Post by mhbruin on Aug 5, 2023 13:47:28 GMT -8
Keepi in mind that at this stage things are constantly changing. Something may have changed by the time you read this.
Call this "The Conference of Change".
Arizona
Arizona is going through a lot of roster turnover with 7 new players, and they are one of the younger teams in the league with only 4 upperclassmen. They have good talent with a 5-star and five 4-star players. In addition, they have five international players who haven't been rated in the US star system, so their talent may be a bit underrated.
Arizona State
Once again Bobby Hurley loses a ton of players, with 8 players transferring out, 7 of whom have started at least 1 game. Arizona edges out UCLA with the smallest percentage of starts returning.
With 8 new players, including six from the transfer portal, he has an experienced, mature team, but a bunch of guys who haven't played together. (If you are a cynic, you might say that Bobby Hurley's teams never play together.) I don't think this is a talented enough team to compensate for the turnover. I think they finish 6th or 7th, mostly because there are five teams that are going to be even worse.
California
When you finish last, there is no place to go but up. College basketball doesn't have relegation. Cal has made a signficant upgrade in coaching with Mark Madsen. With 7 players transferring out and 7 new players, this will be another rebuilding job. Their talent should be a little better and I expect them to play hard. They should move up a little in the standings, but they will still be near the bottom.
Colorado
Colorado is a trendy pick to challege for the Pac-12 title. It is not hard to see why. In a league full of rebult rosters they return 7 players including 2-3 starters and two all-conference players in Tristan daSilva and KJ Simpson. They being in a starter from TCU and an elite 5-star freshman. They have talent, maturity, experience, and a great home court advantage. What's to doubt? Until Tad Boyle actually wins a championship, I am not ready, to believe it. Top 3 finish? Yes. Championship? No.
Oregon
Dana Altman built his reputation at Oregon on recruiting a lot of transfers and JUCOs. Lately, however, as everyone else has been hitting the portal hard, he has turned more to recruiting the high school ranks. It has worked well for him. He has the most 5-star players in the Pac-12. He returns 3 starters, and he brings in a starter from Georgia. He brings in a huge recruiting class. He has a very nice mix of talent, experience, and maturity. It is also worth remembering that Altman is a terrific coach. If 5-star freshman PG Jackson Shelstad lives up to his billing, Oregon should be one of the very best teams in the league.
Oregon State
Oregon State is one of two major conference teams with no incoming transfers. The other is Michigan State. They are no Michigan State.
The Beavers return 9 roation players and 4 starters from a team that won 5 conference games last year. They bring in only one new player, a crappy recruit. Will all that experience help them? Not with the only Pac-12 team with zero 5-star and 4-star players. On top of all this, their 3 upperclassmen is the second-least in the league. A very young team without talent means a likely last-place finish in the league.
Stanford
In spite of mediocre on-court results, Stanford continues to recruit well. Not too many players transfer in or out of Stanford, so they have roster stablity. However, sooner or later the Jarod Haase effect kicks in and they lost transfers to North Carolina, NC State, and Duke. Maybe the Stanford to the ACC rumors have some basis. Maybe the team is moving or maybe just the roster.
Still they return quite a bit of talent and experience. They also bring in a lot of talent including Andrej Stojakovic, who spurned the Bruins at the last minure. Normally, I would expect big things from this team, but under Haase, the Cardinal have a history of underperforming. I expect history to repeat itself.
UCLA
You all know the story. The Bruins lost most of their production from last season, and this will either be a rebuld or reload year. We are one of three team with 8 new players. The other two brought in 6 transfers. We brought in one. We brought in 7 freshmen. The next closest is four.
We will be talented. We are tied (with USC) for lead in the league in total number of 5-star and 4-star players. If Mara and Buyuktuncel are eventually ranked highly, we will have the lead to ourself. Lots of talent. Great coaching. Tons of new players. Extremely young. What will happen?
Almost anything is possible. We could be great. We could have a rough year. We could be very good. I vote for very good, but not great.
USC
This team is loaded. They bring back 3 starters from a team that tied for second in the Pac-12 and a very talented sophomore. This included first-team All-Pac-12 guard Boogie Ellis.
They bring in the #1 recruiiting class in the league, includind the #1 player in the country. They add DJ Rodman who was very good at WSU. They have seven 5-star and 4-star players, which ties UCLA, but they have three 5-stars to UCLA's one. They have talent, experience, and size.
Some people question Andy Enfield's coaching. USC leads the Pac-12 with the most wins in the last 5 seasons. Is it recruiting or coaching? He must be doing something right. This team seems like the solid favorite to win the league, particularly with UCLA and Arizona having to replace so many top performers.
Utah
Utah returns 4 starters from last year's 7th place team including first-team All-Pac-12 center Brandon Carlson. As a result, the lead the Pac-12 in bringing back starts by a LOT.
They also bring in starters from Colorado and Washington, so they start with 7 guys who are used to starting in the Pac-12. They have the most upper-classmen on the roster in the Pac-12. With five 4-star players they have solid talent.
I also think Craig Smith is an excellent coach. Then why am I picking them to finish 6th? It's just that I think that USC, Oregon, Colorado, UCLA, and Arizona will be better.
However, a 4th or 5th-place finish wouldn't shock me. In fact, this might be the real sleeper team in the Pac-12.
Washington
Once again, Washington has a mediocre season with a bad offense. Players transfer out in droves. Hec-Ed is empty. Yet somehow Mike Hopkins is still there.
Washington returns two starters, inclluding 2nd-team All-Pac-12 player Keion Brooks. He brings in starters from Kentucky and Rutgers. At the end of all this upheaval he ends up with a 5-star and four 4-star players. He also ends up with 8 upperclassmen.
Once these guys all learn each other's names this is a pretty good roster., It seems particularly loaded at PG. Sahvir Wheeler averaged 5.6 assists while at Kentucky and Paul Mulcahy averaged 4.9 at Rutgers.
This is better than a 9th place roster, but they are still coached by Mike Hopkins.
Washington State
Kyle Smith seemed to be building a quality team in Pullman. Then he lost his entire starting lineup. He returns 42 starts out of 165 possible starters. He is trying to build a team around Jabe Mullins and Andrej Jakimovski.
Talent? He has exactly one 4-star player. That's the worst talent outside of Corvallis. With only five upperclassmen, this is not a terribly mature team either.. I think Kyle Smith is an excellent coach, but I don't think he has much to work with. At least Oregon State should be worse.
TEAM | NATIONAL CLASS RANKING | PAC-12 CLASS RANKING | NUMBER OF RECRUITS | NATIONAL TRANSFER RANKING | PAC-12 TRANSFER RANKING | NUMBER OF TRANSFERS | RETURNING PLAYERS (10 MINUTES+) | NEW PLAYERS | 5-STAR PLAYERS | 4-STAR PLAYERS | PERCENT OF STARTS RETURNING | UPPER CLASS MEN | PROJECTED FINISH |
Arizona | 72 | 10 | 4 | 16 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 30% | 4 | 5 |
Arizona State | 47 | 6 | 2 | 44 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 20% | 7 | 7 |
California | 57 | 8 | 2 | 21 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 4 | 32% | 8 | 10 |
Colorado | 24 | 4 | 4 | 96 | 10 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 55% | 7 | 3 |
Oregon | 11 | 2 | 3 | 85 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 47% | 8 | 2 |
Oregon State | 119 | 12 | 1 | --- | 12 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 63% | 3 | 12 |
Stanford | 32 | 5 | 3 | 85 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 59% | 7 | 8 |
UCLA | 13 | 3 | 7 | 89 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 6 | 21% | 1 | 4 |
USC | 3 | 1 | 4 | 138 | 11 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 58% | 5 | 1 |
Utah | 86 | 11 | 3 | 76 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 74% | 9 | 6 |
Washington | 67 | 9 | 2 | 34 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 4 | 39% | 8 | 9 |
Washington State | 53 | 7 | 4 | 69 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 25% | 5 | 11 |
Call this "The Conference of Change".
NUMBER OF NEW PLAYERS | NUMBER OF TEAMS | TEAMS | COMMENTS |
8 | 3 | ASU, Washington, UCLA | ASU seems to always have roster churn under Hurley and Mike Hopkins has trouble keeping kids at UW. Both teams are bringing in 6 transfers. This is uncharted territory for UCLA. |
7 | 3 | Arizona, California, WSU | Arizona is the other top-of-the league team in rebuild mode. 3 transfers, 4 recruits. Cal and WSU are in rebuild mode, but WSU is returning much better talent. |
6 | 1 | Utah | |
5 | 1 | Colorado | |
4 | 2 | Oregon, Stanford | For years, Dana Altman seemed to be building a new team every season. For a change, he has one of the most stable rosters |
3 | |||
2 | 1 | USC | USC has lots ot stability on a very successful team last season. |
1 | 1 | Oregon State | OSU has the most stable roster, but it is last season's worst team. |
PERCENT OF STARTS RETURNING | TEAMS |
70% or More | Utah |
60% to 69% | Oregon State |
50% to 59% | Stanford, USC, Cororado |
40% to 49% | Oregon |
30% to 39% | Washington, California, Arizona |
29% or Less | UCLA, Arizona State |
Arizona
Arizona is going through a lot of roster turnover with 7 new players, and they are one of the younger teams in the league with only 4 upperclassmen. They have good talent with a 5-star and five 4-star players. In addition, they have five international players who haven't been rated in the US star system, so their talent may be a bit underrated.
Arizona State
Once again Bobby Hurley loses a ton of players, with 8 players transferring out, 7 of whom have started at least 1 game. Arizona edges out UCLA with the smallest percentage of starts returning.
With 8 new players, including six from the transfer portal, he has an experienced, mature team, but a bunch of guys who haven't played together. (If you are a cynic, you might say that Bobby Hurley's teams never play together.) I don't think this is a talented enough team to compensate for the turnover. I think they finish 6th or 7th, mostly because there are five teams that are going to be even worse.
California
When you finish last, there is no place to go but up. College basketball doesn't have relegation. Cal has made a signficant upgrade in coaching with Mark Madsen. With 7 players transferring out and 7 new players, this will be another rebuilding job. Their talent should be a little better and I expect them to play hard. They should move up a little in the standings, but they will still be near the bottom.
Colorado
Colorado is a trendy pick to challege for the Pac-12 title. It is not hard to see why. In a league full of rebult rosters they return 7 players including 2-3 starters and two all-conference players in Tristan daSilva and KJ Simpson. They being in a starter from TCU and an elite 5-star freshman. They have talent, maturity, experience, and a great home court advantage. What's to doubt? Until Tad Boyle actually wins a championship, I am not ready, to believe it. Top 3 finish? Yes. Championship? No.
Oregon
Dana Altman built his reputation at Oregon on recruiting a lot of transfers and JUCOs. Lately, however, as everyone else has been hitting the portal hard, he has turned more to recruiting the high school ranks. It has worked well for him. He has the most 5-star players in the Pac-12. He returns 3 starters, and he brings in a starter from Georgia. He brings in a huge recruiting class. He has a very nice mix of talent, experience, and maturity. It is also worth remembering that Altman is a terrific coach. If 5-star freshman PG Jackson Shelstad lives up to his billing, Oregon should be one of the very best teams in the league.
Oregon State
Oregon State is one of two major conference teams with no incoming transfers. The other is Michigan State. They are no Michigan State.
The Beavers return 9 roation players and 4 starters from a team that won 5 conference games last year. They bring in only one new player, a crappy recruit. Will all that experience help them? Not with the only Pac-12 team with zero 5-star and 4-star players. On top of all this, their 3 upperclassmen is the second-least in the league. A very young team without talent means a likely last-place finish in the league.
Stanford
In spite of mediocre on-court results, Stanford continues to recruit well. Not too many players transfer in or out of Stanford, so they have roster stablity. However, sooner or later the Jarod Haase effect kicks in and they lost transfers to North Carolina, NC State, and Duke. Maybe the Stanford to the ACC rumors have some basis. Maybe the team is moving or maybe just the roster.
Still they return quite a bit of talent and experience. They also bring in a lot of talent including Andrej Stojakovic, who spurned the Bruins at the last minure. Normally, I would expect big things from this team, but under Haase, the Cardinal have a history of underperforming. I expect history to repeat itself.
UCLA
You all know the story. The Bruins lost most of their production from last season, and this will either be a rebuld or reload year. We are one of three team with 8 new players. The other two brought in 6 transfers. We brought in one. We brought in 7 freshmen. The next closest is four.
We will be talented. We are tied (with USC) for lead in the league in total number of 5-star and 4-star players. If Mara and Buyuktuncel are eventually ranked highly, we will have the lead to ourself. Lots of talent. Great coaching. Tons of new players. Extremely young. What will happen?
Almost anything is possible. We could be great. We could have a rough year. We could be very good. I vote for very good, but not great.
USC
This team is loaded. They bring back 3 starters from a team that tied for second in the Pac-12 and a very talented sophomore. This included first-team All-Pac-12 guard Boogie Ellis.
They bring in the #1 recruiiting class in the league, includind the #1 player in the country. They add DJ Rodman who was very good at WSU. They have seven 5-star and 4-star players, which ties UCLA, but they have three 5-stars to UCLA's one. They have talent, experience, and size.
Some people question Andy Enfield's coaching. USC leads the Pac-12 with the most wins in the last 5 seasons. Is it recruiting or coaching? He must be doing something right. This team seems like the solid favorite to win the league, particularly with UCLA and Arizona having to replace so many top performers.
Utah
Utah returns 4 starters from last year's 7th place team including first-team All-Pac-12 center Brandon Carlson. As a result, the lead the Pac-12 in bringing back starts by a LOT.
They also bring in starters from Colorado and Washington, so they start with 7 guys who are used to starting in the Pac-12. They have the most upper-classmen on the roster in the Pac-12. With five 4-star players they have solid talent.
I also think Craig Smith is an excellent coach. Then why am I picking them to finish 6th? It's just that I think that USC, Oregon, Colorado, UCLA, and Arizona will be better.
However, a 4th or 5th-place finish wouldn't shock me. In fact, this might be the real sleeper team in the Pac-12.
Washington
Once again, Washington has a mediocre season with a bad offense. Players transfer out in droves. Hec-Ed is empty. Yet somehow Mike Hopkins is still there.
Washington returns two starters, inclluding 2nd-team All-Pac-12 player Keion Brooks. He brings in starters from Kentucky and Rutgers. At the end of all this upheaval he ends up with a 5-star and four 4-star players. He also ends up with 8 upperclassmen.
Once these guys all learn each other's names this is a pretty good roster., It seems particularly loaded at PG. Sahvir Wheeler averaged 5.6 assists while at Kentucky and Paul Mulcahy averaged 4.9 at Rutgers.
This is better than a 9th place roster, but they are still coached by Mike Hopkins.
Washington State
Kyle Smith seemed to be building a quality team in Pullman. Then he lost his entire starting lineup. He returns 42 starts out of 165 possible starters. He is trying to build a team around Jabe Mullins and Andrej Jakimovski.
Talent? He has exactly one 4-star player. That's the worst talent outside of Corvallis. With only five upperclassmen, this is not a terribly mature team either.. I think Kyle Smith is an excellent coach, but I don't think he has much to work with. At least Oregon State should be worse.