RE: Top MAC teams struggling with lower half teams
(11-25-2011 09:57 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote: What lower half teams? Lower half teams are, CMU, Miami, buffalo, Akron, bgsu, Kent....
Emu would have been 7-5 with a win, same with ball state.
RE: Top MAC teams struggling with lower half teams
(11-25-2011 10:29 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:
(11-25-2011 09:57 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote: What lower half teams? Lower half teams are, CMU, Miami, buffalo, Akron, bgsu, Kent....
Emu would have been 7-5 with a win, same with ball state.
"Would have been"?
We would have been 11-0 had we not lost 2 games.
EMU was in the lower half of the West division. 5th place out of 6 teams. Yes....that's lower half.
And second place in the east ahead of temple if they would have been in the other division. Look at the divisions. West teams were 7-1, 7-1, 5-3, 5-3, 5-3, 2-6..... Lol 5th place. Word it how ever you want but emu has been the only team to shut down NIU all year and also shut down WMU. they were one of the only defense oriented teams in the MAC.
The Mac west is the best non aq division in football. Its like saying arkansas is average for being 3rd in that division in the SEC... Also 3rd in the conference and was 3rd in the country.
RE: Top MAC teams struggling with lower half teams
Eastern Michigan is not bowl eligible, even though they have 6 wins, because the wins include 2 wins against FCS teams (Howard and Alabama State). So they only had 4 wins against FBS teams: Akron, Central Michigan, Western Michigan, and Buffalo.
RE: Top MAC teams struggling with lower half teams
(11-25-2011 10:59 PM)FIUFanatic Wrote: Eastern Michigan is not bowl eligible, even though they have 6 wins, because the wins include 2 wins against FCS teams (Howard and Alabama State). So they only had 4 wins against FBS teams: Akron, Central Michigan, Western Michigan, and Buffalo.
fcs argument is dumb, Toledo beat an fcs team too, that doesn't mean we're 7-4. You have to count one of emu's wins against them. they had 4 wins in the MAC which puts them in 7th in a 13 team conference. I guess it's technically bottom half but teams in your conference struggled with ulm and north Texas this year. Why isn't that the same?
RE: Top MAC teams struggling with lower half teams
I'm not the one making this argument dumb. I'm just stating some facts into the equation. The FACT is that EMU is NOT bowl eligible, because they can only count 1 FCS victory a year. They had 2 this season. Did you see/read me arguing anything?...other than stating some facts?
RE: Top MAC teams struggling with lower half teams
(11-25-2011 11:25 PM)FIUFanatic Wrote: I'm not the one making this argument dumb. I'm just stating some facts into the equation. The FACT is that EMU is NOT bowl eligible, because they can only count 1 FCS victory a year. They had 2 this season. Did you see/read me arguing anything?...other than stating some facts?
RE: Top MAC teams struggling with lower half teams
(11-25-2011 11:27 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote: Did I say they were bowl eligible?
no, you just called his "argument" which was actually just stating a fact, "dumb". that implied you disagreed, and based on what he was saying, led to the conclusion you were not in agreence with his premise that they are not in fact bowl eligible.
RE: Top MAC teams struggling with lower half teams
(11-25-2011 11:42 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:
(11-25-2011 11:27 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote: Did I say they were bowl eligible?
no, you just called his "argument" which was actually just stating a fact, "dumb". that implied you disagreed, and based on what he was saying, led to the conclusion you were not in agreence with his premise that they are not in fact bowl eligible.
He's "arguing" with himself, 'cause I'm not arguing anything here. Just stating some facts into the equation.
RE: Top MAC teams struggling with lower half teams
I don't understand the point of stating that EMU was not bowl eligible? It had nothing to do with a topic, I don't know why you were stating the fact unless you were arguing something...?
RE: Top MAC teams struggling with lower half teams
You see...still arguing with yourself. Listen, you answered to the wrong person in this thread, as I wasn't the one arguing the point with you. Additionally, you brought EMU's "almost 7 victories" as proof of something you think or use to support your claims....Of course it's relevant to note that out of the "almost 7 wins" argument you brought forward, 2 of the 6 (almost 7) came against weak FCS teams. Therefore, the almost 7 wins (6 wins) does not make them bowl eligible.
Again, for the third time, I brought up some facts to the topic at hand. Just leave it there, kid and let's start enjoying the holidays....
(This post was last modified: 11-26-2011 10:31 AM by FIUFanatic.)
RE: Top MAC teams struggling with lower half teams
This is direcred at FIUfan: Why is that bowl eligible fact being stated? I know, I don't care. They are still 6-6 no matter who they beat.
This is directed at the point of thread and whoever started it: They play in the tougher of the 2 divisions and still went (4-4) in the conference... EMU was a middle MAC team who gave NIU a game. There is nothing wrong with mid MAC teams competing with the top. Just like UNT and ULM gave SBC top teams good games. That was the point of this thread, "Is the MAC actually closer top to bottom than we thought?" There weren't any games between top and bottom teams that were super close and the top struggled to win against a lowly MAC team. The only game that was between a top and bottom team was WMU vs. Akron and they won 68-19.
(This post was last modified: 11-26-2011 12:15 PM by UofToledoFans.)
RE: Top MAC teams struggling with lower half teams
(11-25-2011 10:57 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:
(11-25-2011 10:29 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:
(11-25-2011 09:57 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote: What lower half teams? Lower half teams are, CMU, Miami, buffalo, Akron, bgsu, Kent....
Emu would have been 7-5 with a win, same with ball state.
"Would have been"?
We would have been 11-0 had we not lost 2 games.
EMU was in the lower half of the West division. 5th place out of 6 teams. Yes....that's lower half.
And second place in the east ahead of temple if they would have been in the other division. Look at the divisions. West teams were 7-1, 7-1, 5-3, 5-3, 5-3, 2-6..... Lol 5th place. Word it how ever you want but emu has been the only team to shut down NIU all year and also shut down WMU. they were one of the only defense oriented teams in the MAC.
The Mac west is the best non aq division in football. Its like saying arkansas is average for being 3rd in that division in the SEC... Also 3rd in the conference and was 3rd in the country.
Every school in the SunBelt plays defense.
A lesson in defense is headed to each MAC school that makes a bowl game.
RE: Top MAC teams struggling with lower half teams
(11-26-2011 03:46 PM)Senatobia Wrote:
(11-25-2011 10:57 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:
(11-25-2011 10:29 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:
(11-25-2011 09:57 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote: What lower half teams? Lower half teams are, CMU, Miami, buffalo, Akron, bgsu, Kent....
Emu would have been 7-5 with a win, same with ball state.
"Would have been"?
We would have been 11-0 had we not lost 2 games.
EMU was in the lower half of the West division. 5th place out of 6 teams. Yes....that's lower half.
And second place in the east ahead of temple if they would have been in the other division. Look at the divisions. West teams were 7-1, 7-1, 5-3, 5-3, 5-3, 2-6..... Lol 5th place. Word it how ever you want but emu has been the only team to shut down NIU all year and also shut down WMU. they were one of the only defense oriented teams in the MAC.
The Mac west is the best non aq division in football. Its like saying arkansas is average for being 3rd in that division in the SEC... Also 3rd in the conference and was 3rd in the country.
Every school in the SunBelt plays defense.
A lesson in defense is headed to each MAC school that makes a bowl game.
Absolutely! The MAC offenses are decent, but they look far better than they should because are playing defenses that are as effective as a screen door on a submarine.
/
Top MAC teams struggling with lower half teams
You see...still arguing with yourself. Listen, you answered to the wrong person in this thread, as I wasn't the one arguing the point with you. Additionally, you brought EMU's "almost 7 victories" as proof of something you think or use to support your claims....Of course it's relevant to note that out of the "almost 7 wins" argument you brought forward, 2 of the 6 (almost 7) came against weak FCS teams. Therefore, the almost 7 wins (6 wins) does not make them bowl eligible. 
