Let’s start, short and sweet, with the news: The Pac-12 is considering a 20-game conference schedule.
Now for the why, when, how, who and odds (gotta have odds, right?) …
Based on discussions with two influential voices in men’s basketball strategic planning efforts, I’d place the likelihood of a 20-game round-robin schedule at 75 percent.
Deputy commissioner Jamie Zaninovich indicated recently that he’s “leaning” in favor of the change but wants to learn more.
Arizona coach Sean Miller, who works closely with the conference on issues of basketball strategy, told the Hotline that he’s a proponent of the move from 18 to 20.
Were it up to Miller, it seems, the Pac-12 would have already made the change.
“It’s the way the sport is going,’’ Miller said. “We don’t want to be the conference that needs a couple years to catch up.”
No, it most certainly doesn’t.
The ACC was the first to expand, announcing in the summer of 2016 that it would adopt a 20-game conference season for 2019-20 (the first year of the ACC Network).
The Big Ten responded by not only making the move but beating the ACC to the starting line. In October, the B1G revealed that would move to 20 next season.
Before we dig into the pros (many) and cons (few) for the Pac-12 to follow a similar course, please note of five key logistical matters:
1. Each team would add one home and one road game, for a total of 10 each.
2. The expanded schedule would require teams to play two conference games in the middle of December.
3. Approval for the change would come from the athletic directors, Zaninovich said.
4. Once approved, the change would likely require 12 to 18 months to implement. (Even if the ADs signed off this offseason — and I don’t know if a vote will be scheduled that soon — the move wouldn’t come before 2019-20.)
5. The move would not impact the conference’s current Tier 1 rights agreements with ESPN and Fox, Zaninovich said.
“This would be more about local economics,” he added.
Let’s start there, with the economics.
The move from 18 to 20 without expanding the overall schedule — that’s an NCAA issue — would force teams to reduce by two the number of non-conference games.
In many cases, that would be a net positive for the budgets.
The travel expenses incurred by playing the additional road game would be offset by a reduction in the number of so-called guarantee games, the home dates against teams from the Big West or Big Sky or WAC or Summit that can run into the low six figures.
That said, travel would increase: A home non-conference game would be replaced by a one-off roadtrip: Colorado would play in Eugene but not Corvallis, for example; Washington would play in Tempe but not Tucson.
Beyond the travel, there’s another downside to expanding the conference schedule: More losses.
Adding two games for each team guarantees 12 losses for the conference. That’s not necessarily 12 more than the current format brings, because some non-conference games result in defeat. But it could be eight or nine more in total, and for certain coaches in certain seasons, it could mean two more losses.
The benefits, however, far outweigh the negatives.
Adding the weekend of conference play in December would significantly increase the visibility of Pac-12 basketball throughout the conference footprint during a time usually reserved for wondering why there are so many bowl games.
ESPN and Fox would appreciate the upgraded inventory; the Pac-12 Networks would undoubtedly benefit.
Ticket sales and gate receipts would improve, as well: Imagine Oregon State swapping Eastern Kentucky for Arizona or UCLA on the December home schedule.
And based on the feedback Zaninovich has received, coaches see a competitive benefit:
Play two conference games early, get a feel for strengths and weaknesses, then spend the rest of December fine-tuning for the start of the round-robin schedule.
What’s more, the expanded round-robin schedule would reduce the misses — there would be much less chance of the Arizona schools not playing in Los Angeles, which is the unfortunate case this season.
There’s one other component to the issue, of course:
The impact on resumes, power ratings, Selection Sunday success and NCAA tournament revenue.
Zaninovich, who has served on the selection committee, believes the overall impact of the expanded conference schedule would closer to neutral than definitively positive or negative.
Whether the additional games bolster or undermine a specific team’s resume would depend on the non-conference games that were eliminated (and how a team would fare in those games) and on the conference games that were added (and how a team would fare in those games).
The selection committee does not differentiate between results from conference and non-conference play; nor does it use conference record as a metric.
In the committee room, results are results. Quality opponents are quality opponents, whether they’re in conference or not. Cupcakes are cupcakes, whether they’re in conference or not.
However, the non-conference portion of the schedule serves to frame the evaluation of a conference in total by determining individual RPIs.
The higher a team’s power rating before the onset of conference play, the better for everyone else involved in the round-robin competition.
Cal’s home loss to UC Riverside (No. 320 in the RPI) not only wreaks havoc on the Bears’ resume but inflicts collateral damage on the resumes of every team they play. (It’s not season-altering damage, but it’s not insignificant.)
All of which make this conclusion indisputable:
Were the Pac-12 to remove two non-conference games from each team’s ledger, the pressure to succeed in the remaining 10 would increase markedly.
Both Miller and Zaninovich emphasized the need for shrewd, sensible scheduling — for finding the right mix of creampuffs and high-RPI opponents.
The conference office doesn’t have oversight of non-conference schedules; it can advise but not dictate.
Nor does one model fit all: The ideal combination of opponents for Arizona is not the same as the ideal for Washington State.
Missteps in scheduling in a condensed non-conference season would be more problematic than is currently the case. But that’s a manageable challenge.
The benefits in economics, visibility and intra-conference competition are undeniable.
Miller’s right. The sooner the Pac-12 goes to 20, the better.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com
*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline
*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.
