid and we will have 2 teams in the tournament for the first time in over a decade.

To whom would you like them to lose in the MAC Tournament? And who to whom is the third regular season loss?

Wish list? Or reality?

I'm as biased as they come! :)

Thought I would bring this thread back up, because later tonight and tomorrow are huge games for both Akron and Ohio (and the MAC).

An Akron win and they are likely ranked in the top 25 in the coaches poll. If Ohio wins at Belmont, with the number of teams in the 20-35 range losing, the Bobcats have a shot at landing some votes in the coaches poll (I'm 99 percent sure they will at least get one ... Keith Dambrot).

That would lead to a 12-0 top 25 team going to an 11-1 and others receiving votes team in late February. When was the last time the MAC had that happen in hoops?

Granted, now that I bring this up, both Akron and Ohio will probably lose, lol. But if both win, what has really gone wrong with the MAC?

Oh and BTW, is it coincidence that the top four spending teams in the MAC also are the top four teams? Or that the teams that spend 15-20 percent more than any other school, are far and away the top two?

(12-09-2012 06:31 AM)axeme Wrote:  I never suggested that the MAC is down because Akron and Ohio have two losses. It's because neither has any good wins. It's all about how good are the teams you actually do beat. You don't lose a game just because one guy misses a FT, although it makes it seem like it. You lose a close game because of thirty things the team didn't do right. The missed layups, the unforced turnovers, the missed switches, the poor shot selection. In other words, the things better teams do to win games.
Like EMU beating Purdue.

So I'm not sure what mix you are referring to that you say Akron and Ohio will be in come March. In my view, due to their OOC performance this season, it will be the same mix every team in every conference ranked about 15th to 30th will be in: win your conference tourney and take a crapshoot from a bad seed in the NCAA.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point: are you saying Ohio and Akron still both have shots at at-large bids? If so, I disagree. I don't see the OOC résumés typically required of bubble teams. If you are not suggesting at-large potential, then we are really just quibbling about a very small, and not that significant a point. All I am saying is that the best teams in the conference, once again, are not all that good compared to what other mid-major conferences offer. Waiting for the bottom teams to catch up and push the conference forward is a fool's errand, IMHO.


And FYI:
Here are the basketball budgets for the MAC and how they rank nationally.

Quote:Rk MBB Expenses (2011) School

127 $2,162,046 Ohio
146 $1,924,397 Akron
164 $1,693,113 Toledo
175 $1,612,454 Western Michigan
178 $1,602,431 Kent State
184 $1,546,817 Northern Illinois
194 $1,484,331 Miami (Oh.)
197 $1,461,759 Central Michigan
223 $1,325,333 Buffalo
226 $1,307,644 Eastern Michigan
234 $1,261,779 Ball State
251 $1,145,144 Bowling Green

As you can see, the difference in the top 6 budgets above is not that significant, especially when you see how it stacks up against the rest of the country, and once you take out the head coaches' salaries (OU and Akron have the highest paid HC's, and deservedly so) there is very little that separates the top 6 programs budget-wise. We surely can agree that Buffalo, EMU, Ball St. and especially BG need to increase their commitment to mens' basketball, though there is little evidence of which of those schools have the will to do that. Maybe none. I suspect MAC basketball will continue as it has for the last decade: I don't see a great influx of money coming in.

Akron and Ohio have the best teams this season. Extrapolating future seasons from that would not show much understanding of the nature of college basketball, let alone MAC basketball.

Finally, I am baffled that you think there is a comparison between the number of key players Akron brought back this season and the number Kent brought back. I am not even sure how to address that because the way you must look at basketball is very different from what I see. KSU returns Holt and Evans, one of which was a starter and virtually no other key players. Akron brought back how many who played significant minutes last year? You would not be picked to finish 2nd if you only brought back Alex and Zeke and were trying to fill the rest of the lineup with new guys and a couple of marginal returners. I am not sure what you are seeing.

Just for some perspective, in the Missouri Valley, Wichita State State spends close to 4mil per year on bball and Creighton spends close to 5mill per year. I've heard both Illinois State and University of Northern Iowa spend close to 3mill on bball. I don't know about the other schools.

I'm not astute enough to know the real answer but it does seem as some have already identified that money seems to be the root cause. It would seem that FBS football does pull resources away from basketball.

I wonder how the MWC has success in both football and basketball?

NIU's trying to recover from bad coaching. Also, trying to recruit in Chicago is very funky from all accounts, and that would be the most sensible area to recruit from otherwise. Our facility is relatively new and is fine, though we have no attendance to speak of after so many years of losing. Has to be hard to attract recruits that want to play in front of large crowds.

No one cares what happens at Millett, that's the problem at Miami. If our hockey team started losing like basketball has for many years now, there'd be an uproar and Enrico Blasi would be under some heat. Walk about twenty minutes north, and a blowout loss to NIU is brushed over like it never even happened.

(02-22-2013 10:16 AM)Waterford Rider Wrote:  

(12-09-2012 06:31 AM)axeme Wrote:  I never suggested that the MAC is down because Akron and Ohio have two losses. It's because neither has any good wins. It's all about how good are the teams you actually do beat. You don't lose a game just because one guy misses a FT, although it makes it seem like it. You lose a close game because of thirty things the team didn't do right. The missed layups, the unforced turnovers, the missed switches, the poor shot selection. In other words, the things better teams do to win games.
Like EMU beating Purdue.

So I'm not sure what mix you are referring to that you say Akron and Ohio will be in come March. In my view, due to their OOC performance this season, it will be the same mix every team in every conference ranked about 15th to 30th will be in: win your conference tourney and take a crapshoot from a bad seed in the NCAA.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point: are you saying Ohio and Akron still both have shots at at-large bids? If so, I disagree. I don't see the OOC résumés typically required of bubble teams. If you are not suggesting at-large potential, then we are really just quibbling about a very small, and not that significant a point. All I am saying is that the best teams in the conference, once again, are not all that good compared to what other mid-major conferences offer. Waiting for the bottom teams to catch up and push the conference forward is a fool's errand, IMHO.


And FYI:
Here are the basketball budgets for the MAC and how they rank nationally.

Quote:Rk MBB Expenses (2011) School

127 $2,162,046 Ohio
146 $1,924,397 Akron
164 $1,693,113 Toledo
175 $1,612,454 Western Michigan
178 $1,602,431 Kent State
184 $1,546,817 Northern Illinois
194 $1,484,331 Miami (Oh.)
197 $1,461,759 Central Michigan
223 $1,325,333 Buffalo
226 $1,307,644 Eastern Michigan
234 $1,261,779 Ball State
251 $1,145,144 Bowling Green

As you can see, the difference in the top 6 budgets above is not that significant, especially when you see how it stacks up against the rest of the country, and once you take out the head coaches' salaries (OU and Akron have the highest paid HC's, and deservedly so) there is very little that separates the top 6 programs budget-wise. We surely can agree that Buffalo, EMU, Ball St. and especially BG need to increase their commitment to mens' basketball, though there is little evidence of which of those schools have the will to do that. Maybe none. I suspect MAC basketball will continue as it has for the last decade: I don't see a great influx of money coming in.

Akron and Ohio have the best teams this season. Extrapolating future seasons from that would not show much understanding of the nature of college basketball, let alone MAC basketball.

Finally, I am baffled that you think there is a comparison between the number of key players Akron brought back this season and the number Kent brought back. I am not even sure how to address that because the way you must look at basketball is very different from what I see. KSU returns Holt and Evans, one of which was a starter and virtually no other key players. Akron brought back how many who played significant minutes last year? You would not be picked to finish 2nd if you only brought back Alex and Zeke and were trying to fill the rest of the lineup with new guys and a couple of marginal returners. I am not sure what you are seeing.

Just for some perspective, in the Missouri Valley, Wichita State State spends close to 4mil per year on bball and Creighton spends close to 5mill per year. I've heard both Illinois State and University of Northern Iowa spend close to 3mill on bball. I don't know about the other schools.

I'm not astute enough to know the real answer but it does seem as some have already identified that money seems to be the root cause. It would seem that FBS football does pull resources away from basketball.

I wonder how the MWC has success in both football and basketball?

Is this a joke or a real question?

In 2011-12, MVC basketball budgets avg. $2.4M conference wide. The MWC hoops budgets avg. almost $3M, plus their overall athletic budgets are double the MVC and about one-third higher than the MAC.

Next question.

"I want to play in the MAC" - said no high school recruit EVER

EA3, no it wasn't a joke and if it came across that way then I apologize. As the saying goes, there is no such thing as a stupid question just stupid people who ask them and maybe that is my case.

AXEME answered my stupid question.

Take care.

(02-22-2013 12:40 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  "I want to play in the MAC" - said no high school recruit EVER

Yep.

Even if a recruit is talking to a MAC school with a basketball atmosphere, the recruit still will be hit the realization he has to go on the road in the MAC and play a boring schedule in front of a couple hundred people disinterested in what is going on.

(02-22-2013 12:40 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  "I want to play in the MAC" - said no high school recruit EVER

You're right, recruits want to play for winning programs.

(02-22-2013 02:46 PM)ksu sucks Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:40 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  "I want to play in the MAC" - said no high school recruit EVER

You're right, recruits want to play for winning programs.

And full houses.