NCAA Basketball: 5 major problems with a conference-only 2020-21 season
What does all of this mean exactly?
In summary, notching multiple Q1 and Q2 wins will help bubble teams tremendously in March, because most squads in those quadrants will be considered NCAA tournament locks. When scheduling out of conference games, teams (especially mid-majors) try to take into account which opponents will be Q1 or Q2 wins for them when the regular season comes to a close. What I mean by that is, a team may start the season in Q1 or Q2, struggle towards the middle and end of the regular season, and drop to Q3 or Q4, which would reduce the value of that win in March.
However, if that same team performed well in their conference tournament, there is a chance that the value of that win would increase. Also, teams should try their hardest to stay away from Q3 and Q4 losses, because the committee will look at those losses on paper in March, and use them to help explain to others, why they were left out of the NCAA tournament.
It is also important to note that scheduling tough road games is extremely pivotal for bubble teams because the NET places more value on road (or neutral site) wins than home wins since it rewards teams for securing victories in hostile environments.
Now that you understand how the NET works, I will explain why it may not work as well in a conference-only season.
On top of the two main factors I mentioned earlier, the committee will start looking at a team’s overall, and non-conference strength of schedule a little differently. According to ncaa.org “The strength of schedule is based on rating every game on a team’s schedule for how hard it would be for an NCAA tournament-caliber team to win. It considers opponent strength and site of each game, assigning each game a difficulty score. Aggregating these across all games results in an overall expected win percentage versus a team’s schedule, which can be ranked to get a better measure of the strength of schedule.”
To paraphrase all of that for you, a team who plays against multiple elite opponents in the non-conference part of their schedule, and conference part of their schedule(on the road or at neutral sites), may receive more of a break, if they don’t win as many games as they were hoping to. Basically, the more opponents that are played, who NCAA tournament-caliber teams may struggle beating, the better. The only problem is, in a conference-only season, there is no guarantee that power 5 teams with subpar or average conference records, will be able to use their strong conference schedules to get them off the hook.
For example, let’s say that Texas (a team that is probably looked at as an average power 5 program by the committee) finishes 8-10 or 9-9 this season in an elite conference like the Big 12, wins two games in the Big 12 Tournament, secures a NET ranking of 66 and gets 5 or 6 Q1 wins, and 3 Q2 wins in the process. Would the committee automatically write them off, because they couldn’t prove that they could handle the grind of the Big 12? Well, maybe, and would that decision be justified?
Absolutely not, because although their competitive conference schedule would have been considered, with regard to their overall expected win percentage, they never got the chance to come away with 8-9 non-conference wins, and most importantly pick up 2 or 3 additional Q1 wins, and 2-3 additional Q2 wins. Their conference record would’ve prevented them from sitting pretty, but their overall record (which would have been respectable thanks to their non-conference showing), and overall strength of schedule, would have forced the committee to view them in a different light.
Power 5 teams shouldn’t have to feel like there is a ridiculous amount of pressure on them to either win their leagues or finish in the top 5 in order to get into the NCAA tournament. Without the opportunity for as many in conference Q1 or Q2 wins, mid-majors undoubtedly have it worse. For them, without non-conference games, even if they have a strong conference season and win their regular-season title, it may not be enough to earn a tournament bid. Those teams will almost certainly have to win their conference tournament this season.
Look at Northern Iowa for example. Last season, they finished first in the Missouri Valley Conference, with a 25-6 overall record, and a 14-4 conference record. However, they were eliminated by Drake in the second round of the Missouri Valley Conference tournament, which put them on the NCAA tournament bubble (mainly because they didn’t have enough Q1 and Q2 wins). This season, Northern Iowa could finish with the same exact conference record, lose in the first or second round of the Missouri Valley Conference tournament again, and the committee could say that, because they play a relatively weak conference schedule, they should have won more games, or simply won their conference tournament. (which is why getting a chance to play against tough non-conference opponents is so crucial).
This just goes to show that life is already extremely difficult for mid-majors(especially the teams who play in conferences where there are more Q3 and Q4 opportunities available for them than Q1 and Q2), and even mediocre power 5 programs that slightly underperform certain seasons. So, when push comes to shove, teams who desperately need the opportunity to schedule, and win more games against elite teams in non-conference play, (which hopefully would result in more Q1 and Q2 wins later on) to help propel them into the NCAA tournament in a conference-only season, would have an extraordinarily tough time being successful.