MAC-Only one team to the dance?

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:42 pm

That's a shame. Even so, they had their fate in their hands.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:49 pm

IMO, Akron AND Kent State should be in the NIT along with UT. One team in each tourney shows the MAC isn't as strong as a few years ago. Still, Kent State has the post season resume and Akron was a very good team this year.

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:57 pm

The MAC isn't nearly as strong as it has been. It is losing clout and there are few signs that will change in the near-term. The MAC should have only one NCAA team, its frankly not that good. I'm not really sure they should have any NIT teams aside from Akron. Akron should be there above any others.

h2oville rocket · Post by **h2oville rocket** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:28 am

NWLB wrote:The MAC isn't nearly as strong as it has been. It is losing clout and there are few signs that will change in the near-term. The MAC should have only one NCAA team, its frankly not that good. I'm not really sure they should have any NIT teams aside from Akron. Akron should be there above any others.

Akron loses to Toledo and plays an OOC schedule much worse than UT's. And then there's the rule change that gives conference champs who miss the NCAAs an automatic berth. What do you think Akron did to deserve the slot more than UT?

I would love to have seen them in the NCAAs but aside from a lot of wins against very inferior teams I don't see them as deserving. The NIT, yes, but with only thirty two teams, and UT winning the head to head, no way does Akron deserve that bid more, even without the conference champ rule.

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:01 pm

You are asking me why I'd take Akron over UT? You didn't really think I'd ever pick UT ahead of anybody did you?