So, CSU seems to have a real chance at the regular-season title
This is throwing out potential makeup games, because we don't even know if there will be any. Obviously that could change things a lot, especially if CSU has to play Nevada (and especially if it were in Nevada, etc). Additionally, this is throwing out the possibility of currently scheduled games being canceled, and we know that's very possible as the last few weeks have shown.
The current standings:
13-3 Boise State
11-3 Colorado State
11-3 Utah State
9-3 San Diego State
For the sake of this, let's assume CSU beats Air Force both times (I mean, nothing matters if they don't, for at-large purposes, and AFA is a bottom-30 team in the country). That's 13-3.
Boise State still has one at home vs Utah State and two on the road at San Diego State. It's very likely they lose at least once (and will be underdogs in two of the games).
Utah State has one more at Boise State and two at home vs Nevada. They'll be underdogs in one of the games, and Nevada is coming on strong; sweeping the Wolf Pack is certainly far from a given. Odds are Utah State loses at least once.
San Diego State has two at Fresno State and two at home vs Boise. It would be shocking if they lost one vs Fresno, but crazier things have happened. And sweeping Boise seems sub-50% (SDSU will be favored in both, but they're also 1-3 vs the other top teams in conference, and we know it's hard to sweep the good teams).
If CSU wins both games and the other three teams lose at least once, CSU is the regular-season champion and 1-seed for the conference tournament (if it happens, of course).
Even if SDSU wins out too, CSU would have a share of the regular-season title.
Geoff Grammer (the best on the MW beat) of the ABQ Journal detailed the MW rules for how the standings are being handled when there's a difference in amount of games played.
"To decide the REGULAR SEASON CHAMPION:
• First, determine average number of games played (round up or down to a whole number)
• All teams not within 4 games of that number have losses added until they are w/in 4 games
• Then, it's all about the adjusted win percentage..."
"The example the league gives:
If avg games played is 17.64, that rounds to 18
• Team A: 16-2 (.889)
• B: 15-3 (.833)
• C: 14-2 (.875)
• D: 12-0 (1.000 ... then 2 losses added to get w/in 4 games of 18 avg. So 12-2 = .857 win pct)
Team A is regular season champ."
"Seeding for MWC tournament will first give top seed (or top seeds) to regular season champ (and any co-champs). Otherwise, all seeding is based on ACTUAL win percentage of conference games, even if teams play different numbers of games. ..."
"Assuming all scheduled games get played and no make ups are added, there'll be no need for 'adding losses' to get an adjusted win pct.
Based on KenPom, the final standings would be:
t1. 13-3 SDSU (.813)*
t1. 13-3 CSU (.813)*
3. 13-4 USU (.765)
4. 14-5 BSU (.737)
And if SDSU and CSU are co-champions, and Utah State finishes in third place, CSU would seemingly win the tiebreaker for No. 1 seeding purposes due to splitting vs Utah State (SDSU lost both games vs Utah State). This is per the MW tiebreaker rules (from the same document Grammer is referencing):
"If the two teams split their series during the regular season, each tied team’s record shall be compared
against the team occupying the highest position in the standings, continuing down through the standings until one team gains the advantage, thereby gaining the higher seed. When comparing tied teams against positions lower in the standings that are also tied, those positions shall be considered a single position for the purposes of comparison."
In a weird way, losing the Nevada games on our schedule (again, if they're not made up) may have actually boosted our regular-season title/No. 1-2 seed chances.