How bad is the MAC

[gmartin]

Well this clearly shows how people view the MAC.

Toledo, 27-6, not only not on the bubble, but a #6 seed in the NIT. That means you have 68 teams selected ahead of them in the NCAA. And basically with a 6 seed your not seeded even in the top 20 in the NIT but 21-24. So our 2nd place team in the MAC, with 27 wins is seeded overall in the 90s.

Then teams in our conference Akron, Ohio and Eastern have 21-23 wins and don't even make the NIT. This shows how little respect the MAC receives and also how poorly our conference really is.

[zete]

I have come to the sad realization they are probably right.

[BleedOrange]

I don't think that this is due to a lack of respect for MAC basketball.

I think that this IS due to the MAC being, in fact, a weak basketball conference.

For a decade, MAC schools have emphasized football and maintaining D1A status. MAC football, while still D1A, is worse now than it was 10 years ago, and MAC basketball is FAR worse than it was 10 years ago.

[orangeandbrown]

Bleed is correct...the MAC has chosen to put resources into football to stay FBS. Most of the schools are not large enough to compete at both...and in some cases just trying is making them unable to compete in either. Not judging, just saying this was the decision that was made.

[BGSU33]

I disagree to an extent. I don't think it's as much a case of the MAC "being" that bad as it is the case of the Selection Committee's "view" of the MAC being that bad. And it's not just this year or the last few years, it's been that way the last 15 years as we've not gotten any at-large bids during that stretch. For those who have followed the MAC, we have had numerous teams during that time span you could argue deserved an at-large bid including BG a couple times. During that same timeframe the MAC had teams make the Elite Eight, the Sweet 16 and the Round of 32 by sending just one team, some of which were not even the top seed including one who was the #9 seed and advanced in the NCAA Tournament. If the MAC was that bad, no way should that be happening. Now I'm not saying the MAC is as good now as it was in the mid-1990's. It's not. But it's not as bad as some make it out to be.

When a team like UT goes 27-6 and has a very good RPI, what more can it realistically do to get it? At this point even if UT had beaten Kansas (they lost by 10 to them this year in Lawrence after UT started the year out 12-0) they still could have been left out by the Selection Committee. They could easily have responded by saying it was just one win. Their BC win clearly didn't count for much despite that fact that the same BC team knocked off Syracuse when everyone was ready to crown the Orange as National Champions at midseason until they spiraled. And we all know we can't get teams to come play us at home and can only get so many in the non-conference portion of the schedule. It's likely going to literally take the committee picking one as an at-large bid for it to ever happen again over a MAC team setting out to prove itself. I knew when the tournament "expanded" and only four spots were added that teams like MAC schools were in the exact same boat as they had been.

This is why I am happy that we have done what we have for MAC football. The MAC has worked it's ass off for what we have now because back when MAC basketball used to send a second team every now and again, the MAC had one bowl tie-in. And while there were less bowls then, try explaining to a 10-1 Miami-Ohio team who beat North Carolina in Chapel Hill why that same 6-5 UNC team got picked for a bowl over them. Money, exposure, recognition, tickets,. Or a 9-2 BG team left sitting at home back then too. The MAC has helped itself secure 5 spots in bowls this year, the most ever secured and I love it. But the MAC can't do the same type of "securing" in basketball in the NCAA Tournament with its Selection Committee as it would be about equal to MAC football trying to secure a (then) BCS bowl. Not gonna happen. NIU getting into a BCS bowl was about equal to the MAC having an at-large bid in basketball.

[mscarn]

It was a wise investment by the league. Football is where the TV money is.

We get 5+ bowl games per year and a tough (but not completely impossible) time getting a second basketball team in the tournament. I'll take that trade-off. We are what we are. We can try to be like the A-10 or CUSA but is that really all that attractive, realistic or even what our respective markets want?

[hammb]

I would prefer the conference be a better hoops conference than football. Unless you are making bcs games there isn't that much money in football and the spending on the sport far outweighs the revenue we are seeing back from it. Its also the one sport where the politics alone ensure we are never a major player.

Basketball, otoh, has shown several times over that it offers an opportunity for a conference to rise to prominence. Even more so it offers an opportunity for individual programs to transcend their traditional spots in the pecking order. Butler, vcu, gonzaga, Wichita, etc. Have become big time players in the sport.

I lobe bg football and for that reason I hope we continue fielding a d1a program. But I think its very easy to argue football is a money loser for programs in the mac and the conference would probably get more bang for the athletic buck by commuting to basketball. BG, in particular, has a great facility and big time donors...they should be investing heavily in hoops starting now with this coaching search.

[BGSU33]

I much prefer football over any other sport, with men's basketball being my second favorite. I love that we are D-I (FBS) in football and never want to see that change. Like it or not football is THE driving force in the world of collegiate athletics and I am thrilled we are a part of it. Look at all the schools that have come up to the FBS level and continue to try to get to where we are and have been for years now. Aside from that, football games aren't just a game, they are an event. The tailgating, bigger crowds, many more people go to away games, the bowls, etc. You can make an entire weekend or day out of a football game. And while I love the NCAA Tournament in basketball this time of year (it is great), I love football from start to finish. It sometimes takes me until conference play to get into basketball season, whereas in football, I find myself all spring and summer looking forward to the opening game. And as a BG fan, it's not even close....In the last 20 years or so BG football has achieved MAC Championships, bowl wins, Top-25 rankings, wins over BCS teams, hosted College Gameday, etc., whereas basketball during that same time has brought next to nothing, no MAC Tournament title, no postseason win in the NCAA, NIT, CBI or CIT, no Top-25 ranking, but it sure has provided a helluva lot of misery and disappointment.

[bgsufalcon24]

I don't think that this is due to a lack of respect for MAC basketball.

I think that this IS due to the MAC being, in fact, a weak basketball conference.

For a decade, MAC schools have emphasized football and maintaining D1A status. MAC football, while still D1A, is worse now than it was 10 years ago, and MAC basketball is FAR worse than it was 10 years ago.

Agreed on what you wrote about MAC basketball...but I'm not buying that MAC football is worse now than 10 years ago.

Look at it from an individual school perspective. Who is better now and who is worse?

Buffalo - better, WAY better
Bowling Green - more or less the same, but I'd argue for better since we have the trophy
Miami - worse, WAY worse
Ohio - better
Kent State - same
Akron - same
Eastern Michigan - same
Central Michigan - better
Western Michigan - worse, WAY worse
Ball State - better, WAY better
Northern Illinois - better, WAY better
Toledo - worse

I count at least 5 schools of 12 that are clearly, without a doubt, better off in football than they were 10 years ago. I can only count 3 that are surely worse.

Feel free to comment or do research on this, but I started following MAC football religiously in 2005, so that was my starting point to compare today to.