The unofficial online home for fans of the Kent State University Golden Flashes. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Quick and probably stupid question - does a division winner get no less than the #2 seed? I know that was true at one time but I can't remember if it's still the case and couldn't find an answer online.

No. Divisions are really irrelevant. You could theoretically win a division and get the 5 seed. Why the MAC does this for seeding and doesn't simply list the standings as 1 to 12, really makes no sense.

(03-02-2019 10:58 AM)axeme Wrote:  No. Divisions are really irrelevant. You could theoretically win a division and get the 5 seed. Why the MAC does this for seeding and doesn't simply list the standings as 1 to 12, really makes no sense.

Devils advocate here ...

If league listed standings 1-12, coaches/fans would claim it's unfair since nobody plays everybody twice.

Everybody does play every division member twice.

As I understand it the tournament seeding was switched to current format one year after OU was actually underseeded out of a tough East
Division while a weak MAC West winner was seeded higher.

Can't remember the year, but OU wound up playing/upsetting higher seeds in the early rounds, instead of semi-finals, finals, then winning it all.

Disadvantages either way ...

(03-02-2019 12:42 PM)cleveland Wrote:  

(03-02-2019 10:58 AM)axeme Wrote:  No. Divisions are really irrelevant. You could theoretically win a division and get the 5 seed. Why the MAC does this for seeding and doesn't simply list the standings as 1 to 12, really makes no sense.

Devils advocate here ...

If league listed standings 1-12, coaches/fans would claim it's unfair since nobody plays everybody twice.

Everybody does play every division member twice.

As I understand it the tournament seeding was switched to current format one year after OU was actually underseeded out of a tough East
Division while a weak MAC West winner was seeded higher.

Can't remember the year, but OU wound up playing/upsetting higher seeds in the early rounds, instead of semi-finals, finals, then winning it all.

Disadvantages either way ...

Every other conference uses 1 standing for bball. not sure of the number, but very few have true round robin scheduling. MAC needs to change. You can still schedule according to old divisions. And since most mid-majors have trouble scheduling, why not go to a true RR schedule? it is only 4 games out of the OOC schedule and maybe just maybe it would improve SOS and RPI/NET/KENPOM.

(03-02-2019 12:42 PM)cleveland Wrote:  

(03-02-2019 10:58 AM)axeme Wrote:  No. Divisions are really irrelevant. You could theoretically win a division and get the 5 seed. Why the MAC does this for seeding and doesn't simply list the standings as 1 to 12, really makes no sense.

Devils advocate here ...

If league listed standings 1-12, coaches/fans would claim it's unfair since nobody plays everybody twice.

Everybody does play every division member twice.

As I understand it the tournament seeding was switched to current format one year after OU was actually underseeded out of a tough East
Division while a weak MAC West winner was seeded higher.

Can't remember the year, but OU wound up playing/upsetting higher seeds in the early rounds, instead of semi-finals, finals, then winning it all.

Disadvantages either way ...

Can’t coaches claim it’s even more unfair now. Kent plays the Eastern teams twice every year and recently the power has been in the east. That means all teams in the East play a tougher schedule every year. If they were one big happy family at the least the teams you play twice would rotate over a three year cycle.

Well the Zips’ at-large chances just took a huge hit with today’s 30-point loss to 11th-place OU.

(03-02-2019 05:07 PM)JimJoyce Wrote:  Well the Zips’ at-large chances just took a huge hit with today’s 30-point loss to 11th-place OU.

24 point. But it was also a home game for Akron. Because they shoot so many threes there is always the chance they get hot and compete with someone better than them... But they are not remotely close to being a good team.

After this weekends frustration I went back and looked at Conference victory totals over the last seven years. I assumed this year was complete since it was easier to divide by 7 instead of 6.88888889. Here are the results.

Buffalo 11.7, Akron 10.7, Toledo 10.7, Kent 9.4, Ohio 9.0, WMU 9.0, EMU 8.4, BGSU 7.85, CMU 7.3, BSU 6.85, NIU 6.72, Miami 6.42

I’m sure it’s not 100% accurate but neither are my tax returns and I haven’t been arrested yet. What I notice is the league seems to fit into 4 groups of three with the Kent, Ohio, WMU runner up group being fairly middle of the road. Of those three Kent is by far the most consistent with five seasons at 9 or 10 (one 12 and one 7), Ohio has NO seasons with 8 to 10 wins (they have a 4,5,7,11,11,11,14), WMU is closer to Kent with 5 years between 7 and 11.

Although it shows us to be the fourth best team in the league the consistency around 9 and 10 wins is probably what bores us to death.

Akron has had NO at-large chance for weeks, and still wouldn't even if they had won by 24 instead of losing by 24. The best at-large chance in years is Buffalo this year.

Thanks, Burden. I made a similar point a while back and some protested. Despite their championship a couple of years ago, Kent State hasn't been a top-tier MAC program since Geno Ford left. They've been a middle to upper-middle level program. For those of us who've been around for decades, that is still miles ahead of most of their history, but a definite drop-off from 98/99 through 10/11.

When you win the championship, you are THE top of top tier. That was two seasons ago. I am baffled why people, especially KSU fans, want to keep pissing on that championship. Why is that NCAA appearance somehow less than Geno’s no NCAA appearances. I’ll take Sendy’s tenure over Ford’s without doubt.

Here's a quote from Kelvin Sampson they mentioned on college game day today, "Players and coaches win games. Administrators wins championships."

Axeme, winning that championship was awesome. But they were 10-8 in the MAC during the regular season. When people talk about "programs" they mean year-in and year-out, over at least a few seasons. If Kent State regularly won the MAC tournament after a so-so regular season, then you could call them top-tier. But under Senderoff, they are 4-5 in MAC tournament games OTHER than that magical year. I'm not blaming Senderoff. There are and have been circumstances beyond his control. Clearly, during Senderoff's tenure, both Akron (not this year, though, it would seem) and Buffalo have been more successful than Kent State. Kent state is and has been in the second tier, with Toledo and OU. Not a bad place to be, but a step down from the decade + prior to that when Kent State was clearly the class of the MAC. Again, I'm not blaming Senderoff. Things change. OU is having a terrible year so far. Akron is 7-9 and in 4th place in the East. Toledo is having a good year, though, as is Kent State. Buffalo, however, is still going strong and have been the class of the MAC for a few years now Who knows what will happen in the coming years?

(03-02-2019 06:26 PM)Muskrat Wrote:  Akron has had NO at-large chance for weeks, and still wouldn't even if they had won by 24 instead of losing by 24. The best at-large chance in years is Buffalo this year.

I believe sarcasm played a role in his statement.

Fallsdog, I believe now that you are right. No doubt sarcasm.

(03-02-2019 08:55 PM)axeme Wrote:  When you win the championship, you are THE top of top tier. That was two seasons ago. I am baffled why people, especially KSU fans, want to keep pissing on that championship. Why is that NCAA appearance somehow less than Geno’s no NCAA appearances. I’ll take Sendy’s tenure over Ford’s without doubt.

I was just stating the facts. Maybe I’m old school but going 10-8 and then winning 3 in a row to make the NCAA does not make you championship level. It just means you won three in a row at the right time. I hate the way we decide who goes to the NCAA but that’s a different story. My post had nothing to do with coaches. I only picked 7 years because I got bored.
To me all it said was Kent is remarkably consistent at a slightly above average level. I found it interesting that Ohio had about the same total of wins but was wildly inconsistent. I don’t know if it means a damn thing but 7 years is a pretty good sample size of 126 games.

(03-03-2019 01:59 PM)burden Wrote:  

(03-02-2019 08:55 PM)axeme Wrote:  When you win the championship, you are THE top of top tier. That was two seasons ago. I am baffled why people, especially KSU fans, want to keep pissing on that championship. Why is that NCAA appearance somehow less than Geno’s no NCAA appearances. I’ll take Sendy’s tenure over Ford’s without doubt.

I was just stating the facts. Maybe I’m old school but going 10-8 and then winning 3 in a row to make the NCAA does not make you championship level. It just means you won three in a row at the right time. I hate the way we decide who goes to the NCAA but that’s a different story. My post had nothing to do with coaches. I only picked 7 years because I got bored.
To me all it said was Kent is remarkably consistent at a slightly above average level. I found it interesting that Ohio had about the same total of wins but was wildly inconsistent. I don’t know if it means a damn thing but 7 years is a pretty good sample size of 126 games.

I've been going to games since the late 1960s - we seldom competed for any sort of title back then and seldom won MAC road games. Our long term record versus Ohio that was mentioned sometime ago bears witness to a litany of poor teams. McDonald, Waters and subsequent coaches raised the program to a very respectable level. The last 7 years of data presented indeed suggests we remain an "above average" MAC team - but I doubt coming to the MACC in recent years strikes fear in the visitors. We also haven't entered mAC east play with a target on our back. For me the last team that played at the level I would love to see would be our championship team with Mike Scott, Q and their fellows. That team could put some fear into opponents with their athleticism and depth. I would love to see those sorts of teams again but realize the game is changing with more teams playing DI, all the transfers and other factors.

OLNWFLSH,

I agree with you 99.7%. For arguments sake, I’ll Justin Greene and Rod Sherman played together on at least one team I would consider elite. [/align]

I agree with Burden and OLNWFLSH, of course, as I stated above. Sure, Kent State is still a somewhat better than average MAC program and only two have been clearly better these last 7 or 8 years, Buffalo and Akron. But, it is also obvious that the program, for whatever reasons, has dropped off, not just from the 1999 through 2004 teams, but also from those teams with players mentioned above like Greene, Sherman, Q and Scott. Jaylin Walker is terrific, and Avery is a very solid point guard. They have lots of other "nice" players, too. But this team doesn't have opponents entering the MAC apprehensive about playing them. Heck, they've only won one conference home game by a large margin, and that was by 15 against the weakest team in the conference, WMU. That's just the way it is.

Sorry, I can’t consider a team that finishes last in the division one year and is likely to finish next to last this year one of the MACs’ “elite” teams. Maybe I don’t understand what “elite” means, but I’d hate to hear what this board would be saying about our team if we had a last place and a 5th place on our recent record.

No doubt Buffalo is on a heater and is unarguably the top of the MAC in recent years, but I don’t see anyone else consistently better than us. I think you need at least ONE MAC tourney championship (Toledo) and you certainly can’t have a last place and 5th (possibly 4th) place finishes (Akron) and if you’re talking about one of the best 3-4 programs in the conference, I think KSU is one of them, certainly not behind anyone not named Buffalo.

And I love the regular season, and live and die with every game starting in November, but I wouldn’t trade a MAC tourney championship/NCAA appearance for any regular season championship. Winning the tourney as a 6 seed and going to the NCAA is much preferred, by me anyway, than losing as the 1 seed and going home.