RoyalBlu

This is going to sound strange, but bear with me. Yale's shooting percentage was a plus for Akron as there were relatively few rebounds to be had ... and rebounding is where the bulk of fouls usually come from. I still think the Zips are lacking on the boards. To Akron's credit, the Zips shoot it well enough to overcome it and not get guys in fouls trouble. But as the season wears on I think this could be where the Zips are exposed,

East coast bias ....

Personally ... the culprit and the fix are with THE NET. It is set up for .500 power conference teams that pull a home upset over a T25 team they annually play 2 or 3 times a year vs. an Akron team that is 'upset' by (for example EMU) it also plays 2-3 times a year. One team is rewarded, one is penalized. I suggest THE NET add another metric to the equation: Every team is penalized for playing more than 2 teams 150 spots or lower than them in THE NET from the previous season (and mid-majors should be penalized as well for playing more than one non D1 (NAIA, D2, D3) game. This is a non-con metric, so THE NET from the end of last season is used until Jan 1. This means a power conference program can't load up on 4 or 5 HBCUs or backend Ivys for 7-8 wins before conference play. Then got 8-10 in conference play and still make the NCAA Tournament. Right now (11/22/25) I believe there are 5 MAC teams Kenpom 153 or higher. That means a ton of power conference teams would have to play MAC teams -- even if all of them were on the road -- I'd take them. Over the long haul the MAC would get its share up upsets. The league power ranking would rise and the chances for an at-large team would increase. It would be easier for the NCAA to say no at-large team is eligible unless it is above .500 in league play. But that's too easy, simple and absolute. Or, no team can be an at-large team with a non-con SOS less than 150 spots below its NET ranking and have less than 20 regular season wins overall. Again, pretty easy, simple and absolute which it why it has no chance of happening, either.

Any scouting report on UMass ...

Sad thing is ... a win here, combined with San Diego State likely puts Troy solidly in the at-large picture if they don't win the Sun Belt. Great game. Great performance. Brutal Loss.

Beating these three comparable mid-majors (Yes, OSU is now considered a hoops mid-major) only solidifies Akron as a top tier mid-major. It's not fair, but it is reality. Beating all three teams by double digits will not erase a 15-20-pt loss to Purdue in the eyes of the selection committee. And yes, the Zips looked very good even in that Purdue loss. I'm willing to bet there will be at least one B-10 team that loses to Purdue by the same margin, that gets an at-large bid to the NCAA Tournament. Any takers!!! FWIW ... Oregon State (Kenpom 135) is ranked lower than Miami, Kent, Florida Atlantic, Illinois State and others. Iona (Kenpom 169) is ranked lower than at least four other MAC teams. Not saying these are bad teams. I'm saying winning these games do not move the needle toward an at-large bid.

This is why I drive in the slow lane 🤣

I thought Coit was at KAnsas ...

Indeed, that OU site is on the edge of revolt. But as one post noted, that team was essentially a MAC team. They compared them to Toledo and that BC roster does indeed have a couple of former MAC/CMU starters. But still should not be a loss at home.

Supposedly ... pairings in February are based on highest NET rankings by teams in both leagues. Hopefully that is indeed the case, vs. trying to pair teams that haven't yet played each other. Let's face it. For this to truly work and benefit teams for March, the February pairings, at the least, should be NET pairings. If that means some challenge games are with teams that have already played each other, so be it. The top 4-5 teams in each league may rotate position but overall haven't really changed that much. If that means two straight road games vs. the same team, so be it. The object, in my opinion, is to pair teams with an eye toward March. Otherwise, what's the use.

What a loss (Troy) by Kent ... in a game they should have won in regulation!! Their Kenpom would have really jumped if that had been the case. That said ... Troy needing OT to beat the No. 4 MAC team even on the road says something about the MAC. If zips draw Troy in next SB Challenge game on the road, it should be a big Kenpom boost with a win!!!

Yes, ... absolutely a joke. But this time last season much the same was said about Akron ... and while pi$$ poor, Kent's schedule is still lightyears ahead of Miami. It's the cross good midmajor teams have to bear. MAC has benefitted from the Sun Belt Challenge. I would suggest adding another 'challenge' with C-USA or MVC. Good teams in all four conferences are struggling to get even quality mid-major games.

Just for background ... my understanding is Kent and CSU got screwed in this as both were 'told' they would be playing ACC teams, but the ACC teams said they would back out of the tournament unless they were in an all P5 bracket. Look at the records for some of those teams and you can see why they wanted no part of decent mid-majors on a neutral court. Note: CSU and Kent already had a game scheduled (this Sat) so neither were pleased but could not back out due to $$$ penalty.

Just for the old-timers, here is the latest RPI (yes it's still around). Notice more (6) MAC teams in the Top 140, but also 3 MAC teams 297 or lower. https://www.teamrankings.com/ncb/rpi/ 1. Akron 68 2. Bowling Green 90 3. Miami 100 4. Kent 107 5. Ohio 123 6. Buffalo 140 7. Toledo 173 8. CMU 222 9. UMass 232 10. NIU 276 ---------------------------- Other teams of note: Youngstown State 33 Navy 34 Oakland 52 Kansas 151 Milwaukee 170