RoyalBlu

Let me add this: I believe many would agree the NIT should take the best team from each conference. As I understand it, by the rules stated before last season, they decided to take the best team FROM EACH OF THE TOP 15 CONFERENCES, then the best at-large teams based on NET. MY guess is they did it this way because so many P5 teams were opting not to play in the NIT. By using the NET, it opened the door for more mid-major teams if they finished in the top NET 125 and did not make the NCAA Tournament. Since the MAC was not a Top 15 NET conference last season, the selection came down strictly to NET, not MAC. Not saying that was fair. Just saying that was the rules. Unless the NIT changes its process this season, the MAC can do two things. 1) Become a Top 15 NET conference. That way the likely hood is the MAC would get not 1 NIT team, but quite likely 2. 2) Have as many teams as possible finish NET 125 or better. And the way to achieve No. 2 is play (and win) as many games as possible vs. NET 150 teams or better. FYI -- Since the 2025 NIT Final Four ended up being all mid-majors; North Texas, UC Irvine, Loyola-Chicago and UT-Chattanooga -- if would not surprise me if the NIT changed their selection process again.

As I understand it ... pairings are supposed to be based on projected NET rankings for the coming year. If that's true, then the schedule-makers expect one team to get a lot better and another to get a lot worse. As for 'name' recognition, I don't believe that figures into the NET rankings. While I certainly hope JMU ranks as a Net 125 team or better by the end of the season, not sure I'd bet on it. I will bet the Zips being NET 125 or better. These folks better figure out how this game is being played; it's based on NET, not name. Just look down the road. Kent lucked into a NIT bid based on NET, over a MAC team that beat them three times and finished ahead of them in the standings. In a 1-bid league like the MAC, the NET still matters.

Personally, I'd swap Ark. St. and JMU ... plus Marshal and ODU. I see the argument for keeping JMU, somewhat, but the purpose of the challenge is best vs. best so a home and home rematch with Ark. State, with a chance to avenge that OT loss, is my preference. I'm also guessing, If I'm Miami, a game vs. Marshall would hold a lot more interest for multiple reasons than ODU ... as for UMass, as MAC rookies, who cares what team they draw. ODU should suit them just fine. This looks like matchups were pulled out of a hat with no real thought at competitive pairings. The only teams with legit NET competitive pairings, in my mind, are S. Alabama-Toledo and Troy-Kent.

Seems like the better opponent, based on NET, would have been a return game by Ark. State (NET 94). Zips opened at Ark. State last season and lost in OT. Essentially would have been a 'home and home.' Nothing wrong with that. Would have added a little buzz for the opener, IMO. JMU (NET 158) is not bad, considering Miami drew a dud in NET 293 Old Dominion. So it could have been worse. But it also could have been much better.

Depends ... Zips might send a guy to prep school and resign him in October. Miami and a few other programs have done this recently to get a kid late. (Miami kid just spent a year at Spire. Got bigger and stronger, too.)

As we close in on the middle of May, I encourage those of you who are interested to check out the new players arriving at Bowling Green, Toledo, Ohio, Eastern Michigan, Central Michigan and Kent. The only prediction I will make is I believe the MAC Middle will be pretty thick next season, and the bottom (NIU-Buffalo aside) rank a bit higher. Generally speaking, it looks like everyone went for size, even if it was more 6-5 to 6-7 wing types, but there are some 6-9 plus guys coming into the league as well. Another interesting tidbit; Miami, Toledo, Kent all have 4 or more freshmen coming in as well. Some of them will have to play.

I see where Harris signed with Cleveland State ... interesting. Thought he would get some A-10, Mo-Valley looks. Even other MAC looks. He didn't play much for Zips due to injury, but his West Virginia resume was pretty solid before that.

It would be sound to say, "Post Season Success" is what Akron is looking for. That might equate to a NCAA Tournament victory ... a 2 or 3-game run in the NIT ... or a championship run in whatever post season tournament the Zips choose to play in. The key here, no matter NCAA, NIT, Whatever, is to get into a 'one-and-done tournament vs. teams you probably don't know,... and rise above. Beating MAC teams you play 3-times a year, and beat, kind of loses its luster over 5-10 years, when that is as far as you get, year after year.

Not trying to 'hype' any team. Just saying take a look at what other programs are bringing in, and how these new rosters look. Yes, most of these teams lost a lot through defection, ejection or graduation. Just saying players these teams are bringing in seem to be interesting pieces. Doubtful any of these teams turn out like the Zips of last season - putting it all together to run through the conference - but, based on in-coming talent (?), the bottom of the league should be higher, the middle of the league thicker, and the top of the league about the same.

This probably belongs in another thread, but looking forward to next season, I would suggest checking out late recruiting being done by Eastern Michigan, UMass, Central Michigan, Toledo and even Kent. MAC teams will definitely be taking on some new personalities around the league. For example, CMU has picked up a pair of 7-footers, and a PG, former Michigan HS POY, originally signed by Michigan. Toledo, UMASS and EMU have hit the portal/juco hard. Kent has hit portal/HS ranks. Looking at some of those rosters is very interesting.

BG will be his sixth (6th) school .... Gotta luv the Portal

I understood none would play Akron ... that's what we always heard ... much less PAY Akron to play them. It's truly a new world we're living in.

'Nagging back injury' at 260lbs ... does not sound promising???

My guess would be Cleveland State or Youngstown

I'm not sure ... but I thought Euros were not eligible for NIL. Am I wrong about that????