Pac 12 Challenge

[stever20]

I don't know all the intricacies about what makes a March resume, but I hate the early season guarantee games. They mean nothing and it just falsely inflates someones record. I would like to see tougher schedules for the entire conference, whether that is through challenges or tourneys is fine.

I agree 100%. I think the problem though is the selection committee. They have gradually stopped taking teams with mediocre records. 10 years ago a 17-12 Alabama team made the tourney easily. Just don't think that happens now.

[HoosierPal]

The more challenges the better, but obviously shoot for the top dogs first.

1. B12: An absolute beast of a conference, matches up with 10 teams. I think Fox owns some of it, so could have some pull
2. ACC: Another beast of a conference, a lot of old rivalries plus ACC wants to play in MSG and DC. Problem is ACC schools don't like to play away from home for OOC.
3. B10: Already have a challenge with them, so good to go here.
4. PAC12: Meh, better than nothing.
5: SEC: I honestly don't know if this one would even be worth it. It really is UK and the dwarves.

I don't know all the intricacies about what makes a March resume, but I hate the early season guarantee games. They mean nothing and it just falsely inflates someones record. I would like to see tougher schedules for the entire conference, whether that is through challenges or tourneys is fine.

It is impossible to predict conference strength one or two years out. So you don't know what you will get when you sign a contract. Based on yesterday's NCAA RPI, and using #48 as the cutoff, the Big 10 is the worst of the five conferences listed. They only have 3 teams in the NCAA RPI top 48. Heck the A-10 has three in the top 48. The SEC has 4, the Big 12 7 and the ACC 7. But that is today, now. This will all change, likely by the end of this week. The top matchups are what is important. Few except alumni watch the bottom 1/3 matchups. Get what you can, sign up who you can, and then see what the future brings.

[stever20]

The more challenges the better, but obviously shoot for the top dogs first.

1. B12: An absolute beast of a conference, matches up with 10 teams. I think Fox owns some of it, so could have some pull
2. ACC: Another beast of a conference, a lot of old rivalries plus ACC wants to play in MSG and DC. Problem is ACC schools don't like to play away from home for OOC.
3. B10: Already have a challenge with them, so good to go here.
4. PAC12: Meh, better than nothing.
5: SEC: I honestly don't know if this one would even be worth it. It really is UK and the dwarves.

I don't know all the intricacies about what makes a March resume, but I hate the early season guarantee games. They mean nothing and it just falsely inflates someones record. I would like to see tougher schedules for the entire conference, whether that is through challenges or tourneys is fine.

It is impossible to predict conference strength one or two years out. So you don't know what you will get when you sign a contract. Based on yesterday's NCAA RPI, and using #48 as the cutoff, the Big 10 is the worst of the five conferences listed. They only have 3 teams in the NCAA RPI top 48. Heck the A-10 has three in the top 48. The SEC has 4, the Big 12 7 and the ACC 7. But that is today, now. This will all change, likely by the end of this week. The top matchups are what is important. Few except alumni watch the bottom 1/3 matchups. Get what you can, sign up who you can, and then see what the future brings.

totally agree with conferences- but you look at the last several years...
Big 12 last 7 years now in Ken Pom-
2,6,2,3,1,2,1. This year #1 . The #6 year was 2 years ago- they still got 5 teams in the tourney.
Pac 12 last 7 years now in Ken Pom-
4,3,8,5,6,1,2. This year #6. The #8 year was 2 years ago- their reg season conference CHAMPION didn't make the tourney.

And think about this if it's Big 12. Marquette, Creighton, and DePaul this year would be playing- TCU(13-0 OOC), Texas Tech(10-3 OOC), and Kansas St(7-6 OOC). The other 7 teams would be playing NCAA tourney type teams.

[redmen9194]

I would go with the Pac-12 first, but only if all teams participate as part of whatever rotation is established. If UCLA and Arizona want out, then we don't do it. It would be great exposure all around with teams from the east coast, mid west, west coast, south west and rockies. Next I would go with the Big 12. Again, exposure in regions we do not play in. Forget the ACC. I have no interest in helping the league get a foothold in the northeast.

[HoosierPal]

totally agree with conferences- but you look at the last several years...
Big 12 last 7 years now in Ken Pom-
2,6,2,3,1,2,1. This year #1 . The #6 year was 2 years ago- they still got 5 teams in the tourney.
Pac 12 last 7 years now in Ken Pom-
4,3,8,5,6,1,2. This year #6. The #8 year was 2 years ago- their reg season conference CHAMPION didn't make the tourney.

And think about this if it's Big 12. Marquette, Creighton, and DePaul this year would be playing- TCU(13-0 OOC), Texas Tech(10-3 OOC), and Kansas St(7-6 OOC). The other 7 teams would be playing NCAA tourney type teams.

When you talk about historical performance of conferences, it gets tricky as the members have changed. The Big 12 lost one of their top team, Missouri, which hasn't made much of an impact yet in the SEC. They also lost Colorado to the Pac 12. CO was a long time bottom feeder in the Big 12 but have shown signs of life recently. Utah was a bright spot on the radar when Majerus was there, but went downhill until this year in the Pac 12. And then there is Nebraska, moving to the Big 10 from the Big 12. Again, a Big 12 bottom feeder, but a nice season last year, but trending down again. It gets confusing.

[GreatDaneAttorney]

I've felt like the Pac-12 is emerging as a truly great conference, with their own network, tons of TV money flowing in, and a virtual monopoly on college sports on the west coast. I think the Pac-12 challenge is a terrific long-term strategic partnership even without Arizona and UCLA.

Furthermore, this partnership would likely extend beyond men's basketball. I might be in the minority here, but I think volleyball and women's basketball have potential to either be self-sufficient or even generate excess revenue for athletic departments. Especially in volleyball, the Pac-12 is a clear #1 or #2 conference in the country, and for both sports, this partnership would bring in household names to Big East venues.

Finally, even if we do not have an agreement with Arizona and UCLA at the moment, there's no reason to suspect we couldn't expand the partnership in several years, perhaps after the Big East has expanded. It's something that could be evaluated at a later date.

[stever20]

totally agree with conferences- but you look at the last several years...
Big 12 last 7 years now in Ken Pom-
2,6,2,3,1,2,1. This year #1 . The #6 year was 2 years ago- they still got 5 teams in the tourney.
Pac 12 last 7 years now in Ken Pom-
4,3,8,5,6,1,2. This year #6. The #8 year was 2 years ago- their reg season conference CHAMPION didn't make the tourney.

And think about this if it's Big 12. Marquette, Creighton, and DePaul this year would be playing- TCU(13-0 OOC), Texas Tech(10-3 OOC), and Kansas St(7-6 OOC). The other 7 teams would be playing NCAA tourney type teams.

When you talk about historical performance of conferences, it gets tricky as the members have changed. The Big 12 lost one of their top team, Missouri, which hasn't made much of an impact yet in the SEC. They also lost Colorado to the Pac 12. CO was a long time bottom feeder in the Big 12 but have shown signs of life recently. Utah was a bright spot on the radar when Majerus was there, but went downhill until this year in the Pac 12. And then there is Nebraska, moving to the Big 10 from the Big 12. Again, a Big 12 bottom feeder, but a nice season last year, but trending down again. It gets confusing.

I don't know that I would have classified Missouri as one of the Big 12's top teams. Last 11 years in the Big 12- they missed the tourney 5 times, and 3 of the 6 times they made the tourney, they finished with a 8-8 or 9-7 conference record. Missouri never once won the conference outright, and won the conference tourney 2 times in the last 11 years. Big 12 really much more Kansas obviously, but 2nd best probably would be Oklahoma St. I'd put Texas over Missouri. Probably be between Oklahoma and Missouri for next spot. Oklahoma though had better seeds than Missouri. So to me, Missouri was much more of a middle of the pack Big 12 team. WVU long term looks like a great replacement for them.

[stever20]

kind of a possible opening-
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketb ... event-2016

Big 12/SEC challenge is moving to the Saturday before the Super Bowl next year. Kind of wonder if you may start to see more OOC games scheduled this date (remember last year was Michigan St/Georgetown). I know Saturday has Memphis/Gonzaga.

[Edrick]

There are some things that are hard to predict, but the relative strength of a conference in two years is not one of them. It's easy.

You have an entire, mature industry that does their jobs remarkably well, telling you exactly that answer. ---- http://basketball.realgm.com/article/22 ... s-In-Depth

You want to know how strong the Big-12 or anyone else will be in the near future? Just look at who they are recruiting vis-a-vis the other conferences.

[MUPanther]

kind of a possible opening-
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketb ... event-2016

Big 12/SEC challenge is moving to the Saturday before the Super Bowl next year. Kind of wonder if you may start to see more OOC games scheduled this date (remember last year was Michigan St/Georgetown). I know Saturday has Memphis/Gonzaga.

Do you like it? We need good match-ups in college basketball in November and December. We already have good match-ups in January, February and March.