http://www.bobcatattack.com/messageboard/topic.asp?FromPa...

Looks like this player has not played a bunch at GT. Hope he does well. From reports I have seen Boals is getting paid $600,000 plus this coming season. Doesn't shock me as I expected the new coach would be paid more than Saul. I guess the university has no budget problems when it comes to hiring new basketball coaches and the additional salary pool they have for assistants. I wish all the new staff well, but why does Ohio University pay more than any other MAC team when the Bobcats have not won a MAC regular season title since Larry Hunter was in charge? Does the 13,000 seat Convo equate to paying every new coach a big salary?

Fear Leon,
I hope your right about the Boals recruits. As I have seen, most recruits that are still available at this time of year are left overs that were passed over during the early signing period & become marginal contributors as best.
I personally would have preferred JB 5 years ago rather than SP. Now we have our man and I can't wait to see his style of play come Nov.




GO BOBCATS

In other news...

We landed on the moon!

Ohio won a MAC regular season title under Jim Christian...tied with Akron for first. Also, Buffalo and Akron have both surpassed Ohio in Coach salaries, though when Buffalo replaced Oats the salary dropped back.

Boals would not take less than Saul. Buffalo gave an assistant coach a prove it raise, we hired an established coach. I remember reading in past threads about how the new president and the AD were not interested in Sports. Those posts seem to be inaccurate Schaus seems to be pretty engaged and knowledgeable. I love seeing him at the Caravans and the president is signing off. Buffalo’s situation is totally different. Their new coach has a great roster returning and a lower buyout so if he wins he can and will leave. If Boals were to win and leave, we would have a buyout that would cover a new coaches salary for almost the next two years. I like his deal.

"The real question is - does anybody care? Well they might, but should they? Regular season championships for a mid-major in basketball are akin to looking at RBI to evaluate hitters in baseball. It's nice, but it doesn't really mean or tell you anything."


I agree GraffZ. The regular season for the MAC is not that important, but try telling that to season ticket holders who have watched prices rise the last few years. Ohio has won the league tourney with a losing conference record. The goal of MAC teams should be to stay healthy during the regular season and get hot for three games in March.

100%Cat- You are 100% correct as regular season titles should be more important than getting hot for three games in Cleveland. Unfortunately, the league office doesn't want that. For my money the regular season MAC champion over a period of 18 games should be the representative to the NCAA tournament.

Simple,

regular season title = Automatic Bid
conference tournament = Automatic Bid
fill in from there.

This would greatly increase the interest and visibility in mid-major basketball, as leagues such as ours would be able (most years) to get that 2nd team into the dance, and would push out the 18-17 win (conference losing record) from the tournament.

It's an interesting concept and one I'd wholly support, but the question is - in terms of interest/eyeballs/viewership for the NCAA tournament - which boils down to $$$, would Johnny Q. Public rather watch a 23-25 win mid-major from the MAC/A10/CUSA/Mtn West/SoCon etc. or would they rather watch a 17-19 win team from the P5? My gut reaction is, whether we want to believe it or not, the majority of the population sees "Arkansas" and goes - oh ok I'll watch that game because I know that school. You put on Mercer or Quinnipiac and they go....who? Unless the Stony Brook's of the world are playing AGAINST a P5 team. Then maybe they'd tune it (and of course root for the upset).

So maybe the solution is, always pair up the mid-major auto bids against P5 schools in the tourney draw to maximize the "watchability" factor. I dunno. I just think the more mids the NCAA puts in, the higher the probability two mids play each other - and that would be a nightmare ratings scenario for the NCAA.

So in this scenario, St. John's (21-12), Arizona State (22-10), Temple (23-9), Belmont (26-5), Ohio State (19-14), Seton Hall (20-12), Iowa (22-11), Florida (19-15), Minnesota (21-13) plus one of the No. 9 seeds were the last 10 teams in this past year. Of those teams, Belmont was a regular season conference champ, so they would be in, meaning two of the nine seeds would have been out. The only way this rule would ever have a chance is if the tournament was expanded.

As a Bobcats and MAC fan, I too, of course, would like to see both the regular season MAC champ and tourney champ get into the NCAA tournament. Perhaps there is a solution (if they want one ; ) ) for this being an “across the board” practice/rule of the NCAA. Maybe they could consider something similar to this.

I believe there are 34 D1 Men’s basketball conferences. At the end of the regular season, if the conference is rated in the top half (17), third (11), etc., of the country, that conference automatically has their regular season champ included. If it ends up being the same team winning their tourney, that may be their lone representative. This could also be done on an individual team rating basis (top 170, 115?) although I personally would like the conference method. It might also offer some protection to the NCAA from some truly bad team(s) getting in. Lastly, I think this would offer a level of discretion between the mid-majors and low majors which I think should exist and doesn’t.

I’m sure there would be questions about how this might affect scheduling from both the mid-major and “P5” perspective.

Probably some holes in this idea that I’m not thinking of but I think it would be better than what we have now.