RoyalBlu

I believe both things can be true; It was a special team ... that dominated in a down MAC season. While I think this was Groce's deepest team, with Harris, I would not call this his best team. And as several posters have pointed out, this team would have struggled against a couple of other Akron teams from the last 20 years. That said .. one woulld think this team could be much much better next season w/Harris and a couple of more bigs, especially if Johnson & Johnson return as well.

Doubt the MAC will be as easy to win next season as this season. Miami has been hit in the mouth and tasted blood. They will be a tough out. UMass is an unknown but expected to be Top 6 in the league at worst, and a contender at best. Toledo will likely regroup and return to its profile as a 3-pt shooting team. Ohio and Kent, who knows but historically Top 6 as well. After that, a wild card (much like Miami this season) could get in the mix as well. If Akron, Miami, Ohio, UMass are not overly hit with transfers, and schedule to their pedigree, the MAC should see the conference rank improve, perhaps markedly. All that said, the Zips should be No. 1 going into next season considering all the returnees and high level recruits. Another solid big, plus the return of Harris and the Zips are definitely both improved and experienced. The rest of the MAC still has to catch up to Akron.

Why does the MAC/Akron always draw these West Coast teams in the NCAA Tournament.

Yes ... (Those that accepted the offer) in decending order. Kent was 128 Miami was 147 Several teams in between them were selected. Many teams above Kent declined the NIT ... or opted to play in another tournament.

Did you read this in the press release .... The top teams from each conference will be determined based on the average of the teams’ ESPN Basketball Power Index (BPI), Kevin Pauga Index (KPI), NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET), Ken Pomeroy Rating (KenPom), Strength of Record (SOR), Torvik ranking and Wins Above Bubble (WAB) ranking. All rankings are already included in the “Team Sheets” used by the NIT Committee during the selection process. All teams receiving an exempt bid are guaranteed the opportunity to host a first-round game. In addition to the exempt teams, regular-season conference champions that are not otherwise selected to the NCAA championship can earn an automatic bid to the NIT as long as that regular-season champion has an average of 125 or better across the BPI, KPI, NET, KenPom, SOR, Torvik and WAB rankings. The rest of the 32-team field will be selected as at-large teams by the NIT Committee. It is understood, by most, that the at-large teams will be held to the same criteria as the exempt teams. When other teams back out, the metric average of 125 then became 126, 127, 128 and so on. Kent State was 128. I believe Miami was 147. As for the MM T-25. Speaking for myself, I'm saying these are the kind of teams you want to see more of on all MAC schedules. Akron played St. Mary's, Yale, Milwaukee and Arkansas State off the list, (and South Alabama was likely on the list when the Zips played them) plus 5 games vs. Kent and Miami. The rest of the MAC should do the same. BTW, Akron played Ark. St. as part of the Sun Belt Challenge based on Kenpom comparison. Kent played Ar. St. based on the same thing. One was on the road, one was at home.

It's not a matter of 'standing up for Kent.' It's a MAC thread, first off. And has been pointed out many times before, scheduling is huge for mid-majors, and in this case it paid off for Kent. Auburn-Alabama, Michigan-Indiana aside, check out the Mid-Major Top 25. It gives a solid clue to why Kent over Miami. You will see that Akron and Kent, by a wide margin, played more teams on that list (including others getting votes) than anyone else in the MAC did, including Miami. I doubt Kent went into the season - or even ended the season - thinking they were going to be a NIT team. But the 'lucky' reward was a NIT bid because of their scheduling. It validates what many have complained about MAC Basketball for years. Most MAC teams don't play anybody. It's not just getting a few P5s on the schedule, it's playing 5-6 other teams like yourself. You will likely lose your share. But if you win enough (Akron-Miami aside, Kent was 3-1 vs. other MM T-25+ teams) you could potentially get a reward. BTW - Miami and Kent aside, Akron was 1-3 vs. other MM T25+teams. Other than Akron-Kent, Miami did not play another team on the MM T-25+. Not always about wins and loses. But playing quality games. https://collegeinsider.com/mens-mid-major-top-25

NCAA BB Scholarship limit goes up to 15 next season.

I think what most folks are missing is the fact Kent was rewarded for having a solid non-conference schedule. Yes, they lost to Auburn, Alabama and Cal-Irvine, -- Akron and Miami a total of 5 times, too -- but also won their share of games as well. Look at the Mid-Major Top 25, and you will see Akron and Kent played a fair share of games vs. teams in the T-25 and others getting votes. The rest of the MAC should take scheduling note.

I believe it's spring break ...

Just to be fair ... there were at least three teams, including Wichita State, ranked below Kent and above Miami that got into the NIT ahead of Miami. If the MAC was guaranteed a bid from the outset, then Miami should have been the pick as No. 2 in the MAC. But only top 15 conferences were guaranteed a bid. After that, it was all metrics. I say, if you beat a team 3 times, and still don't rank above them in the metrics then (1) something is wrong with the rest of your metrics and (2) you are just a bad matchup. That's a MAC issue, not a NIT issue. Miami still ranked 20 spots lower, Kenpom, not just one or two, or they probably would have been picked, along with Kent. Something in that Miami resume didn't add up. On the court, in the MAC, no question Miami was the better team. But on paper, it was Kent. Not saying it's right. Just sayin ...

Folks forget a lot of these 'flareups' are just one continued battle ... the infamous Singletary/Linhart punch actually goes back to the previous year, MAC Tournament, final moments late in the game when a hard (very legal) Linhart boxout at the FT line caused Singletary to fall hard and hit his head. Kent immediately took Singletary out of the game. Don't know what happened first Kent/Akron game that next season, but the second game was 'the punch'

I'm no math major ... so the pluses and minuses for all these different rankings is above my head. I grew up with the RPI and Sagarin. One would guess that, over time, other measurements would evolve. Not saying one is better than another. Just saying it's still out there for those who wish to check it out and compare.

FWIW, heard a different story. Morales caught an elbow in practice some time after first Akron game. Broken orbital bone. Has since signed (per twitter) with an international team. Also note, since that first Akron game those guys have been playing much better, ... for them. Whichever story is right, was a net positive for them.

What's interesting about this is ... the original standard, the RPI ... is not part of the equation. Indeed, it is mostly forgotten. But it still lives and offers some interesting insights. First, the MAC is not as bad here as everywhere else with a Conference RPI of 16. Second, three MAC teams are ranked 101 or higher (Akron, 45) Third, with a Top 50 RPI the Zips could be considered a NCAA bubble team, although there are no quality (Top 100) wins to support this. That said, going 17-1 in the MAC should carry some weight in and of itself. That 2002 Kent team went 17-1 and had no quality non-con wins to speak of, either. Although, Ball State, Marshall, BG and Miami were all highly regarded 2002 MAC teams -- unlike the rank and file this season. http://realtimerpi.com/rpi_conf_Men.html

Zips should be a sure thing in my book opening round ... the other three games all have some level of upset potential. Beware of Western ... they beat Kent, Eastern and Miami during the regular season.

THIS IS A ROAD GAME ...

If you look around the MAC, pretty much nobody is making even an average (33.3%) about of 3-points as a team, game in and game out. Miami seems decent, but that's about it. Volume shooting is good, I guess, if that's your game. But you have to live and die by it. The fact there are so few even decent post players in the league anymore ... even the 6-7 types ... means every MAC team is pretty much about the same. You'll look good on a good shooting night, and look awful on a bad shooting night.

Thanks for the website link ... Noticed in the 12-team league 8 teams are trending down. Only two teams trending up are Ball State and Eastern Michigan. Interesting. Also noted all top 4 teams in the MAC are loaded with Q4 wins. Doesn't say much for the league. CMU has 2 Q2 wins, both non-con. Ball State has 1 vs. Kent.

That's just it ... statistics say they may be the worst team in the MAC (outside of NIU).

Explain to me how the worst team in the MAC (Kent) is by metrics considered the best team in the MAC by both the NET (127) and Kenpom (131). Waiting.

Look around the league tonight ... every game was in the 80s and 90s. Lots or scoring and lots of 3-point shooting. If nobody in the MAC is going to play any defense, Zips sure look better than most at the 3-point game. Even Buffalo, bad as they are, puts up a lot of points almost every game.

With all these P5 leagues now looking to get 8-10 or more teams in the NCAA Tournament each year, ... the NCAA should really revisit awarding conference champs from Top 20 leagues into the NIT. Mid-majors pay a 'penalty' for being in one-bid leagues. But 10-bid leagues get an extra reward with at least 2 more teams in the NIT. It really is not fair. But FAIR in our society seems no longer viable no matter what the sport-business-etc. is. If you can bend, stretch or even break the rules - especially if you have the money/power to get what you want. So be it.

Then supplement it with some of the TV money. The MAC needs to start moving the needle w/basketball or the league is going to fall more and more behind. FB makes $$ just by being DI, then individually getting big paydays for 2-3 P5 games a year. If the MAC paid its regular season BB Champ $500,000 off the top out of the annual NCAA Tournament pot, that should be incentive for all. As I understand it, the NCAA pot is equally divided between all MAC teams and the league. Right now the MAC is a one bid/one game league as far as the NCAA Tournament is concerned. Going one step more ... I'd say any MAC team that wins a game or games in the NCAA Tournament also gets extra out of the pot ($250,000 per win above split). Incentives are the key, and this day and age there is not much of a bigger incentive than $$$MONEY$$$.

I. agree with all of this. A STRONG financial incentive for winning the MAC regular season, perhaps $500,000 (or more) from the league directly into team NIL. Then a return to 12-team MAC Tournament complete w/4 team bye. First rd on campus. While I'm not a huge fan of reseeding, I could live with it as long as the financials and MAC Tournament format aligned.

Tough day for Kent. Forced more than 20 turnovers, took 20 more shots than Ball State, and still lost. Sullinger has lost his shot. Best player (Safford) done after hip surgery, potential backup, Moss, done, second knee surgery, top local recruit Jonas, MIA. Looks like another long season over there.