Linking Laconically didn't think that this was, like, a real thing
by KJ@theonlycolors on Dec 15, 2009 8:01 PM CST
in Michigan State Spartans News Roundup
Email
Print- Michigan State linebacker Greg Jones, Flint native Mark Ingram named first-team AP All-American | MSU Spartans - - MLive.com
Mr. Jones clinches "consensus" All-American status. Just imagine if the modifier "Michigan State" applied to both players in that headline. - Alamo Bowl Preview :: Texas Tech Offensive Matchups - Double-T Nation
Our only hope on defense: Rack up a basketful of sacks. - Michigan State's Blair White nominated for College Rudy Award | Saginaw Sports - - MLive.com
Unlike Rudy, he'll get to play every single down of his final collegiate game. - BESTS - Big 10 Football Tour
Outrage: U-M's campus better than ours?! - Sagarin Ratings and Football Trends - The Daily Gopher
Cool graph (the second one). Is there a volunteer to do this for the MSU football team? (Hey, asking for a volunteer worked the last time I did it.) - Big Ten Expansion: Grid Of Judgment | mgoblog
Mr. Cook is way too efficient. What's left to talk about for the next 12-18 months? Pitt seems like the clear leader. - Missouri would listen if the Big Ten came calling - Big 12 Blog - ESPN
. . . although the Tigers appear willing to flirt. (HT: Hail to the Orange) - Expanding to 12 teams could hurt Big Ten in BCS, pocketbook - Stewart Mandel - SI.com
Financial cost-benefit analysis far from aslam dunkextra point. - Basketball Prospectus | Articles | What Happened to Michigan?
They gots the yips, among other things. - Hoops implications of Big Ten expansion | Basketball Prospectus | Unfiltered
A (gasp!) basketball-based look at expansion.
Bonus Nonlaconical Commentary on That Last Link (Well, not so much "commentary" as "thinking out loud")
Mr. Gasaway notes that both of the two most plausible candidates for Big Ten expansion (Missouri and Pitt) look pretty attractive from a basketball standpoint--despite the fact that the financial considerations of expansion are going to rest firmly on the football side of the ledger. That statement is particularly true from an MSU perspective. Missouri would give us a conference foe that, believe it or not, goes out of its way to play at a fast tempo. Pittsburgh, meanwhile, would have great potential as a major basketball rival for MSU, given the sustained national-level (read: NCAA Tournament) success the Panthers have experienced over the last decade.
I do wonder if there's a downside here, though, for MSU basketball. Remember how we haven't won a neutral-court tournament in almost a decade? (How could you forget?) Well, it seems to me that, once you go to a clearly-imbalanced, division-based regular season basketball schedule, winning the conference tournament takes on more prestige relative to winning the regular season championship. While last season's regular season championship broke a 7-year drought, the evidence would still suggest that, for whatever reason, Tom Izzo is better at building teams that win the 12+ games needed to compete for a regular season title (5 such seasons since 2001) than at winning 3 games in as many days (zero appearances in the BTT final over the same span).
The optimistic spin, I suppose, is that when/if the conference tournament becomes a bigger deal, hopefuly Izzo would be able to conjure up more of the getting-his-team-ready-to-play-big-games-on-short-notice magic he's so well known for in the NCAA Tournament.
Anyway, there's another conference expansion angle to chew on.
5 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Regular Season > Tournament
I’d argue winning one or the other should be considered a successful season, but I’ll still place more value on a regular season conference championship than a tournament. It takes 15 or 16 wins to win the conference regular season, versus 3 wins for the conference tournament.
Regional Champs?
To complain about neutral court results seems rather nitpicky to me, especially considering our NCAA success. Additionally, I would argue that winning a regional in the tourney should count as a “neutral court tournament” victory if we really want to be nitpicky.
The inclusion of Missouri from a basketball perspective would be very interesting. I’m not sure their style will be successful long-term but I’m eager for them to try. Pitt’s style is too similar to us (and Purdue, Wisconsin, etc.) to really add much value from a fan perspective. In fact, I can not think of a more Big 10 style team outside of the current Big 10 than Pitt (perhaps UCLA?).
I don't know about these things
Would using a division-based system in football demand you use the same system in basketball? I think it makes a lot more sense in the former case than the latter.
It wouldn't demand...
….it, necessarily, but it would suggest it. As fun as a 22-game, round-robin conference schedule would be, the people who won’t play round-robin with 11 teams aren’t going to do that.
Following the football divisions would be the easiest, most straight-forward way, where you’d play each division-mate twice and two teams from the opposite division twice, (maybe on a yearly, pick your rival basis) then play four single games against the other out of division teams. Or you drop down to a 16-game conference schedule. It’d seem more predictable than the current system of picking which teams you play once, which appears random to me.
by witless chum on Dec 16, 2009 9:57 AM CST up reply actions
Looking at the three conferences with divisions in football, they all handle it differently:
- SEC: Same division structure.
- Big XII: Single division, but scheduling is based on the football divisions (home-and-home against your division, only one against the other).
- ACC: Appears to be mostly random, aside from UNC-Duke (and likely some other protected rivalries).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
