MAC SPRING Meetings

[RoyalBlu]

Here's some scuttlebutt ... hearing the MAC ADs want to go back to a double-bye for MAC BB regular season champ and second place. Coaches, so far, are not on board. ADs spooked by Miami's first-round MAC Tournament loss to UMass, but, IMO, completely ignore the fact Miami needed at least 4-6 last possession wins during the regular season. Also, Akron's last-possession jump shot kept 4-seed Toledo from pulling an upset.

 

All credit to Miami for its undefeated season. But let's recognize that was a unicorn. In this age of Portal/NIL the best MAC team may not emerge until February. The best thing the MAC has is the men's BB Tournament.  The ADs should figure out FB revenue,  and not F+CK with the Golden Goose.

 

Miami's unicorn season got the MAC a 6-year boost in NCAA Tournament revenue, thanks to (1) making the 68-team cut and (2) winning a PIG (Play In Game). I wouldn't expect another MAC team undefeated BB season until ... who knows when ... now that there is a 22-game schedule.

 

These ADs are short-sighted idiots, looking at end results and not the overall product.  Yes Akron has dominated the last three to five seasons. Eastern Michigan has had a run, Miami has had a run, Ball State has had a run, Kent State and Ohio have had runs. Why stack the deck?

 

1) Akron's BB 3-peat success in the MAC Tournament have all come down to the last possession. 

 

2) Those 3 title games were against an 8-seed, a 2-seed and a 4-seed.

 

The beauty of Akron's MAC Tournament success is the Zips have won against a level playing field, on a neutral court, against all (equal) odds.  

 

If the MAC ADs want to stack the deck for the MAC regular-season champion, Miami, let the regular-season champ host the tournament on its home court. Toledo would have hosted three straight, I believe. Certainly they would have won one of those.

 

ADs need to take your AD pampers off, put your britches on, and man-up.

 

I would be shocked if Dustin wants anything other than a 'true' MAC Tournament. And he should say that to the AD.

 

SCUTTLEBUTT NO. 2: The Sun Belt Challenge is expected to continue.

 

Final thought: If the ADs want to re-seed the MAC Tournament after the first round, I would be consider that. (But understand, if that had been the case this year, the 

Zips would have played a very physical UMass in the semifinal ... and we have seen over the years physical defensive teams consistently pull upsets in the MAC Tournament.

 

 

Edited Thursday at 10:54 PM by RoyalBlu

[kreed5120]

15 minutes ago, RoyalBlu said:

Here's some scuttlebutt ... hearing the MAC ADs want to go back to a double-bye for MAC BB regular season champ and second place. Coaches, so far, are not on board. ADs spooked by Miami's first-round MAC Tournament loss to UMass, but, IMO, completely ignore the fact Miami needed at least 4-6 last possession wins during the regular season. Also, Akron's last-possession jump shot kept (I believe) 6-seed Toledo from pulling an upset.

 

These ADs look at end results and not the overall product. 

 

1) Akron's BB 3-peat success in the MAC Tournament have all come down to the last possession. 

 

2) Those 3 title games were against an 8-seed, a 2-seed and a 6-seed.

 

The beauty of Akron's MAC Tournament success is the Zips have won against a level playing field, on a neutral court. 

 

If the MAC ADs want to stack the deck for the MAC regular-season champion, Miami, let the regular-season champ host the tournament on its home court.

 

Otherwise, take your AD pampers off, put your britches on, and man-up.

 

I would be shocked if Dustin wants anything other than a 'true' MAC Tournament. And he should say that to the AD.

 

SCUTTLEBUTT NO. 2: The Sun Belt Challenge is expected to continue.

 

 

A big reason why they went away from the double bye was because schools thought it was too over powered and used it as an excuse for why Akron constantly made the finals under Dambrot. 

 

Now that both Toledo and Miami got embarrassed by an early upset a few years apart and Akron is dominating even more so than before they want to make changes once again. It seems the other ADs are just tired of Akron winning.

[RoyalBlu]

I think you are correct ... but at the same time shows the ADs ignorance. If they are so bummed by Akron's success the last thing they should be doing is making it easier for Akron to dominate, which is what a rule change like this does. GREAT FOR AKRON ... but over time it will water down the MAC.

 

The other thing, that makes no sense, why set. the rules up to favor a program that has never won a NCAA Tournament appearance, and only rarely came close.  

 

AKRON IS THE DOMINANT MAC BASKETBALL POWER ... that is proven. As of now, Miami is a 2-year wonder and a 1-year unicorn. ADs seem to want to favor Miami, but in the long run are really favoring the Zips. Actually, I should probably just quietly stand by. But my college basketball fandom extends beyond one or two teams to the MAC overall and the sport in general. And a rule like this is favortism, not a balanced slate.

 

[Blue & Gold]

10 hours ago, RoyalBlu said:

I think you are correct ... but at the same time shows the ADs ignorance. If they are so bummed by Akron's success the last thing they should be doing is making it easier for Akron to dominate, which is what a rule change like this does. GREAT FOR AKRON ... but over time it will water down the MAC.

 

The other thing, that makes no sense, why set. the rules up to favor a program that has never won a NCAA Tournament appearance, and only rarely came close.  

 

AKRON IS THE DOMINANT MAC BASKETBALL POWER ... that is proven. As of now, Miami is a 2-year wonder and a 1-year unicorn. ADs seem to want to favor Miami, but in the long run are really favoring the Zips. Actually, I should probably just quietly stand by. But my college basketball fandom extends beyond one or two teams to the MAC overall and the sport in general. And a rule like this is favoritism, not a balanced slate.

 

Personally, I like 3 games in three days & agree they shouldn't fix what's not broken. But wouldn't proponents of the move argue it gives more weight to the regular season (which really is a problem basketball - at all levels - struggles with) by  rewarding the top two seeds? 

[zippy5]

Double bye is good imo

[Let'sGoZips94]

Suits are very, VERY good at screwing things up once they climb the ladder high enough. Messing with the current MAC Tournament format would be asinine, especially if it's in response to Akron's dominance/Miami OH's choke job.

 

The Sun Belt has the craziest format in the nation that gives each set of higher seeds an additional bye. The tournament started on Tuesday, March 3rd. The top 2 seeds - Troy (1) and Marshall (2) - didn't play until Sunday, March 8th. The semifinals were 1 seed Troy vs. 8 seed Southern Miss and 2 seed Marshall vs. 10 seed Georgia Southern; this, after the quarterfinals matchups saw 2 blowouts by the lower seeds. Georgia Southern had played 4 games prior to their semifinal matchup and knocked off Marshall to reach the tournament final. Putting top teams on ice for longer periods of time is riskier than 3 games in 3 days. 

 

If the double-bye is that intriguing for ADs, why don't they propose a 2-round conference tournament starting Friday night? Why have 8 teams make it to Cleveland instead of 4? 

 

Don't. Touch. The. Format. 

Edited yesterday at 01:31 PM by Let'sGoZips94

[zippy5]

We act like this is the masters. It'll be okay

[csims0917]

I wouldn’t mind if we did the standard 1-8 games but the 1 seed gets to play on Wednesday or something like that to get a day off. Only issue would be conflicting with the womens day 

[Zippy87]

I actually think the format should change. I believe we are one of the few conferences that doesn't reward its 1 and 2 seeds at all. Regular season performance should earn you an advantage. 

 

 

[kreed5120]

I'm fine with the MACT the way it is now. It's one of the best mid-major tournaments in all of college basketball. I do think a double bye takes away much of the intrigue by making the top 2 seeds over powered.

 

I would entertain the idea of re-seeding teams each round and would at least listen to the argument of a 6 team tournament with top 2 seeds getting a first round bye.

[Let'sGoZips94]

1 hour ago, Zippy87 said:

I actually think the format should change. I believe we are one of the few conferences that doesn't reward its 1 and 2 seeds at all. Regular season performance should earn you an advantage. 

 

 

 

Where does the "reward the top 2 seeds" conversation stop? Why not simply let the regular season determine what the Championship Game is? Why have a tournament at all?

 

The tournament is a money grab across the NCAA meaning the suits will always have the tournament. As long as we're having the tournament, the current format is the most fun. 4 games on Thursday starting at 11am is an absolute blast for basketball fans. Quit ruining what's fun in this country to extract every penny out of everything. 

[RoyalBlu]

4 hours ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

 

Where does the "reward the top 2 seeds" conversation stop? Why not simply let the regular season determine what the Championship Game is? Why have a tournament at all?

 

The tournament is a money grab across the NCAA meaning the suits will always have the tournament. As long as we're having the tournament, the current format is the most fun. 4 games on Thursday starting at 11am is an absolute blast for basketball fans. Quit ruining what's fun in this country to extract every penny out of everything. 

 

Money grab is right!!!

 

So why f with it???

 

The 'reward' for winning the regular-season title is playing the No. 8 seed. No matter what you say, No. 1 should be able to defeat No. 8 even on a neutral court. If not, shame on you.

 

If you go back to all 12 teams in the tournament. Top 4 get byes. And first round games on campus sites ... I think that (A) rewards the top 4 seeds with a bye, (B) gives all team a final chance at making the tournament ... and (C) still maintains the 3-games in 3-days in Cleveland. To me, that's the most fair scenario of all. If you want to add re-seeding after the first round, I'd be open to it.

 

But beyond that what the MAC could actually do to 'reward' the No. 1 seed, is guarantee the MAC season champ (NOT THE HIGHEST REMAINING SEED) gets the league's auto bid to the NCAA Tournament ahead of any other team, plus the MAC pays to host an opening round NIT game.

 

ADs really need to stop smelling themselves and screwing with a proven winning formula.

 

EDIT:  I meant to say 'auto bid to the NIT Tournament' ...  it also has a very modest payout, which teams should be able to keep and not share. Combined with No. 1 seed, vs. No. 8 seed, in MAC Tournament and re-seeding after the first round, a trophy, a bag of chips .... and STILL getting rewarded with a modest NIT$$$ paycheck should be enough consolation for winning the regular season, but not the MAC Tournament. IMO.

 

Per AI, in the NIT: Schools are given about \(\$4,000\) per game played, alongside having all of their travel, lodging, and tournament expenses covered. Additionally, host teams retain all gate receipts, parking, and concession revenues for their home games.

 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by RoyalBlu

[exit322]

18 hours ago, RoyalBlu said:

The ADs should figure out FB revenue,  and not F+CK with the Golden Goose.

 

This.  The basketball is absolutely fine (though moving to a 22-game league schedule would be fine).

 

The football is closer to fine than we probably give it credit for, just for those midweek games that need to go the way of the dodo.

[Let'sGoZips94]

25 minutes ago, RoyalBlu said:

But beyond that what the MAC could actually do to 'reward' the No. 1 seed, is guarantee the MAC season champ (NOT THE HIGHEST REMAINING SEED) gets the league's auto bid to the NCAA Tournament ahead of any other team.

 

Only way this works is if it's an even regular season conference schedule, which it will be going forward. Again, worthless conversation to have because the $$$ from Cleveland is too lucrative for the conference. 

[exit322]

52 minutes ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

 

Only way this works is if it's an even regular season conference schedule, which it will be going forward. Again, worthless conversation to have because the $$$ from Cleveland is too lucrative for the conference. 

The only thing I'd do would be to add the bottom four seeds and play first rounds again (probably at home arenas, why not?  If it's good enough for the CFP...)

But seriously, getting a way around those damn Tuesday/Wednesday football games is a bigger problem than this.

[RoyalBlu]

3 hours ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

 

Only way this works is if it's an even regular season conference schedule, which it will be going forward. Again, worthless conversation to have because the $$$ from Cleveland is too lucrative for the conference. 

 

Note above ,,, meant to say NIT, not NCAA Tournament.

[Zippy87]

8 hours ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

 

Where does the "reward the top 2 seeds" conversation stop? Why not simply let the regular season determine what the Championship Game is? Why have a tournament at all?

 

The tournament is a money grab across the NCAA meaning the suits will always have the tournament. As long as we're having the tournament, the current format is the most fun. 4 games on Thursday starting at 11am is an absolute blast for basketball fans. Quit ruining what's fun in this country to extract every penny out of everything. 

 

Why wouldn't you reward the top seeds? Again, the MAC is the only conference - to my knowledge- that doesn't reward the #1 seed at all. Right now, the only thing that matters in the MAC regular season is finishing top 8. If a conference wants to make the regular season matter more and reward teams for playing well in the regular season, you should absolutely build your tournament that way. 

 

My preferred option would be to take the top 6 teams and give 1/2 a first round bye. It's not as extreme as the double-bye, but it makes earning the 1 or 2 valuable. 

 

Thursday

5 PM - #3 vs #6

7:30 PM - #4 vs #5

 

Friday 

5 PM - 4/5 winner vs #1

7:30 PM - 3/6 winner vs #2

 

Saturday

7:30 - Championship 

 

[Let'sGoZips94]

45 minutes ago, Zippy87 said:

 

Why wouldn't you reward the top seeds? Again, the MAC is the only conference - to my knowledge- that doesn't reward the #1 seed at all. Right now, the only thing that matters in the MAC regular season is finishing top 8. If a conference wants to make the regular season matter more and reward teams for playing well in the regular season, you should absolutely build your tournament that way. 

 

My question is where does the conversation of the "reward" end? Personally, I think 1) having the most rest throughout the tournament and 2) getting to play the weaker teams the first couple rounds is already a pretty darn good reward. 

 

I don't believe a BYE is as rewarding as you believe. Letting the opponent get a game under their belt on a neutral court with new sightlines, etc., is a borderline disadvantage. 

 

If you want the regular season to matter more, you don't have a tournament. You have a regular season and a conference championship game - at most. Top 2 teams from the regular season play for a shot at making the dance. The tournament is a money grab - that's it. Trying to apply competitive logic to something solely built to line the pockets of the suits is a fool's errand. 

Edited 16 hours ago by Let'sGoZips94

[Zippy87]

4 hours ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

 

My question is where does the conversation of the "reward" end? Personally, I think 1) having the most rest throughout the tournament and 2) getting to play the weaker teams the first couple rounds is already a pretty darn good reward. 

 

I don't believe a BYE is as rewarding as you believe. Letting the opponent get a game under their belt on a neutral court with new sightlines, etc., is a borderline disadvantage. 

 

If you want the regular season to matter more, you don't have a tournament. You have a regular season and a conference championship game - at most. Top 2 teams from the regular season play for a shot at making the dance. The tournament is a money grab - that's it. Trying to apply competitive logic to something solely built to line the pockets of the suits is a fool's errand. 

 

From 2012-2015, the 1 and 2 seeds received byes to the semifinals. The championship games each of those years were:

 

2012: #3 Ohio over #1 Akron

2013: #1 Akron over #2 Ohio

2014: #1 WMU over #2 Toledo 

2015: #2 Buffalo over #1 CMU

 

In six years of the current format, the #1 seed has only won the tournament once, and only reached the championship game one other time. The format certainly doesn't preclude the top seeds from winning the tournament, but there was a clear reward for the top two teams during the double-bye era, given the championship game was #1 vs #2 in 3 of the 4 seasons. 

 

 

Edited 12 hours ago by Zippy87

[Let'sGoZips94]

3 hours ago, Zippy87 said:

 

From 2012-2015, the 1 and 2 seeds received byes to the semifinals. The championship games each of those years were:

 

2012: #3 Ohio over #1 Akron

2013: #1 Akron over #2 Ohio

2014: #1 WMU over #2 Toledo 

2015: #2 Buffalo over #1 CMU

 

In six years of the current format, the #1 seed has only won the tournament once, and only reached the championship game one other time. The format certainly doesn't preclude the top seeds from winning the tournament, but there was a clear reward for the top two teams during the double-bye era, given the championship game was #1 vs #2 in 3 of the 4 seasons. 

 

 

 

Citing such simplistic data as the argument is like strictly using W/L for pitchers to determine the Cy Young Award winners.

 

Explain the Sun Belt being a 1v10 in the Championship Game. How could that happen with the top 2-4 seeds being "rewarded" so heavily with their format? 

 

Let's not forget 3 of the 6 seasons in the current format have seen Toledo/Kowalchoke as the 1 seed. You could automatically crown them the Champions and they'd find a way to choke it away. 

 

2021: 1 seed Toledo lost in the SF to 5 seed Ohio, who beat 2 seed Buffalo in the Finals and went on to win a game in the NCAAT with Jason Preston.

 

2022: 1 seed Toledo lost in the SF to Akron, who beat 2 seed PCCC in the Finals and almost beat UCLA in the NCAAT.

 

2023: 1 seed Toledo lost in the Finals to 2 seed PCCC.

 

2024: 1 seed Toledo lost in the QF to 8 seed PCCC, who went on to infamously lose the Finals to 2 seed Akron. 

 

2025: 1 seed Akron wins the whole thing, including a thrilling Championship Game over 2 seed Miami OH. 

 

2026: 1 seed Miami OH gets stunned in the QF by 8 seed UMass. 2 seed Akron won the Championship Game over 4 seed Toledo.

 

 

In the 6 years of the current format, the Champion has been Akron 4x, PCCC 1x, and Ohio 1x. Akron and Ohio have been the Blue Bloods of the MAC for 2 decades, and PCCC has been a Powderpuff Blue Blood over that same time period. The 1 seeds have been Toledo 4x, Miami OH 1x, and Akron 1x. Toledo is fraudulent in March and a lot of people warned against taking Miami OH in their game vs UMass because of the matchup/fraud potential for Miami OH after flirting with many losses all season. The 2 seed has made the Championship Game all 6 seasons, further proving how bad Toledo/Kowalchoke are in March.

 

If anything, the current format has proven that the best team(s) in March will rise to the top. The MAC Tournament has provided thrilling entertainment these last 6 years. Changing it would be silly.

[Zippy87]

3 hours ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

 

Citing such simplistic data as the argument is like strictly using W/L for pitchers to determine the Cy Young Award winners.

 

Explain the Sun Belt being a 1v10 in the Championship Game. How could that happen with the top 2-4 seeds being "rewarded" so heavily with their format? 

 

Let's not forget 3 of the 6 seasons in the current format have seen Toledo/Kowalchoke as the 1 seed. You could automatically crown them the Champions and they'd find a way to choke it away. 

 

2021: 1 seed Toledo lost in the SF to 5 seed Ohio, who beat 2 seed Buffalo in the Finals and went on to win a game in the NCAAT with Jason Preston.

 

2022: 1 seed Toledo lost in the SF to Akron, who beat 2 seed PCCC in the Finals and almost beat UCLA in the NCAAT.

 

2023: 1 seed Toledo lost in the Finals to 2 seed PCCC.

 

2024: 1 seed Toledo lost in the QF to 8 seed PCCC, who went on to infamously lose the Finals to 2 seed Akron. 

 

2025: 1 seed Akron wins the whole thing, including a thrilling Championship Game over 2 seed Miami OH. 

 

2026: 1 seed Miami OH gets stunned in the QF by 8 seed UMass. 2 seed Akron won the Championship Game over 4 seed Toledo.

 

 

In the 6 years of the current format, the Champion has been Akron 4x, PCCC 1x, and Ohio 1x. Akron and Ohio have been the Blue Bloods of the MAC for 2 decades, and PCCC has been a Powderpuff Blue Blood over that same time period. The 1 seeds have been Toledo 4x, Miami OH 1x, and Akron 1x. Toledo is fraudulent in March and a lot of people warned against taking Miami OH in their game vs UMass because of the matchup/fraud potential for Miami OH after flirting with many losses all season. The 2 seed has made the Championship Game all 6 seasons, further proving how bad Toledo/Kowalchoke are in March.

 

If anything, the current format has proven that the best team(s) in March will rise to the top. The MAC Tournament has provided thrilling entertainment these last 6 years. Changing it would be silly.

 

It is a fact that during the double-bye era, the #1 and #2 seeds consistently made it to the championship game. If the goal of the MAC is to reward the top seeds for regular season performance and increase the odds of their champion being a top seed, that format absolutely accomplished that goal previously. 

 

 

[Illini Zip]

I think the MAC Tournament is one of the best run events in all of college basketball.

 

I do like having the whole league participate with the lower seeds having play-in games on college campuses. Too often an 8th seed with a .500 record gets hot and healthy at the very end of the year. The current format gives them the same road as the teams carrying the weight of being the target all season long. Not fair.

 

And because the MAC is usually a 1 bid league, I do favor giving the top seeds a bye. I agree that sometimes a bye will backfire because the opponent has the advantage of getting acclimated to the large arena. But more importantly, having to win 3 games in 3 days is just not ideal for anyone. You end up with the most resilient team, but not necessarily the best team. It would be nice if the MAC was given an at-large bid more often, when warranted. 

[Let'sGoZips94]

1 hour ago, Zippy87 said:

 

It is a fact that during the double-bye era, the #1 and #2 seeds consistently made it to the championship game. If the goal of the MAC is to reward the top seeds for regular season performance and increase the odds of their champion being a top seed, that format absolutely accomplished that goal previously. 

 

 

 

Did the format accomplish that goal or did the teams? 

 

The 2 seed hasn't missed a Championship Game yet in the current format. See my previous post for who the 1 seeds were that missed. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Let'sGoZips94

[kreed5120]

The problem with the double bye is why have a tournament if 7 out of the 8 teams that make the tournament final over a 4 year period are the 1 & 2 seeds? The one that wasn't was the 3 seed.

 

If the tournament becomes too predictable why would anyone care to watch unless you're a fan of one of those top 1-2 teams? Like I said before I'm against the idea of a double bye as it strips the MAC Tournament of the one thing that makes it exciting. I'm not opposed to entertaining options, like a 6 team tournament or re-seeding between rounds, that meets somewhere in the middle. Simply having a chalk tournament yearly defeats the purpose and that's what the double bye produced more often than not.