CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

Maybe there is hope for Akron. They had better win the MAC, or they're not in. After that game at Nevada, there is no way they could get in as an at-large unless they win out pretty convincingly.

Have to agree with that prognosis at this point, although I think there may be a slight glimmer of hope if enough teams fall off the bubble nationally and the Zips win out up until the MAC tourney championship game.

That Nevada game was pretty ugly. I don't like to make excuses for my teams when they lose but there were some serious disadvantages Akron had to face in that game.

1. First and foremost, Nevada may have been the most talented team in the BracketBusters event.
2. I don't think Akron was at all prepared for the altitude. Nevada's arena is at an elevation of something like 5,500 feet. Akron couldn't get out there until about 24 hours before the game because of academic commitments. With the game being Friday instead of Saturday they had very little time to get acclamated to the thin air. (I wish ESPN would have designated Saturday for this game instead) Not to mention altitude changes aerodynamics when it comes to shooting the ball as well.
3. You are always in trouble when your guards are the ones in foul trouble all night.

Don't get me wrong, Nevada was the superior team and probably would have won regardless of those things above but I certainly think that those things played a role in how uncomeptitive the game turned out to be.

I am getting worried about my Zips now. I don't think they have played quite as well the last two or three games in a row now even if it wasn't reflected on the scoreboard. Just seems like something has been missing. This could be terrible timing with the other four big boys in the division being the last four games on the schedule.

Even though it appears certain now that it won't happen I still think the MAC is a league that deserves multiple NCAA bids.

I'd have to agree with those points, I think they are valid. Whenever you lose, there is always you to blame. But I'm sure Akron and Nevada would be a decent matchup should it have been played on a neutral court, meaning if Akron and Nevada somehow met up in the tournament, I'm sure it would be a solid game. My question, is why would you play the game on a Friday night on ESPNU? Western Kentucky was playing Northern Arizona at 10:00 (would've been good for Nevada) on ESPN2. Why didn't they designate the time slot by switching the two?

I don't know if a switch in times would have made too much of a difference since Nevada clearly had contol of the game from mid-first half on but I do think Akron (who also travelled the farthest of any BrackBusters team) was put in an extremely tough spot with their designated game time.

I know, I'm just asking why didn't they have it on ESPN2, which do you think more people would pick to watch, Northern Arizona and Western Kentucky or Nevada and Akron? I wasn't able to watch Nevada and Akron because it was on ESPNU.

I had the same situation here. I also wonder why they didn't show any BracketBusters games (other than a midnight tip time) on the original ESPN. Plus don't they sometimes show live games on ESPN Classic now? I love the event I just think it could have been a lot better in terms of coverage.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of ESPN Classic? That would be like showing Sportscenter on Lifetime!

I agree with you on that. It should be for historical classics and "instant" classics and not much else. The reason I brought the network up though it that I've seen them showing live games in both football and basketball the last few months. It hasn't happened too often but it wouldn't be unprecedented.

It would be no different than Olympics coverage on MSNBC and CNBC, both of which happened this year.

Either way I would have liked to have seen more coverage through more widely available media outlets.