(03-18-2019 08:06 PM)LongtimeFan Wrote:  Brutal for CMU also. After Michigan State, they have Notre Dame. MAC had too much success in the tournament last year. NCAA wouldn't want that to happen again this year. Disgusting.

And Ohio is left out altogether.

I think you nailed it. The MAC got their attention last year and you just can't have these "bit players" stealing too many big scenes from your "marquee stars".

In a way the MAC was stronger this year than last, with four very good teams instead of two. Still, the best teams this year (CMU and Buffalo) were not as good as the best teams last year. And last year's postseason was amazing. Anyone who expects that to be the new normal is going to be sadly disappointed for a long time. With the draw the way it is, the MAC's ceiling this year is to get two first-round wins, which would be a great accomplishment.

I don't buy the conspiracy theory that the committee punished the MAC for last year's success. If Ohio wants to get an at-large bid, maybe they should schedule some decent out of conference competition.

(03-19-2019 05:11 AM)Dwight Wrote:  I don't buy the conspiracy theory that the committee punished the MAC for last year's success. If Ohio wants to get an at-large bid, maybe they should schedule some decent out of conference competition.

+1

(03-18-2019 10:02 PM)T-Town Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 08:06 PM)LongtimeFan Wrote:  Brutal for CMU also. After Michigan State, they have Notre Dame. MAC had too much success in the tournament last year. NCAA wouldn't want that to happen again this year. Disgusting.

And Ohio is left out altogether.

I think you nailed it. The MAC got their attention last year and you just can't have these "bit players" stealing too many big scenes from your "marquee stars".

I'm not sure I agree. These 'bit players' winning is actually a HIGHLIGHT of the tourney.

They cause excitement in the first round and some intrigue for the 2nd but after that they aren't a factor.

In MBB the highlight of the opening round is what upstart will upset a high seed. The team, e.g., UMBC, has their hours in the sun before exiting and the blue bloods take over.

I don't really think there's a conspiracy either...but the NCAA just doesn't think sometimes. I mean they really scheduled the UB men and women to play on the same day at the same time. C'mon, have some situational awareness so their fans can give their full attention to each game.

CMU should have a better seed and Ohio should have gotten a bid.. But in this lifetime the NCAA will never give the little MAC conference three bids.

Non-P5 at-large teams almost always get put into that 7 to 11 seed range, thus giving them an 80% chance to play a 1 or 2 seed in the 2nd Round. I don't think it's a conspiracy, but I do think the Selection Committee overvalues/over-seeds middle of the pack P5 teams, while undervaluing/under-seeding top non-P5 teams.

That Princeton seeding was an absolute joke.. Unbeaten with several wins over conference champs and tourney teams in the nonconference. For whatever reason the women's side seems to be even more biased against the mid major.

(03-19-2019 08:26 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 10:02 PM)T-Town Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 08:06 PM)LongtimeFan Wrote:  Brutal for CMU also. After Michigan State, they have Notre Dame. MAC had too much success in the tournament last year. NCAA wouldn't want that to happen again this year. Disgusting.

And Ohio is left out altogether.

I think you nailed it. The MAC got their attention last year and you just can't have these "bit players" stealing too many big scenes from your "marquee stars".

I'm not sure I agree. These 'bit players' winning is actually a HIGHLIGHT of the tourney.

They cause excitement in the first round and some intrigue for the 2nd but after that they aren't a factor.

Sure a few "Cinderella" teams is good for the ratings and gives most the audience a brief "feel good" moment before the "serious teams" take over.....and maybe the money is NOT big enough to be a concern in the women's tournament ----but I fully believe that in the men's tourney where there are big buck payouts riding on every single game played that the NCAA (which essentially serves at the pleasure of the power conferences) is not particularly interested in seeing too many Cinderella teams emerge in any given year and are particularly not interested is seeing the very same teams play the Cinderella role year after year after year---or next thing you know you have another Gonzaga (or even a Butler) elbow its way into the club and thus deprive some member of a true major conference it opportunity to enrich its coffers every March. Far fetched? Maybe but take a look at the selection and seeding process.

(03-19-2019 05:11 AM)Dwight Wrote:  In a way the MAC was stronger this year than last, with four very good teams instead of two. Still, the best teams this year (CMU and Buffalo) were not as good as the best teams last year. And last year's postseason was amazing. Anyone who expects that to be the new normal is going to be sadly disappointed for a long time. With the draw the way it is, the MAC's ceiling this year is to get two first-round wins, which would be a great accomplishment.

I don't buy the conspiracy theory that the committee punished the MAC for last year's success. If Ohio wants to get an at-large bid, maybe they should schedule some decent out of conference competition.

Isn't that out of conference schedule included in the RPI though?

(03-20-2019 08:50 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-19-2019 05:11 AM)Dwight Wrote:  In a way the MAC was stronger this year than last, with four very good teams instead of two. Still, the best teams this year (CMU and Buffalo) were not as good as the best teams last year. And last year's postseason was amazing. Anyone who expects that to be the new normal is going to be sadly disappointed for a long time. With the draw the way it is, the MAC's ceiling this year is to get two first-round wins, which would be a great accomplishment.

I don't buy the conspiracy theory that the committee punished the MAC for last year's success. If Ohio wants to get an at-large bid, maybe they should schedule some decent out of conference competition.

Isn't that out of conference schedule included in the RPI though?

Different metrics in RPI give mid majors higher grades. The wins are most important. Also blowing not great teams out boosts you up. RPI is more flawed, and the women should go to NET. That would have shown quad1 and 2 wins to prove MAC strength.

Toledo's men's RPI was 34 going into the NIU game for basketball. Kent's was 73. BGs in the 80's.... Our SOS was bad. That's why our NET was so much lower.