Even if it was 1 time, it would still apply as a specific instance that a team was penalized for playing a weak OOC schedule. The fact that it happened twice merely enforces that.
(a) There's no evidence that SU was penalized for having a weak OOC except you saying it's true (and they didn't make the tournament in 2007 with a SOS on 55 which isn't weak, it's in the top 20 percent) and the way I remember it was that it wasn't the teams they played it was where they played them, ie never leaving NY state - one road game @ Marist and one neutral at MSG and everything else in the Dome, a problem SJ will not have, because after today they'll have played 5 neutral court games and one road game in three states and (b) you're conveniently not mentioning the thing that's really happened "multiple times" aka more than twice: Syracuse often had a weak OOC schedule and they often made the tournament with a reasonable seed. In 1992 they played no road games OOC against a slate of nobodies, won 18 games during the regular season (10-8 in the BE) and were a six seed via an automatic bid with a SOS of 104. In 1995 they were 18 and 8 and were a seven seed with a a SOS of 160.
If we win 11 games, then yes, we're obviously in at 12-1 OOC. But there is a direct correlation between seed and performance in the tourney. Success against a more difficult OOC schedule would result in a higher seed, and a higher chance of advancing.
I don't know what you mean by direct correlation between seed and performance. If seeding was random would number 1 seeds outperform number seven seeds as a matter of course? If not there's no correlation between seed qua seed and performance. The correlation is between the committee's knowledge of which teams are the best and which are not quite the best and which are the worst and the near worst and that their guesses about the middle are relatively informed - since 2005 11 and 12 seeds have won more games than 9 and 10 seeds, because the middle seeds are a crap shoot, so much for direct correlation - and in general the expected outcome occurs. The committee does that using a number of variables, of which SOS is one.
Going 9-9, like Syracuse did in the old BE, could leave us on the fence of even making the tournament.
If we go .500 in conference we'd deserve to be on the fence. Because we'd have stunk up the joint. And we'd be further on the fence if instead of being say 12-1 OOC we were 9-4 versus a vaguely tougher schedule and ended up 18-13.
I'm gonna be honest, I really don't understand why people don't think the OOC schedule has an effect on if you make/what seed you get in the NCAA tournament.
Yeah, nobody said that OOC schedule has no effect of whether you make the tournament. Marillac eg has said that the schedule isn't as weak as it's made out to be. My point has been that the usual conga line of malcontents have to have something to complain about so rather than being happy that the team is winning despite not playing terribly well they're wailing and gnashing their teeth about the schedule. They should cheer up, because I suspect they'll be some losses along the way and they can clap their hands with glee and say I told you so.