Jeseph Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 Well, we're definitely not going to see multiple bids under this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooleyBull06 Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 You beat me to it. I was just going to post this. 22 is a lot of league games. This model works well for power conferences but not for mid majors in my opinion. Also what would be the point of a 22 game regular season just to lose to a 6 seed in the conference tournament. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBull Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 22 would make sense, You get rid of the divisions and everybody plays everybody twice. Balanced schedule. No team is punished or benefits from playing the strong schools in the other division twice or the weakers ones twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGBull Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 7 minutes ago, Jeseph said: Well, we're definitely not going to see multiple bids under this... If this happens I would really hope that we don't lose our big games against temas like Syracuse, Marquette, Vandy, etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooleyBull06 Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 Just now, SGBull said: If this happens I would really hope that we don't lose our big games against temas like Syracuse, Marquette, Vandy, etc That’s already happening. The opportunity to play big non conference games is dwindling. And forget hosting a big non conference game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooleyBull06 Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 Plus all the non conference tournaments that take place. Opportunity for mid majors to score an upset during non conference are dwindling. And that’s what the power conferences want. Why? Bc come bracket time the bubble is all power conference teams. And the field is league winners and power teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBull Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 If all of the conferences expand the conference schedules the NCAA should adopt a rule that was being talked about on early March. You are not eligible for the tournament if you are under .500 in conference play. That would open it up to more mid-majors. Getting schools that go 10-2 in non-conference and 7-11 and win two game in the conference tournament to have 20 wins and go to the dance will end. If the conferences want their games to mean more, they will this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooleyBull06 Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 (edited) 35 minutes ago, BrooklynBull said: If all of the conferences expand the conference schedules the NCAA should adopt a rule that was being talked about on early March. You are not eligible for the tournament if you are under .500 in conference play. That would open it up to more mid-majors. Getting schools that go 10-2 in non-conference and 7-11 and win two game in the conference tournament to have 20 wins and go to the dance will end. If the conferences want their games to mean more, they will this way. Agree on the .500 stipulation. If they want regular season games to mean something then eliminate conference tournaments. Imagine us going 15-7 in conference. Being a one or two seed then losing in the semifinal to a 5 seed. Regular season grind of 22 games would have been meaningless. Unless you wanna play in the NIT Edited April 15, 2020 by DooleyBull06 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
121Merrimac Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 I think the half of the MAC that play 4ish non D1 games every year will be in real trouble... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire17 Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 I’m cynical enough to speculate that the the increase in MAC regular season from 18 to 22, envisions smaller crowds next year - whenever next year may be. So the additional games somewhat would offset the lower attendance figures that are certain. It’s whistling past the graveyard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpamTin Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 Long time lurker and Bulls fan. The prospect of an expanded MAC schedule really disappoints me. I always look forward to seeing our non-conference schedule "leak" out during the summer and early fall. With all due respect to the MAC, I can do without another game against the directional schools or the weaker MAC teams. Spoiled, yeah, but bring on The Valley Conference or another A10 team - shake it up, as the Cars said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikescherrer8 Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 Christ.....call me crazy but I think 18 games was enough. Add 3 more games that you basically have to win the in the conference tournament to get an auto bid since an at large in the MAC never happens. To tack on more games seems a bit more taxing on teams in the 5 month schedule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooleyBull06 Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 1 hour ago, mikescherrer8 said: Christ.....call me crazy but I think 18 games was enough. Add 3 more games that you basically have to win the in the conference tournament to get an auto bid since an at large in the MAC never happens. To tack on more games seems a bit more taxing on teams in the 5 month schedule. If the auto bid comes down to the conference tournament then what’s the point of a 22 game regular season? This is a mid major POV. Obviously 20 game conference schedules for power conference teams means more chances to enhance resumes. But now with no big non conference games mid majors will have little to almost no resume boosting games. Essentially mid major auto bids will be all the 13-16 seeds. And the rest power conference teams. Limiting chances for upset and leaving all the big schools come the big dance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UB92 Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 6 hours ago, BrooklynBull said: If all of the conferences expand the conference schedules the NCAA should adopt a rule that was being talked about on early March. You are not eligible for the tournament if you are under .500 in conference play. That would open it up to more mid-majors. Getting schools that go 10-2 in non-conference and 7-11 and win two game in the conference tournament to have 20 wins and go to the dance will end. If the conferences want their games to mean more, they will this way. Who ever was talking about this above .500 rule was not in a major conference. Why would they want it? Expanding the conference season makes it more of haves vs have-nots and the bubble will be all sub-500 teams from the major conferences. But that is the way the "haves" want it, of course. At some point, we have to get out of the MAC if we want to be part of the "haves". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchcountry7 Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 This seems to be something that is happening. There really isn't any stopping it. The only question is when it happens. Buy games are paying less and less because there are so many low budget mid-major teams like us desperate for a paycheck while also wanting to play a big name program. The A10 is looking into adding two games. I heard that St. Bona is likely to have to drop one of their Big four games. And it looks like we would need to drop Big four games to be able to play 22 conference games. What game do you think gets dropped? Akron played in two tournaments last year to save on travel. Bowling Green played in two tournaments last year to save on travel and played two non-D1 games. Kent State played two non-D1 games last year. Ohio played two non-D1 games last year. Miami played two non-D1 games last year. Central Michigan played three non-D1 games last year. Western Michigan played two non-D1 games last year. Eastern Michigan played four non-D1 games last year. The MAC schools are behind this. They struggle to get games and want to build rivalries. They are sick of paying to travel to play non-name D1 teams that no one in their region cares about. They don't want to have to fill a schedule with non-D1 games. Teams will still get wins in conference. The worst team in the MAC typically has six conference wins. Add in four more games and they likely have seven conference wins. That is another win over a peer and more competitive games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchcountry7 Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 On 4/15/2020 at 9:45 PM, UB92 said: Who ever was talking about this above .500 rule was not in a major conference. Why would they want it? Expanding the conference season makes it more of haves vs have-nots and the bubble will be all sub-500 teams from the major conferences. But that is the way the "haves" want it, of course. At some point, we have to get out of the MAC if we want to be part of the "haves". The rule can be voted in by the "have nots" without the "haves" being able to stop it. Some sports already have the rule. (See how Arkansas Tennis scheduled Tennessee State SIX TIMES in ONE DAY to get a winner record) https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/2018/04/24/why-tennessee-state-womens-tennis-played-arkansas-six-times-sec/544909002/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchcountry7 Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 (edited) On 4/15/2020 at 5:36 PM, 121Merrimac said: I think the half of the MAC that play 4ish non D1 games every year will be in real trouble... I disagree. Who do you think is behind this push? Eastern Michigan played four non-D1 teams last year. This was their OOC schedule last year. Vermont at Oakland Siena Heights at Michigan State $$ Marygrove Madonna at Nebraska-Omaha at Penn State $$ Rochester College Louisville $$ at Coppin State Detroit North Florida With the change in the schedule to 22 MAC games, I envision these games being changed to something like this: Vermont MIAMI-OH at Oakland Siena Heights at Michigan State $$ Marygrove Madonna at Nebraska-Omaha OHIO at Penn State $$ Rochester College Louisville $$ at Coppin State AKRON Detroit North Florida BOWLING GREEN EMU is much better off with the new schedule. Edit: I just realized I was looking at the 2016 schedules. Anyways, for 2015-16 this would be the case. Edited April 17, 2020 by dutchcountry7 Wrong season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UB05 Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 I like the idea of playing every team in our conference twice, right now it feels wrong to have a few random teams you only play once and it wreaks havoc on tiebreakers and standings. Just end the West and East divisions. I also don’t care if we don’t play Niagara or Canisius every year, though I will be upset if we can’t play Bona every year because beating them has become one of my favorite traditions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchcountry7 Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 17 minutes ago, UB05 said: I like the idea of playing every team in our conference twice, right now it feels wrong to have a few random teams you only play once and it wreaks havoc on tiebreakers and standings. Just end the West and East divisions. I also don’t care if we don’t play Niagara or Canisius every year, though I will be upset if we can’t play Bona every year because beating them has become one of my favorite traditions At least it would let us cut the Nazareth game. I don't really care about playing Niagara or Canisius but Bonas is by far the biggest game every year at Alumni. That game MUST stay on the schedule. I don't think this is going to be as bad as people make it out to be. We will stop playing teams like Army and Saint Francis. I am okay with that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tee4three Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 This is potentially good for the mac, if every team drops the 4 worst out of conference games. But if teams continue to schedule non division 1 teams then it will be a bad move Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UB92 Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 59 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said: The rule can be voted in by the "have nots" without the "haves" being able to stop it. Some sports already have the rule. (See how Arkansas Tennis scheduled Tennessee State SIX TIMES in ONE DAY to get a winner record) https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/2018/04/24/why-tennessee-state-womens-tennis-played-arkansas-six-times-sec/544909002/ Help me out, then. Explain how such a rule would be voted on and who would vote (this is basketball). Would all Div 1 teams have a vote? Would it be based on conferences having one vote? Or would this just be something the NCAA decides? If the latter, then the major conferences would have an undue influence (obviously). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchcountry7 Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, UB92 said: Help me out, then. Explain how such a rule would be voted on and who would vote (this is basketball). Would all Div 1 teams have a vote? Would it be based on conferences having one vote? Or would this just be something the NCAA decides? If the latter, then the major conferences would have an undue influence (obviously). It depends on how it was proposed and how the legislation was pushed. If it was just proposed as a change to only the men's basketball championship, then it would go through the Men's Basketball Championship committee. (Not favorable with the current membership). http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=1MBBOVERSIGH If it was pushed as a broad legislative change that applied to basketball, it would go through the Division-I Council which is represented by all conference (and some other slots). http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=1COUNCIL The power the Basketball Committee has is delegated by the Division-I council and can be recalled. Also, the power the Division-I council has comes from the Member School Presidents and they can hold a meeting and vote to override the decisions of the council or to restructure the NCAA and the legislation (which gives much more power to mid-majors). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rma Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 1 hour ago, dutchcountry7 said: The rule can be voted in by the "have nots" without the "haves" being able to stop it. Some sports already have the rule. (See how Arkansas Tennis scheduled Tennessee State SIX TIMES in ONE DAY to get a winner record) https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/2018/04/24/why-tennessee-state-womens-tennis-played-arkansas-six-times-sec/544909002/ Would have been hilarious if TSU won that last match (they lost 4-3). Arkansas would have needed to play at least two more matches after playing 12+ hours of tennis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooleyBull06 Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 I’m ok with a 22 game regular however a conference tournament would render the regular season irrelevant. This applies to all one bid leagues. Right now the MAC is a one bid league. And if you left it up to the big boys all mid majors would be one bid leagues with the exception of one or two leagues like the WCC. How would you feel if UB went 16-6 in conference and was a one seed for the MAC tournament then got bounced in the semi? What was the point of the 22 game grind? Again I’m ok with a 22 game regular season but it has to mean something. For the power conferences a 20-22 game regular season means more chances to boost their resumes. For us it mean another meaningless game against Western Michigan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
121Merrimac Posted April 17, 2020 Share Posted April 17, 2020 6 hours ago, dutchcountry7 said: I disagree... I was sarcastically suggesting those MAC schools are afraid of D1 competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.