Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

The PAC 12 will also be moving to a twenty-game conference schedule in 2020, as reported today. They will be joining the B1G and the ACC with conferences going towards the new twenty game set-up. Both the Big East (B1G/Big 12) and the Big 12 (Big East/SEC) have built-in scheduling agreements to also get to twenty "power conference" games.

For a twelve team conference, like the PAC, I would think you could selectively eliminate the home/home from the perceived top teams (i.e. Washington, Arizona and UCLA) with the perceived bottom teams (i.e. Oregon State, Washington State and California); this would create more of the groupings playing together, and getting a strong middle team a higher bid/seed into the tournament. With the B1G this past year, it obviously helped teams like Minnesota and Ohio State, but hurt Indiana and Nebraska. Next year, Illinois will have a stacked schedule where it faces MSU, Michigan, Maryland, Iowa, Purdue all twice. Such an arrangement obviously has pros/cons.

If the Big East ever would move to twenty conference games, it obviously would need to expand by a member. Eleven members in a basketball conference is much easier than eleven members in a football conference (like the B1G had for many years after adding Penn State). As long as the agreements are in place with the B1G and Big 12, there is not a pressing need for it; however, by the time the next cycle comes around, we might very well need to add a program to ensure we are not behind the other power conferences.

not sure just how much of a difference this makes though.....

I mean until the committee starts taking mediocre overall records- remember in the last 25+ years- only 1 team has made the tourney fewer than 4 games over .500- it really seems to be much ado about nothing. Now, if the committee starts to take 17 win teams due to hard SOS, then you have something. But otherwise???

GoldenWarrior11 wrote:The PAC 12 will also be moving to a twenty-game conference schedule in 2020, as reported today. They will be joining the B1G and the ACC with conferences going towards the new twenty game set-up. Both the Big East (B1G/Big 12) and the Big 12 (Big East/SEC) have built-in scheduling agreements to also get to twenty "power conference" games.

For a twelve team conference, like the PAC, I would think you could selectively eliminate the home/home from the perceived top teams (i.e. Washington, Arizona and UCLA) with the perceived bottom teams (i.e. Oregon State, Washington State and California); this would create more of the groupings playing together, and getting a strong middle team a higher bid/seed into the tournament. With the B1G this past year, it obviously helped teams like Minnesota and Ohio State, but hurt Indiana and Nebraska. Next year, Illinois will have a stacked schedule where it faces MSU, Michigan, Maryland, Iowa, Purdue all twice. Such an arrangement obviously has pros/cons.

If the Big East ever would move to twenty conference games, it obviously would need to expand by a member. Eleven members in a basketball conference is much easier than eleven members in a football conference (like the B1G had for many years after adding Penn State). As long as the agreements are in place with the B1G and Big 12, there is not a pressing need for it; however, by the time the next cycle comes around, we might very well need to add a program to ensure we are not behind the other power conferences.

The problem is that they are all handcuffed to a "partner" except for Colorado and Utah. Washington will still play WSU twice a year, same with the Oregon schools and the Arizona schools.

They are better off reducing their conference games.

GoldenWarrior11 wrote:The PAC 12 will also be moving to a twenty-game conference schedule in 2020, as reported today. They will be joining the B1G and the ACC with conferences going towards the new twenty game set-up. Both the Big East (B1G/Big 12) and the Big 12 (Big East/SEC) have built-in scheduling agreements to also get to twenty "power conference" games.

For a twelve team conference, like the PAC, I would think you could selectively eliminate the home/home from the perceived top teams (i.e. Washington, Arizona and UCLA) with the perceived bottom teams (i.e. Oregon State, Washington State and California); this would create more of the groupings playing together, and getting a strong middle team a higher bid/seed into the tournament. With the B1G this past year, it obviously helped teams like Minnesota and Ohio State, but hurt Indiana and Nebraska. Next year, Illinois will have a stacked schedule where it faces MSU, Michigan, Maryland, Iowa, Purdue all twice. Such an arrangement obviously has pros/cons.

If the Big East ever would move to twenty conference games, it obviously would need to expand by a member. Eleven members in a basketball conference is much easier than eleven members in a football conference (like the B1G had for many years after adding Penn State). As long as the agreements are in place with the B1G and Big 12, there is not a pressing need for it; however, by the time the next cycle comes around, we might very well need to add a program to ensure we are not behind the other power conferences.

Of the non-football playing schools that are realistic options, I think you're looking at the following list:

VCU
Dayton
St Louis
Davidson
Loyola Chicago

From that list, I'd say you'd have to take St Louis so Creighton is less of an island. I also like they they have shared history with Marquette and DePaul in Conference USA.

NJRedman wrote:

GoldenWarrior11 wrote:The PAC 12 will also be moving to a twenty-game conference schedule in 2020, as reported today. They will be joining the B1G and the ACC with conferences going towards the new twenty game set-up. Both the Big East (B1G/Big 12) and the Big 12 (Big East/SEC) have built-in scheduling agreements to also get to twenty "power conference" games.

For a twelve team conference, like the PAC, I would think you could selectively eliminate the home/home from the perceived top teams (i.e. Washington, Arizona and UCLA) with the perceived bottom teams (i.e. Oregon State, Washington State and California); this would create more of the groupings playing together, and getting a strong middle team a higher bid/seed into the tournament. With the B1G this past year, it obviously helped teams like Minnesota and Ohio State, but hurt Indiana and Nebraska. Next year, Illinois will have a stacked schedule where it faces MSU, Michigan, Maryland, Iowa, Purdue all twice. Such an arrangement obviously has pros/cons.

If the Big East ever would move to twenty conference games, it obviously would need to expand by a member. Eleven members in a basketball conference is much easier than eleven members in a football conference (like the B1G had for many years after adding Penn State). As long as the agreements are in place with the B1G and Big 12, there is not a pressing need for it; however, by the time the next cycle comes around, we might very well need to add a program to ensure we are not behind the other power conferences.

The problem is that they are all handcuffed to a "partner" except for Colorado and Utah. Washington will still play WSU twice a year, same with the Oregon schools and the Arizona schools.

If the conference wanted to appeal to the lone "unrealistic" option, adding Gonzaga as #11 would certainly empower a program in Pac 12 country.