About Men’s Basketball’s Unbalanced Schedules

by Zach

The next two games for the Lobos present a great opportunity to discuss the unbalanced schedule that happens in the Mountain West. The Lobos’ next two games are against the only two teams that they play once this season in SJSU (at home) and Air Force (on the road). Because of the current structure of the Mountain West, with 11 teams and an 18-game conference schedule, every year each team plays two teams only a single time, with both a home and away matchup against the other eight teams. Since the start of the 2013-2014 season, when that structure was put in place, the conference has seen a few teams get unfair unbalanced schedules (both good and bad). This has led to some unfair advantages, and in some cases, huge disadvantages. First off, we will look at each year and see what the numbers tell us and break down who caught the breaks in the schedule and who didn’t for all 11 teams. Then, we will look at the possible solutions for this problem, and determine if there is a way that to bring as much schedule balance as possible.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that, if memory serves, the conference makes sure that UNM, SDSU, and UNLV play each other twice each year for TV purposes, which clearly biases the difficulty of their schedules.

What do the Numbers Show?

I will use a table showing the conference record, Rating Percentage Index (RPI) and KenPom ranking, and after the table, I will rank each team 1-11 for each year from who caught the most breaks to who got the short end of the stick. For an easier conference schedule, it is beneficial to play better teams once and lesser teams twice. In the rankings, the composite score is calculated by taking the average conference finish, RPI, and KenPom rating of each team that was missed, and then adding those three numbers together.

2013-2014:

Team Conference Record RPI KenPom
SDSU 16-2 13 23
UNM 15-3 18 33
UNLV 10-8 109 79
NEV 10-8 137 144
BSU 9-9 81 73
WYO 9-9 141 117
FSU 9-9 106 116
USU 7-11 120 121
CSU 7-11 185 128
AFA 6-12 247 252
SJSU 1-17 278 289

2013-2014 was a weird year for the conference, with two dominant teams in SDSU and UNM, and a big drop-off behind them. After those two teams, there wasn’t much of a difference between teams 3-9, which gives this year only a couple of outliers on either side of the coin.

  1. WYO (6/141/117): Didn’t play UNLV (3/109/79) at home, and didn’t play SDSU (1/13/23) on the road, giving WYO a composite score of (2/66/51) 117.
  2. FSU (7/106/116): Didn’t play USU (8/120/121) at home, and didn’t play UNM (2/18/33) on the road, giving FSU a composite score of (5/69/77) 146.
  3. AFA (10/247/289): Didn’t play UNM (2/18/33) at home, and didn’t play USU (8/120/121) on the road, giving AFA a composite score of (5/69/77) 146.
  4. Nevada (4/137/144): Didn’t play SDSU (1/13/23) at home, and didn’t play CSU (9/185/128) on the road, giving Nevada a composite score of (5/99/70.5) 169.5.
  5. SJSU (11/278/289): Didn’t play BSU (5/81/73) at home, and didn’t play UNLV (3/109/79) on the road, giving SJSU a composite score of (4/95/76) 171.
  6. CSU (9/185/128): Didn’t play Nevada (4/137/144) at home, and didn’t play BSU (5/81/73) on the road, giving CSU a composite score of (4.5/109/108.5) 217.5.
  7. SDSU (1/13/23): Didn’t play WYO (6/141/117) at home, and didn’t play Nevada (4/137/144) on the road, giving SDSU a composite score of (5/139/130.5) 269.5.
  8. UNM (2/18/33): Didn’t play FSU (7/106/116) at home, and didn’t play AFA (10/247/252) on the road, giving UNM a composite score of (8.5/179/184) 363.
  9. USU (8/120/121): Didn’t play AFA (10/247/289) at home, and didn’t play FSU (7/106/116) on the road, giving USU a composite score of (8.5/176.5/202.5) 379.
  10. UNLV (3/109/79): Didn’t play SJSU (11/278/289) at home, and didn’t play WYO (6/141/117) on the road, giving UNLV a composite score of (8.5/209.5/203) 412.5.
  11. BSU (5/81/73): Didn’t play CSU (9/185/128) at home, and didn’t play SJSU (11/278/289) on the road, giving BSU a composite score of (10/231.5/208.5) 440.

Wyoming was the clear beneficiary of the unbalanced schedule that season, avoiding two of the top three teams in the conference. Because of that, they were able to finish in a tie for fifth, along with Boise State, who was given the toughest schedule that year.

2014-2015:

Team Conference Record RPI KenPom
BSU 14-4 46 47
SDSU 14-4 26 31
CSU 13-5 37 72
WYO 11-7 72 109
USU 11-7 147 124
FSU 10-8 183 203
UNLV 8-10 116 101
UNM 7-11 175 137
AFA 6-12 246 204
NEV 5-13 307 271
SJSU 0-18 336 347

2014-2015 was the last year the MW had multiple bids and could have been another banner year for the conference if UNM and UNLV hadn’t taken a step back that season.

  1. USU (5/147/124): Didn’t play SDSU (2/26/31) at home, and didn’t play CSU (3/37/72) on the road, giving USU a composite score of (2/31.5/51.5) 83.
  2. SJSU (11/336/347): Didn’t play UNM (8/175/137) at home, and didn’t play SDSU (2/26/31) on the road, giving SJSU a composite score of (5/100.5/84) 184.5.
  3. Nevada (10/307/271): Didn’t play BSU (1/46/47) at home, and didn’t play UNM (8/175/137) on the road, giving Nevada a composite score of (4.5/110.5/92) 202.5.
  4. CSU (3/37/72): Didn’t play USU (5/147/124) at home, and didn’t play UNLV (7/116/101) on the road, giving CSU a composite score of (6/131.5/112.5) 244.
  5. UNLV (4.5/110/137.5): Didn’t play CSU (3/37/72) at home, and didn’t play FSU (6/183/203) on the road, giving UNLV a composite score of (4.5/110/137.5) 247.5.
  6. WYO (4/72/109): Didn’t play AFA (9/246/204) at home, and didn’t play BSU (1/46/47) on the road, giving WYO a composite score of (5/146/125.5) 271.5.
  7. AFA (9/246/204): Didn’t play FSU (6/183/203) at home, and didn’t play WYO (4/72/109) on the road, giving AFA a composite score of (5/127.5/156)283.5.
  8. FSU (6/183/203): Didn’t play UNLV (7/116/101) at home, and didn’t play AFA (9/246/204) on the road, giving FSU a composite score of (8/181/152.5) 333.5.
  9. BSU (1/46/47): Didn’t play WYO (4/72/124) at home, and didn’t play Nevada (10/307/271) on the road, giving BSU a composite score of (7/189.5/190) 379.5.
  10. SDSU (2/26/31): Didn’t play SJSU (11/336/347) at home, and didn’t play USU (5/147/124) on the road, giving SDSU a composite score of (8/241.5/235.5) 477.
  11. UNM (8/175/137): Didn’t play Nevada (10/307/271) at home, and didn’t play SJSU (11/336/347) on the road, giving the Lobos a composite score of (10.5/321.5/309) 630.5.

Utah State was able to ride the easiest schedule in the conference to a tied-for-fourth finish. They ended up even with Wyoming, the team with the 6th easiest schedule, and a game ahead of Fresno State, the team with the 8th easiest. UNM really got a raw deal this year, as they didn’t get to play a bad Nevada team at home or get to visit SJSU on the road, when the Spartans were one of the worst teams in the country. Interestingly enough, the league champions, Boise State and SDSU, had two of the toughest schedules, so their 14-4 records were actually pretty impressive.

2015-2016:

Team Conference Record RPI KenPom
SDSU 16-2 30 47
FSU 13-5 64 108
BSU 11-7 101 90
NEV 10-8 96 124
UNM 10-8 138 115
UNLV 8-10 146 117
CSU 8-10 171 144
USU 7-11 147 134
WYO 7-11 186 166
AFA 5-13 222 242
SJSU 4-12 299 249

2015-2016 saw a steep fall for the conference, leaving it as a one-bid league when runaway champion SDSU was left out of the NCAA Tournament after losing to FSU in the Mountain West Tournament Championship.

  1. AFA (10/222/242): Didn’t play SDSU (1/30/47) at home, and didn’t play BSU (3/101/90) on the road, giving AFA a composite score of (2/65.5/68.5) 134.
  2. CSU (7/171/144): Didn’t play FSU (2/64/108) at home, and didn’t play UNM (5/138/115) on the road, giving CSU a composite score of (3.5/101/111.5) 212.5.
  3. SJSU (11/299/249): Didn’t play UNLV (6/146/117) at home, and didn’t play Nevada (4/96/124) on the road giving SJSU a composite score of (5/121/120.5) 241.5.
  4. FSU (2/64/108): Didn’t play BSU (3/101/90) at home, and didn’t play CSU (7/171/144) on the road, giving FSU a composite score of (5/136/117) 253.
  5. WYO (9/186/166): Didn’t play UNM (5/138/115) at home, and didn’t play USU (8/147/134) on the road, giving WYO a composite score of (6.5/142.5/124.5) 267.
  6. USU (8/147/134): Didn’t play WYO (9/186/166) at home, and didn’t play UNLV (6/146/117) on the road, giving USU a composite score of (7.5/166/141.5) 307.5.
  7. Nevada (4/96/124): Didn’t play SJSU (11/299/249) at home, and didn’t play SDSU (1/30/47) on the road, giving Nevada a composite score of (6/164.5/148) 312.5.
  8. BSU (3/101/90): Didn’t play AFA (10/222/242) at home, and didn’t play FSU (2/64/108) on the road, giving BSU a composite score of (6/143/175) 318.
  9. UNM (5/138/115): Didn’t play CSU (7/171/144) at home, and didn’t play WYO (9/186/166) on the road, giving UNM a composite score of (8/178.5/155) 333.5.
  10. SDSU (1/30/47): Didn’t play Nevada (4/96/124) at home, and didn’t play AFA (10/222/242) on the road, giving SDSU a composite score of (7/159/183) 342.
  11. UNLV (6/146/117): Didn’t play USU (8/147/134) at home, and didn’t play SJSU (11/299/249) on the road, giving UNLV a composite score of (9.5/223/191.5) 414.5.

This season, Air Force and SJSU had some of the easiest schedules, but weren’t able to do much with them. However, what is interesting is that Colorado St. had the second-easiest schedule and ended up in a tie for sixth with UNLV, who had the most difficult schedule that season. Additionally, if there needed to be another measure of how dominant SDSU was in conference play last season, they went 16-2 with the second-most difficult schedule.

This Season:

(Numbers were taken on 1/31 and don’t reflect this week’s games.)

Since the season is ongoing, conference standings were not used, so RPI and KenPom were the only metrics used in the rankings.

  1. WYO (117/156): Doesn’t play SDSU (115/75) at home, and doesn’t play Nevada (38/65) on the road, giving WYO a composite score of (76.5/70) 146.5.
  2. UNLV (200/212): Doesn’t play FSU (102/122) at home, and doesn’t play BSU (86/96) on the road, giving UNLV a composite score of (94/109) 203.
  3. AFA (217/190): Doesn’t play CSU (124/118) at home, and doesn’t play UNM (85/115) on the road, giving AFA a composite score of (104.5/116.5) 221.
  4. SDSU (115/75): Doesn’t play BSU (86/96) at home, and doesn’t play WYO (117/156) on the road, giving SDSU a composite score of (101.5/126) 227.5.
  5. CSU (124/118): Doesn’t play Nevada (38/65) at home, and doesn’t play AFA (217/190) on the road, giving CSU a composite score of (127.5/127.5) 255.
  6. Nevada (38/65): Doesn’t play WYO (117/156) at home, and doesn’t play CSU (124/118) on the road, giving Nevada a composite score of (120.5/137) 257.5.
  7. SJSU (183/217): Doesn’t play UNM (86/115) at home, and doesn’t play USU (202/175) on the road, giving SJSU a composite score of (143.5/145) 288.5.
  8. BSU (86/96): Doesn’t play UNLV (200/212) at home, and doesn’t play SDSU (115/75) on the road, giving BSU a composite score of (157.5/143.5) 301.
  9. USU (202/175): Doesn’t play SJSU (183/217) at home, and doesn’t play FSU (102/122) on the road, giving USU a composite score of (142.5/169.5) 312.
  10. FSU (102/122): Doesn’t play USU (202/175) at home, and doesn’t play UNLV (200/212) on the road, giving FSU a composite score of (201/193.5) 395.
  11. UNM (85/115): Doesn’t play AFA (217/190) at home, and doesn’t play SJSU (183/217) on the road, giving UNM a composite score of (200/203.5) 403.5.

In the conference’s regular season title race this year, you have number 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 on the composite rankings. The two teams that must overcome the most with their schedules are FSU and UNM. The other four teams have schedules that don’t have a huge difference between the easiest or hardest. Given how tightly-packed the top of the conference is right now, this could end up being the difference when all is said and done.

Four-Year Trend:

To see how this has worked out for everyone since the unbalanced schedule was adopted, we look at a couple of rankings. The first rankings are calculated by averaging the composite score rank from each year, while the second ranking is the average conference finish (including tiebreakers) for the first three years.

Average Schedule Lack-of-Difficulty Ranking:

  1. WYO (1/6/5/1) 3.25
  2. AFA (3/7/1/3) 3.5
  3. SJSU (5/2/3/7) 4.25
  4. CSU (6/4/2/5) 4.25
  5. Nevada (4/3/7/6) 5
  6. FSU (2/8/4/10) 6
  7. USU (9/1/6/9) 6.25
  8. UNLV (10/5/11/2) 7
  9. SDSU (7/10/10/4) 7.75
  10. BSU (11/9/8/8) 9
  11. UNM (8/11/9/11) 9.75

Average Conference Finish:

  1. SDSU (1/2/1) 1.33
  2. BSU (5/1/3) 3
  3. UNM (2/8/5) 5
  4. FSU (7/6/2) 5
  5. UNLV (3/7/6) 5.33
  6. Nevada (4/10/4) 6
  7. WYO (6/4/9) 6.33
  8. CSU (9/3/7) 6.33
  9. USU (8/5/8) 7
  10. AFA (10/9/10) 9.67
  11. SJSU (11/11/11) 11

It is crazy that there is a difference of 6.5 between WYO and UNM in their average composite difficulty ranking. WYO has finished first once in the composite rankings and well on their way this year for that honor again. UNM on the other hand has the worst break in schedule history (in 2014-15, with a number that is hard to see ever getting topped), and is either going to finish last or second to last in the composite ranking this year. Now, the better teams will naturally be pushed to the bottom of the composite difficulty ratings, as they aren’t able to play themselves, but one has to think that the difference in schedules could have played a role in the finish of several teams over the years.

Possible Solutions:

20 Game Conference Schedule:

The Pros: This is the only option that can bring absolute balance to the schedule, as you would play all ten of the other teams twice (one home, one road) and could revert back to the rotating schedule (same order of games first and second time through the conference). This would lead to less variance in team performances and would space out the first and second meetings between two teams. This would also give us true champions (tiebreakers would be easier to determine) and the order of seeding for the conference tournament would be completely fair.

For a conference that has every just about every school complaining about the difficulty of scheduling quality teams, adding two conference games would help solve this problem. The two added conference games wouldn’t replace the games against PAC12 teams, Gonzaga, or other teams of that nature. Instead it would be games against sub-300 RPI teams or DII/NAIA games, which can only hurt the league.

The fans of each team would know that they get to go to a game against the cream of the crop of the conference, every year. There won’t be fans that miss getting to see SDSU, BSU, UNM, Nevada orUNLV, which can be a shame if there are NBA players on these teams. Think of the era before the conference became a 11-team conference. How bad would it feel not being able to see Granger, Bogut, Jimmer, Kawhi, Hobson, etc.?

The Con: While I don’t agree with the con, it is a factor in the possible decision of going to 20 game schedule. Schools and Athletic Departments want the added home game (against a bad DI or even a DII/NAIA school) that they lose with the added road game. While it makes sense financially, it can hurt the final product and numbers of the conference. There isn’t anyone out there, including computers, who is impressed when you beat an NAIA school in your regular season.

Adding One Team to Get to 12:

The Pro: Most conferences that have this many teams end up with either 12 or 14 teams. The Mountain West is in a weird situation, because they have 12 football members and only 11 basketball members, due to the conference policy of a school having to have football to be a member and their reluctance of having Hawaii as a full member (that one does make sense though. That’s a long flight for a basketball game). Adding one team for basketball to get to 12 adds a few possible scheduling procedures that could bring some cool wrinkles to the conference. While there are obvious schools that would be attractive, for this exercise we just need 12 members so it doesn’t matter what school it is.

Possible Scheduling Procedures:

  • Divisions: In this case, the conference would be split into two six team divisions like football, and you would play all five of your division opponents twice (one home, one road), and play all six of the other division teams once (three home, three road), giving you 16 conference games.
  • Rotating Schedule: In this case, you would have a travel partner and you could set it up two different ways: 1) You would play each team twice (one home, one road) for 22 games, or 2) Play seven teams twice (travel partner and three other sets of travel partners) and play the other two sets of travel partners once (two home, two road), meaning you wouldn’t have one road trip and one home stand each year. While there could be an imbalance from year to year, you can make it fair in the big picture by rotating the teams you don’t play twice.

The Cons: If you don’t add the right school, it can lead you to disappointing seasons for the conference. So far, this has been the case with the addition of SJSU in basketball (has finished last every year), and this can lead to destroying your conference’s top team’s rankings.

Assuming that we don’t go to a 22-game conference schedule, fans of a school could be disappointed the seasons that their school doesn’t host a certain school. Personally, I wouldn’t be a fan of a 16-game conference schedule if it isn’t a round-robin (9 team conference), especially given that those two extra games aren’t likely to be good ones. There are definite cons from a fan’s perspective and in terms of schedule balance compared to going to a 20-game schedule.

Conclusion:

While I don’t foresee drastic changes being made, I would like to see the conference do a better job of limiting the imbalance of the schedules. There is no perfect way to do it under the current system but there are ways you can limit it such as:

  • No team plays both AFA and SJSU only once in a single season. UNM, including this year, has only played those two schools 4 out of the possible 8 times and have missed 5 games against teams that are in the bottom 2 of the conference for that year.
  • Use computer rankings from previous years to help create a fairer conference schedules.
  • Use a three or four-year composite ranking to help create the schedule.

I hope that the conference, athletic directors, and head coaches can find a way to solve this scheduling problem, as it just doesn’t seem very fair right now.