This is from an Athletic article today:
"We caught up with the chairman this week to discuss some pertinent issues (and nominate ourselves for future committee membership … still waiting to hear back on that one).
How about the notion that certain leagues, like the Big 12, have gamed the system by playing soft nonconference schedules and then simply racking up quality wins against one another? Iowa State, for example, played the No. 323 nonconference schedule per the NET, yet had five Quad 1 wins before the reveal. (The Cyclones added another Saturday against Texas Tech before losing to Houston on Monday.) They were awarded an early No. 3 seed by the committee, 12th overall.
“We spend a significant amount of time discussing this exact topic,” McClelland said. “It’s always good for the game to play good nonconference schedules. If teams are going to play a weak nonconference schedule, it makes it critically important for them to do well in their league games. Even in the loss at Houston, it was a hard-fought game, and I think the nation could see, even if they watched just that one game and not the entirety of the season like we do, that Iowa State is a very good team and certainly deserving of the seed we gave them. But if you do play a weak nonconference schedule and then you get into the league and don’t win those games against the best teams and are just kind of floating there at let’s say 9-9 … just because you have a tremendous amount of wins doesn’t necessarily guarantee you a way into the tournament.”
Big 12 gaming the system? Importance of road wins? Those sliding quads? Commitee chair Charles McClelland answers our questions.
theathletic.com
I'm going to be honest. This is pretty bogus and basically applies to this one singular year where, kind of across the board, big 12 scheduling was down. Given that it hasn't really been that way (to this degree) year over year it's a trash argument (it's not like we're the SEC who has been doing this for YEARS and largely riding off the coattails of Saban). I'm also perplexed that the committee doesn't talk about the (positive) SOS bias that schools like Tennessee and especially Wisconsin receive and the relatively negative SOS bias (Noncon) of a school like Kansas. Seriously, take a look at Wiconsin's non-con and Kansas' and objectively tell me which is harder? Kansas played stiffer, elite competition yet Wisconsin's non-con is roughly 30 spots higher as the current formula hammers teams for playing extremely weak opponents. Even though top 50 teams are almost equally as likely to win such games at home (only the margin of victory is affected).
They can say what they want but the eye test, quality and location of wins, as well as advanced metrics largely back that up. I get being hammered for a soft non-con before conference starts and if the wins were only coming against teams in the same pool....those with soft non-cons and weak expectations, I'd get the gripe. But Iowa State has beat KU and Houston, has better (and more) road wins than most of it's peers, and has great metrics. Where's the gripe?
That's why SOS is meaningless without individually looking at schedules and assessing the merit of significant wins and losses. For every gripe about the Big 12 there should be as many if not more for an Alabama, who has one of the weakest collection of wins out of all the top 4 seeds. At least be consistent with the logic and how it's applied instead of simply being a whiner.
