Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

Just got back from watching Buffalo dismantle Dayton at UD Arena. The Bulls are very, very good this year.

Also saw OU won at Marshall, Marshall was 5-0 coming off a win at Cincinnati.

The MAC is very good this year.

Mississippi State, West Virginia, Temple, Dayton, Marshall. Am I missing anyone? A lot of good wins for the MAC early in the year.

Falcon137 wrote:Just got back from watching Buffalo dismantle Dayton at UD Arena. The Bulls are very, very good this year.

Also saw OU won at Marshall, Marshall was 5-0 coming off a win at Cincinnati.

The MAC is very good this year.

Mississippi State, West Virginia, Temple, Dayton, Marshall. Am I missing anyone? A lot of good wins for the MAC early in the year.

Dayton has wins over Minni and Wake Forest. Only losses were to miami and Buffalo.

Ohio nearly beat #7 Louisville the other night too. OU led in the closing minutes before the Cardinal pulled it out.

The MAC has been very impressive so far this season.

Will any of this translate into a second bid come March?

I too have noticed that the MAC has been winning quality games so far.

Ten of the 12 teams are looking at least decent. NIU and WMU, are 0-6 last time I checked.

1897alum, the question boils down to this: how many MAC teams will be on the bubble and NOT win the MAC tourney. The overall conference power rating has a very indirect influence. Then again, maybe the selection process is all a facade and it actually comes down to a team's potential TV ratings?

BleedOrange wrote:
1897alum, the question boils down to this: how many MAC teams will be on the bubble and NOT win the MAC tourney.

I know the answer to how many teams will NOT win the MAC tourney!!!

We are the MAC. So, unfortunately everybody assumes we don't deserve more than one bid.

footballguy51 wrote:We are the MAC. So, unfortunately everybody assumes we don't deserve more than one bid.

Other than our team in 2002 I'm not sure the MAC has really had a team that deserved an at large bid get snubbed in the past decade.

+1

Jay Bilas summed it up pretty well a few years ago talking about at large bids. He basically said that the committee's job was to pick teams to compete for a national title, not reward mid majors for a nice season. The MAC hasn't been a conference to be considered for multipleit bids since the late 90s early 2000s.

Drago wrote:+1

Jay Bilas summed it up pretty well a few years ago talking about at large bids. He basically said that the committee's job was to pick teams to compete for a national title, not reward mid majors for a nice season. The MAC hasn't been a conference to be considered for multipleit bids since the late 90s early 2000s.

While I somewhat agree with that idea, let's be honest....who in the world could have or would have thought, picked or expected Butler to play in not one, but back- to- back NCAA Championship games??? Or for a team like VCU to make the Final Four??? The answer is no one. So while I do somewhat agree with what Bilas said, I also agree with giving "good" teams a chance to be great.

The MAC got four teams into the NCAA volleyball tournament that just started. It helped that Northern Ill. had a good RPI and lost in the finals to Central Mich. So, it can be done. Honestly I have no idea what the league has done correctly in that sport that it is not doing in basketball, both men's and women's.

BleedOrange wrote:I too have noticed that the MAC has been winning quality games so far.

Ten of the 12 teams are looking at least decent. NIU and WMU, are 0-6 last time I checked.

1897alum, the question boils down to this: how many MAC teams will be on the bubble and NOT win the MAC tourney. The overall conference power rating has a very indirect influence. Then again, maybe the selection process is all a facade and it actually comes down to a team's potential TV ratings?

Does he even remember what teams are playing?

Agree, hammb.

Drago wrote:Jay Bilas summed it up pretty well a few years ago talking about at large bids. He basically said that the committee's job was to pick teams to compete for a national title, not reward mid majors for a nice season..

Of course, that's not what they do. Their job is to pick the teams who had the best season. If it was just about who can win a title, there would be what, six at-larges?