MAC makes up half of ESPN's Bottom 10

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:02 pm

The MAC as a league didn't set the world on fire this year, but seeing 5 teams from the MAC listed in the Bottom 10, plus another team MAC team receiving votes, doesn't exactly bode well for the conference.

The kicker to all of this? UCF, you know, the team that talked about coming into the MAC and running the show, comes in at #1. That I've gotta laugh about!

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/stor ... ottom10048

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:30 pm

How tragic for the MAC. It's bad enough that our conference takes up half the bottom 10, but consider that two of the spots (Floriday & the Iowa-Penn State game) are "throwaways." That means the MAC is responsible for 5 of the worst 8 teams in the nation in a widely read ranking (accurate or not).

This has been a truly dismal year for the MAC, which is doubly heart-breaking given all the buzz surrounding the conference last year.

Note, too, that two teams that accounted for MAC team OOC wins (Temple, Kentucky) are on the list.

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:44 pm

The good thing is that we will no longer have the worst team in college football (UCF) the bad thing is we will still have the 2nd worse team (Buffalo) in college football after this year.

UK Peregrine · Post by **UK Peregrine** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:57 pm

I must be grumpy today, maybe it was something falconboy said, but isn't this another horse that we beat every week. Get used to the fact that the bottom tier of the MAC is locked into the Bottom Ten on ESPN. The disparity between the top and bottom seems to be getting worse and not better for the MAC and it won;t change this season, much like the gap between the rich and poor in this country. Sorry for the socio-economic/pseudopolitical comment. Actually, no I'm not.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:32 pm

Dan:

Only if we can get get all hyped up when multiple members of the MAC get attention in the polls and people claim that the MAC can run with the BCS conferences ... which was the dead horse we were beating about this time last year.

CapitalFalcon · Post by **CapitalFalcon** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:39 pm

Message to Chryst: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do NOT take Temple. We don't need the MAC to replace UCF next year.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:42 pm

Motown:

Amen and Hallelujiah to that.

Metz · Post by **Metz** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 1:27 am

MotownFalcon wrote:Message to Chryst: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do NOT take Temple. We don't need the MAC to replace UCF next year.

The MAC can have Temple! BUT BUT BUT...only if the Big East takes us

BGSUfanatUT · Post by **BGSUfanatUT** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 7:42 am

I doubt that Metz, Im sure they dotn think we can compete with the likes of Cincinnati or UCONN....

:coo-coo:

Metz · Post by **Metz** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:26 am

BGSUfanatUT wrote:I doubt that Metz, Im sure they dotn think we can compete with the likes of Cincinnati or UCONN.... :coo-coo:

In football we easily could and yes I realize that was sarcastic. But until our bball teams proves they are back in winning form, I think the Big East would destroy them. Football would be the only sport we could really compete in so why not just have the football team in a different conference. If Dayton can be in two divisions, maybe we could be in two conferences

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:19 am

McMetz811 wrote:If Dayton can be in two divisions, maybe we could be in two conferences

Dayton isn't really in two divisions. Dayton is a Division I school.

For football, Division I is split into A, AA and AAA (the latter for schools without football programs). The "As" only apply to football. So Bowling Green, Dayton, Cleveland State -- they are all Division I. They don't "split" divisions. Only the football is different.

There are some schools that do split divisions in one sport. The NCAA generally allows schools in divisions II and III to field one sport at the Division I level. Lake Superior State and Ferris State are examples -- Division II schools with Division I hockey.

I know that Geneva College, in the Finger Lakes, is a tiny Division III school that offers Division I synchronized swimming.

I understand there was some kind of dust up about this recently. I think the NCAA wanted to require schools like Colorado College -- a D III school that fields D I hockey -- to not offer scholarships, since that's the way it is done at D III. Not sure how that ended up.

BGSUfanatUT · Post by **BGSUfanatUT** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:39 am

McMetz811 wrote:
BGSUfanatUT wrote:I doubt that Metz, Im sure they dotn think we can compete with the likes of Cincinnati or UCONN.... :coo-coo:
In football we easily could and yes I realize that was sarcastic. But until our bball teams proves they are back in winning form, I think the Big East would destroy them. Football would be the only sport we could really compete in so why not just have the football team in a different conference. If Dayton can be in two divisions, maybe we could be in two conferences

Yeah, I really wouldnt have a problem playing different confs. depending on sports..hell, we do it in hockey, granted no hockey confs, are also the same in other sports...bt still.

But you are right about the Big East. After the MAC they are my fav conf. Seton Hall is my team after BGSU and Providence is right up there as well. But there is no way in H E double hockey sticks, we could play in the league. They are so stacked for basketball now that its not even funny. When Georgetown and Villanova are your "bottomfeeders" you have a quality conference. the ACC will be pressured to hold onto their Bbal domination.

Metz · Post by **Metz** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 2:24 pm

Schadenfreude wrote:
McMetz811 wrote:If Dayton can be in two divisions, maybe we could be in two conferences
Dayton isn't really in two divisions. Dayton is a Division I school.

You knew what I meant! And just cause it's easy to make me look like a fool doesn't mean you have to

UK Peregrine · Post by **UK Peregrine** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 11:52 am

MotownFalcon wrote:Message to Chryst: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do NOT take Temple. We don't need the MAC to replace UCF next year.

Sure Temple stinks in football, but if the MAC could get them to leave the A-10 for all sports, I think Chryst would jump at the opportunity. In fact he's quoted as saying, "Temple has always had a good scheduling relationship with many of our schools. "Maybe that can lead to a broader relationship. We're certainly going to be doing our homework on all that. And I'm sure that's what they're (Temple) doing at their end." We probably don't need another bottom dweller in football for the MAC, but they would be great hoops addition. And who knows, maybe the football program will rebound to its former glory days.

Take a look at this article if your interested in Temple's future in football and possibly joining the MAC. http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/spo ... 853.htm?1c

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:04 pm

I'm against Temple joining the MAC for a myriad of reasons, mostly football related.

But let's address this feeling that Temple's basketball program would make swallowing their train wreck of a football program worthwhile. Because that is absolutely the ONLY positive I've heard so far.

Although Temple has had success in basketball, they are not exactly turning people away at the gate. Despite a shiny new facility, they do not routinely pack them in. Adding better quality opponents helps in recruiting, but I don't that simply adding Temple would make prized recruits think, "Whoa, a chance to play Temple twice every year? Heck yeah I'm going to a MAC school."

So, really, what has the MAC gained here? A school with a good basketball program? So what does that mean, really?