I think hits fair to say that the 20 game conference schedule is a massive mistake.

The committee just said they won’t respecy what we do in conference.

It’s vital to have as many chances to get as many Q1 OOC games as possible.

Unless Gloria has a couple of additions to the conference in the works, this is a MASSIVE mistake.

Lots of B&Ming out there about how the MWC got 6 teams in.

I've got a theory that it could actually end up being a pretty good thing if the conference has a good showing in the tournament this year. I'm feeling more and more that the tournament is where the reputation is built (although I think East-coast bias looms large).

How could anyone have a legitimate gripe about any of the Mountain West teams getting in? All of them clearly belong in the tournament.

ViAggie wrote: ↑

March 18th, 2024, 1:18 pm

Lots of B&Ming out there about how the MWC got 6 teams in.

Yep. The MW got six teams in which is a huge deal. More than the ACC or PAC. While people inside the conference are mad about seeds outsiders are mad that we got as many in.

That argument goes out the window if teams are scheduling quad 4 out of conference games.

LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑

March 18th, 2024, 1:34 pm

That argument goes out the window if teams are scheduling quad 4 out of conference games.

Yeah, I'd be ok with replacing the SD School of Mines with Nevada at Lawlor, but maybe I'm completely missing something here.

918AGG wrote: ↑

March 18th, 2024, 1:42 pm

LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑

March 18th, 2024, 1:34 pm

That argument goes out the window if teams are scheduling quad 4 out of conference games.

Yeah, I'd be ok with replacing the SD School of Mines with Nevada at Lawlor, but maybe I'm completely missing something here.

What you’re missing is it takes two to tango. And scheduling OOC is already pretty difficult to get times/dates to work for both parties. Having less of a window to do so
Means it’s more difficult. It isn’t just a straight swap D2 for Q1 opponent.

918AGG wrote: ↑

March 18th, 2024, 1:42 pm

LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑

March 18th, 2024, 1:34 pm

That argument goes out the window if teams are scheduling quad 4 out of conference games.

Yeah, I'd be ok with replacing the SD School of Mines with Nevada at Lawlor, but maybe I'm completely missing something here.

I think you and I are on the same page here. Saying that having 20 conference games will hurt our schedule because it will take away opportunities to schedule high quality out of conference games is only valid if the schools actually scheduled high quality out of conference games. But given that every team is scheduling quad 4 games, each team will almost certainly be better off playing two more conference games, where they are more likely to be quad 1 or 2 games.

Going to 20 games likely removes 2 quad 4 games and replaces them with quad 1 or 2 games.

Bullnamed_gus wrote: ↑

March 18th, 2024, 1:46 pm

918AGG wrote: ↑

March 18th, 2024, 1:42 pm

LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑

March 18th, 2024, 1:34 pm

That argument goes out the window if teams are scheduling quad 4 out of conference games.

Yeah, I'd be ok with replacing the SD School of Mines with Nevada at Lawlor, but maybe I'm completely missing something here.

What you’re missing is it takes two to tango. And scheduling OOC is already pretty difficult to get times/dates to work for both parties. Having less of a window to do so
Means it’s more difficult. It isn’t just a straight swap D2 for Q1 opponent.

It won't be anymore difficult to schedule OOC games since we will have 2 less games to schedule. A lot of conferences play 20 games it makes sense with an 11 team conference that you play each other twice. I don't see how it will affect overall metric of the conference in a negative way.

Yeah, this only hurts the schools that are already able to land solid non-con games, e.g., SDSU and UNLV. Playing a complete MW schedule probably means two better games for us since we can't get anyone good for a H-H arrangement anyway. I for one want to be done playing the non-counter NAIA games. There's just no point to it.

We need to be willing to occasionally take one and dones with tv guaranteed. Jmho

ineptimusprime wrote: ↑

March 18th, 2024, 1:58 pm

Yeah, this only hurts the schools that are already able to land solid non-con games, e.g., SDSU and UNLV. Playing a complete MW schedule probably means two better games for us since we can't get anyone good for a H-H arrangement anyway. I for one want to be done playing the non-counter NAIA games. There's just no point to it.

I mean it would be really awful if SDSU couldn't play Long Beach State or Cal State Fullerton.

Or if UNLV couldn't play Stetson or southern.

But, but, but the Big12 is never going to play OOC road games in the future. Do we challenge the system by following their lead, or believe the committee and schedule up.

I think they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. It’s more of an excuse than a valid reason.

The quads are determined in part by play in OOC. If the whole conference beats up on cupcakes and no one schedules tough teams, then there won't be as many opportunities for higher quad games in conference. You have to set the table early to carry those NET numbers into the conference season.

thrashsoundly wrote: ↑

March 18th, 2024, 2:18 pm

The quads are determined in part by play in OOC. If the whole conference beats up on cupcakes and no one schedules tough teams, then there won't be as many opportunities for higher quad games in conference. You have to set the table early to carry those NET numbers into the conference season.

Big 12 has been given a pass. We have not. We need as many OOC games as possible. The committee just showed what they actually thought of our conference with the seeding. They didn’t trust our in conference wins. They thought we games the NeT and them just got our Q1 wins in conference