Our schedule has never been a factor in us not getting into the tournament. Ever.

We are what we are. The MAC fell behind in the early part of this century because we didn't spend the money on basketball. When we finally decided to try to catch back up a series of really bad hires dug the conference an even deeper hole. We need one program to really step it up an elevate the rest of the conference. [/QUOTE]Yeah...I agree with this. The MAC may have missed their window. But in regards to your "one program" comment ... Why can't/shouldn't that be Ohio? Why just accept what the MAC has been the last 20 years and not try to change it .... or at least you?

Ohio is the one team I think that can break thru in the MAC. They are more financially committed than any other team in the league ... they've had NCAA success ... why continue to do what EMU, NIU and other other deadbeats of the MAC do just because they're in the same league?

Did Gonzaga just accept the averageness of the WCC .... same for Butler in the Horizon? Davidson in the SoCon?

Again, I'm not suggesting Ohio jump to the AAC. But what happens when Ohio starts putting together really good teams .... and they keep scheduling SWAC corpses? Why not just beef the schedule up ... try to build some "street cred" among the CBB world.

Rome wasn't built in a day ... and I don't think Ohio is going to suddenly start earning at-large bids with a better schedule. But if we take Saul Phillips at his word ... and he is here for the long haul .... why build a program that puts all its' eggs into a three-day March basket in Cleveland?

And if that's the case, what's the harm in taking a few L's in Nov/Dec if it really doesn't matter until March?

I think OUCountry hits nail on the head with the MAC home game referendum handcuffing Ohio (and others) from playing good road games. But I also think our program needs to take a fair share of the blame for putting these type of schedules together.

The schedule may not have kept us from an at-large bid .... but someday it might? Why take that chance? I don't really see the downside of challenging yourself by playing better competition than 4 SWACtion/Non-D1s?

Maybe because they don't have football. If you read the article it mentions that the ACC splits their payouts 80%/20% football/basketball. In those terms the MAC deal would allocate about $2M for basketball. Only three of their fourteen schools don't have a higher basketball budget than Ohio (we have the highest budget in the MAC with Akron right behind us). And all three of those schools are only slightly behind us and have significantly higher budgets than the 3rd place MAC team, BG.

The A-10 is not a POWER conference but they are a power conference. And if they aren't what does that make us?

Yeah...I agree with this. The MAC may have missed their window. But in regards to your "one program" comment ... Why can't/shouldn't that be Ohio? Why just accept what the MAC has been the last 20 years and not try to change it .... or at least you?

I think the requirement to home games needs adjusted to a smaller number, but I don't have any illusion that it would be a magic fix. I'm pretty much with Van's post as well. In the last 10 years, how many MAC teams were legitimately good enough for an at-large, assuming they'd scheduled accordingly? We've seen one Ohio team 2011-2012, 2012-13. We've seen a couple Akron teams, one UB team, and maybe Toledo a couple years ago. I don't know the exact teams, but the point is, there aren't many.

And then, IF, and it's a big if, they get the schedule and execute the schedule with some wins, it's still a crap shoot. The Monmouth example is the best one, but there are others for sure.

My hope is that this new emphasis on road wins makes a difference, but until proven otherwise, I agree that the committee demonstrates they care more about the conference a team comes from than anything else.

All it takes is one at-large worthy team for a conference to get two bids.

Doesn't anyone think how we finish in the MAC and the type of record we have is as important as winning those 3 games in Cleveland? I think its important for recruiting to consistently put up good records. A MAC coach is largely judged by how he performs in conference play. I don't understand this reductionist view that its all and only Cleveland which underscores the wish CMU, NIU and BG were good enough to prop the league up for at-large bids. I see it as a building process starting with a great coach, play good defense and start to move up the standings to become a credible threat in Cleveland. The scheduling mandate is in place so the CMU, NIU and BG's don't sell themselves on the road and go 0-14 in conference play. RPI for the MAC is trending up so I think the policy is working. Ohio has to schedule better within context of that policy. [/QUOTE]I think there is a better "happy medium" in the scheduling mandate. 7 home games for a MAC school in the non-conference is damn near impossible to fill with quality opponents.

So when NIU, CMU and EMU are playing MULTIPLE non-D1s just to fill the home game requirement, that does NOTHING to strengthen the MAC. It's literally doing the bare minimum to fulfill that requirement.

I think putting something together where the league doesn't necessarily mandate home games ... but mandates a minimum on sub-300 games. Monetary incentives for scheduling better?

I agree ... you don't want teams playing 11 road games and going 0-11 for paychecks. But what we have now makes for meaningless basketball and, in turn, almost makes the MAC season meaningless other than playing for seeding in Cleveland (which we have learned isn't all that important some years)

If Ohio didn't have to play these home games, maybe we wouldn't see 4 SWAC/Non-D1 games on the schedule. Would open up an opportunity to play another P6 game on the road or another quality mid-major.

I think the MAC's goal of strengthening the conference's standing in the RPI is nice ... but the way they're going about it isn't really doing much in really making the conference stronger.

[QUOTE=Uncle Wes] I am talking about the MAC as an every year 2 bid conference. Outside of the power leauges its just programs anymore. St. Marys, Gonaga, BYU, Wichita, Memphis, Cincinnati, Dayton, VCU if any of them don't win the tourney they are positioned for an at-large. Our goal should be to build a program that is in the NCAAs every year. To expect CMU, NIU, BG et all to pick it up and help Ohio secure an at-large is not realistic which is the goal for a lot of you on here.

All it takes is one at-large worthy team for a conference to get two bids.

I think there is a better "happy medium" in the scheduling mandate. 7 home games for a MAC school in the non-conference is damn near impossible to fill with quality opponents.

So when NIU, CMU and EMU are playing MULTIPLE non-D1s just to fill the home game requirement, that does NOTHING to strengthen the MAC. It's literally doing the bare minimum to fulfill that requirement.