A concise look at the effects of this summer's realignment on the fantasy college basketball landscape would look like this: it's no big deal. However, you aren't here to read a four-word article (and I don't intend to write one - at least not yet). So, let's take a look at the greater ramifications of the teams that are shifting conferences.
First off, it appears that the trend of conference numbers not being representative of the number of teams in the conference continues. George Orwell would be proud. Of course, the Big 10 and Atlantic 10 had already shown that branding was more important than numbers representing anything. Now, we are faced with the conundrum that the Big 10 has 12 teams and the Big 12 has ten teams. Is the Pac 12 really more confusing than the Pac 10? Or are we moving to some sort of base-12 system? In any case, it looks like numbers really can be misrepresentative.
My crotchety objections aside, I'll never really understand why college basketball conferences have to be dictated by college football alignments. Yes, I understand that college football is the big money maker, but this summer's moves don't really make much sense on a basketball platform. Why is it that Notre Dame can be an Independent in football and part of the Big East in basketball? Why don't more teams do this? All right, that's just more of me being obstinate.
Despite my support of the expanded tournament, I don't like huge conferences like the Big East. I, for one, am glad that the Pac 10 did not become 16 teams with the incorporation of the remnants of the Big 12. Smaller conferences lead to better rivalries and a balanced schedule. The Big East is a fantastic basketball conference (and maybe my favorite of the Tier 1 conferences), but I think it would be better if it eliminated the teams like Rutgers, South Florida, DePaul, and Providence.
The Big 12 (with ten teams) becomes a more streamlined and excellent conference with the excision of Colorado and Nebraska. Once the Buffaloes and Huskers leave, the conference will be able to go to the 18-game schedule that has been a staple of the Pac 10 (when it had ten teams). Each team will play all nine opponents twice, once at home and once on the road. This makes for competitive balance and a more meaningful regular season championship.
I don't think the Big 12 will bat an eye at the loss of Colorado and Nebraska. The Huskers last made the NCAA tournament in 1998 and have never won a NCAA tournament game. They were a three-seed in 1991 when they were bested by Xavier and a six-seed in 1994 when they were beaten by Penn. Other than center Aleks Maric, the Huskers haven't had a decent fantasy player in the last five years either. Maybe Northwestern will finally have a team they can beat routinely in the Big 10.
Colorado, which joins the Pac 10, made the NCAA tournament as recently as 2003, but has only made two appearances in the Big Dance in the last 40 years. The Buffs had a four-year fantasy stud in Richard Roby, who put up numbers on some miserable teams, including consecutive three-win Big 12 teams in the mid-2000's. Colorado will have a high-scoring backcourt in their final year of the Big 12 with senior Cory Higgins and sophomore Alec Burks. Once they move west, the team will likely be a bottom feeder in the Pac 10.
Colorado should have a good rivalry with their fellow conference newcomer, Utah. The Utes have boasted two of the better centers in college basketball over the last ten years in Andrew Bogut and Luke Nevill, but they'd hardly been a power in the Mountain West (which replaces them with Boise State, who should fit in nicely after moving from the WAC). Utah has only had one winning season in the last five years. Moving from Tier 2 to Tier 1 isn't likely to boost their production. It also doesn't help that almost all of the incumbents from last year's 6-10 team asked to transfer. Leading scorers Carlon Brown and Marshall Henderson leaving provides an open door for someone to step up. Maybe they'll be more competitive in football.