Wilner: Pac-12 with 20 conference games makes sense

[PAC MAN]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01...why-play-18-when-20-makes-so-much-more-sense/

While at it, the Pac-12 should go to 22 and a true full round robin.

The move to 20 games would occur in 2019-20.

 

[Buffnik]

100% support playing 20 conference games.

We're getting to the point where the schedule for MBB will be:

20 conference games
3 early season tournament games
2 premium non-conference games (1 home/ 1 away)
4 local games (CSU, DU, AFA, UNC)
1 random game (wish the conference would find a way to make a B1G or Big 12 challenge game happen)

That's great for attendance & season ticket sales.

 

[Buffs Basketball Fan]

100% support playing 20 conference games.

We're getting to the point where the schedule for MBB will be:

20 conference games
3 early season tournament games
2 premium non-conference games (1 home/ 1 away)
4 local games (CSU, DU, AFA, UNC)
1 random game (wish the conference would find a way to make a B1G or Big 12 challenge game happen)

That's great for attendance & season ticket sales.

Its so easy but will never happen.
NCAA

 

[Scotch]

100% support playing 20 conference games.

We're getting to the point where the schedule for MBB will be:

20 conference games
3 early season tournament games
2 premium non-conference games (1 home/ 1 away)
4 local games (CSU, DU, AFA, UNC)
1 random game (wish the conference would find a way to make a B1G or Big 12 challenge game happen)

That's great for attendance & season ticket sales.

I'm for it. I'd be ok with playing 22 conference games and playing everyone home and away.

 

[Buffnik]

I'm for it. I'd be ok with playing 22 conference games and playing everyone home and away.

My reluctance on making that an expectation is that I'm pretty much certain that we'll have 14 or 16 conference members at some point and a full round robin probably shouldn't be set as a new expectation for fans.

 

[Scotch]

My reluctance on making that an expectation is that I'm pretty much certain that we'll have 14 or 16 conference members at some point and a full round robin probably shouldn't be set as a new expectation for fans.

Agreed, I was just talking about the current setup. If/When expansion happens a 20 game conference schedule would probably be the norm.

 

[ahoelsken]

100% support playing 20 conference games.

We're getting to the point where the schedule for MBB will be:

20 conference games
3 early season tournament games
2 premium non-conference games (1 home/ 1 away)
4 local games (CSU, DU, AFA, UNC)
1 random game (wish the conference would find a way to make a B1G or Big 12 challenge game happen)

That's great for attendance & season ticket sales.

I'd be fine with using the WCC as a challenge partner for a while-at least until the Big 12-SEC thing fizzles out.....It seems like every Pac 12 team plays at least one WCC team in the OOC a year.....(Us-San Diego, BYU-Utah, St. Mary's-Cal, Gonzaga-Washington). That's a damn good league that has two or three teams a year in contention for tourney (BYU probably needs to beat Gonzaga a couple times for that to happen TY). Seems like it makes sense at least at the top........Pepperdine-WSU isn't sexy but Gonzaga-Arizona or St. Marys-UCLA would draw eyeballs.

If I'm understanding Wilner correctly-my guess would be the Utah games would both take place within one week, rather than two.........and then adding in another week to knock out a couple of the one offs we currently play? Not sure if I'm reading that correctly.

In terms of the way we schedule-I think that needs to change.....especially given that this team could overachieve and get to 17-19 wins still. We need to cut back on the number of games we're playing in November against the MWC schools. Sure, its fun to play CSU and AFA..........but let's look at where those programs are right now. Air Force has played postseason basketball exactly twice since Jeff Bzdelik left there for CU in 2007 (both appearances were in the CIT). CSU is so bad they're trying to find a way to fire Larry Eustachy for cause so they don't have to pay him. Go back to prior to the loss to Washington at the keg-we were talking about how ugly an L CSU was in relation to possibly making a run at an NCAA bid. Here's my point-We've got a core that can now pull off 2, maybe even 3 NCAA bids in a row. I'd rather take games we're playing against teams like AFA and CSU and replace them with either Big 12/WCC (Gonzaga, St. Marys, or BYU) opponents or just play more body bag games. Neither of them draw when they come here, and losses hurt a lot more than wins help in both case.

 

[Buffnik]

WCC is not a peer conference.

When the Big East, ACC, B1G, Big 12 and SEC are doing challenges with each other and the Pac-12 doesn't have one of these going on it's bad enough. If the Pac-12 did it outside of the Power 6, it would be even more embarrassing. I wouldn't even support doing a challenge with the AAC.

 

[ahoelsken]

WCC is not a peer conference.

When the Big East, ACC, B1G, Big 12 and SEC are doing challenges with each other and the Pac-12 doesn't have one of these going on it's bad enough. If the Pac-12 did it outside of the Power 6, it would be even more embarrassing. I wouldn't even support doing a challenge with the AAC.

Fair. Larry Scott was a visionary six years ago, and he's now probably the weakest of the commissioners in the P5/6. Regardless of that, we need to adjust the way we schedule, in particular if we go to 20 conference games. I don't think there's a point in playing CSU or AFA in basketball right now-very little to be gained if we win, and if we lose, it'll be held against us if were on the NCAA or NIT bubble.

 

[Goose]

Fair. Larry Scott was a visionary six years ago, and he's now probably the weakest of the commissioners in the P5/6. Regardless of that, we need to adjust the way we schedule, in particular if we go to 20 conference games. I don't think there's a point in playing CSU or AFA in basketball right now-very little to be gained if we win, and if we lose, it'll be held against us if were on the NCAA or NIT bubble.

This isn’t football. Playing CSU & Wyoming make sense. It’s a cheap game and they’re part of a conference that is respectable.

 

[Buffnik]

This isn’t football. Playing CSU & Wyoming make sense. It’s a cheap game and they’re part of a conference that is respectable.

Yep. And for some inexplicable reason they draw more fans into Coors than if Xavier or BYU come to town.

 

[ahoelsken]

This isn’t football. Playing CSU & Wyoming make sense. It’s a cheap game and they’re part of a conference that is respectable.

I'd rather play people who can't hurt me in the OOC. Let's say we played Wyoming this year-We beat them, thats another really quality win (they've got 15 wins and an RPI that is higher than ours is right now). Had we lost, it wouldn't have hurt. CSU? This year that loss could. I'm not saying replace those games with road games at Duke-but the MWC is very, very down, and has been so for several years. They've gotten 7 NCAA bids since 2013 (which was the year they got 5) If we're going to play teams from that league, give me Wyoming right now over the mess that is CSU ATM or Air Force. I'd have no problem cutting back on those games if we go to 20 conference games.

 

[ahoelsken]

Yep. And for some inexplicable reason they draw more fans into Coors than if Xavier or BYU come to town.

I was in Boulder for a CU graduation the day of the Xavier game LY, and it might have been 10 degrees........that was probably the reason why that game didn't draw as well as Tad/RG were thinking it would have when it was scheduled.

 

[cmgoods]

 

[ahoelsken]

This is a stupid idea for a conference that was completely out of the NCAA tournament before the end of the first round.

 

[Darth Snow]

This is a stupid idea for a conference that was completely out of the NCAA tournament before the end of the first round.

I think making decisions based on one bad year isn't a good idea.

 

[Birch1]

I think making decisions based on one bad year isn't a good idea.

What's the right idea?

 

[torero]

What's the right idea?

If you're replacing crappy RPI non conference opponents with conference opponents, it's most likely a good idea. If you're replacing higher RPI non conference opponents with conference opponents, it's probably a bad idea. This of course assumes that RPI continues to be an important selection committee factor, which is not a certainty.

 

[Buffnik]

I like playing 20.

Sure doesn’t hurt the ACC.

 

[ahoelsken]

If you're replacing crappy RPI non conference opponents with conference opponents, it's most likely a good idea. If you're replacing higher RPI non conference opponents with conference opponents, it's probably a bad idea. This of course assumes that RPI continues to be an important selection committee factor, which is not a certainty.

This conference needs a challenge or a football type rule with OOC scheduling-You've gotta schedule X amount of teams who finished in the RPI top 100/made the NCAA tournament or NIT, etc. For @Darth Snow-This conference has put one team in the final four since Larry Scott has been in charge. His reign has also seen two of the worst years in terms of tournament bids for a major conference period. Let's go back to 2012-had we not won four games in four days that year, the Pac 12 would have gotten a single NCAA tournament bid. The state of basketball in this league has gotten worse. Does the Pac 12 have a team capable of making the second weekend of the tournament next year? This league needs to do a better of challenging themselves as a whole when they schedule-not play more games against each other.

 

[ahoelsken]

I like playing 20.

Sure doesn’t hurt the ACC.

They play 18. If we did this, we'd be the only power 7 league who plays 20 league games. In most years, we're also bringing up the rear among those leagues in terms of how many teams we get in the tournament. We've done it at least three times since Scott has been commissioner.

 

[cmgoods]

They play 18. If we did this, we'd be the only power 7 league who plays 20 league games. In most years, we're also bringing up the rear among those leagues in terms of how many teams we get in the tournament. We've done it at least three times since Scott has been commissioner.

Big10 is going to 20 games starting this upcoming season

 

[Buffnik]

They play 18. If we did this, we'd be the only power 7 league who plays 20 league games. In most years, we're also bringing up the rear among those leagues in terms of how many teams we get in the tournament. We've done it at least three times since Scott has been commissioner.

B1G is going to 20 this coming season. ACC is doing it either this year or next. Other than the Big 12 which plays everyone twice with 18, everyone is going to make this move. Standing pat would be the P12 getting left behind.

 

[ahoelsken]

B1G is going to 20 this coming season. ACC is doing it either this year or next. Other than the Big 12 which plays everyone twice with 18, everyone is going to make this move. Standing pat would be the P12 getting left behind.

Getting left behind is being out of the tournament before the first round ends

 

[Buffnik]

Getting left behind is being out of the tournament before the first round ends

Sure. Not sure how that relates to this topic, though.

 

[Darth Snow]

This conference needs a challenge or a football type rule with OOC scheduling-You've gotta schedule X amount of teams who finished in the RPI top 100/made the NCAA tournament or NIT, etc. For @Darth Snow-This conference has put one team in the final four since Larry Scott has been in charge. His reign has also seen two of the worst years in terms of tournament bids for a major conference period. Let's go back to 2012-had we not won four games in four days that year, the Pac 12 would have gotten a single NCAA tournament bid. The state of basketball in this league has gotten worse. Does the Pac 12 have a team capable of making the second weekend of the tournament next year? This league needs to do a better of challenging themselves as a whole when they schedule-not play more games against each other.

That's a better collection of points, although I'm not sure how it supports your argument that it's the ooc schedules weakness that's the problem. The problem isn't the number of ooc games. It's the lack of winning in those games.

 

[ahoelsken]

That's a better collection of points, although I'm not sure how it supports your argument that it's the ooc schedules weakness that's the problem. The problem isn't the number of ooc games. It's the lack of winning in those games.

Okay, but USC's out of conference schedule proves my point. They played two power 5 teams in the OOC (Texas A&M and Vanderbilt) and their two best wins RPI-wise were Middle Tennessee State and New Mexico State. That body of work didn't belong in the NCAA tournament, and they were rightly kept out of it. Two of Washington's three best out of conference wins were over Montana and Belmont. If you replace them with two bigger name opponents, they've got a more compelling argument to make the NCAA tournament (especially with what was basically a road win over Kansas). Oregon played two teams that finished in the RPI top 50 in the OOC (Oklahoma and Boise State) and finished 23-13. Theres another team probably would have been in the discussion for the NCAA tournament had they challenged themselves a bit more in November and December.

 

[Darth Snow]

Okay, but USC's out of conference schedule proves my point. They played two power 5 teams in the OOC (Texas A&M and Vanderbilt) and their two best wins RPI-wise were Middle Tennessee State and New Mexico State. That body of work didn't belong in the NCAA tournament, and they were rightly kept out of it. Two of Washington's three best out of conference wins were over Montana and Belmont. If you replace them with two bigger name opponents, they've got a more compelling argument to make the NCAA tournament (especially with what was basically a road win over Kansas). Oregon played two teams that finished in the RPI top 50 in the OOC (Oklahoma and Boise State) and finished 23-13. Theres another team probably would have been in the discussion for the NCAA tournament had they challenged themselves a bit more in November and December.

You are presenting this as an either or situation. It's not. You can toughen ooc schedules and have a 20 game conf season. We need less cupcakes anyway

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

That's a better collection of points, although I'm not sure how it supports your argument that it's the ooc schedules weakness that's the problem. The problem isn't the number of ooc games. It's the lack of winning in those games.

Well, the loss to Xavier didn't hurt the rpi, but your point is taken.

I think the acc, b1g, and to an extent, the $ec have an geo advantage in ooc scheduling. Couple that with the "challenges" and they're getting a jump start on ooc rpi.

I'd be in for trying to get a pac12/big12 challenge started.

 

[Darth Snow]

Well, the loss to Xavier didn't hurt the rpi, but your point is taken.

I think the acc, b1g, and to an extent, the $ec have an geo advantage in ooc scheduling. Couple that with the "challenges" and they're getting a jump start on ooc rpi.

I'd be in for trying to get a pac12/big12 challenge started.

This and a 20 game conference season would do a lot of good.