Ken Pomeroy's predictions:

Semis Final Champ
1 Toledo 78.4 50.8 31.7
2 Buffalo 75.3 49.5 27.0
4 Kent St. 53.7 23.2 11.4
3 Akron 54.6 23.5 9.8
5 Ohio 46.3 18.5 8.4
6 Bowling Green 45.4 17.4 6.4
7 Miami OH 24.7 9.6 2.9
8 Ball St. 21.6 7.5 2.4

(03-10-2021 10:06 PM)pono Wrote:  WCC model is interesting comparison. gonzaga grew from strong mid major to national powerhouse. they added BYU who is a typical bubble team and have st mary's who is usually a bubble team. the rest of the league is like the middle to lower MAC. while mac won't likely ever have a gonzaga, you could make the argument that we could have 4-5 byu/st mary's type teams (i know BYU has a bigger budget, but i'm talking quality of team). toledo, ohio, buffalo, akron and kent are all just below that st mary's/byu standard and several other mac programs have the potential to be that good once every 3 or 4 years. i'd be more in the upgrade the top half of the league just a little camp.

Gonzaga is the tide that lifted all ships for that conference. St. Mary's needed those wins over Gonzaga to legitimize itself. Without a Gonzaga in that conference I imagine BYU would be in the MWC today. As you stated the MAC will never have a Gonzaga so I don't see that as a feasible plan.

The Atlantic 10 is a much more realistic aspiration for the MAC. I'm counting 10/14 (71%) teams in the top 150 of NET. 6/14 (43%) in the top 100. They always have at least 1 team, most years multiple, in the discussion for an at-large because they have so many schools that strive for that level of success.

(03-11-2021 10:21 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  The Atlantic 10 is a much more realistic aspiration for the MAC. I'm counting 10/14 (71%) teams in the top 150 of NET. 6/14 (43%) in the top 100. They always have at least 1 team, most years multiple, in the discussion for an at-large because they have so many schools that strive for that level of success.

As far as a realistic aspiration, that is only if the MAC drops football or drops its football to FCS. Otherwise, the idea of 3/4 or more of the MAC putting that much focus on basketball is wishful thinking. Sure, it would be nice, but individual schools will look at the opportunities to raise their profile by investing in different sports, and it's not going to be 9 or 10 MAC schools that decide to put that high priority on basketball.

Indeed, the new season scheduling with last year's 1 & 2 being home or away against last year's 11 & 12, and similarly for 3&4 against 9&10, reflects that reality.

Even getting it to 7 or 8 putting a high priority on basketball success is a push, though it's worthwhile making. But the MAC should maybe look at "challenge" series that reward schools the following year making it into the top six and top four. A four game challenge with the MVC, (previous season) 1st hosts 4th, 2nd hosts 3rd, and a six game challenge with CUSA, 1st hosts 6th, 2nd hosts 5th, 3rd hosts 4th. Obviously the schools have to build the program, but create the opportunity to bring more top 100 OOC wins into the conference race.

Then the top eight get to go to the conference tournament, with seeding benefits the higher you go, the top six are in one challenge series, the top four in two challenge series, and the top two host in two challenge series.

It's not like it would make the MAC a multiple bid Tourney conference, but it might help contribute to making the MAC a regular at-large NIT bid conference, which is a step up from where it is today.

Good luck to all in the tournament. Of course coming from a UMass perspective and disliking the Bulls (grin smiley), hope Toledo wins out. Not saying others can win and will cheer for them. Of course it would be good for the Bulls to win as they have been building name recognition and recognize that as a positive.

Toledo in a nail biter...

Rockets 91
Cardinals 89
Final/(OT)

Per the record courier Danny Pippen is not dressed for the quarter final against Ohio.

(03-11-2021 01:08 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 10:21 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  The Atlantic 10 is a much more realistic aspiration for the MAC. I'm counting 10/14 (71%) teams in the top 150 of NET. 6/14 (43%) in the top 100. They always have at least 1 team, most years multiple, in the discussion for an at-large because they have so many schools that strive for that level of success.

As far as a realistic aspiration, that is only if the MAC drops football or drops its football to FCS. Otherwise, the idea of 3/4 or more of the MAC putting that much focus on basketball is wishful thinking. Sure, it would be nice, but individual schools will look at the opportunities to raise their profile by investing in different sports, and it's not going to be 9 or 10 MAC schools that decide to put that high priority on basketball.

Indeed, the new season scheduling with last year's 1 & 2 being home or away against last year's 11 & 12, and similarly for 3&4 against 9&10, reflects that reality.

Even getting it to 7 or 8 putting a high priority on basketball success is a push, though it's worthwhile making. But the MAC should maybe look at "challenge" series that reward schools the following year making it into the top six and top four. A four game challenge with the MVC, (previous season) 1st hosts 4th, 2nd hosts 3rd, and a six game challenge with CUSA, 1st hosts 6th, 2nd hosts 5th, 3rd hosts 4th. Obviously the schools have to build the program, but create the opportunity to bring more top 100 OOC wins into the conference race.

Then the top eight get to go to the conference tournament, with seeding benefits the higher you go, the top six are in one challenge series, the top four in two challenge series, and the top two host in two challenge series.

It's not like it would make the MAC a multiple bid Tourney conference, but it might help contribute to making the MAC a regular at-large NIT bid conference, which is a step up from where it is today.

You're probably right that 9-10 MAC teams will never care enough to try to compete in basketball and that's exactly why the MAC will perpetually be a 1 bid league outside of maybe an odd year here or there. What I outlined was the only way the MAC could achieve something more IMO.

Yes, I would like a challenge with the MVC or A10. If either of those conferences wanted one with the MAC, I' sure it would have happened already.

Ohio beats Kent State 85-63

Miami and UB up next

LCJ answers MJ tonight with 31 of his own.

Akron will either win or get blown out..no Inbetween.

Plowden waa probably the best player on the court tonight, but frankly nobody else from BGSU showed up to play.

(03-11-2021 10:03 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  Plowden waa probably the best player on the court tonight, but frankly nobody else from BGSU showed up to play.

For sure a 2 player team.The deepest team is next on your docket.

These might be two of the best semifinals in a while. All four of these teams capable of winning the tournament and being a pain for a high major team in the NCAA Tournament.

(03-11-2021 02:01 PM)Eagle66 Wrote:  Per the record courier Danny Pippen is not dressed for the quarter final against Ohio.

Oh, ouch. I am going to struggle and hopefully not blame the Reckless Courier for being the messenger with the bad news.
________________

(03-11-2021 02:48 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  You're probably right that 9-10 MAC teams will never care enough to try to compete in basketball and that's exactly why the MAC will perpetually be a 1 bid league outside of maybe an odd year here or there. What I outlined was the only way the MAC could achieve something more IMO.

Oh, I also think a step up of the top four to six programs is a lot more likely to yield benefits for the MAC, even if both were equally likely. The bottom four striving to be between 150 and 200, as in the A10, rather stranded down below 280 would not generate a lot of benefits for the MAC.

Quote: Yes, I would like a challenge with the MVC or A10. If either of those conferences wanted one with the MAC, I' sure it would have happened already.

I didn't say A10, the A10 is a regular multi-bid conference.

If you reckon the MVC is out of the MAC's reach, with the top three schools between NET #93-10, the next three schools between NET #192-120, and the bottom four schools between NET #242-212, that reinforces the idea that it's more quality at the top of the ladder that drives perception of conference rather than quality at the bottom of the ladder.

(03-12-2021 04:59 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 02:01 PM)Eagle66 Wrote:  Per the record courier Danny Pippen is not dressed for the quarter final against Ohio.

Oh, ouch. I am going to struggle and hopefully not blame the Reckless Courier for being the messenger with the bad news.
________________

(03-11-2021 02:48 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  You're probably right that 9-10 MAC teams will never care enough to try to compete in basketball and that's exactly why the MAC will perpetually be a 1 bid league outside of maybe an odd year here or there. What I outlined was the only way the MAC could achieve something more IMO.

Oh, I also think a step up of the top four to six programs is a lot more likely to yield benefits for the MAC, even if both were equally likely. The bottom four striving to be between 150 and 200, as in the A10, rather stranded down below 280 would not generate a lot of benefits for the MAC.

Quote: Yes, I would like a challenge with the MVC or A10. If either of those conferences wanted one with the MAC, I' sure it would have happened already.

I didn't say A10, the A10 is a regular multi-bid conference.

If you reckon the MVC is out of the MAC's reach, with the top three schools between NET #93-10, the next three schools between NET #192-120, and the bottom four schools between NET #242-212, that reinforces the idea that it's more quality at the top of the ladder that drives perception of conference rather than quality at the bottom of the ladder.

It's much easier to build a deep conference because it wouldn't really cost the MAC 7-12 teams to spend that much more money a piece. No MAC team will ever be able to afford to pay their head coach $3 million, which is how much Nate Oats left for. That's why I feel the top heavy approach won't work for the MAC. Anytime a program gets built it will get torn down by the coach getting poached.

I don't think the MVC is better than the MAC since Wichita State left. What I feel is that the MVC thinks they're better than the MAC. I'm not sure if you noticed but MVC excludes itself from the mid-major polls because they're still living in the past.

IMHO, the best path to better recognition is the pre season tournaments and start betting teams from the MVC, A10 and more.

Bobcats advance to the MAC Championship game!

(03-12-2021 07:23 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  Bobcats advance to the MAC Championship game!

(03-11-2021 10:21 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-10-2021 10:06 PM)pono Wrote:  WCC model is interesting comparison. gonzaga grew from strong mid major to national powerhouse. they added BYU who is a typical bubble team and have st mary's who is usually a bubble team. the rest of the league is like the middle to lower MAC. while mac won't likely ever have a gonzaga, you could make the argument that we could have 4-5 byu/st mary's type teams (i know BYU has a bigger budget, but i'm talking quality of team). toledo, ohio, buffalo, akron and kent are all just below that st mary's/byu standard and several other mac programs have the potential to be that good once every 3 or 4 years. i'd be more in the upgrade the top half of the league just a little camp.

Gonzaga is the tide that lifted all ships for that conference. St. Mary's needed those wins over Gonzaga to legitimize itself. Without a Gonzaga in that conference I imagine BYU would be in the MWC today. As you stated the MAC will never have a Gonzaga so I don't see that as a feasible plan.

The Atlantic 10 is a much more realistic aspiration for the MAC. I'm counting 10/14 (71%) teams in the top 150 of NET. 6/14 (43%) in the top 100. They always have at least 1 team, most years multiple, in the discussion for an at-large because they have so many schools that strive for that level of success.

The A10 helps its ratings by only having the upper half teams play twice.

They have a greater talent pool to work with than the MAC from Boston down to North Carolina. They keep raiding the best teams of the lower level conferences to ensure total saturation over their region.

Part of the problem MAC won't invite non-FB schools. The AAC has Wichita St. SBC has Little Rock. MWC was close to admitting Gonzaga a few years ago.

The MAC could invite Loyola, SLU, Dayton and Duquesne to go to 16 and effectively take the Atlantic 10's lunch. Would be lower travel cost and more TV money than what they have now in their respective leagues.

(03-12-2021 10:39 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 04:59 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 02:01 PM)Eagle66 Wrote:  Per the record courier Danny Pippen is not dressed for the quarter final against Ohio.

Oh, ouch. I am going to struggle and hopefully not blame the Reckless Courier for being the messenger with the bad news.
________________

(03-11-2021 02:48 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  You're probably right that 9-10 MAC teams will never care enough to try to compete in basketball and that's exactly why the MAC will perpetually be a 1 bid league outside of maybe an odd year here or there. What I outlined was the only way the MAC could achieve something more IMO.

Oh, I also think a step up of the top four to six programs is a lot more likely to yield benefits for the MAC, even if both were equally likely. The bottom four striving to be between 150 and 200, as in the A10, rather stranded down below 280 would not generate a lot of benefits for the MAC.

Quote: Yes, I would like a challenge with the MVC or A10. If either of those conferences wanted one with the MAC, I' sure it would have happened already.

I didn't say A10, the A10 is a regular multi-bid conference.

If you reckon the MVC is out of the MAC's reach, with the top three schools between NET #93-10, the next three schools between NET #192-120, and the bottom four schools between NET #242-212, that reinforces the idea that it's more quality at the top of the ladder that drives perception of conference rather than quality at the bottom of the ladder.

It's much easier to build a deep conference because it wouldn't really cost the MAC 7-12 teams to spend that much more money a piece. No MAC team will ever be able to afford to pay their head coach $3 million, which is how much Nate Oats left for. That's why I feel the top heavy approach won't work for the MAC. Anytime a program gets built it will get torn down by the coach getting poached.

I don't think the MVC is better than the MAC since Wichita State left. What I feel is that the MVC thinks they're better than the MAC. I'm not sure if you noticed but MVC excludes itself from the mid-major polls because they're still living in the past.

The MVC had two teams in the top 20 for a good part of the year. Last time I looked, Loyola was NET #10. They have starters who were freshmen on their Final Four team who are seniors now and a team that is probably better this year. They have multiple bids more often than they don’t, certainly more often than the MAC who essentially never does. Two teams in the NET top 50, MAC has none.

Seems like there are lots of ways the MVC is a better basketball conference. I’m having a hard time coming up with any ways the MAC is better.

(03-12-2021 10:17 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 10:39 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  I don't think the MVC is better than the MAC since Wichita State left. What I feel is that the MVC thinks they're better than the MAC. I'm not sure if you noticed but MVC excludes itself from the mid-major polls because they're still living in the past.

The MVC had two teams in the top 20 for a good part of the year. Last time I looked, Loyola was NET #10. They have starters who were freshmen on their Final Four team who are seniors now and a team that is probably better this year. They have multiple bids more often than they don’t, certainly more often than the MAC who essentially never does. Two teams in the NET top 50, MAC has none.

Seems like there are lots of ways the MVC is a better basketball conference. I’m having a hard time coming up with any ways the MAC is better.

I would probably agree with this. The thing is that even after Wichita left, having Wichita in the conference not only inspired but, more importantly, justified a number of schools to invest in basketball, whether to catch Wichita in a down year or to pull on upset when they have a good year that goes down on the record as a very good win.

The distribution of NET score on today's NCAA Division 1 NET by quartile is (Top, 1st Quarter, Middle, 3rd Quarter, Bottom):
MAC: 64/102/155/301.25/337
MVC: 10/100.25/184/224/243

The only part of the distribution where the MAC is slightly better is the middle MAC team has a higher NET than the middle MVC team, at a position in the NET where a difference of 30 slots doesn't matter very much at all.

And I think the higher regard for the MVC this year has almost everything to do with the top quarter of the list spreading much further up in the list, and very little to do with the fact that the bottom quarter of the MVC is unimpressive and the bottom quarter of the MAC stinks.

Never mind even NCAA at-large bids ... if Loyola Chicago gets the autobid and Drake ends up on the outside of the bubble this year, Drake is with very little doubt getting an at-large NIT bid. That is a step up from where the MAC has been for quite a while.