http://www.ubbullrun.com/2013/3/9/408433...ackets-set

So the first round teams have to play 4 games to even make it in the final while the No. 1 and 2 only have to play 1...?

What a weird setup.

(03-10-2013 08:16 AM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  So the first round teams have to play 4 games to even make it in the final while the No. 1 and 2 only have to play 1...?

What a weird setup.

Same setup as last season.

The point is to make finishing 1-4 really means something and maybe keep your best teams from getting upset early in the tourney. So you send a better team and maybe even squeak in an at large....

Maybe the third time is the charm for NIU against EMU? Ok. Maybe not.

(03-10-2013 08:28 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 08:16 AM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  So the first round teams have to play 4 games to even make it in the final while the No. 1 and 2 only have to play 1...?

What a weird setup.

Same setup as last season.

The point is to make finishing 1-4 really means something and maybe keep your best teams from getting upset early in the tourney. So you send a better team and maybe even squeak in an at large....

Its better for the RPI of the Top 2 seeds since they won't have to play an additional sub 200 RPI team which even with a win brings the RPI down.

That is another bonus

(03-09-2013 08:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://www.ubbullrun.com/2013/3/9/408433...ackets-set

Biggest winner of Toledo's absence is Kent State, securing a double bye to the quarterfinals. Had Toledo qualified, Kent would have been a 5 seed, and the 5 seed would have been pushed back to a first round home game with Miami.

(03-10-2013 12:56 PM)bobcat95 Wrote:  Biggest winner of Toledo's absence is Kent State, securing a double bye to the quarterfinals. Had Toledo qualified, Kent would have been a 5 seed, and the 5 seed would have been pushed back to a first round home game with Miami.

Anyone remember who the poster was that - at the beginning of the season - thought that the teams that finished behind UT should not have moved up in the seeding, but instead the seed the UT finished should have been treated as a 'bye'??? So if we went by that poster's logic, the winner of game 4 in the 2nd round (would have been 5/12 vs. 8/9) would have received a 'bye' in the quarter-finals and would have moved right into the semi-finals. That was the dumbest logic ever.

i'm liking the fact that both teams which beat Akron are on their side of the bracket!

BSU also gave the Zips a pretty good game back at a time where BSU was really playing bad basketball. Akron definitely got the worst of the brackets compared to Ohio...

Ohio got the easiest draw imaginable.

(03-10-2013 05:23 PM)JSF Wrote:  Ohio got the easiest draw imaginable.

Don't say that . The out-of-state schools will say it is a part of the state of Ohio advantage the MAC gives Ohio teams.

sarcasm

Steinbrecher sent the weed shipment!

eamRecord against Akron/Ohio
Akron 2-0
Buffalo 1-3
Kent St 1-3
Ohio 0-2
WMU 0-2
Ball St 0-2
EMU 0-2
NIU 0-2
CMU 0-2
BGSU 0-4
Miami 0-4

4-26 is the field's record vs Akron/Ohio with 50% of those are Akron. Teams not among the top two seeds are 2-24 vs the top two seeds. Consider the back to back games and the rest Akron/Ohio will have plus the post season experience that Akron and Ohio have and the odds of Akron or Ohio not cutting down the nets are slim. Only way someone outside those two don't win is is if both go down in the semis. The tired legs of a team playing three nites in a row keeping up with one of the top two scoring teams in the MAC in the finals after playing a brutal semi final games vs the other points to Akron or Ohio winning this. Team like Kent St that depends on three point shooting would have to be sharpe all three nites. Depth that Akron and Ohio have on their bench at the guard spots will be huge and in the frontcourt in Akron's case. Akron bigs will be fresh enough to give Ohio trouble on the glass. Abreu situation may limit Akron depth a bit at the point especially if a desparate Ohio team that is ten down with ten to play goes all out press and puts everything they got at Akron.

Perhaps more pointed are records vs. teams on the same side of the bracket.

KSU 5-1
Akron 4-2
Buffalo 3-3
Ball St. 1-4
CMU 1-4

(BSU's and CMU's only wins here are vs. each other.)

Ohio U. 7-0
WMU 5-2
EMU 4-3
BG 2-5
NIU 1-6
Miami 1-6

(03-11-2013 07:11 AM)axeme Wrote:  Perhaps more pointed are records vs. teams on the same side of the bracket.

KSU 5-1
Akron 4-2
Buffalo 3-3
Ball St. 1-4
CMU 1-4

(BSU's and CMU's only wins here are vs. each other.)

Ohio U. 7-0
WMU 5-2
EMU 4-3
BG 2-5
NIU 1-6
Miami 1-6

That's an interesting way to look at it, I had never thought of that before.

Here are the probabilities for winning the MAC tournament via http://www.rpiforecast.com/ct/index.html
I don't understand the calculation completely, but it uses Sagrain's PREDICTOR. Obviously it doesn't account for who is hot right now, or player injuries.

1. Akron - 41.85%
2. Ohio - 41.35%
3. WMU - 3.97%
4. Kent - 11.05%
5. Ball St - 0.08%
6. BGSU - 0.53%
7. EMU - 0.18%
8. Buffalo - 0.95%
9. CMU - 0.02%
10. NIU - less than 0.01%
11. Miami - 0.01%