Discussion in 'Colorado Basketball Message Board' started by sackman, Jun 12, 2010.
Well, UCLA is definitely on the level of Kansas as a basketball program. They have been more up and down over the last couple decades than Kansas, but UCLA is one of the top 5-6 programs in the country along with Kansas. Beyond them, it does get much more murky. The instability at Arizona has really been an issue for them lately and USC's program has its own issues from the Mayo saga. No reason we cannot be competitive in the new conference.
Historically, no doubt. Recently, I would disagree. I think CU can be competitive right off the bat once conference play begins. Top half of the conference, IMO. We should be in a good position for a tournament bid from day one.
I will agree the past couple years in the PAC-10 has been not doing so well, but on average I would say the PAC-10 is just as strong if not stronger than the Big-12. Just keep in mind the Big-12 had a incredably strong year this year.
Kansas, #1 in the country most of the year, granted this isnt a suprize, but its not every year
Kansas State, Top 10, this is a first for the school, not typical
Baylor, top 25, This is also not typical
Texas, #1 in the begining, also not a huge stretch, but not typical year at all
Mizzou, Texas A&M, OSU, TT were all on par
ISU, Nebraska, OU all had less than average seasons, but still not that bad
Below Average: UCLA, Arizona, Washington - These are all typical top teams in the nation who are all having off years, give it time they will be back up there
I will admit I dont know as much about the other PAC teams, but I will learn sooner or later but I do think that the PAC is on par with the Big 12 in SOS, and if the merger of the PAC and the Big 12 happen, that will produce a arguably strongest basketball conference in the nation
With that all said, I think CU is on par with their average teams, but I am really liking how they have positioned themselves for the next years to come, and the move to the PAC will likley work well for their program in the ways of recruiting, and style of play.
They have struggled a bit the last two seasons with being bounced in the second round two years ago and a losing record last year, but they made three straight Final Fours prior to that, including a national title game appearance. It remains to be seen how they will do going forward, but they have been pretty damn good fairly recently, much like Kansas.
I won't argue the finer points of UCLA basketball. You're more of a basketball junkie than I am. I think the Big 12 was a murderers row, though. Every game was against a team that could go deep in the tournament. We won't have that same issue in the Pac, IMO.
The thing is in basketball things change so quickly, much more than in football. This past couple years have been the years of the Big 12, but whos to say that in 2 years when we join the PAC-10 that they wont be the strong conference.
I think it would be a huge mistake to think that the Pac 10 is going to be an easier basketball conference.
Last year was probably the weakest the conference has been in a decade thanks to all of the players that left for the NBA the year before, I'll concede that. In the last 5 years the only schools without teams that could play deep in the tournament have been Oregon and Oregon St.
I'm thrilled CU BB is on the rise, but I don't think the Pac will make it any easier to do well. My $0.02.
I'm not saying there aren't quality teams in the Pac, but in comparison to the Big 12, well...
Didn't the Big 12 go something like 10-2 against the Pac in the Big 12/Pac 10 challenge this year? Somebody help me out on that one. I can't remember. I do remember that the Big 12 pretty much dominated. Top to bottom, the Big 12 is a much stronger basketball conference than the Pac is.
We'll agree to disagree.
I'm sure that specifically last year the Big XII was much stronger top to bottom than the Pac-10. I would say all the major conferences were. Again, last year was easily and I mean easily the thinnest the Pac has been since the millenium if not longer. If you look at the past few years the Pac IMO has been every bit as strong as the Big XII in BB. Last year was a huge anomaly for the Pac, there literally were no star upperclassmen.
It would be a mistake to single out last year specifically and based on one year think that the Pac is an easy conference to play in. That's all I'm saying.
A little research why the Pac was thin in 2009-2010.
(Scroll down a quarter of the page - 2009 article)
(Here's more recent draft stats)
Should help us in out of state areas we should be focusing on anyway: LA and LV. Plus, many of the key players from UW's tournament teams in the last decade were from the Seattle area. If we can get looks at some of that talent, this may work out very well for CU basketball.
since 99, i'm pretty sure every Big XII team has been to at least the Sweet 16 or better except CU and Neb.
While I agree that the Big 12 was much better than the PAC10 last year (personally I think the Big 12 was the best in the nation), I do not think we're in a good position for a tournament bid from day one. The Pac 10 got two invites I think last year? They will be stronger this year and 2011 and 2012, but I'm not expecting six invites next year at least. Buffs have to do better than finish in the top half, and they still have to prove themselves.
I still for one, wish the Big 12 stayed together, but it's over with. I think our current team is better suited for PAC10 play, so too bad we're not playing this upcoming year in a different division.
u of A, ASU (Sendek is a good coach, NCSU probably wishes they hadn't crapped on him....Sidney Lowe sucks--attn: EB for HC lovers!), OU, OSU, UT...KU instead of ATM.....two times a year....not getting easier if that happens.
Heh, in light of recent developments and with much more money to be flowing into the athletic department in near future, do you think Bzdelik is regretting his transfer?
Pac 10 was a total joke last year. It was abnormal. Going to the Pac ten (if we bring the big 12 south with us) is not going to be a step down in competition. We'll need to step up and I'm confident we will. It would have been really easy to end up in the MWC without losing too much face, but the admin seems to have taken the initiative and become the team to kick off this whole realignment shebang. To me, that's a good sign.
I'm not sure what to think of CU's prospects in the new conference. If the conference does jump to 16 teams, we're looking at a traditonal powerhouse in UCLa, a team that missed "madness" for the first time in 24 years (Arizona), and a number of teams that have recent appearances/success in Cal, Stanford, Washington, U$C, and AZ State. Add Tejass and Okie as regular visitors to the dance, along a solid bball program in Okie Lite, and a johnny-come-lately success story (aTm), and you have the makings of one brutal bbal conference.
The ringer in this scenario is that if atm goes to the $EC, they'll be replaced by either kanzazz (trational powerhouse), Utah (usually very good), or Baylor (johnny-come-lately).
Oh, and by the way, by the time we begin playing in the new conference, Burks and Higgins will be long gone.
I hope Boyle is everything we think he is. And I hope we continue to rise. Winning in this conference could not be ignored come selection time.
Let's not kid ourselves over a single awful year in the Pac while the Big 12 was having its best season ever. For everyone other than Kansas in the Big 12, the fans cared more about winning in football. It was a football conference that made enough money and had a high enough profile to be good at basketball, too.
It looks like the revenues the new Pac will be getting are going to blow away what the Big 12 was pulling in. And there are legitimate basketball schools in the conference, led by UCLA and Arizona. With fewer teams than other conferences and the worst current media contract, the PAC has been putting more guys in the NBA than anyone else and consistently getting teams deep into the NCAA tourney. With more teams and more money, it's going to be the top basketball conference in the nation.
What's up with the doubles tonight, Nik?
Don't know. That took forever to post. I actually selected the text in the middle of waiting and copied it to my clipboard just in case the board had gone offline and I was going to lose it. I thought I might end up with a dP on that one. Are there more?
Tough to say either way. We don't have much of a program in the Big 12 so it can't hurt that we are leaving for a new league. Maybe with a new coach we can get this turned around.
CU Hoops has some momentum right now, and we'll need it in this new conference. Things won't be getting easier, even if we were going to the PAC alone.
I disagree with this. Take away Wooden and UCLA doesn't have much else. I know, I know, he's a big part of who they are. But outside of the '60s and '70s, have they done as much as Kansas? Meanwhile at KU, the machine keeps rolling no matter who the coach is.
A bad season in Westwood is 12-19. A bad season in Lawrence is a 4-seed.
Wasn't UCLA in 3 straight Final Fours prior to last year's bad season?
The Big 12 was supposed to help our basketball program when it was formed. How did THAT work out?
Also, there is something ironic about arguing that CU hoop program would be aided by moving to a weaker basketball league.
What's ironic about it? I still maintain that the Big 12 is one of the best basketball conferences in the country. With CU and NU gone, it gets better, frankly. Now the Pac might have had one bad year in 2009-2010, and if that be the case, fine. Given how CU did against Arizona and Oregon last year, I'd say CU is in a good spot to compete for the upper half of the league from day one.
one thing: two of the better teams in the Pac are a big question mark. Ernie Kent is gone and USC is in penalty time with a journeyman, uninspiring hire in Kevin O'Neill who's arc has been on the descent since taking the Tenn job after being in Hoop Dreams at Marquette. UO thought they could be in a Mark Few sweepstakes, my UO buddy was 190% sure Few was "ready to come home"...talked about throwing the cabbage at Izzo.....even with a new gym, they scuffled in the hiring process....before an unpopular Dana Altman hire (which, I don't know....he wasn't great at KSU and seemed to find a niche at mid-major Creighton...but might work out).
U of A, always have talent....and I like Miller, but will they ever be at the level they were year-in, year-out with Lute when they were in the Sweet 16 and funneling players in the League (with some rough first round losses along the way)? Who else, Cal has Mike Montgomery and they were good last year. Johnny Dawkins? Romar usually has a good team at UW, Seattle has a lot of HS talent these days.
doesn't seem like there's nearly the hill to climb into the first division as in the XII with KU, UT (more talent than God), ATM is solid under Turgeon, MU looks on the rise (love Anderson), OSU seems like a NCAA team with Ford, OU won't be down forever if they don't get whacked by the NCAA (talent coming in, but will suck for a couple years)....Martin looks like he's got it going at KSU.
i like where we could be in the Pac. too bad we won't get Burks for another year.
Yes they were. And more PAC teams have won national championships (5) than any other conference. A total of 15 national titles.
And 1 seed kansas losing in the 2nd round to Northern Iowa, or the first round to Bucknell, or the first round to Bradley, etc, doesn't suggest to me that they're always a final four contender.
Separate names with a comma.