Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Interesting article on re-alignments and hoops....

Not really a surprise, when football drove re-alignment, that pretty much every conference weakened its basketball with the teams it added (exceptions being the hoops-focused ACC and the hoops-only A-10).
 
I'm still uncomfortable with this discussion in terms of the Pac-12. The difficulties the league has faced (massive drop in Pyth-win%) have nothing to do with realignment, and much more to do with the current programs losing their grips on talent. The discussion is more than relevant for the Big East, ACC, and Big XII, but they should leave the Pac out of it.

Taking a wide-view look, I would argue that the Pac-12 is a better basketball league overall now than the Pac-10 would've been without us and Utah. Once UCLA and Arizona are national powers again, the addition of a surging CU program and a historically strong Utah program will only look good for the conference.
 
it would also be my opinion that the Pac hasn't fared that well in the last round of coaching turnover moves. no real big steps up minus us i'd say humbly. maybe Montgomery at Cal (but i dislike the guy so he can suck it).

Sendek has disappointed, WSU loses Bennett, Lute gone (though i like Miller)...Howland in trouble a bit so while not a turnover per se i'll call it Final Four Ben and cover of SI Ben--before and after, Dawkins (hasn't exactly made himself the heir apparent for Coach K, eh?), Romar is Romar (he's good and sometimes better), Utah's success was Majerus, Boylan was a fail....etc. Altman showing some signs of life and Kent was enigmatic let's say....but, wasn't Mark Few like all the UO peeps said they'd get.

and USC is a mess.
 
Last edited:
Basketball tends to be much more cyclical than even football is. The PAC has been relatively down in recent years but does anyone truly think that a conference with some of the schools the PAC has is going to remain at that level. A quick look at some of Goose's work in the BB recruitng forum would dispell that notion. Also looking at some PAC teams that historically have been bad programs that are currently rising (paging Tad Boyle for an example) shows the fallacy of that notion.

Intersting to speculate but the best response is "We shall see what happens." My guess is that success will follow the money, the conferences that are generating the most money will have funding for the best coaches, facilities, and other program expenses. While money doesn't guarantee success I doubt a statastician would have a hard time building a corellation.
 
just to play devil's advocate, if success follows the money then that's not necessarily cyclical....is it? the one is an economy of sport and the other is a theory of up and down, balance returning over time. an equilibrium model. two different elements of causality...the one has motive and politics ($$$) while the other is a kind of yin/yang thing.

let's not totally shill for the Pac *just because*, guys. :thumbsup:
 
Mick Ronson said:
just to play devil's advocate, if success follows the money then that's not necessarily cyclical....is it? the one is an economy of sport and the other is a theory of up and down, balance returning over time. an equilibrium model. two different elements of causality...the one has motive and politics ($$$) while the other is a kind of yin/yang thing.

let's not totally shill for the Pac *just because*, guys. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

It's a function of money + recruiting grounds. Pac-12 is well-positioned with both.
 
Mick Ronson said:
just to play devil's advocate, if success follows the money then that's not necessarily cyclical....is it? the one is an economy of sport and the other is a theory of up and down, balance returning over time. an equilibrium model. two different elements of causality...the one has motive and politics ($$$) while the other is a kind of yin/yang thing.

let's not totally shill for the Pac *just because*, guys. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Success will be still be cyclic, but the valleys will be higher and the peaks awesomer.
 
no doubt CU is in a better place in the Pac. i think there's some knee-jerk here....the guy is just putting together some kenpom data to chart the last decade to predict the next.

how many games does CU win in last year's Big XII? i'd guess we are about .500. and that's with subpar UT, OU and ATM teams (based on last decade). even OSU. if you want cyclical, look at the hoops power in the Big XII return to the old Big 8/North last season. MU and KU are top 2 seeds. KSU is tough. ISU has a nice season. Tech sucks, OU sucks, OSU is middling. ATM sucks. UT is mediocre.
 
Agreed with pretty much everybody. The charts seem to look at school succes as relatively static, which in Basketball it is the total opposite. And, as people have already said, Pac 12 country is very fertile recruiting ground with not that much regional competition for recruits, and the Pac 12 schools now have substantial financial resources. Pac 12 will be just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top