Think Dakich read this Bland article

BGorDeath · Post by **BGorDeath** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:23 am

From today's Bland:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /-1/SPORTS

Rightupinthere · Post by **Rightupinthere** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:51 am

BGorDeath wrote:From today's Bland:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /-1/SPORTS

To the point. Critical without burning bridges.

Chryst is good.

golfertk14 · Post by **golfertk14** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:18 am

I think there's something to be said for supporting your conference (especially if you run it), but Chryst is acting like a big baby. No other commissioner complains that not enough of his conference's teams got in. Yes the MAC could be getting a whole lot more respect than it has right now but it's no reason to whine and complain about the NCAA's picks, they have a bunch of other conferences they have to consider too. I mean besides Buffalo and Miami what other team was "dance-worthy"? As good as BG was and as much as I love them I still have to say they didn't deserve to get in:

Conference Overall
Team W L W L
---- - - - -
Miami............... 12 6 19 10
Buffalo............. 11 7 22 9
Ohio................ 11 7 21 10
Akron............... 11 7 19 10
Kent State.......... 11 7 20 12
Marshall............ 3 15 6 22
West Division

Conference Overall
Team W L W L
---- - - - -
Western Michigan..... 11 7 20 12
Toledo.............. 11 7 16 11
Bowling Green........ 10 8 18 11
Ball State........... 10 8 15 13
Northern Illinois.... 7 11 11 17
Eastern Michigan..... 5 13 12 18
Central Michigan..... 4 14 10 18

If you look at these numbers, you see that WMU, UT, etc had great seasons in '04-'05, but they were "MAC-Good" not "NCAA Tourney-Good."

Rightupinthere · Post by **Rightupinthere** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:28 am

So, you're saying that Northern Iowa was worthy of an NCAA bid, puppy?

UAB was worthy?

golfertk14 · Post by **golfertk14** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:31 am

Not at all, but I'm saying they have all these conferences they have to consider that they can't fit everybody that did well in. Also I never said that the NCAA was correct in all their picks....I think we could've had at least three teams in the dance but if you're trying to tell me we should've had 5 or 6 teams in then you're out of your mind.

Rightupinthere · Post by **Rightupinthere** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:46 am

You may be misreading the article.

I don't believe that was Chryst's gist. His primary beef was with only getting one bid. He only stated that there were a lot of good teams with most of the conference members having winning records. That was suppose to pump up Miami's image more saying, "we should have 5 bids."

PGY Tiercel · Post by **PGY Tiercel** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:48 am

I don't think anyone has ever mentioned 5 or 6 teams from the MAC in the tournament, ever. Most of us have said 2 would be nice, maybe regular season and tournament champs, 3 would be great if deserved. But no one has ever argued for 5. This is exactly the thing that the MAC commissioner needs to do. He must complain and make opinions heard that the MAC deserves to be considered for more than one bid.

golfertk14 · Post by **golfertk14** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:50 am

PGY Tiercel wrote:I don't think anyone has ever mentioned 5 or 6 teams from the MAC in the tournament, ever. Most of us have said 2 would be nice, maybe regular season and tournament champs, 3 would be great if deserved. But no one has ever argued for 5. This is exactly the thing that the MAC commissioner needs to do. He must complain and make opinions heard that the MAC deserves to be considered for more than one bid.

I believe that Chryst said something about wanting 5 or 6 teams during the Halftime Report of the MAC Women's Tourney Game on FSN Saturday afternoon.

PGY Tiercel · Post by **PGY Tiercel** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:54 am

If it was during half time of the womens game, I bet, when put into context, that he meant 5 or 6 men's and women's teams. i.e. 2 or 3 men's teams and 2 or 3 women's teams.

golfertk14 · Post by **golfertk14** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:56 am

Hmmm..you may have a point, i don't remember him saying how many from each group or just 5 or 6 MAC teams in general.

Dayons_Den · Post by **Dayons_Den** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:15 am

Maybe he meant 5 or 6 MAC teams in the postseason (men&womens NCAA, NIT, and WNIT)

Class of 61 · Post by **Class of 61** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:36 am

golfertk14 wrote:I think there's something to be said for supporting your conference (especially if you run it), but Chryst is acting like a big baby. No other commissioner complains that not enough of his conference's teams got in. Yes the MAC could be getting a whole lot more respect than it has right now but it's no reason to whine and complain about the NCAA's picks, they have a bunch of other conferences they have to consider too. I mean besides Buffalo and Miami what other team was "dance-worthy"? As good as BG was and as much as I love them I still have to say they didn't deserve to get in:

Conference Overall
Team W L W L
---- - - - -
Miami............... 12 6 19 10
Buffalo............. 11 7 22 9
Ohio................ 11 7 21 10
Akron............... 11 7 19 10
Kent State.......... 11 7 20 12
Marshall............ 3 15 6 22
West Division

Conference Overall
Team W L W L
---- - - - -
Western Michigan..... 11 7 20 12
Toledo.............. 11 7 16 11
Bowling Green........ 10 8 18 11
Ball State........... 10 8 15 13
Northern Illinois.... 7 11 11 17
Eastern Michigan..... 5 13 12 18
Central Michigan..... 4 14 10 18

If you look at these numbers, you see that WMU, UT, etc had great seasons in '04-'05, but they were "MAC-Good" not "NCAA Tourney-Good."

Hmmm. I see in your stats, SEVEN of 13 teams with at least 18 wins; I see FOUR of 13 teams with at least 20 wins.... you've not been around here long, son, but I can tell you that it's been a LONG time since those kind of numbers were put up by a conference which tends to "eat its own" due to an 18 game CONF. sched. I would agree that there were a LOT of "good" teams this year, but NO super outstanding team, which is why I wasn't surprised at the result of the tournament..Going in, I felt ANY of the teams at the Gund could've won the tourn., depending on who got hot (or lucky) at the right time. All I DO know is that the Big 10 in an admittedly "down" year still got 5 teams in, and the "usual suspects" got their share of spots. But the MAC DOES have a legit. gripe about this...Read Chryst's comments and the summary that the MAC teams have won AT LEAST one game in 7 of last 9 yrs., nearly all of which the league only had 1 team to start with.

bacn3 · Post by **bacn3** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:01 pm

What i want to know is why should a conf. be rewarded by having only 2 teams that beat up on every one else and have great records by the end of the year? That year you get both teams in, but when your conf is tight with a good race and even, like it was this year, you only get the tourny champ. And probably lose the first round game

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:45 pm

bacn3 wrote:What i want to know is why should a conf. be rewarded by having only 2 teams that beat up on every one else and have great records by the end of the year? That year you get both teams in, but when your conf is tight with a good race and even, like it was this year, you only get the tourny champ. And probably lose the first round game

At the same time why should the conference be rewarded for having a bunch of good teams, but nobody that is really all that great?

A lot goes from watching the games. Watching a lot of MAC hoops this year, I just don't think there was any team that was really that great. The conference ranked highly because all the teams won a lot of OOC games. However, there weren't too many big wins against great teams in that, and it was artificially inflated because we only had a couple teams who weren't very good at all. Typically we have some truly awful teams to balance out what the teams at the top do. That didn't happen this year, so our conference ranking was higher than usual.

Think Dakich read this Bland article

Think Dakich read this Bland article

Re: Think Dakich read this Bland article