If a conference hopes to have one or more teams get NCAA Tournament at large positions, its teams' non-conference scheduling considerations should include their likely non-conference winning percentages. The following charts show why.
This chart is based on 10 years' data, from 2013 through 2023 (excluding Covid-affected 2020). The vertical axis shows conferences' non-conference winning percentages, with the best at the top and the poorest at the bottom. The horizontal axis shows the percent of conferences' teams that got NCAA Tournament at large positions, with the highest percentage at the left and zero at the right. There is a blue marker for each conferences over the 10-year data period. The distribution of the markers shows, in a crude manner, that generally speaking the higher a conference's non-conference winning percentage, the greater the percentage of its teams that got at large positions.
This chart is similar to the preceding one, but shows the relationship between conference rank in terms of non-conference winning percentage and the proportion of the conference's teams that got at large positions. The vertical axis is for conference rank in terms of non-conference winning percentage, with the best rank at the bottom and the poorest at the top. The distribution of the markers shows crudely that generally speaking the better a conference's non-conference winning percentage rank, the higher the proportion of its teams that got at large positions.
The remaining charts are more refined. As an example of how the charts work, over the years there have been 9 conferences that had exactly 50% of their teams get at large positions. The non-conference winning percentages of these conferences averaged 70.0%, ranging from 79.2% to 62.3%. The data underlying the charts use the 70.0% average (and comparable averages for other percentages of teams getting at large positions) to show the average non-conference winning percentage (or average non-conference winning percentage rank) at each percentage-of-teams-getting-at-large-positions level.
Here is a second, similar chart, but limited to the cases when conferences got at least one at large position:
The final chart is is for conference ranks limited to the cases when conferences have gotten at least one at large position:
For teams in the conference that will not be serious contenders for at large positions, their having very good non-conference winning percentages should be high on their list of non-conference scheduling priorities, as this will help other teams in their conference get at large selections. This also will benefit these teams' RPI ratings and ranks, if all teams in the conference adopt these priorities. It may even move teams into contention for at large positions, when they otherwise would not be contenders.
For teams in the conference that will be serious contenders for at large positions, their non-conference scheduling considerations likewise should place a high value on a good non-conference winning percentage. They may have to compromise this some, however, in order to play a significant number of games against highly ranked opponents, to some of whom they may lose. This is important since good results (wins or ties) against highly ranked opponents is a significant consideration in the at large selection process and most teams will need to play a significant number of highly ranked opponents in order to get good results against some of them.
Notwithstanding the above, it is important to remember that there are no guarantees. There have been a few occasions where conferences have had good non-conference winning percentages but no or fewer than expected at large positions. There conversely have been a few occasions where conferences have had poor non-conference winning percentages but gotten one or more at large positions. Nevertheless, non-conference scheduling practices as described above should help a conference maximize its opportunities for getting at large positions.
