Jump to content
Buffalo Bulls - UB Fan Forum

Best rating for Mid Majors


CheerUB80/84

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, CheerUB80/84 said:

What rating/ranking is fairest for Mid Major in national ranking.  I am trying to get a fair ranking for a team like UB compared to a lesser power 5 team like Georgia Tech. 

Not sure what you mean by a fair ranking, but here is a composite of a number of rankings which has Buffalo as the top ranked team in the MAC at 105.  This would put us above  Wake Forest (110), California (119), Vanderbilt (128), Boston College (129), Nebraska (136) and Washington St (140). 

As a conference the MAC is 12th.  This seems like a bit of an off year...but maybe my perspective is biased by recent success particularly from Buffalo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This chart is based on composite rankings in the link above.  The conferences are shown from strongest to weakest from left to right and the bar represents the range of team rankings within the conference.  I have shaded the MAC in gold to highlight it.  One thing you will note is that the range from best team to worst team is generally smaller than many of the conferences - suggesting that there will be many close / competitive games.

image.png.040ea9e616fc0224a578b7fa0f67c480.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DocCas86 said:

This chart is based on composite rankings in the link above.  The conferences are shown from strongest to weakest from left to right and the bar represents the range of team rankings within the conference.  I have shaded the MAC in gold to highlight it.  One thing you will note is that the range from best team to worst team is generally smaller than many of the conferences - suggesting that there will be many close / competitive games.

image.png.040ea9e616fc0224a578b7fa0f67c480.png

Yes, the MAC is full of middle of the road teams and it makes for competitive games.

It also means no one pays any attention to the conference because there are no teams worth looking at nationally.  That's why it was such a big deal when we were a top-20 program.

Look at that chart and you see there isn't even a single top-100 team.  That means no one is even in the running for making the NIT let alone the NCAA tournament.

It is kind of the worse of both worlds.  Top teams aren't good enough to get national attention and the middle of the road (and even bottom teams) are more than good enough to knock off the teams at the top of the conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

Yes, the MAC is full of middle of the road teams and it makes for competitive games.

It also means no one pays any attention to the conference because there are no teams worth looking at nationally.  That's why it was such a big deal when we were a top-20 program.

Look at that chart and you see there isn't even a single top-100 team.  That means no one is even in the running for making the NIT let alone the NCAA tournament.

It is kind of the worse of both worlds.  Top teams aren't good enough to get national attention and the middle of the road (and even bottom teams) are more than good enough to knock off the teams at the top of the conference.

I want to add to what I said here...

I really think the chart you made misses the mark.  The spread between the top and the bottom of the conference isn't important.  Nor is having one really good team in the conference. 

What really matters is the number of top-100 teams in the conference.  You build a resume with top-100 wins.  Those are the ones that the committee notices.  Of course, top-75 is even better but top-100 are the games that get noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

I want to add to what I said here...

I really think the chart you made misses the mark.  The spread between the top and the bottom of the conference isn't important.  Nor is having one really good team in the conference. 

What really matters is the number of top-100 teams in the conference.  You build a resume with top-100 wins.  Those are the ones that the committee notices.  Of course, top-75 is even better but top-100 are the games that get noticed.

I was focused on how MAC compares to other conferences.  The points you make are fair as weaker teams in AAC and A10 are similar to weakest in MAC,  but the difference is those conferences have teams in top 100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DocCas86 said:

I was focused on how MAC compares to other conferences.  The points you make are fair as weaker teams in AAC and A10 are similar to weakest in MAC,  but the difference is those conferences have teams in top 100.

Yeah, I think comparison of conferences is hard.

There aren't really any like the MAC is actually more like the Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, Big East, and Pac 12 in how much parity there is in the conference.  Probably even more parity when you look at the actual ratings.

But no one actually judges a conference by the breadth of the teams within the conference.  It is all about how good the teams are at the top and how many good teams there are in the conference.  

The MAC doesn't get the respect it should as a mid-major.  It is a tough conference to win the tournament because there is always like six teams that could pull out the wins to win it all.  But it isn't a conference that people are going to care about because it rarely ever has a game against two top-100 teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...