Dakich rips Chryst

falconfan1 · Post by **falconfan1** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:50 pm

rollo., you stole my thunder. Getting the MAC a rep (Kennedy) on that committee sure shows me something. That is a classic MAC office function I would bet.

I love Coach Dakich, but, just because we haven't seen more articles on MAC/2nd bid doesn't mean (to me) that Rick Chyrst isn't scratching and clawing to get the extra bid(s). I would think a tremendous amount of this work is behind the scenes, quiet, etc. I would think the Commish is working his butt off on this point- why wouldn't he? Too busy driving to Toronto for the next bowl right now? I would think a man of his experience can do many things at once.

Bowl games and NCAA tourneys look like two different things to me. One is driven by high profile guys with Southern accents in wildly colored jackets. The other is run by 12 folks in a conference room with lots of charts. One involves crazy sponsors like Poulan Weedeaters. The other has requirements on how to line up the NCAA logo just so on the floor. One requires several cocktail receptions per bid. The other requires no undue influence rules and tight lipped guys answering why Oshkosh State got left out with their 27-4 record in the Northwest Big Country Conference in post pairings press conferences.

I'm a Rick Chryst fan. Pretty good record for this Commish. And I think Dan Dakich has just provided BG with his best coaching season yet. Just my opinions.

Go Falcons!

OptionQB · Post by **OptionQB** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:43 pm

Wow! This won't be very popular at all . . . I think the MAC is a middle of the road conference with several good teams, but no one, let alone two great teams. I would be absolutely astonished if the MAC got more than 1 team in. The ACC will get their 5 or 6, hell the Big East will get 7 and maybe 8 if G'Town or WVU win more than one game in the tournament. The best team in the conference came in on Sunday and looked GREAT for a half and then showed what this conference is all about in the second half . . . a bunch of good, but not great teams. I think the MAC could suffer a lot more embarrassment by getting two teams blown-out in the Dance, rather than taking our chances with one getting a decent seeding.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:29 am

I kinda agree with you Option. I think our OOC record in preseason showed that we're a decent conference this year. I don't expect us to get two teams into the Big Dance, but it could happen, especially with Miami's RPI rating. That said, I'm pretty sure that the Selection Committee might be throwing out the RPI completely after the changes made this year. Most of the analysts seem to think that its a farce right now. Supposedly there are teams that could be swayed by 30+ spots one way or the other between last year's formula and this year's formula.

I wouldn't be surprised if we do get two teams in this year, but without seeing the seedings I don't think there is any team in the MAC I would pick to actually win a game this year.

Rollo83 · Post by **Rollo83** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:49 am

I agree witrh Option. This probably isn't our year to have two teams in the Tournament. After many years of having a deserving MAC schools sit home and watch, we get more than one bid this year?

Having two ugly losses in this year's tournament could set us back a ways in the eyes of future selection committees. I don't see a MAC team getting anything higher than a 13 or 14 seed this year? And any at-large bid has to be a 15 seed doesn't it? Which means they'll have to play one of the top eight teams in the country:

1. Illinois
2. North Carolina
3. Kentucky
4. Wake Forest
5. Boston Coll.
6. Duke
7. Kansas
8. Oklahoma St.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:55 am

It is interesting to hear about the big differences in the ratings of teams using the old formula and new formula. It is my understanding that a big change is that they count road wins as 1.6 wins, home wins as 0.6 wins, home losses as 1.6 losses and road losses as 0.6 losses. (or something like that) So teams that can win road games are benefitted by this formula.

In order to win road games, you have to play road games. It is not as bad as football, but your BCS schools tend to play more OOC games at home than on the road while mid-majors split them up more evenly. So while a team may sit at home and win eight OOC games, the new formula only gives them credit for 4.8 wins. You only have to win three road games to equal eight home wins under this formula. I am no RPI-ologist or anything, but the reason some MAC teams may look so good under the new formula is that they won OOC road games early in the season.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:26 am

Miami deserves a bid as long as they don't completely tank the rest of the way.

So, in that sense, I disagree with Option. I think we deserve two bids, especially if Miami doesn't win the MAC tournament.

FalconAwesome · Post by **FalconAwesome** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:26 pm

Rollo, the only way the MAC champ will be a 14 seed is if Northern Illinois wins the conference championship. We are the number 9/10 conference in the country right now. Our champion, if one of the top teams, will be in the 10/11 seed area, perhaps higher if Miami wins out.

I don't know if this is your first year watching the tourney, but the next at-large team to get a 15 seed will be the first.

Everyone keeps saying that there are no great teams in the MAC, but there is a dearth of great teams all over the nation this year. The MAC doesn't have a Kaman or Antonio Daniels on a team this year, but that doesn't mean MAC teams are not capable of dancing with the big boys.

OptionQB · Post by **OptionQB** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:42 pm

I have a very hard time believing that ANY MAC team is capable of winning a 6-11 or a 7-10 game.