(04-09-2017 03:01 AM)OhioBobcatJohn Wrote:  The MAC should be playing the MWC which is its peer conference.

I like the idea, but note that the MWC likely doesn't view the MAC as its peer in Basketball ... they likely view themselves as a multi-bid (aka "high mid-major") conference that just had a down year this year.

Note that the MAC would have an "odd man out", since the MWC is 11 for BBall. One way to run it would be for the bottom finisher in conference from the year to be left out.

Another approach would be to "reward success" by negotiating a top-4 or top-8 regular season challenge event, where the top four or eight regular season teams from the year before meet early in the following season, alternating 1/3:2/4 home/away (or 1/3/5/7:2/4/6/8).

(04-09-2017 09:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 03:01 AM)OhioBobcatJohn Wrote:  The MAC should be playing the MWC which is its peer conference.

I like the idea, but note that the MWC likely doesn't view the MAC as its peer in Basketball ... they likely view themselves as a multi-bid (aka "high mid-major") conference that just had a down year this year.

Note that the MAC would have an "odd man out", since the MWC is 11 for BBall. One way to run it would be for the bottom finisher in conference from the year to be left out.

Another approach would be to "reward success" by negotiating a top-4 or top-8 regular season challenge event, where the top four or eight regular season teams from the year before meet early in the following season, alternating 1/3:2/4 home/away (or 1/3/5/7:2/4/6/8).

+1

There is no way that the MWC feels they are our peers. That's why the MAC has few to no H&H scheduled with them.

(04-10-2017 08:15 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  There is no way that the MWC feels they are our peers. That's why the MAC has few to no H&H scheduled with them.

Who is the MAC's peer conference in BBall?

Just for convenience, I looked at conference RPI, even though it is a biased measure of conference success, averaged over the past three years. I skipped the Majors, and only went as low as CUSA this season (which is pretty low) so that all Go5 conferences were included.

0.5277 A10
0.5251 AAC
0.5140 MWC
0.5104 WCC
0.5062 MAC
0.5056 MVC
0.5003 Colonial
0.4881 Summit
0.4873 Sunbelt
0.4871 Ivy
0.4851 Horizon
0.4794 MAAC
0.4775 CUSA

The "peer" on that measure is the MVC, though the MVC is a much different distribution of those points. But the MVC is losing many of the quality road wins from one school that were helping to raise its conference RPI in that three year span, and if it drops down a rung, then the peers of the MAC are the WCC "looking up", and the Colonial "looking down".

I don't think the Zags, BYU or St. Mary's is going to sign up for the deal just to help out the scheduling of the rest of the WCC, so I don't know that a "Conference Challenge" it would be available on the "peer looking up" side.

But the case for the Colonial being a peer for the MAC "in its current state" is reinforced when you look beyond the RPI to other computer rankings. At Warren Nolan, in 2017, the Colonial's RPI rank is 11th, but at on Warren Nolan's Power Index, it's NPI is 12th, and on the ELO computer model it is 13th. Meanwhile the MAC's 2017 RPI is 14th, but it's NPI is 13th, and it's ELO computer model rank is 12th.

The Colonial is 10 schools, so a top 6 v top 6 would be half of the MAC and one more than half of the Colonial ... but it would give the MAC some of the Eastern Exposure that from additions over the past thirty years, MAC schools seem to like.

(04-11-2017 06:47 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 08:15 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  There is no way that the MWC feels they are our peers. That's why the MAC has few to no H&H scheduled with them.

Who is the MAC's peer conference in BBall?

Just for convenience, I looked at conference RPI, even though it is a biased measure of conference success, averaged over the past three years. I skipped the Majors, and only went as low as CUSA this season (which is pretty low) so that all Go5 conferences were included.

0.5277 A10
0.5251 AAC
0.5140 MWC
0.5104 WCC
0.5062 MAC
0.5056 MVC
0.5003 Colonial
0.4881 Summit
0.4873 Sunbelt
0.4871 Ivy
0.4851 Horizon
0.4794 MAAC
0.4775 CUSA

The "peer" on that measure is the MVC, though the MVC is a much different distribution of those points. But the MVC is losing many of the quality road wins from one school that were helping to raise its conference RPI in that three year span, and if it drops down a rung, then the peers of the MAC are the WCC "looking up", and the Colonial "looking down".

I don't think the Zags, BYU or St. Mary's is going to sign up for the deal just to help out the scheduling of the rest of the WCC, so I don't know that a "Conference Challenge" it would be available on the "peer looking up" side.

But the case for the Colonial being a peer for the MAC "in its current state" is reinforced when you look beyond the RPI to other computer rankings. At Warren Nolan, in 2017, the Colonial's RPI rank is 11th, but at on Warren Nolan's Power Index, it's NPI is 12th, and on the ELO computer model it is 13th. Meanwhile the MAC's 2017 RPI is 14th, but it's NPI is 13th, and it's ELO computer model rank is 12th.

The Colonial is 10 schools, so a top 6 v top 6 would be half of the MAC and one more than half of the Colonial ... but it would give the MAC some of the Eastern Exposure that from additions over the past thirty years, MAC schools seem to like.

I've been asking for a a MAC/CAA challenge for 2-3 years now. Its the conference that I felt was most similar to the MAC in quality and now your numbers appear to back it up.

With Wichita State now gone getting something started with the MVC becomes feasible. With Wichita State and Creighton's reign now over, I expect some of those programs that have been down for a number of years to rebound. It's also IMO the more likely to happen since CBS Sports owns the MVC rights and ESPN and CBS Sports have a pretty good relationship.

Great suggestions, Especially the conference challenge.

If you want the MAC to improve, then email the MAC commissioner.

Another thing not mentioned is I feel it would be great if the MAC could work with the Greater Cleveland Sports Commission to bring back the Rock n Roll Shootout. It would provide opportunities for MAC programs to play big name programs at a facility and city they are accustomed playing in.

Miami's AD said the other day that we're playing at Depaul, Mizzou, and Ohio State next season. Not the old death marches of old, but at least it sounds like the days of playing D2 and low-major teams for half of OOC play and one power conference team at most is over for us.

(04-14-2017 02:01 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Miami's AD said the other day that we're playing at Depaul, Mizzou, and Ohio State next season. Not the old death marches of old, but at least it sounds like the days of playing D2 and low-major teams for half of OOC play and one power conference team at most is over.

That's good fo Miami, but if we want to strengthen the MAC as a whole, we need all of the teams to not play four D2 OOC games. What is good for the conference is good for Miami

Toledo is playing at Kansas at Syracuse and hosting Middle Tennessee, St Joes, Wright St and either Evansville or UNC Wilmington. Will be the toughest schedule the Rockets have set up in recent memory.

On a related note, scheduling used to be more equitable. Bigger names had some leverage but it was common for a MAC team to host 1 or 2 name schools each year. The bigs will rarely do that any more, plus the exempt made for tv neutral court tourneys have become the one place a MAC team might get a semi fair shot at a big dog. The NCAA could easily change the structure by requiring a minimum amount of regional road games. This would force name schools to travel to smaller programs in their footprint and stimulate local interest in the non conference season and help broaden the fan base of the big schools and solidify the local interest in the mid majors. not saying it will get done, but it could be easily accomplished if the will was there and there were more ethics to the NCAA.

NIU could strengthen its schedule, but we aren't going to beat any good schools unless we improve. We do need to stop scheduling multiple lower-division schools at least. That's ridiculous.

Yes, even an AD agreement to not schedule more than 3 D2 schools over two seasons would be an improvement.

(04-09-2017 09:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 03:01 AM)OhioBobcatJohn Wrote:  The MAC should be playing the MWC which is its peer conference.

I like the idea, but note that the MWC likely doesn't view the MAC as its peer in Basketball ... they likely view themselves as a multi-bid (aka "high mid-major") conference that just had a down year this year.

Note that the MAC would have an "odd man out", since the MWC is 11 for BBall. One way to run it would be for the bottom finisher in conference from the year to be left out.

Another approach would be to "reward success" by negotiating a top-4 or top-8 regular season challenge event, where the top four or eight regular season teams from the year before meet early in the following season, alternating 1/3:2/4 home/away (or 1/3/5/7:2/4/6/8).

Great idea, Bruce!

(04-14-2017 04:50 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  NIU could strengthen its schedule, but we aren't going to beat any good schools unless we improve. We do need to stop scheduling multiple lower-division schools at least. That's ridiculous.

Agree, and so does EMU.

If we want the conference to improve in basketball, then the conf must improve Home and Home scheduling.

(04-11-2017 06:47 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 08:15 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  There is no way that the MWC feels they are our peers. That's why the MAC has few to no H&H scheduled with them.

Who is the MAC's peer conference in BBall?

Just for convenience, I looked at conference RPI, even though it is a biased measure of conference success, averaged over the past three years. I skipped the Majors, and only went as low as CUSA this season (which is pretty low) so that all Go5 conferences were included.

0.5277 A10
0.5251 AAC
0.5140 MWC
0.5104 WCC
0.5062 MAC
0.5056 MVC
0.5003 Colonial
0.4881 Summit
0.4873 Sunbelt
0.4871 Ivy
0.4851 Horizon
0.4794 MAAC
0.4775 CUSA

The "peer" on that measure is the MVC, though the MVC is a much different distribution of those points. But the MVC is losing many of the quality road wins from one school that were helping to raise its conference RPI in that three year span, and if it drops down a rung, then the peers of the MAC are the WCC "looking up", and the Colonial "looking down".

I don't think the Zags, BYU or St. Mary's is going to sign up for the deal just to help out the scheduling of the rest of the WCC, so I don't know that a "Conference Challenge" it would be available on the "peer looking up" side.

But the case for the Colonial being a peer for the MAC "in its current state" is reinforced when you look beyond the RPI to other computer rankings. At Warren Nolan, in 2017, the Colonial's RPI rank is 11th, but at on Warren Nolan's Power Index, it's NPI is 12th, and on the ELO computer model it is 13th. Meanwhile the MAC's 2017 RPI is 14th, but it's NPI is 13th, and it's ELO computer model rank is 12th.

The Colonial is 10 schools, so a top 6 v top 6 would be half of the MAC and one more than half of the Colonial ... but it would give the MAC some of the Eastern Exposure that from additions over the past thirty years, MAC schools seem to like.

Solid idea with the CAA.

-Peer league by most definitions.
-Eastern market exposure (MVC doesn't do that for you)
-CAA had deal with NBC Sports, MAC with CBS Sports (Excuse for TV).
-Way to snub the A10 and their snobby scheduling.
-Chance for solid RPI wins.

It could be just the Top 4 vs. Top 4 so not digging deep into higher RPI schools and make it more appealing for TV.

Here's a comment from Saul Phillips about OOC scheduling at a recent Bobcat Caravan stop in Cleveland:

Saul Phillips Wrote:  Challenging schedule next year, we play down in the Charleston Classic, that's on ESPN, a lot of high-majors in that baby. We're ramping this thing up, we're going to continue to ramp it up, in terms of schedule.

The goal I think for this entire league is to ultimately be a 2-bid league and we certainly feel like an aggressive preseason schedule gives us the best chance to do that.

Good to hear that the message is getting out about wanting to become a 2 bid league and identifying what it takes to get there.

It's the coaching salaries.

The MAC fell behind in the 80's and 90's while other conferences invested. It's only in the last 10 years or so they've tried to turn the ship around.

MAC schools today are making what I would call an Atlantic Ten type hire; a top assistant with significant high major pedigree or an experienced D1 head coach.

MVC pulled off 4 NCAA bids by winning 90% in the non-conference one season. It can be don if the MAC is very, very good one year.