(04-03-2018 09:27 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-03-2018 08:32 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  There's nothing wrong with being a top 2 team in the WCC every year and only having to win 1 game to get to the conference title game, along with the fact they're good for at least 25+ wins every year. I don't see the MWC being that far and away better especially with these new concessions.

Yup, win 25+ and be rewarded with...nothing better than a 4 or 5-seed. And many years, that's even generous.

They've had years where they cruise through their schedule and rank near the top of the polls. RPI and KenPom still don't, and the SOS brings it all into question. They're never treated like a heavyweight, and that's because the conference where they play.

It has to get old. And this season is a good reason why Gonzaga really should have left regardless of the WCC concessions...when a season hinges on two or three games, and that's all you have, whereas you can play in a better conference, like the AAC or Big East, lose to a crap team, and it not sink you. That WAS St. Mary's this year. That could have been Gonzaga, too. They were extremely lucky Ohio State and Texas were tournament-caliber wins...it's not like there was much to hang your hat on this season out there in Spokane...

Gonzaga has a choice to make. A mediocre season in a good conference can still come with benefits. That doesn't happen in the WCC. And maybe that's the lesson Gonzaga has to learn to understand this situation to its fullest.

So what does a mediocre season get you in the MWC? In 2016, Fresno State was the only school to make the NCAA tournament from the MWC. They were a #14 seed. In 2017, Nevada was the lone school to make the NCAA tournament from the MWC with a #12 seed. So what was the benefit of mediocrity in these two recent seasons in the MWC?