Bear Down Wildcats

PHXCATS wrote:

Puerco wrote:I'm with Gumby on this. Ditch the conference tournament and get back to a balanced schedule. Why introduce the element of scheduling luck into crowning the champion of a season-long schedule in order to play a two week tournament? Or...

Get rid of a couple of cupcakes on the schedule (lord knows there are enough of them). I'd always rather watch us play just about any conference opponent, even ASU, than Long Beach State.

How do you plan on cutting expenses at UA for the lost revenue of the PAC 12 tournament? Or how do you plan on increasing revenues by several million for the conference to make up for it? PAC 12 is far behind already all the other Power conferences in terms of revenue so UA cannot afford to get further behind. Finally why would you want to give up an epic 3 day UA party and point of pride and recruiting power for UA and it's fans. Anyone who has been to the PAC 12 tournament in Vegas would never say something like this. I suggest you and every UA fan make the trip at least one time, it is simply amazing.

To me the purity of the sport is more important than the spectacle. I have always despised unbalanced schedules on the principle that it can skew the results of the entire conference season. While I may have attended the conference tourney had I still been living anywhere near when it began, there is not a chance in hell I travel to it now when the actual tournament is just around the corner. If we have to have a mega conference, then I suppose we could schedule similarly to football: two divisions and a championship game would make sense. Maybe someday I'll retire back to Tucson and be happy that we have a conference tourney, but just now it doesn't impact me much.

I'm not sure how much additional revenue the conference tourney brings in versus another full week of the regular schedule. It'd be interesting to do the math. However, when you look at the combined budgets of the athletic programs in the PAC-12, the basketball conference tournament accounts for a drop in the bucket. So if we have to lose it to protect the purity of the conference championship, so be it.

This will probably be a horribly unpopular opinion, but I don't want a balanced schedule. Road games at WSU and OSU do absolutely nothing for us in my opinion. They aren't rivals, they hurt RPI and they do nothing for recruiting.

I totally don't get the idea there's inherent value in playing every Pac team. I'd trade some of our Pac games for OOC games without thinking twice.

Puerco wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Puerco wrote:

Chicat wrote:

RichardCranium wrote:Screw ALL that. Everybody should have home and home with everybody else.

Yeah OK, so what if that means there are two less OOC Sisters of the Bleeding Heart of Jesus Charity All-Star Benefit College games to stink up the schedule with?

It means 12 more losses for the conference per season. Which could keep bubble teams out of the tourney.

I'm okay with that.

I'm not.

Why not? You've got to figure that maybe once every couple of years a middling PAC team won't make the tournament. Is that such a bad thing? In return you get a balanced conference schedule and scheduling debacles like this year and last don't have to be discussed ad nauseum.

(I understand there is a limited negative financial impact on the conference by losing out on a single tourney game every once in awhile, but an Orgeon State - Tulsa matchup in the first round would be paid back by more conference games every year)

A. Every tourney game a team participates in earns something like $2M for the conference.

B. Exposure from being in the tourney helps recruiting, and the more talent is in the conference the better RPI and other metrics are for Arizona.

C. The more tourney teams there are in the conference the more respect the conference gets which can affect things like national television broadcasts, tourney seeding & locations, and so forth.

D. You can't assume those 12 extra losses will only be for the bad teams. Upsets will happen which then drags down rankings, seedings, and overall conference strength metrics.

It would be 24 extra losses for the conference play.

4 Extra Games per Team / 2 (two teams play in one game) * 12 Teams = 24

And Chi is absolutely right, the bottom teams will get more of them but Arizona, UCLA, USC, Oregon etc will get some of them which will hurt Seeding and bubble teams.

Why four extra. I thought it was only one road trip which gets missed for each team?

I understand the financial reasons for wanting to avoid conference losses. But you know what? I also think our conference needs to schedule much tougher ooc games, despite the fact that it will inevitably lead to more losses. SOS is arguably as important as wins and losses. Us failing to play in LA this year will not benefit us...

Yeah I can see us finishing the year like 31-3 and being a 2 seed. Stupid. But true.

Puerco wrote:Why four extra. I thought it was only one road trip which gets missed for each team?

I understand the financial reasons for wanting to avoid conference losses. But you know what? I also think our conference needs to schedule much tougher ooc games, despite the fact that it will inevitably lead to more losses. SOS is arguably as important as wins and losses. Us failing to play in LA this year will not benefit us...

Right now, it is an 18 game schedule. There are 12 teams, so a true home and home would be 22 conference games.

There are as many SOS drags in the Pac as there are teams to give you a SOS boost. In terms of SOS, you literally can't win playing the bottom half of the Pac some years.

Current scheduling: 12 (teams) * 18 (games) / 2 (teams per game) = 108 league games
Full scheduling: 12 * 22 / 2 = 132 games

YoDeFoe wrote:I don't get Gumby's argument.

We want to play the best teams in our conference more often, right? Like this year we don't give a hoot about playing WSU/UW and Utah/CU twice. Right?

So a couple of ways to fix that, from least to most disruptive:

1. a second handcuff series (our local w/ ASU plus the LA schools) - the ACC does this,
2. a schedule based on perceived season performance that pits the best teams against each other twice a season - the AAC does this, or
3. a full round robbin and the removal of four OOC games - no one does this.

Given our goal, no clue why IT MUST BE NUMBER THREE PEOPLE ADAPT AND LIVE COME WITH ME is anywhere near reasonable. Gumby taking a hatchet to scheduling when the goal is "get the best matchups most often."

Anyways... official practice starts one week from tomorrow.

Why is that in quotes when I never said it. Therein lies your confusion. Must have me mixed up with someone else. I get that a lot, but less so since Paul Newman died.

Here we go: I have more than one thought in play. (I've gotten clearance for this. Don't try it at home).

1. I like round robin, regardless of what that does for our SOS or any other metric. I disagree with those who say get rid of in-league cupcakes, because that wouldn't be RR.

Why? Because every team has the same experience. If you get rid of some because they aren't your rival or it's remote or there is no selfish benefit, it tips the balance. We don't play Oregon State, but Oregon does, for instance. (Side note: I've seen several games in Pullman, so now it's personal!)

2. I like strong OOC schedules. Ours has gotten weaker (relative to Olson and other programs) under Miller. So when people say, "How can you add conference games?" I zero in on the OOC games. But first I have to figure out which ones are exhibitions and which ones count. Getting harder to tell these days. I see an opportunity for fewer OOC cupcakes (Baltimore County, Riverside, Bakersfield, Bryant, Gumbel, Pleasantville, Mayberry) in exchange for UCLA-USC, at least.

Now some say that would limit our ability to get great OOC games, and I can only assess what we're doing with that opportunity now. When pressed, people offer excuses for why it hasn't happen, which doesn't bode well for the future, which increases my desire to add UCLA-USC, at least.

I am available for questions, as needed.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:This will probably be a horribly unpopular opinion, but I don't want a balanced schedule. Road games at WSU and OSU do absolutely nothing for us in my opinion. They aren't rivals, they hurt RPI and they do nothing for recruiting.

I totally don't get the idea there's inherent value in playing every Pac team. I'd trade some of our Pac games for OOC games without thinking twice.

Hope so. Might as well go Independent. Then the football teams who feel the same about traveling to Tucson can get relief.

This focus on revenue, of course, is appropriate, because it drives all of this. The conference tournaments make no sense outside of that context (especially when you've done a round-robin to determine the auto bid and league champ.)

So we have to manufacture a reason for people to get excited: give the auto bid to a team that may not have proven it over the grueling regular season.

So we do that, and it still isn't enough money. TV deals (with all of the weird start times that compels). And it still isn't enough. More neutral-site games. More gimmickry. Never enough.

And piece by piece, what we had becomes harder to recognize, and I get more distant in my connection to it all.

Your results may vary.

gumby wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:This will probably be a horribly unpopular opinion, but I don't want a balanced schedule. Road games at WSU and OSU do absolutely nothing for us in my opinion. They aren't rivals, they hurt RPI and they do nothing for recruiting.

I totally don't get the idea there's inherent value in playing every Pac team. I'd trade some of our Pac games for OOC games without thinking twice.

Hope so. Might as well go Independent. Then the football teams who feel the same about traveling to Tucson can get relief.

There's a middle ground between playing everyone and going independent. I just don't see the point in pretending that some of our away games are particularly meaningful.

Home games...well, at least we get the revenue. I can see why other teams want to play us in basketball. It is a marquee game for the littler guys. The opposite isn't true.

The OOC argument is founded on the idea that we're intentionally avoiding big time competition. It just isn't easy to get a lot of big time home and homes. We've had Gonzaga, UNLV, Michigan, Mizzou, TTU, New Mexico, SDSU and Florida (off the top of my head) since Miller has been here. Look at how many true OOC road games teams like Kentucky and UNC play. Not many.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

gumby wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:This will probably be a horribly unpopular opinion, but I don't want a balanced schedule. Road games at WSU and OSU do absolutely nothing for us in my opinion. They aren't rivals, they hurt RPI and they do nothing for recruiting.

I totally don't get the idea there's inherent value in playing every Pac team. I'd trade some of our Pac games for OOC games without thinking twice.

Hope so. Might as well go Independent. Then the football teams who feel the same about traveling to Tucson can get relief.

There's a middle ground between playing everyone and going independent. I just don't see the point in pretending that some of our away games are particularly meaningful.

Home games...well, at least we get the revenue. I can see why other teams want to play us in basketball. It is a marquee game for the littler guys. The opposite isn't true.

The OOC argument is founded on the idea that we're intentionally avoiding big time competition. It just isn't easy to get a lot of big time home and homes. We've had Gonzaga, UNLV, Michigan, Mizzou, TTU, New Mexico, SDSU and Florida (off the top of my head) since Miller has been here. Look at how many true OOC road games teams like Kentucky and UNC play. Not many.

I already explained this. It's so everyone has the same experience. You don't have to like it, but nobody is pretending.

As for scheduling, let's say all of that is true and we've given 110 percent and we just can't do any better. All the more reason to play UCLA-USC every year.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:This will probably be a horribly unpopular opinion, but I don't want a balanced schedule. Road games at WSU and OSU do absolutely nothing for us in my opinion. They aren't rivals, they hurt RPI and they do nothing for recruiting.

I totally don't get the idea there's inherent value in playing every Pac team. I'd trade some of our Pac games for OOC games without thinking twice.

100%

Kids today ... I'd trade some of our OOC games for other OOC games, or UCLA.

gumby wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:
Given our goal, no clue why IT MUST BE NUMBER THREE PEOPLE ADAPT AND LIVE COME WITH ME is anywhere near reasonable. Gumby taking a hatchet to scheduling when the goal is "get the best matchups most often."

Anyways... official practice starts one week from tomorrow.

Why is that in quotes when I never said it. Therein lies your confusion.

The central thrust of the article that raised this discussion was that the Pac-12 should do a better job of ensuring marquee match-ups. Your choice to take this into "the purity of a balanced schedule" despite all evidence to the contrary of its viability is... well at this point not much more than a diversion.

PJC wins the annual mile run, tying TJ's 5:17 mark. Fastest for scholarship players.

YoDeFoe wrote:PJC wins the annual mile run, tying TJ's 5:17 mark. Fastest for scholarship players.

I take back all my concerns.

YoDeFoe wrote:PJC wins the annual mile run, tying TJ's 5:17 mark. Fastest for scholarship players.

He's got a runner's build.

Longhorned wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:PJC wins the annual mile run, tying TJ's 5:17 mark. Fastest for scholarship players.

I take back all my concerns.

He's literally TJ McConnell.

But seriously love that PJC didn't train for it. Ran two laps on it "just to feel the track" and then knocked out the full four on test day. Why didn't he train for it?

"We should already be in shape."

Leading by example.

YoDeFoe wrote:

gumby wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:
Given our goal, no clue why IT MUST BE NUMBER THREE PEOPLE ADAPT AND LIVE COME WITH ME is anywhere near reasonable. Gumby taking a hatchet to scheduling when the goal is "get the best matchups most often."

Anyways... official practice starts one week from tomorrow.

Why is that in quotes when I never said it. Therein lies your confusion.

The central thrust of the article that raised this discussion was that the Pac-12 should do a better job of ensuring marquee match-ups. Your choice to take this into "the purity of a balanced schedule" despite all evidence to the contrary of its viability is... well at this point not much more than a diversion.

I responded to posts about balanced sked. No diversion. No agenda. No ulterior motive. It's what I wanted to talk about.

I also didn't say the quoted material in this post either. When I see quote marks, I think someone is being quoted. Guess you use them for a different purpose.

Purity has nothing to do with it. It's a preference.

gumby wrote:I responded to posts about balanced sked. No diversion. No agenda. No ulterior motive. It's what I wanted to talk about.

I also didn't say the quoted material in this post either. When I see quote marks, I think someone is being quoted. Guess you use them for a different purpose.

Purity has nothing to do with it. It's a preference.

Sorry, not trying to misquote you - I believe it's an accurate paraphrase.

Longhorned wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:PJC wins the annual mile run, tying TJ's 5:17 mark. Fastest for scholarship players.

I take back all my concerns.

He should work on getting taller. This is basketball, not cross country!

gumby wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:

gumby wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:
Given our goal, no clue why IT MUST BE NUMBER THREE PEOPLE ADAPT AND LIVE COME WITH ME is anywhere near reasonable. Gumby taking a hatchet to scheduling when the goal is "get the best matchups most often."

Anyways... official practice starts one week from tomorrow.

Why is that in quotes when I never said it. Therein lies your confusion.

The central thrust of the article that raised this discussion was that the Pac-12 should do a better job of ensuring marquee match-ups. Your choice to take this into "the purity of a balanced schedule" despite all evidence to the contrary of its viability is... well at this point not much more than a diversion.

I responded to posts about balanced sked. No diversion. No agenda. No ulterior motive. It's what I wanted to talk about.

I also didn't say the quoted material in this post either. When I see quote marks, I think someone is being quoted. Guess you use them for a different purpose.

Purity has nothing to do with it. It's a preference.

Do I get to laugh at the fact that you guys said "purity" and "central thrust?"

YoDeFoe wrote:

gumby wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:
Given our goal, no clue why IT MUST BE NUMBER THREE PEOPLE ADAPT AND LIVE COME WITH ME is anywhere near reasonable. Gumby taking a hatchet to scheduling when the goal is "get the best matchups most often."

Anyways... official practice starts one week from tomorrow.

Why is that in quotes when I never said it. Therein lies your confusion.

The central thrust of the article that raised this discussion was that the Pac-12 should do a better job of ensuring marquee match-ups. Your choice to take this into "the purity of a balanced schedule" despite all evidence to the contrary of its viability is... well at this point not much more than a diversion.

I haven't seen a single piece of evidence to convince me that a balanced schedule is not viable. Did I miss something?

prh wrote:Current scheduling: 12 (teams) * 18 (games) / 2 (teams per game) = 108 league games
Full scheduling: 12 * 22 / 2 = 132 games

Huh. Without being able to explain why, I thought we were only missing out on two games. Thanks prh and others.

Brush with tragedy helps Arizona's Parker Jackson-Cartwright find perspective, focus

By Bruce Pascoe Arizona Daily Star Sep 23, 2017

http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... 4fea3.html" target="_blank

Good article. Great to hear PJC stepping up, the "leadership by committee" of those four returning players who have earned the respect to lead by example, and the talk about the options we have at lead guard.

PJC may not score 14 a game for us or be the best pg ever but his experience and leadership will be a good stabilizing force on the team.

But while moving away from the 18-game conference schedule sounds like a worthwhile idea for the Pac-12, it can’t happen for at least a few years since the conference’s current 10-year schedule rotation runs through 2020-21.

So even if this does happen we have a 4 year wait at minimum. But I'm not holding my breath on anything actually changing for the better while we still have Larry Scott in charge.

I'd also like to see OOC games later than December. Think there was a time when some Pac teams, rather than having one-game weeks when they play their nearest geographical rival, would schedule a Saturday OOC game. Not sure why that ended.

Beachcat97 wrote:I'd also like to see OOC games later than December. Think there was a time when some Pac teams, rather than having one-game weeks when they play their nearest geographical rival, would schedule a Saturday OOC game. Not sure why that ended.

Those were great times, and I miss them. Like playing Kansas on a weekend after a weekday PAC-10 game.

Beachcat97 wrote:I'd also like to see OOC games later than December. Think there was a time when some Pac teams, rather than having one-game weeks when they play their nearest geographical rival, would schedule a Saturday OOC game. Not sure why that ended.

I think Miller likes the rest. I can't say it isn't logical.

Longhorned wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:I'd also like to see OOC games later than December. Think there was a time when some Pac teams, rather than having one-game weeks when they play their nearest geographical rival, would schedule a Saturday OOC game. Not sure why that ended.

Those were great times, and I miss them. Like playing Kansas on a weekend after a weekday PAC-10 game.

The Cincy game where Miles swished a halfcourt shot for the win was one of those games. 7-UP Challenge, played in Phoenix.

Might be mild interest in such a thing again.

Puerco wrote:https://www.azdesertswarm.com/basketbal ... sc-time-tv

Within the next two seasons, two Power Five conferences will be switching from an 18-game conference schedule to a 20-game conference schedule.

The Big Ten will be making the change in the 2018-19 season, according to Jon Rothstein, while the ACC announced it will be going to a 20-game conference schedule in the 2019-20 season.

Good. Just copy them. It's not rocket science.

gumby wrote:

Puerco wrote:https://www.azdesertswarm.com/basketbal ... sc-time-tv

Within the next two seasons, two Power Five conferences will be switching from an 18-game conference schedule to a 20-game conference schedule.

The Big Ten will be making the change in the 2018-19 season, according to Jon Rothstein, while the ACC announced it will be going to a 20-game conference schedule in the 2019-20 season.

Good. Just copy them. It's not rocket science.

So we get an almost balanced schedule? Also, the B1G and ACC aren't creating a balanced schedule.

I still think we could toughen up our OOC schedule. This year is actually pretty good. I liked the OOC during the '13-'14 season when we played Duke at MSG and traveled to Michigan. New Mexico, UNLV, etc...are just mediocre programs at best. 15-20 years ago those programs had some cache. We've played some decent OOC opponents under Miller, just not enough of them in a single season.

zonagrad wrote: We've played some decent OOC opponents under Miller, just not enough of them in a single season.

I agree. I'd really like to see a home/away series start up with another elite program. Makes too much sense. Gimme UNC or Kansas. It's obviously not that easy; otherwise, we'd be doing this already.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

gumby wrote:

Puerco wrote:https://www.azdesertswarm.com/basketbal ... sc-time-tv

Within the next two seasons, two Power Five conferences will be switching from an 18-game conference schedule to a 20-game conference schedule.

The Big Ten will be making the change in the 2018-19 season, according to Jon Rothstein, while the ACC announced it will be going to a 20-game conference schedule in the 2019-20 season.

Good. Just copy them. It's not rocket science.

So we get an almost balanced schedule? Also, the B1G and ACC aren't creating a balanced schedule.

No, the article was talking about moving to a 20 game schedule.

We still owe UNC for that home game beatdown in Lute's last season. Losing at home by 28 was just shocking. Was only like the 4th or 5th time we'd even lost by double digits at home in almost 24 seasons under Lute.

It's sad to remember that we lost 6 of our last 8 home games that he coached. 2 of them were 2 of the 3 worst home losses ever in his tenure.

At the media event, Zo was just asked what his personal goals and team goals were. He immediately started with winning a national championship, then talked about coming together, sacrificing, etc, to reach those goals. Didn't mention anything personal. Next question was more specific, "what are you personal goals?" and again he just says national championship and talks about the team.

Personally I think he is a very underrated Wildcat, mostly because of the lack of tourney success and that he's missed stretches both years. I'm a big fan though.

prh wrote:At the media event, Zo was just asked what his personal goals and team goals were. He immediately started with winning a national championship, then talked about coming together, sacrificing, etc, to reach those goals. Didn't mention anything personal. Next question was more specific, "what are you personal goals?" and again he just says national championship and talks about the team.

Personally I think he is a very underrated Wildcat, mostly because of the lack of tourney success and that he's missed stretches both years. I'm a big fan though.

Zo is underrated in terms of how he has developed, IMO. He has flaws, but he clearly puts the work in and moves in the right direction. His natural tendency is score first, but you can see him working to broaden that.

I think we forget he's only played basically a year's worth of games in college. There were times when we didn't judge incoming juniors against any finished product standards.

Wildcat Radio Podcast: Arizona basketball preview with Adam Green

https://www.azdesertswarm.com/basketbal ... yton-trier" target="_blank

Anyone happen to know who’s airing the Battle 4 Atlantis games? Need to make sure my Thanksgiving site has this game.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

prh wrote:At the media event, Zo was just asked what his personal goals and team goals were. He immediately started with winning a national championship, then talked about coming together, sacrificing, etc, to reach those goals. Didn't mention anything personal. Next question was more specific, "what are you personal goals?" and again he just says national championship and talks about the team.

Personally I think he is a very underrated Wildcat, mostly because of the lack of tourney success and that he's missed stretches both years. I'm a big fan though.

Zo is underrated in terms of how he has developed, IMO. He has flaws, but he clearly puts the work in andZo' moves in the right direction. His natural tendency is score first, but you can see him working to broaden that.

I think we forget he's only played basically a year's worth of games in college. There were times when we didn't judge incoming juniors against any finished product standards.

I was really impressed with Zo's maturity in the interview. Guy was confident, clear, and bottom-line focused on his job and the team's job this year; that is, to achieve our potential and not let the investigation and its results distract us. It was a "we" message through and through. It was explanatory of this young man's strength, and the mature focus and determination he held last year in waiting out the PED situation.

Maybe a crazy projection, but I think Zo is coach material after a pro career. He's a strong guy. No foldos for him.

And speaking of strong, I heard Coach Miller as yes, tired, but a man who has his eyes and emotions squarely on the prize. Coach is a smart, exceptional leader who exudes strength. Nothing's changed. I was encouraged.

A last thought for anyone who questions whether we'll be an undistracted "team" this year. Along with our amazing Coach CSM, we've got a secret resource. Lo Romar is a highly influential guy who actually knows how to either be the boss----or work just as effectively for someone else. A big quality---think about it. He'll bring his influence and character to bear on effective team play, and in prospect's living rooms.

An Oregon beat writer picked Oregon #1, and Arizona #4.

When is media day again?

Also I've ripped him pretty good but have also posted what I'd like to see out of Zo; I'm digging the maturity in the videos above and feel absolutely confident with him as this years leader.

Ready for the season to start.