97 Kent
113 CMU
146 Miami
151 Akron
179 Ohio
197 Toledo
237 EMU
263 WM
280 BG
308 UB
318 BSU
341 NIU
3 Likes
Geez, is Northern really that bad?
The thing is, for the last few years, every good player they have hits the portal. their point guard that averaged 20ppg last year is playing for Kansas his year. Seems like they lose their top 3 or 4 guys every year.
Yes
This has to be the worst mac basketball season ever. Yesterday the league went 1-4 in heavy road games but with all the lines about even. Today Akron lost at Milwaukee by 19. Eastern lost at home to Purdue fort wayne by 23 and western lost at North Dakota State by 36. Earlier this year Toledo lost a neutral site game to San Diego by 35 and at home to Oakland by 33. Niu last time out was a 44 point loss at Northern Iowa. The league has cratered
Hopefully it means wins for Miami
2 Likes
Kenpom only has four MAC teams in the top 200 right now.
Revisited this and amazing - with the exception of CMU - not much movement for teams not named Akron or Kent,
CMU, however, was gaming the schedule playing Marquette, Minnesota, Miss. St. and Arizona for SOS, vs. 4 non-D1s (that don’t count in the metrics) for wins. Still caught up with them in MAC play.
Dec. 2
97 Kent
113 CMU
146 Miami
151 Akron
179 Ohio
197 Toledo
237 EMU
263 WM
280 BG
308 UB
318 BSU
341 NIU
March 16
91 Akron
128 Kent St.
147 Miami
179 Ohio
219 Central Mich.
238 Toledo
268 Eastern Mich.
276 Ball St.
279 Western Mich.
289 Bowling Green
341 Buffalo
354 NIU
So going 14-4 in the league didnt change our net at all
1 Like
Sad.
Going `14-4 in the MAC didn’t change Miami’s metrics.
Going 11-7 in the MAC w/3 losses to Miami helped drop Kent 30 points, but did not raise Miami at all.
Games between Dec. 2 and Jan. 1 start of MAC season must have been the difference??? … or not.
Miami was 4-2 on Dec. 2. Played Air Force, Indiana, Vermont, Sacred Heart before MAC.
Kent was 6-2. Played Portland, Mercyhurst, Alabama before MAC began.
Just interesting.
Looks like a “metric” that isn’t very good. So basically 3 months of a season are meaningless and H2H is completely irrelevant. Again, all this is well and good but end of day completely pointless to the teams not in the P4. MAC is only getting one bid so who cares about all of these metrics. Win 3 games in March and you play on…otherwise enjoy spring break is what these tourneys are telling non P4 teams.
2 Likes
The metric is quite good at doing what it was designed to do, which is provide a case for why borderline P4 schools should be included over top schools in conferences like the A10, MVC, and AAC (and hopefully soon the MAC).
And I’m not even saying a team like Miami this year is necessarily better than Texas (and we wouldn’t be in the conversation unfortunately even if they added 5 mid-majors this year). I just think its better for the sport to reward a team that had a year like we had than a team that came 14th in their conference with a 6-12 record. I know they say the goal is to get the best at-large teams possible, but I honestly kind of just disagree with that premise. Goal should be a celebration of college hoops.
It will never happen, but they should really cap it so a conference can put in no more than half their teams, but that goes against the whole consolidation of big money into the super conferences.
4 Likes
Agree on all.
I have always maintained no team that is .500 or worse in league play should be in the NCAA Tournament. Yes, there are advantages to being in a P5 Conference. But there should be consequences as well. If a team is not .500 in league play (which basically says win all your home games) they should not be rewarded by the NCAA.
1 Like
Eh…if you win your conference tourney, you get a bid. It’s the scam artists who go .500 in league play and flame out first round in their tourneys that are unworthy.