menu
Logo
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: MAC 2011 recruiting classes ranked #22
Page: 2 of 2
DublinCat
General User
DC
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 236
person
mail
DublinCat
mail
Posted: 1/7/2011 7:42 AM
settings_applications edit_note
anorris wrote:expand_more
Xavier also committed to their program financially.
Also didn't have to fund football scholarships.


When they played in the MCC and until recently they played in the ancient barn of Cincinnati Gardens.  I doubt their basketball budget was much before entering the A-10.    
Last Edited: 1/7/2011 8:19:29 PM by DublinCat
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 1/7/2011 8:29 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Bobcat Love's (not Dragon, sorry about that) first post is one of the greatest "homer" posts of all time. 

But in this one:

Bobcat Love wrote:expand_more
Sorry to burst the bubble of people on this board, but intelligent, driven, ambitious High Schoolers in (fill in the blank out of state town) aren't looking at any MAC school with the exception of Miami. That's fact.


He forgot is alma mater.....
Last Edited: 1/7/2011 8:31:30 AM by Ohio69
MedinaCat
General User
MC
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Lakewood, OH
Post Count: 750
person
mail
MedinaCat
mail
Posted: 1/7/2011 9:25 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Bobcat Dragon wrote:expand_more
Xavier also committed to their program financially.
The winning came before the financing. Great coaching hires(Bob Staak, Pete Gillen, Skip Prosser) coupled with great recruits(Byron Larkin, Tyrone Hill, etc) and the MCC schedule DublinCat references led to a culture/expectation of winning championships and NCAA appearances. Having the crosstown rivalry with UC generated a lot of local interest in the program as well.
Jeff McKinney
Moderator
JM
Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,163
person
mail
Jeff McKinney
mail
Posted: 1/7/2011 4:45 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ted:  Sometimes rating recruits is bunk.  But not always.  These ratings are indicators, not iron clad predictions of how these recruiting classes will actually work out over time. 

While in a few years we may look back and say the Hoop Scoop underrated the MAC recruiting classes, we may not.  Time will tell.

I'm beginning to see your light about Ziegler.  Central should be MUCH better than they are right now, even with a young roster. 
Bobcat Love
General User
BL
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Post Count: 1,193
person
mail
Bobcat Love
mail
Posted: 1/7/2011 8:37 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
Bobcat Love's (not Dragon, sorry about that) first post is one of the greatest "homer" posts of all time. 

But in this one:

Sorry to burst the bubble of people on this board, but intelligent, driven, ambitious High Schoolers in (fill in the blank out of state town) aren't looking at any MAC school with the exception of Miami. That's fact.


He forgot is alma mater.....


Sadly, I did not....
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 1/7/2011 8:50 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Out-of-state enrollment is up.
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,950
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 1/7/2011 11:38 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
Ted:  Sometimes rating recruits is bunk.  But not always.  These ratings are indicators, not iron clad predictions of how these recruiting classes will actually work out over time. 

While in a few years we may look back and say the Hoop Scoop underrated the MAC recruiting classes, we may not.  Time will tell.

I'm beginning to see your light about Ziegler.  Central should be MUCH better than they are right now, even with a young roster. 


I don't understand the logic, Jeff. If ratings are sometimes bunk, then aren't they just getting lucky the rest of the time? I mean you said that the MAC was rated 10-13 and are not performing to that level. That means if they're rated 22 they can just as easy finish 10-13. I mean we all know we're in a certain stratosphere. The MAC has traditionally been a 12-16 conference. I just wouldn't worry about these rankings. I would worry about coaches running consistent 200+ RPI programs getting extensions.
mollautt
General User
M
Member Since: 1/20/2005
Location: Milford, OH
Post Count: 33
person
mail
mollautt
mail
Posted: 1/10/2011 4:55 PM
settings_applications edit_note
=>PISS POOR MAC MYTH

A myth has developed the last few years.  This myth is that the MAC is piss poor.  The MAC has been a top 15 league of 32 every year but 3 since 1994. Given that 10 of those 15 spots are major conferences (6 BCS + A10, CUSA, MWC, WAC), that puts the MAC in the top 5 of the 22 midmajor leagues every year.

Ohio went 7-9 in the MAC last year, good for 9th place overall and 2nd to last in the MAC East.  Ohio was still good enough to earn a 14 seed (any other 9th place midmajor would be in the play in game) and then blow out #3 seed Georgetown in the 1st round.

Also, what is piss poor about the MAC is the MAC West.  Rather, the MAC East has been strong enough alone to keep the MAC as one of the top 5 midmajor leagues despite the deadbeat West.

Miami and Ohio play in the MAC East.   We face each MAC East team twice. We play only 6 games total vs. the MAC West each year.  So, those that disparage the MAC as piss poor, never note that nearly 2/3's of the league games are against the strong MAC East.

MAC is respected by the NCAA. The MAC is never seeded in the #15-16 spots in the NCAA tourney.  Even Ohio U., which went 7-9 in the MAC and finished in 9th place, was seeded #14.

The following were seeded below 7-9/MAC 9th Place Ohio in the NCAA tourney last year:

Ex #1: Morgan State won the league by going a near perfect 15-1 in the MEAC, won conference tourney, and was seeded #15.

Ex #2: North Texas went 13-5 in the Sun Belt (tied for best record overall), was sole champions of the West Division, won the Sun Belt tourney, and was the #15 seed.

Ex. #3: Robert Morris went 15-3 in the NEC for Co-Championship, won the league tourney, and was seeded #15.

Ex. #4: Lehigh won the Patriot League with a 10-4 record, won the league tourney, and was seeded #16.

Ex. #5: Vermont went 12-4 in the American East (1 game behind 13-3 1st place Stony Brook), won the league tourney, and was seeded #16.

Ex. #6: Winthrop finished 3rd in Big South with 12-6 record, won league tourney, and was sent to the play in game.

Ex. #7: Ark-Pine Bluff finished 2nd in SWAC with 14-4 record, won league tourney, and was sent to the play in game.

Miami also got a #14 seed in 2007 when MU went into the MAC tourney with a 15-14 overall record (was 18-14 going into the NCAA tourney).

Ultimately, if you want to say the the MAC is a terrible conference for basketball, then you have to say all mid-majors leagues are terrible for basketball. That may be true, but you cannot be intellectually honest and say the MAC is a bad midmajor league (this year or any other). After all, the worst the MAC has ever been since the NCAA began the modern RPI formula in 1994 was 21st.  Even at that lowest point, the MAC was still in the top half of midmajor leagues.

Plus, if the MAC really was that bad, how did 9th place Ohio, which again finish 7-9 in the league, blow out Top 10, #3 seed G'town in the NCAA 1st round last year?  There are not too many midmajor leagues that have 9th place teams who can do that.
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 1/10/2011 5:41 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Arguing that there is worse basketball has no bearing on whether or not MAC basketball is any good.  Neither does the idea that the selection committee respects the MAC (and it's questionable that a #14 seed is a signal of respect), especially because the name of the school and the conference isn't included on selection sheets.

Are you telling me you think a conference that lost 60% of its games is not poor?
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 1/10/2011 6:21 PM
settings_applications edit_note
mollautt wrote:expand_more
A myth has developed the last few years.  This myth is that the MAC is piss poor.  The MAC has been a top 15 league of 32 every year but 3 since 1994. Given that 10 of those 15 spots are major conferences (6 BCS + A10, CUSA, MWC, WAC), that puts the MAC in the top 5 of the 22 midmajor leagues every year.


I'll give you the A10, CUSA, and MWC, but the WAC is not a major conference by any definition of the term in my mind. 

mollautt wrote:expand_more
Ultimately, if you want to say the the MAC is a terrible conference for basketball, then you have to say all mid-majors leagues are terrible for basketball. That may be true, but you cannot be intellectually honest and say the MAC is a bad midmajor league (this year or any other). After all, the worst the MAC has ever been since the NCAA began the modern RPI formula in 1994 was 21st.  Even at that lowest point, the MAC was still in the top half of midmajor leagues.


Me thinks you are cherry picking your data a bit there.  Sure, if we go back 17 years the MAC has been among the best midmajor conferences in basketball.  But recent history is quite different.  Up until 2006 or 2007, we were pretty routinely among the top 12 or 13 conferences in a given year.  Since then, we have dropped rather significantly.  For example we are currently 16th in the RPI (trailing the likes of the Ivy, CAA, Horizon, WAC, WCC, and MVC), and 17th in the Pomeroy conference ratings (trailing the same group plus the Big West).  Last year we were also 16th in the RPI and 16th in the Pomeroy ratings.  In 08-09 we were 21st in the RPI and 18th in the Pomeroy ratings. 

Now sure, you can argue that we are still comfortably ahead of leagues like the MEAC, Atlantic Sun, and Big Sky.  That may very well be sufficient for you folks over in Oxford.  But personally, I find the fact that leagues that we used to be rather consistently better than have passed us by the last few years (like the Horizon), with no signs of a change coming anytime soon.

To put it another way, I don't think you can honestly argue that the level of basketball being played in the MAC the last few years is anywhere near what it was in the mid-to-late 90s or early 2000s.  Recent MAC POTYs like David Kool, Al Fisher, Romeo Travis, and (no offense) Bramos wouldn't haven't even sniffed First Team All-MAC status back before 2004 or 2005.  And they'd have been lucky to be honorable mentions back in the mid-90s.

So sure, we are still better as a conference than the cream of the crop of the low majors.  But the fact that you have to rely on that argument in the first place shows just how far we've fallen as a conference.

mollautt wrote:expand_more
Plus, if the MAC really was that bad, how did 9th place Ohio, which again finish 7-9 in the league, blow out Top 10, #3 seed G'town in the NCAA 1st round last year?  There are not too many midmajor leagues that have 9th place teams who can do that.


Easy.  Ohio wasn't even close to a 9th place team in the MAC in terms of talent last year.  We just happened to sleepwalk through the regular season.  For instance, Pomeroy's rankings had us and Kent a pretty neck-and-neck 1 and 2 in the league, with everyone else pretty far back in the rearview mirror.  I don't think that many other midmajor leagues had one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the conference finish 9th, but if they did then you might have seen similar results.
Last Edited: 1/10/2011 6:23:00 PM by Flomo-genized
Ohio Hoops
General User
Member Since: 7/18/2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Post Count: 173
mail
Ohio Hoops
mail
Posted: 1/10/2011 9:33 PM
settings_applications edit_note
As a college basketball fan and someone who went to Ohio if you gave me the option of watching a conference game between top 6 teams in either the CAA, A10, MAC, Horizon, OVC, or A-Sun the MAC might be the bottom or second to bottom league I'd choose to watch. Aside from Ohio I could honestly careless about watching this mediocore conference. 
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 1/12/2011 12:43 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Flomo-genized wrote:expand_more
Easy.  Ohio wasn't even close to a 9th place team in the MAC in terms of talent last year.  We just happened to sleepwalk through the regular season.  For instance, Pomeroy's rankings had us and Kent a pretty neck-and-neck 1 and 2 in the league, with everyone else pretty far back in the rearview mirror.  I don't think that many other midmajor leagues had one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the conference finish 9th, but if they did then you might have seen similar results.


It's a really good point.  The fact that we finished 9th is in no way evidence that we were the 9th place team in the MAC.  The talent that your head perceives that we had and the judgments of others which you choose to believe and present are what's true.
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 1/12/2011 9:22 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Easy.  Ohio wasn't even close to a 9th place team in the MAC in terms of talent last year.  We just happened to sleepwalk through the regular season.  For instance, Pomeroy's rankings had us and Kent a pretty neck-and-neck 1 and 2 in the league, with everyone else pretty far back in the rearview mirror.  I don't think that many other midmajor leagues had one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the conference finish 9th, but if they did then you might have seen similar results.


It's a really good point.  The fact that we finished 9th is in no way evidence that we were the 9th place team in the MAC.  The talent that your head perceives that we had and the judgments of others which you choose to believe and present are what's true.


So you think that each of the 8 teams that finished ahead of us last year were equally capable of beating a team the caliber of Georgetown in the first round of the NCAAs, had they won the MAC Tournament?
Last Edited: 1/12/2011 9:24:26 AM by Flomo-genized
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 1/13/2011 2:57 AM
settings_applications edit_note

Slightly different question there.  My point is that we were the 9th best team during the regular season.  So thoughts that our talent level was better than 9th place regular season don't hold water.

'The best team always wins.'  William Felton Russell

GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,825
person
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 1/13/2011 12:58 PM
settings_applications edit_note
anorris wrote:expand_more
Xavier also committed to their program financially.
Also didn't have to fund football scholarships.


Even without football, they still didn't make the committment financially to succeed on the basketball court until about the mid 80's. They dropped football in 1973. Once they realized the potential for basketball greatness after making it to a couple of NCAA and NIT tournaments in the 80's under Bob Staak and Pete Gillen, that's when they started to make strides. And dont forget, it took awhile for them to do that. Gillen took over in 1985, and they didn't get their own arena until 2000 when Cintas Center was finished. It takes awhile, even with the dollars they were putting up.  Granted, they still did have wide success in those 15 years without their own official "home court."

And even so, I would say the situation at Xavier is vastly different from MAC schools. Private universities have made enormous strides in the past few years as opposed to the financially strapped state-funded institutions.

Last Edited: 1/13/2011 1:01:23 PM by GoCats105
Showing Messages: 26 - 40 of 40
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)