Is a tough schedule as important as it used to be?

[SaltNPepper]

Back several years ago when the NCAA handed out the regional host sites to what they determined were the top 4 teams, there was quite a bit of incentive for a top 10 program to try and schedule several of the other top programs in their non conference schedule as teams with weaker schedules seemed more likely to get by-passed in the selection process for hosting. I'm not so sure that is really quite as important now with the preselection of regional sites - as long as the top teams get one of the 16 first round home matches (if they bid for one).

If teams like PSU or Washington choose to schedule an easy non-conference schedule it probably won't make much difference in their tournament seeding provided they preform well in there conference to nail down a first round homecourt selection. I think it now is more of a case of what the coach thinks will best prepare his/her team for conference play. Some coaches might believe that giving their team a little while to gel before they meet the better conference teams could be more beneficial in the long run.

Now, for a team like Florida (or even possibly Hawaii) where there isn't a lot of strength besides themselves within their conference, then I think they have no choice but to try a schedule some better teams as we've seen Mary and Dave do this year.

[Island]

This is the dynamic with the NCAA and the establishment of the new power conferences for the last few years. With set regionals and premiere leagues, it has taken away from the emphasis on running your team through a brutal schedule and displaying your battle scars at the end of the year. Now, the emphasis is on not having bad losses,so teams stay at home for tough competition(including Hawaii) and schedule beatable teams that will get players familiarized with each other and set into the coach's system. Power conferences will provide a tough schedule already, pitting at least one to two top 50 teams against each other every weekend. Additionally, these coaches will often vote or comment as bloc, thus influencing how the results are perceived or evaluated. It's not just bias. These coaches know all the teams in the conference and follow them closely. A win is much more heralded and a loss is more understood due to the coach's knowledge of matches, injuries and the like. Now if a team you never heard of before that has never made any serious noise beats a ranked team, even teams in the power conferences, they are going to be much less forgiving. That's why losses are better if it comes out during the conference season. Even losses to conference bottom feeders are sometimes not as bad as a loss to an outside opponent(conversely these conference teams tend to travel a lot and intentionally play some tough opponents to try and toughen themselves, making their SOS look pretty good outside of conference).
Non-power conferences don't have these luxuries. A loss is a debilitating, particularly for the powerhouses of the conference. It can cost you bids and it has. They are not as perceived as a strong conference by the rest of the voting electorate and the nation at large. So they need to have excellent records plus SoS in order to impress the committee, particularly when the traditional NCAA teams and the power conference contenders are virtual locks for the tournament. This dynamic is similar but still not as rigid or unfair as basketball where there are dozens of teams left out in the cold while teams that are .500 in conference play and have good but not great strength of schedule get into the tournament.
Their are powerhouses in basketball that will not schedule middle road teams in away games for fear of a bad loss.

[roy]

On some level, I agree with what is being said. Yes, regional sites encourage teams to pad their schedule. But I think it is also a matter of giving a team enough rope to hang themselves with. Washington hasn't played a tough schedule. But relying on their conference is a huge gamble as well. Yes, with their record, bearing a meltdown in the Pac 10, they should make the NCAA tournament. But the Pac 10 hasn't performed as well as they should have. USC is on track, but UCLA has 2 surprise loses, and Cal and Arizona could have a better record had Glass and Jerkov played. Sure, these are ranked teams, but there is also the potential of Washington getting pushed out of the top 16 against these teams. And with no strong out of conference wins, they may find themselves leaving for the first and second round. And even if Washington does host the first and second round, the committee can make it really hard for them. They can get a low seed in the tournament and may face a ranked team right in the second round.

All of this is pure speculation for now. We shall see what happens as the conference season starts.

[Island]

Which banks on the idea that Washington has to be as good as they think they are. They return the same team from last year and with the entire pac-10 sputtering at some level, they just have to not lose at home, play tough losses against UCLA and USC away and not lose to any unranked conference foes. This is where the team has to win, it changes the dynamic only slightly. If Washington is good enough to do that, the voters will fly them through the tournament as easily as if the team had played the entire top ten. If they are not, there is plenty of deserving teams in the PAC-10 to fall back on(I did say the less established teams would help by scheduling hammer and anvil amtches against top teams). Arizona should fall into that category quite nicely and OSU could always surprise.