Explaining the Mountain West is more difficult and complex, and I don't think its as simple as what you have stated.. I know the ACC switching to that MWC type schedule will not automatically benefit them (on the floor and financially) I have tried to figure it out for a while but its not nearly as clear as the P5 formula (see paragraph 2). MWC still plays a number of Q4 games, and certainly don't dominate in those, so margin is not their secret sauce. I'll get back to MWC in paragraph 3. But I will state that power conference teams have no interest in taking that MWC scheduling route (road games) and they probably wouldn't be rewarded by doing the same thing schedule wise, in particular the top 3 or so power conferences. It takes a while, but the bolded point below is key.
The Power 5 conferences all basically do the same thing schedule wise, and the system is set up to reward them more than anybody else - especially the ones who do best in OOC in both margin and head to head performance is going to dominate in seeds They all tinker a bit, but its really all the same thing. For example the SEC got 14 seeds last year not only because of dominance in margin, but more because they won about 80% of the games head to head against other top conferences. I suppose if you know you are the conference that will really stink that year amongst the P5 (like ACC), it will not help you. But if you are one of the top 3 in the P5 or if you are close to the top conference and in 4th, the system will reward you in spades. So its not a schedule type a conference wants to veer from, and the best P5 conferences will do better.. Of course the ACC was terrible last year so the system failed them. .
Getting back to the MWC. They do 3 things different than the power conferences. 3 things that power conferences have zero interest in doing schedule wise. Part of it is also location .
a) Play more road games in OOC.
b) Play a number of Q2 games and Q3 games
c) Don't play a number of head to head neutral games against P5.
Road games is huge in helping their NET. NET gives a bump to road game - something like KenPom does not, it just makes a margin adjustment. Its why MWC tends to much better in NET compared to KP, while the P5 schools tend to be fairly even in both metrics.
In terms of playing many more Q2/Q3 which the MWC does, veering to this strategy isn't going to help ACC teams or P5 teams. Especially if they don't want to play them on the road. Its easier to surpass the expected margin in Q4 games then Q2/Q3 games.
That being said the MWC tends to do as good or better in Q2 games (especially the tourney teams) than the P5 schools. They may do a better job of selecting opponents, but P5 schools don't do good against Q1/Q2 schools from mid-majors in OOC
I think the other factor that helps the MWC is bottom feeders know their damn role. Tends to be a pretty clean split between good and bad, and the good destroy the bad in conference play. Than the good who did fairly well in OOC, , help each other out by getting Q1/Q2 wins from each other. A cleaner split than the ACC or other power conferences. In the ACC, Georgia Tech, Florida St or somebody will crap the bed in OOC play and then step up in January. That hurts everybody in the ACC.
If you are the ACC (or a P5) you don't want to schedule like the MWC, because if the conference is good, the system will reward you even more handsomely with the heavy Q1/Q4 split. The downside of course if when your conference sucks like the ACC (and you are the clear #5 amongst the P5) you get hammered - and in that case the MWC schedule type might work better. I don't think the ACC's should admit that they a #5 conference each year, and try to maximize what they can get from that by scheduling like the MWC (which might not even maximize things. The goal should be to schedule like the other P5's, be a top 3 conference, and be rewarded even more handsomely by the system. Or to put it more simply, the SEC and B10 do not get 24 teams to the NCAA tournament last year if they decide to follow the MWC schedule.
The MWC is clearly the sixth best conference in America - has been for a while. Sometimes they get have been pretty close to #5, or in line with them. They have found the schedule that works for them at that rank. Can't deny that.
That’s a good analysis. You seem to be the most versed around here on all this so I did a little digging. And at the end of this, if you could tell me what your thoughts were on a question, I would appreciate it.
It still looks to me that the mountain West is not really challenging themselves, only “appearing” to challenge themselves. For example, most power conference teams play two or three neutral or away games. Utah State, Boise, Colorado State, and New Mexico play a total of 10. So nothing unique there. The teams they play are certainly nothing special. They are playing the following teams, either away or neutral: Illinois state, Charlotte, South Florida, Tulane, VCU, Loyola Chicago, Virginia Tech, New Mexico State, VCU again and butler. So maybe by playing those games away and neutral you turn quad threes into quad twos and maybe Butler and Virginia Tech become quad ones but it’s still some pretty thin gruel.
Most of those teams are in the 100 to 200 range. And their home games for the most part are the same tomato cans everybody else is playing.
So it seems to me that beating all your tomato cans by 20+ and just scraping by against OK teams is all that’s necessary for a high NET pre conference ranking. And then once you have that ranking, as long as you go 500 in your conference against the other highly ranked teams, you’re good for the tournament.
So my prediction is that the stars alligned with good play and favorable scheduling the last few years. Now other conferences like the ACC, are catching up as how to schedule. I would be surprised if the Mountain west got more than three teams this year.
For a historical note, in the last 27 years, mountain West teams (not named San Diego State) have a total of 18 tournament wins. That’s it. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. They are average teams who would finish in the bottom half of a power conference, so they do not perform well in the tournament.
My question to you is, who would have a higher net ranking, a team who played 10 teams all ranked above 200 but won them all by 30 points, or a team that played six games against 6 of those same teams ranked above 200 , beat them all by 30, but split neutral site games with VCU, South Florida, Charlotte, and New Mexico State, in close games? I know it’s a tough question, but based on your insight, I’d be curious if you could figure it out.
