Not sure it would even test that theory in this case. The non-conference schedule is so heavily weighted towards opponents that are either Q4 or Q1A, that I think it wouldn't make that much of an impact if they did consider it. The committee is not going to cut us a break for losing to Jackson St. with or without Mirk's injury. And if we lose a Q1A game like Duke, the committee is not going to hold it against us too much even if Mirk was there.Ha. Let’s put the ncaa’s “we take into account injuries” criteria to the test. In theory, they shouldn’t hold those losses against us if we do indeed lose
For what it’s worth, I’ve always hated this quirk in seeding by the NCAA- even if it could benefit us here
Also, some of the metrics used by the committee, particularly Torvik, aleady weight recency so that those early season games where we'd be missing Mirk would carry less importance. Recency also obviously impacts the subjective view that the committee members will have. If we struggle without Mirk and then dominate when he comes back it would be really hard to separate the impact of the injury and any consideration of that vs. the impact of the committee weighting recent performance over early season performance.
Where it would matter is if Mirk is still not back in time for conference play and we drop games to conference opponents we should be beating. Hopefully we don't have to test the theory under those circumstances.