Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="jncuse, post: 5428415, member: 1969"]
You need to come up with a different angle on the MWC.    They are not bottom feeding more than others in OOC.  They are actually playing less games against bottom feeders.  I'm not saying there is or isn't an inherent flaw in the NET that helps them, but it certainly isn't scheduling against cupcakes.

Q4 Games (24/25)
P5 - 47%
MWC - 43%

"Teams around 200", i.e top half Q4 games (160-260)
P5 - 18%
MWC - 19%

They do play more Q2 than Q1, so that is one imbalance but that is not going to rock the NET.
P5 - 21% Q1 / 16% Q2 = 37% total
MWC - 12%/23% = 35% total.

I see 2 factors for why the MWC does well in NET and getting in.

[B]#1) If there is one possible inherent flaws in the NET that help the MWC it is road games - and they play more OOC road games.  NET values road games at a factor of 1.4.  So if you are playing more OOC road games than the other competent conferences, and you are a fairly competent conference yourself get a group boost.    [/B]

The easiest way to observe this boost is compare the average conference NET vs average conference KP.   For the P4+BE. the average of the two has been quite close the last few years, which is understandable as they comparable systems.   But the MWC always does better in NET vs KP -- and my theory is that its the road games.

#2) Compared to the ACC, the MWC league bottom feeders don't "turn it on" in conference play.  Those MWC teams that do well or bad in OOC seem to stay that way,   ACC teams like Georgia Tech seem to crap the bed in OOC play, then they start winning in ACC, making it worse for everybody.

It does introduce a sinister theory -- one that I would need to validate before claiming it happens.   Do the MWC bottom feeders, whose NET is benefitted by OOC road games, allow themselves to get beat up even more in conference play if they know their season is over?,
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?