Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper

The Spokesman-Review Newspaper The Spokesman-Review

Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883
Cloudy 29° Cloudy
Sports >  NCAA basketball

Pac-12 men’s basketball preview: It’s a three-team race for the top (unless COVID-19 decides otherwise)

UPDATED: Tue., Dec. 28, 2021

By Jon Wilner Bay Area News Group

Conference play is scheduled to begin in earnest this week for Pac-12 basketball, but questions linger like it’s the winter of 2020-21:

• How many teams will play all 20 conference games?

• Which programs will avoid a lengthy COVID-19 pause?

• How many games will be canceled outright?

(There will be no forfeits. The Pac-12 announced last week that any games lost to COVID will be declared no contests.)

This much we know: Somehow, someway, there will be a conference season.

Our projections for the men’s race are below.

Notes:

• The NET numbers refer to the NCAA Evaluation Tool, which frames the selection and seeding process for March Madness. The number of Quadrant I wins (the highest caliber) is a critical factor.

• The Pomeroy rankings for offense and defense refer to each team’s standing nationally in Ken Pomeroy’s highly influential efficiency metrics.

• The predictions for best- and worst-case finishes are based on algorithms used by the Hotline.

Just kidding. We took a guess.

1. UCLA (8-1/1-0)

NET numbers (overall/Quad I record): No. 21/2-1

Pomeroy rankings (offense/defense): No. 13/No. 18

Best case: first place

Worst case: third place

Comment: The Bruins have missed so much time due to COVID that rust is inevitable. But given the experience level within the core rotation and their familiarity with coach Mick Cronin’s system, it shouldn’t take long for them to ramp back to prepause form.

One potentially bright side: Because UCLA’s exposures to the virus came largely during nonconference play, the conference season could be relatively free of disruption once the Bruins are back on the floor.

2. Arizona (11-1/1-0)

NET numbers (overall/Quad I record): No. 2/2-1

Pomeroy rankings (offense/defense): No. 14/No. 8

Best case: first place

Worst case: third place

Comment: Coach Tommy Lloyd’s system has meshed perfectly with the inherited talent. Arizona possesses size, depth and multiple high-end playmakers in Bennedict Mathurin and Azuolas Tubelis. We’re not completely sold on the 3-point shooting, but there’s enough to get through conference play and the first weekend of the NCAAs. Key question: Will the Wildcats experience a COVID shutdown? If so, when? And what impact will it have on momentum?

3. USC (12-0/2-0)

NET numbers (overall/Quad I record): No. 13/1-0

Pomeroy rankings (offense/defense): 26/15

Best case: second place

Worst case: fourth place

Comment: The Trojans are one of five undefeated teams remaining in Division I, a testament to their balanced scoring and stout defense. Memphis transfer Boogie Ellis has been as good as advertised, while Isaiah Mobley and Chevez Goodwin form perhaps the best frontline in the conference. Our slight skepticism in the ultimate result is rooted in the Trojans’ soft nonconference schedule (No. 248 in the Pomeroy rankings).

4. Oregon (7-6/0-2)

NET numbers (overall/Quad I record): No. 98/0-4

Pomeroy rankings (offense/defense): No. 34/No. 112

Best case: third place

Worst case: seventh place

Comment: After witnessing several of the worst performances of the Dana Altman era, we spotted clear progress from the Ducks just prior to the holiday break. That trajectory should continue as transfers Jacob Young, De’Vion Harmon and Quincy Guerrier become more comfortable and returnee N’Faly Dante gains experience. Oregon has five games scheduled against UCLA, USC and Arizona. We expect the Ducks to win at least two.

5. Colorado (9-3/1-1)

NET numbers (overall/Quad I record): No. 111/0-2

Pomeroy rankings (offense/defense): No. 91/No. 76

Best case: third place

Worst case: seventh place

Comment: The Buffaloes have one of the Pac-12’s top coaches (Tad Boyle), best players (Jabari Walker) and most impressive freshman classes, plus the premier wing defender (Elijah Parquet). But is there enough of everything to produce a contender? Two issues give us pause: A bevy of close calls against second-rate opponents and double-digit losses to the best teams on the early-season schedule (UCLA and Tennessee).

6. Washington State (8-5/1-1)

NET numbers (overall/Quad I record): No. 64/0-1

Pomeroy rankings (offense/defense): No. 84/No. 41

Best case: fourth place

Worst case: eighth place

Comment: A sizzling start to Year Two under Kyle Smith gave way to an unseemly stretch in which the Cougars lost five out of eight – this, despite a stream of second-rate opponents. WSU should avoid the bottom tier within the conference, but its success hinges on increased consistency from behind the 3-point line … or decreased reliance on the 3-point line. If the combination of high volume and low efficiency continues, so will the losses.

7. Stanford (8-4/1-1)

NET numbers (overall/Quad I record): No. 103/1-2

Pomeroy rankings (offense/defense): No. 94/No. 82

Best case: fifth place

Worst case: 10th place

Comment: The most fitting outcome to Stanford’s season would be a tie for seventh place, with one A-level win, one F-level loss and little hope for an NCAA at-large berth.

8. Utah (8-4/1-1)

NET numbers (overall/Quad I record): No. 75/0-2

Pomeroy rankings (offense/defense): No. 62/No. 101

Best case: sixth place

Worst case: ninth place

Comment: Utah’s dynamics under first-year coach Craig Smith are shared by so many Pac-12 peers: a heavy reliance on newcomers; a soft nonconference schedule that limits clarity; the ability to beat anyone at home and lose to anyone on the road. We could have pegged the Utes for any number of landing spots and settled on eighth place because of skepticism about their defense (compared to other teams in the muddled middle).

9. Arizona State (5-7/1-1)

NET numbers (overall/Quad I record): No. 124/1-3

Pomeroy rankings (offense/defense): No. 174/No. 48

Best case: sixth place

Worst case: 10th place

Comment: Perhaps no team in the conference possesses a wider range of potential outcomes than ASU, which has beaten Oregon and Creighton on the road but lost to San Francisco and UC Riverside at home. T

10. Cal (8-5/1-1)

NET numbers (overall/Quad I record): No. 119/0-2

Pomeroy rankings (offense/defense): No. 173/No. 60

Best case: eighth place

Worst case: 11th place

Comment: That the Bears have a reasonable chance to finish above 10th place speaks to the improvement of big man Andre Kelly, the impact of transfer guard Jordan Shepherd and the wobbly state of the conference’s bottom tier.

11. Washington (5-5/0-0)

NET numbers (overall/Quad I record): No. 229/0-0

Pomeroy rankings (offense/defense): No. 257/No. 86

Best case: 10th place

Worst case: 12th place

Comment: Meet the least efficient offense in the Power Six. The Huskies shoot under 30% from 3-point range and average more turnovers per game than assists. If coach Mike Hopkins can squeeze incremental improvement out of his team on that end of the floor, a handful of wins could follow. (The defense has been perfectly respectable.) Will it be enough wins to save his job? The next month will be telling.

12. Oregon State (2-10/0-2)

NET numbers (overall/ Quad I record): No. 245/0-3

Pomeroy rankings (offense/defense): No. 128/No. 185

Best case: 10th place

Worst case: 12th place

Comment: Revisionist history suggests guard Ethan Thompson should have received consideration for Pac-12 Player of the Year last season – for without him, the Beavers have collapsed. The talent is limited, but Wayne Tinkle hasn’t forgotten how to coach. We expect OSU to squeeze a handful of wins out of the conference schedule (most likely at home). But the momentum from last March didn’t even last until Dec. 1.

The Spokesman-Review Newspaper

Local journalism is essential.

Give directly to The Spokesman-Review's Northwest Passages community forums series -- which helps to offset the costs of several reporter and editor positions at the newspaper -- by using the easy options below. Gifts processed in this system are not tax deductible, but are predominately used to help meet the local financial requirements needed to receive national matching-grant funds.

Active Person

Subscribe to the sports newsletter

Get the day’s top sports headlines and breaking news delivered to your inbox by subscribing here.