We are the ONLY D1 men's basketball conference to actually have an east and west division. I realize that in Football you cannot play a true round robin and the NCAA allows you to play an extra championship game when your league has a minimum of 12 teams. It makes sense.

Basketball, however, has a conference tournament at season end. Is the MAC so desperate that it needs to hang two champ banners at the end of each season? Your thoughts?

I bet a lot of fans on here would prefer one division and a 22 game schedule over what we have at this point.

Too many small schools on the non-conference schedule that nobody wants to see.

(01-16-2020 08:38 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I bet a lot of fans on here would prefer one division and a 22 game schedule over what we have at this point.

Too many small schools on the non-conference schedule that nobody wants to see.

Two things ...

1) - While one division would not make that big of a deal to me, divisions serve a purpose. There is a scheduling component that (BG/Toledo aside) features both rivalries and travel. Also, without divisions, would there be as much conference-wide interest in the MAC-West as there is? I don't think so.

2) - And I can't emphasize this enough. A 22-game schedule plays into the hands of the power conferences. The challenge, indeed, the CONFERENCE MANDATE, should be more aggressive scheduling. More games vs. A-10, Mo-Valley, C-USA and the like with less games vs. HBCU's has to become the norm.

It may lead to a few more losses, a few more road games, but the league overall, particularly at the top, should be able to absorb that challenge without too much pain.

The end result could be more upsets and a better chance at NCAA bids.

There's no need to go to more than the current 18 games. You just eliminate the idea of East and West in scheduling, keep the rivalries and simply rotate the teams you play once and twice. The change would be that the seven teams you play twice would rotate among all the teams in the conference, rather than be the geographic setup we currently have. A 22-game schedule and the loss of those 4 out of conference games is too big a price to pay for a 100% balanced schedule, and I think 18 games will differentiate the quality of the teams plenty adequately heading into the MAC tourney, certainly as well as it currently does. Even now, the division setup serves no practical purpose for league. There really is no reason to continue it and hasn't been since divisions have no bearing on seeding.

This question seems to get asked every year. Outside of reducing travel, there isn't really any benefit. Sure, the MAC East typically plays a tougher schedule, but under any non double round robin system you're going to have some team get a favorable and another get a not so favorable. It's all about the luck of the draw.

So with 18 games and no divisions, each school gets 3 locked games, and the other eight teams play H/H in one season, H or Away the other?

The locked games that come to my mind are:
Kent State: Akron
Akron: Kent State
Toledo: Bowling Green
Bowling Green: Toledo
Miami: Ohio, Ball State
Ohio: Miami
Ball State: Miami
EMU: CMU, WMU
CMU: WMU, EMU
WMU: CMU, EMU

... what are the rest?

(01-16-2020 09:37 PM)axeme Wrote:  There's no need to go to more than the current 18 games. You just eliminate the idea of East and West in scheduling, keep the rivalries and simply rotate the teams you play once and twice. The change would be that the seven teams you play twice would rotate among all the teams in the conference, rather than be the geographic setup we currently have. A 22-game schedule and the loss of those 4 out of conference games is too big a price to pay for a 100% balanced schedule, and I think 18 games will differentiate the quality of the teams plenty adequately heading into the MAC tourney, certainly as well as it currently does. Even now, the division setup serves no practical purpose for league. There really is no reason to continue it and hasn't been since divisions have no bearing on seeding.

right, there is no reason for 2 divisions. nobody else does it. toledo and BG are 20 miles from each other but in different divisions, sometimes only playing each other once, so it's not really geography. mac needs to do whatever necessary to promote fan interest. teams should be playing their natural rivals twice at a minimum. plus, from a toledo point of view fan interest is BG, Buffalo, Ohio, Kent, Miami, Akron, Ball St in that order-nothing to do with divisions.

(01-17-2020 12:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  So with 18 games and no divisions, each school gets 3 locked games, and the other eight teams play H/H in one season, H or Away the other?

The locked games that come to my mind are:
Kent State: Akron
Akron: Kent State
Toledo: Bowling Green
Bowling Green: Toledo
Miami: Ohio, Ball State
Ohio: Miami
Ball State: Miami
EMU: CMU, WMU
CMU: WMU, EMU
WMU: CMU, EMU

... what are the rest?

Akron's three biggest rivals in MAC basketball I'd say are Kent, Ohio, and Buffalo. Those programs, along with Akron, have been the top performing MAC basketball schools over the past 2 decades. If we broke the conference into protected rivalries and non protected rivalries we'll still be in the same place with unbalanced schedules.

Honestly I see no harm in keeping the divisions. The one change that I feel should be made is the Toledo-BGSU should be protected. I know this will create some scheduling corks where Akron might go x-number of years without a H&H with (insert random MAC West), but that's no bother to me.

Don't know how to do it but TOL and BG should be in the same division.

As far as divisions, didn't they work PERFECTLY with a 16 game schedule?

Play your division opponents 2x (total 10 games) and the other division teams 1x (total 6 games). Total = 16 games.

Make sense?

P.S. I have no problem with a 16 game conference schedule and maybe reduce the total schedule by 2 games.

The schedule has continued to grow over the years.

(01-17-2020 09:54 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Don't know how to do it but TOL and BG should be in the same division.

As far as divisions, didn't they work PERFECTLY with a 16 game schedule?

Play your division opponents 2x (total 10 games) and the other division teams 1x (total 6 games). Total = 16 games.

Make sense?

P.S. I have no problem with a 16 game conference schedule and maybe reduce the total schedule by 2 games.

The schedule has continued to grow over the years.

Any system that doesn't involve double round robin is going to imperfect as seeding will be impacted by SOS. Personally, I liked the change to 18 games. It made schedules slightly more balanced a crossed divisions and just generally fans are going to be more interested in a MAC East playing another MAC school over some cupcake or random MAC caliber mid-major school. I'd argue for a 22 game conference schedule, but that would leave too few OOC games. 18 seems like a good balance for now.

(01-17-2020 09:54 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Don't know how to do it but TOL and BG should be in the same division.

Well, if TOL-BG is in the same division, it's either WITH OH-MIA and AKR-KST, in which case it's "Ohio / Non-Ohio" divisions and Buffalo plays in the west, or withOUT OH-MIA and AKR-KST, in which case it's Ball State or Northern Illinois that goes to the East, given that EMU/CMU/WMU in the west is locked.

Locking TOL-BG cross division is easy ... just give everyone a locked Western/Eastern game and rotate the others over a five year schedule. Buffalo-EMU, Miami-BallSt, Toledo-BG write themselves in, how NIU / WMU / CMU map to Kent / Ohio / Akron, I don't know.

(01-17-2020 11:45 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 09:54 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Don't know how to do it but TOL and BG should be in the same division.

As far as divisions, didn't they work PERFECTLY with a 16 game schedule?

Play your division opponents 2x (total 10 games) and the other division teams 1x (total 6 games). Total = 16 games.

Make sense?

P.S. I have no problem with a 16 game conference schedule and maybe reduce the total schedule by 2 games.

The schedule has continued to grow over the years.

Any system that doesn't involve double round robin is going to imperfect as seeding will be impacted by SOS. Personally, I liked the change to 18 games. It made schedules slightly more balanced a crossed divisions and just generally fans are going to be more interested in a MAC East playing another MAC school over some cupcake or random MAC caliber mid-major school. I'd argue for a 22 game conference schedule, but that would leave too few OOC games. 18 seems like a good balance for now.

In football we have unbalanced schedules.

The West has historically been the tough division and west teams typically have tough conference schedules.

This imbalance is a fact of life in FB (e.g., B1G, SEC, etc.) but it is what it is.

P.S. ask the poor Baltimore Orioles living in a division with the Yankees and Red Sox.

you could make an argument ball state is fine with the east. they sort of have a rivalry with miami and i'm sure their fans wouldn't mind playing ohio and buffalo. it's not like ball st and niu are rivals.

the mac should just get smarter. have each team every year play their top 3 or 4 rivals once in football and twice in basketball. everything else is on a rotation.

then, get back to the old schedule and pepper the conference slate with a few interesting non conference opponents. that ball st and indiana st game in indianapolis would be just as interesting and change of pace in february. a crossover game against a minor regional rival and an A-10 or MW team would be fun once in each of january and february. moving a couple conference games up to november or early december when school is in session makes a lot more sense than a D3 team there. what's the point of a 31 game season when you only have 1 or 2 good non conference home games.

(01-18-2020 03:33 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 11:45 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 09:54 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Don't know how to do it but TOL and BG should be in the same division.

As far as divisions, didn't they work PERFECTLY with a 16 game schedule?

Play your division opponents 2x (total 10 games) and the other division teams 1x (total 6 games). Total = 16 games.

Make sense?

P.S. I have no problem with a 16 game conference schedule and maybe reduce the total schedule by 2 games.

The schedule has continued to grow over the years.

Any system that doesn't involve double round robin is going to imperfect as seeding will be impacted by SOS. Personally, I liked the change to 18 games. It made schedules slightly more balanced a crossed divisions and just generally fans are going to be more interested in a MAC East playing another MAC school over some cupcake or random MAC caliber mid-major school. I'd argue for a 22 game conference schedule, but that would leave too few OOC games. 18 seems like a good balance for now.

In football we have unbalanced schedules.

The West has historically been the tough division and west teams typically have tough conference schedules.

This imbalance is a fact of life in FB (e.g., B1G, SEC, etc.) but it is what it is.

P.S. ask the poor Baltimore Orioles living in a division with the Yankees and Red Sox.

Football also only plays 12 regular season games. It wouldn't be practical for every team to play every team once.

(01-18-2020 04:48 AM)pono Wrote:  you could make an argument ball state is fine with the east. they sort of have a rivalry with miami and i'm sure their fans wouldn't mind playing ohio and buffalo. it's not like ball st and niu are rivals. ...

The reason there's no consensus on that is rather that BG doesn't particularly want to be in the West. The status quo gives them most of what they want ... they play Toledo every year, in both FB and BB, they play the other Ohio schools every year in FB and host them every year in BB.

If they could also host Toledo every year in BB that would be ideal, but they aren't going to let pursuit of the ideal get in the way of enjoying the pretty good.

Anyway, why are there two divisions?

It covers four of the three main rivalries, including the three way Battle of Michigan, the Battle of the Bricks and the Wagon Wheel, and as mentioned above, BG is OK with the basketball side of the Battle of I-95 being home or away, all things considered.

The only downside for the Ohio schools is playing Toledo less often, which is offset by hosting Buffalo every year.

The West offers EMU more opportunities to build BB success than many other arrangements, while hosting their two main rivals every year.

In a typical year it gives Buffalo a healthier NET than many other arrangements would do.

So if all of the Eastern division schools support it, and EMU, CMU, and WMU support it, how are you going to round up the voted to change it? Heck, if all the Eastern division schools plus EMU support it, where are the votes to change it going to come from?

There is one other element in basketball scheduling created by two divisions.

Generally the top two teams in each division play each other twice the next year. So do the middle two teams and the bottom two.

It's supposed to create a more competitive balance. It's very imperfect; the previous year's record doesn't necessarily reflect the current team.

But it's a point no one has mentioned.

(I personally would get rid of the divisions. They are confusing when they don't mean anything in tournament seeding.)

(01-20-2020 08:12 PM)cschierh Wrote:  There is one other element in basketball scheduling created by two divisions.

Generally the top two teams in each division play each other twice the next year. So do the middle two teams and the bottom two.

It's supposed to create a more competitive balance. It's very imperfect; the previous year's record doesn't necessarily reflect the current team.

But it's a point no one has mentioned.

(I personally would get rid of the divisions. They are confusing when they don't mean anything in tournament seeding.)

I hope I'm not repeating myself or someone else.

Divisions worked perfectly with a 16 game conference schedule.

Using my school, EMU as an example:

We got home and home with our natural rivals, e.g., CMU, WMU, TOL, etc.

We played each of the east teams once. I assume we would host say UB one year and then shuffle off to Buffalo the next.

This is the same strategy in football: EMU plays natural rivals every year and 3 of the opposite division.

WITHOUT divisions, would Akron and Kent be happy playing only once some years?

Ditto CMU and WMU. And so on.

Without divisions Akron and NIU would be the same as Akron and Kent. There would be no rivalry scheduling. Everything thing would be balanced.

And maintaining divisions simplifies travel. E.g., NIU would rather travel to TOL than to Buffalo or Athens.

The answer that I have gotten from someone who has worked for the MAC for a while, is that the coaches want them and have voted on it.

(01-21-2020 10:56 AM)T4C8 Wrote:  The answer that I have gotten from someone who has worked for the MAC for a while, is that the coaches want them and have voted on it.

Good by me.

(01-21-2020 07:26 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 08:12 PM)cschierh Wrote:  There is one other element in basketball scheduling created by two divisions.

Generally the top two teams in each division play each other twice the next year. So do the middle two teams and the bottom two.

It's supposed to create a more competitive balance. It's very imperfect; the previous year's record doesn't necessarily reflect the current team.

But it's a point no one has mentioned.

(I personally would get rid of the divisions. They are confusing when they don't mean anything in tournament seeding.)

Here's something else. It's not just about hanging two Championship banners; it's also about recognizing more student athletes for their performances.
I hope I'm not repeating myself or someone else.

Divisions worked perfectly with a 16 game conference schedule.

Using my school, EMU as an example:

We got home and home with our natural rivals, e.g., CMU, WMU, TOL, etc.

We played each of the east teams once. I assume we would host say UB one year and then shuffle off to Buffalo the next.

This is the same strategy in football: EMU plays natural rivals every year and 3 of the opposite division.

WITHOUT divisions, would Akron and Kent be happy playing only once some years?

Ditto CMU and WMU. And so on.

Without divisions Akron and NIU would be the same as Akron and Kent. There would be no rivalry scheduling. Everything thing would be balanced.

And maintaining divisions simplifies travel. E.g., NIU would rather travel to TOL than to Buffalo or Athens.