Why is the conference supposed to be weak this year?

[K-dog]

Below are the 2006 non-conference win totals. UNLV's were boosted by a pair of tournament wins but overall, it isn't much different than this year.
2006-2007
BYU 12
UNLV 18
AFA16
SDSU 12
Wyoming 10
CSU 11
Utah 5
UNM 11
TCU 9

2007-2008
BYU 9-2
New Mexico 9-2
San Diego State 9-2
UNLV 7-2
TCU 6-3
Utah 6-3
Air Force 7-4
Wyoming 4-4
Colorado State 5-5

The only real concern I see at this point is that Wyo and CSU are at .500. Last year only Utah was below .500. This year two teams could be. Of course, they could also be above .500. Obviously we won't know for real how good the conference is until all non-conference is done but I don't see, based on records, much of a difference.

Note: I may have last year's totals wrong. They may include conference tournament wins as well. Which would inflate the non-conference wins for teams that did well in the tournament. Subtract accordingly.

[mpfunk]

The concern with the conference is there are 5 teams breaking in new coaches. I think those records may be a function of schedule strength more than anything else.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by mpfunk

The concern with the conference is there are 5 teams breaking in new coaches. I think those records may be a function of schedule strength more than anything else.

Perception is often viewed as fact. For example, many thought the MWC was down this year in football when in reality, they had their best W/L percentage as a conference in any year since 1998 and more bowl teams than at any time. I worry the same is going on with b-ball. People decide in advance what the facts are without looking at the evidence. It looks like our conference is winning non-conference games at an impressive clip again. That should count for something. If we don't defend our conference, who will?

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by K-dog

Perception is often viewed as fact. For example, many thought the MWC was down this year in football when in reality, they had their best W/L percentage as a conference in any year since 1998 and more bowl teams than at any time. I worry the same is going on with b-ball. People decide in advance what the facts are without looking at the evidence. It looks like our conference is winning non-conference games at an impressive clip again. That should count for something. If we don't defend our conference, who will?

The MWC is what is always is in basketball. It is a 2-maybe 3 (with a conference tourney upset) ncaa bid conference. The MWC is not the PAC 10 but it ain't the Patriot League either. The MWC is somewhere in the middle where it belongs.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

The MWC is what is always is in basketball. It is a 2-maybe 3 (with a conference tourney upset) ncaa bid conference. The MWC is not the PAC 10 but it ain't the Patriot League either. The MWC is somewhere in the middle where it belongs.

I think the old WAC was a 2-3 bid league. With UNLV in the roster the MWC should be a 3-4 team league. I keep hoping for perception to catch up with that. We aren't the ACC or the Pac-10 but we aren't the new WAC either.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by K-dog

I think the old WAC was a 2-3 bid league. With UNLV in the roster the MWC should be a 3-4 team league. I keep hoping for perception to catch up with that. We aren't the ACC or the Pac-10 but we aren't the new WAC either.

I can agree with that. Especially in light of all the overhype the Missouri Valley conference has received the last few seasons.

[K-dog]

Rank Conference All time bids
1 Big East 340
2 Atlantic Coast 212
3 Big Ten 195
4 Southeastern 192
5 Big 12 183
6 Pac 10 164
7 Atlantic 10 148
8 Mountain West 112

The teams in the MWC are 8th in all time bids to the NCAA tournament. Looking at the bids per year expected for each of the top conferences should help us to position ourselves in the pantheon. We should be a 3-4 bid league.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by K-dog

Below are the 2006 non-conference win totals. UNLV's were boosted by a pair of tournament wins but overall, it isn't much different than this year.
2006-2007
BYU 12
UNLV 18
AFA16
SDSU 12
Wyoming 10
CSU 11
Utah 5
UNM 11
TCU 9

2007-2008
BYU 9-2
New Mexico 9-2
San Diego State 9-2
UNLV 7-2
TCU 6-3
Utah 6-3
Air Force 7-4
Wyoming 4-4
Colorado State 5-5

The only real concern I see at this point is that Wyo and CSU are at .500. Last year only Utah was below .500. This year two teams could be. Of course, they could also be above .500. Obviously we won't know for real how good the conference is until all non-conference is done but I don't see, based on records, much of a difference.

Note: I may have last year's totals wrong. They may include conference tournament wins as well. Which would inflate the non-conference wins for teams that did well in the tournament. Subtract accordingly.

If you took records including WL for last year and compared to this year, I bet you'd have a significant difference. Records always look great this time of the year, so difference between conf OOC winning pct going from say 80% to 70% might be significant.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by jay santos

If you took records including WL for last year and compared to this year, I bet you'd have a significant difference. Records always look great this time of the year, so difference between conf OOC winning pct going from say 80% to 70% might be significant.

I just don't see a big difference yet. Maybe I will at the end of OOC schedule.