Pac 12 Basketball Schedule: An Afterthought

The Pac 12 is here. Among the many factors and parties who decided to invite Colorado and Utah to join the newly formed Pac-12, one party seems like an afterthought—Ben Howland, Kevin Oneill and the other Pac 10 basketball coaches.

There is certainly not just one motivating factor. It is a multifaceted decision, highlighted by the TV deal with ESPN and Fox Sports Media Group. Additionally, the creation of Pac 12 Media Enterprises, which will own the new Pac 12 Networks (a national channel with a series of six regional channels), is an important piece in increasing national exposure and benefiting from the content and exposure. This will also allow the conference to display even more Olympic and women’s sports, which the Pac 12 excels in. It’s a landmark revenue generating and sharing deal that executed correctly is too good to pass up.

Those are all well and good reasons, but if Mark Madsen is a metaphor for the new TV deal, what really makes him hustle, rebound, and dance is the inception of a Pac 12 Championship football game. Nationally, there is little refuting that the SEC is the best football conference (what, there’s a television deal worth $2 billion between the SEC and ESPN?), a lot of that is wrapped up in hype over the SEC title game. The Pac 12 title game creates much more needed media buzz nationally than one Stanford v. Oregon game.

From a PR and marketing standpoint I agree this makes absolute sense. It provides an easy national talking point and national television audience. Logistically, it does sacrifice some of what the Pac 10 really had going for it—everyone played everyone.

So, back to the friendly faces who coach our local collegiate basketball teams. From a logistical standpoint, I think Pac 12 basketball was an afterthought. The coaches likely wouldn’t turn down the new TV money, which is all well and good trying to expand the national brand and will be good for the conference, increased exposure is good for recruiting as well; but the inclusion of Colorado and Utah have disrupted what was a perfect basketball schedule—the best in the country. Everyone played everyone. . .twice. Both home and away series were played on Thursdays and usually Saturdays, with two teams playing a rivalry game every week. At least with the addition of the two schools they will be a travel pair like the Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Bay Area, and SoCal schools do. I think the coaches would agree that the fairness and symmetry of that can’t be beaten. But. . .

The Big East is in large part considered the premier basketball conference in the country, at least within the last 4 years. While it hasn’t hurt the conference as a whole in terms of overall results or reputation (cue one shining moment video starring 2011 champion UCONN), but teams in the Big East can benefit or are hurt greatly by the unbalanced schedule. Each team of the 16 Big East teams plays an 18 game regular season. So they play 3 teams twice, and depending on who those three teams are the standings are drastically affected. Another contributing factor is where you play the toughest teams. Depending on which teams you play on the road vs. at home plays a vital role at success.

Take a look at Pittsburgh last year in comparison to Syracuse. Both were well rounded and experienced teams who were missing veteran presences from the year before.

Pittsburgh’s tough road games in the Big East were at Georgetown, St. John’s, Louisville, and at West Virginia (whom they had a home and away with) and at Villanova (who had a down year and had a home and home with Pitt). St. John’s was the most highly rated of those teams at 5th in the conference.

Syracuse on the other hand played at Pitt, at St. John’s, at Marquette, at UCONN, at Louisville, at Villanova, and at Georgetown. That’s away at 7 of the top 10 in the conference (excluding themselves). Meanwhile the here teams they played twice were Villanova, Georgetown, and Seton Hall. Pitt played Villanova, West Virginia and USF, which I would consider to be a wash between the schools.

To critics who say, “But there are no easy games in the Big East” I say, “yawn.”

Both Pitt and Syracuse were successful in 2011 (1st and 3rd in the conference respectively) but there’s a big difference between 15-3 and 12-6.

As an alternative to the current 2012 basketball schedule, where schools have four schools that they don’t play home and away, the Pac 12 probably could have set it up like football with a north and a south. Teams would play home and away with those in the same division, and the others in the alternate half in the conference once, with the remaining two games of the 18 can be against rivals like SoCal always plays the Bay schools twice. But I don’t think that’s any better.

It’s not a solution, but I propose that the Pac 12 basketball regular season champion get an asterisk next to that accomplishment. It’s certainly a great accomplishment, in some ways it might be more difficult because there are two more teams, but the victory seems a little cheap when you don’t play everyone twice.

At least an asterisk in the sense of being compared to Pac 10 basketball champions. For example, if last year’s Pac 10 conference regular season champ Washington wins this year’s Pac 12 Conference title, I don’t think they should be considered back to back champs. They won two different conferences, and while both accomplishments were difficult and celebratory worthy, they are separate accomplishments.

As it happens, this year’s Pac 12 basketball schedule hurts our local LA schools. It was going to be someone’s bad luck that in the inaugural Pac 12 season, the LA tandem only play the Oregon schools on the road and newcomers Utah and Colorado once. Colorado was a NIT 1 seed last year (but lost NBA lottery pick Alec Burks), but the Oregon schools and Utah at least figure to be three of the bottom 5 teams in the conference. At least Utah and Colorado are at home because it may be difficult to play in a new, foreign environment.

If teams can avoid playing the perennial powers twice, and on top of that get them at home rather than on the road, their chances of being a highly rated team and being, for example, one of the 26 Big East teams who qualify for the NCAA tournament, improve greatly. While I think the teams that are good in the Pac 12 can change more quickly than the Big East, but there is definitely going to be a competitive advantage to who plays whom once and twice and where.

So granted its not a complaint that holds so much gravity. In relation to the prestige and revenue, and exposure the new Pac 12 is supposed to get (not necessarily going to) it is no wonder ruining the best college basketball schedule in the country was an afterthought.