Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Good day for the MAC in hoops
Page: 1 of 1
mail
person
MonroeClassmate
11/24/2019 10:20 PM
BGSU beats Cincinnati
Buffalo, Eastern, OHIO win and
Zips keep it close vs #2 Louisville.
Last Edited: 11/24/2019 10:21:08 PM by MonroeClassmate
mail
person
Jeff McKinney
11/24/2019 10:43 PM
You're right, that's a good day.
mail
person
CatsUp
11/24/2019 11:01 PM
Looking forward to seeing what the conference rankings are whenever they come out. It seems like for the most part all MAC teams have done fairly well in the early stages. All have a winning record.

As I remember, the conference was 9th out of 34 conferences last year. Of course, Buffalo had a lot to do with that. If one divided those 34 conferences nto thirds (low, mid and high major), wouldn’t that have made us high major last year? ; )
mail
person
oubobcatjohn
11/24/2019 11:09 PM
Most MAC teams have looked good so far. Not many bad losses for the MAC so far and a few really nice wins away from home. MAC has a top 10 rpi ranking so far. Its winning a good amount of the games they should and a few they shouldn't.
mail
person
Jeff McKinney
11/24/2019 11:36 PM
The MAC at this early stage is showing up stronger in the computer rankings than most people anticipated. 9th and 12th in Sagarin. After today's results are figured in, the conference will have stronger ratings.
mail
person
CatsUp
11/25/2019 12:55 AM
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
The MAC at this early stage is showing up stronger in the computer rankings than most people anticipated. 9th and 12th in Sagarin. After today's results are figured in, the conference will have stronger ratings.
I’ve wondered since last season if a continued high conference ranking by the MAC would ever translate into multiple bids. My guess is NO. The committee will simply continue to change the criteria from situation to situation to do whatever they want to do. They are comfortable with the basketball hierarchy (the conferences receiving multiple bids) as they’ve known it, and, believe smugly, that everyone else should know their place in it. Although they will offer the occasional at-large, non-major conference inclusion to show how “fair” they are, their real focus at that moment will be on adding the 6th & 7th place teams from Major Conferences A, B, C and D.

Maybe I am over inflating their actual position, and the MAC has not really earned more teams in the tourney. However, I think there was some evidence last year that I’m not that far off in that there was more than one conference ranked below the MAC that received multiple bids.

This is why I will especially be watching these ratings with interest this season. To see if the conference performs well but this trend still continues.
mail
person
Jeff McKinney
11/25/2019 2:16 AM
The NCAA evaluates individual teams, rather than conferences, so it's conceivable to finish in the top 10 out of 32 conferences but only get one team in. With the MAC, the problem with getting multiple teams in is that the conference has mostly above average teams....most teams bunched between 100 and 180, with a few above or below that. That means the MAC can have seasons where it has a very good ranking among the conferences, but the league just can't ever seem to have two teams with a profile worthy of an at-large, although Buffalo would have gotten an at-large last season IF they had lost in the MAC tournament.
mail
shabamon
11/25/2019 5:15 AM
UC shot 55 free throws and lost. Down 10 with less than four minutes in regulation, BG starts playing hack a Shaq and it worked. From that point through the end of overtime, BG outscored the Bearcats 34-17. 34 points in nine minutes. And they did it without Justin Turner who had left the game with a hamstring injury.
mail
person
CatsUp
11/25/2019 6:33 AM
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
The NCAA evaluates individual teams, rather than conferences, so it's conceivable to finish in the top 10 out of 32 conferences but only get one team in. With the MAC, the problem with getting multiple teams in is that the conference has mostly above average teams....most teams bunched between 100 and 180, with a few above or below that. That means the MAC can have seasons where it has a very good ranking among the conferences, but the league just can't ever seem to have two teams with a profile worthy of an at-large, although Buffalo would have gotten an at-large last season IF they had lost in the MAC tournament.
Jeff, I thought about the individual teams aspect of the selection process but, if the conference is rated 9th out of 32, wouldn’t that put our “average team” somewhere around 99, instead of 140 (middle of the 100-180 range)? If so, I assume we are talking about our teams being more in the range of 59-139, and, since the committee doesn’t select strictly by what team is “next” for the 1-351, the lower part of that range is where the “funny business” happens.

Also, as we know, part of the reason we don’t have the profile we could have is because teams will not play us in our buildings.
mail
greencat
11/25/2019 8:56 AM
Team Rankings . com has the MAC at #8 in the nation this morning.

I'm not sure how much the win over MTSU helped since they rate the current version of "C-USA" 16th. Let me know when Louisville, Memphis, Houston, etc rejoin.
mail
person
Victory
11/25/2019 11:50 AM
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
The NCAA evaluates individual teams, rather than conferences, so it's conceivable to finish in the top 10 out of 32 conferences but only get one team in. With the MAC, the problem with getting multiple teams in is that the conference has mostly above average teams....most teams bunched between 100 and 180, with a few above or below that. That means the MAC can have seasons where it has a very good ranking among the conferences, but the league just can't ever seem to have two teams with a profile worthy of an at-large, although Buffalo would have gotten an at-large last season IF they had lost in the MAC tournament.
This. This has been a consistent been a problem since the early years of this millennium. The MAC isn't really a lesser league than in the 80's and 90's when at-large bids were more plentiful. The MAC has been a top 12 conference the vast majority of the years. For a typical conference on that level at the very least the conference champion is a bubble team if it loses in the tournament even if it doesn't get in or the conference doesn't have two or three teams close to the bubble. In the MAC parity has reigned and a most of the time the winner is about 12-6 in the conference. I doubt that most of the time that the MAC has been considered a much lesser league on the whole as the WCC or the MVC but no individual team usually steps up and puts their name in the discussion. A the occasions when one has over nearly the whole 21st century so far the conference champion has also won the tournament.
mail
JSF
11/25/2019 6:21 PM
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
The NCAA evaluates individual teams, rather than conferences, so it's conceivable to finish in the top 10 out of 32 conferences but only get one team in. With the MAC, the problem with getting multiple teams in is that the conference has mostly above average teams....most teams bunched between 100 and 180, with a few above or below that. That means the MAC can have seasons where it has a very good ranking among the conferences, but the league just can't ever seem to have two teams with a profile worthy of an at-large, although Buffalo would have gotten an at-large last season IF they had lost in the MAC tournament.
Correct. Conference ranking is purely for the water cooler.
mail
person
Jeff McKinney
11/26/2019 10:36 PM
Welp….as if we didn't already know it, this board has the power of negative karma. After all our bragging about the league a few days ago, the MAC has tanked the last two days.
mail
JSF
11/26/2019 11:13 PM
But how will that affect the ranking?
mail
person
OhioBobcat
11/27/2019 12:10 AM
shabamon wrote:expand_more
UC shot 55 free throws and lost. Down 10 with less than four minutes in regulation, BG starts playing hack a Shaq and it worked. From that point through the end of overtime, BG outscored the Bearcats 34-17. 34 points in nine minutes. And they did it without Justin Turner who had left the game with a hamstring injury.
The severity of Turner's injury has BG very concerned. It hasn't been announced yet on how bad it is, he was getting reexamined when they returned from their tournament. Losing him would be a massive blow. He's going to miss some time. The question is, how long? Will it be weeks, months, or the rest of the season? It depends on the grade of the tear. If healthy, he's probably the MAC POY. Without him, BG isn't nearly the same team. He's a 20 point scorer and BG's best perimeter defender.
mail
Andrew Ruck
11/27/2019 8:22 AM
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
Welp….as if we didn't already know it, this board has the power of negative karma. After all our bragging about the league a few days ago, the MAC has tanked the last two days.
Monday wasn't too bad...last night was brutal. Losses to Seattle, South Alabama, & Western Illinois. I am not sure I knew any of those 3 programs even existed.
mail
100%Cat
11/27/2019 9:53 AM
Andrew Ruck wrote:expand_more
Welp….as if we didn't already know it, this board has the power of negative karma. After all our bragging about the league a few days ago, the MAC has tanked the last two days.
Monday wasn't too bad...last night was brutal. Losses to Seattle, South Alabama, & Western Illinois. I am not sure I knew any of those 3 programs even existed.
Central also lost to DePaul last night. The MAC was 0-4 last night.
mail
person
bobcatsquared
11/27/2019 10:27 AM
Ball St. has been a big disappointment. The team that can't shoot straight. Is Zach Gunn still with BSU?
mail
person
Jeff McKinney
11/27/2019 9:59 PM
South Alabama is in the Sun Belt and is in Mobile. They were actually favored over Miami. Pretty good team. Western Illinois is not. I still cant believe they beat Ball St in Muncie. Western's home games are played on Waste Management Court.
Showing Messages: 1 - 19 of 19



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