moyemayhem

He played nearly 20 minutes a game for IU two years ago, and I literally had to look up who Hunter was because the name wasn't ringing a bell. I'm not sure if that says more about him as a player or my memory.

I said it earlier, but the ACC and remaining PAC teams merging would be a win/win for both. The schools have much more in common than either do with the Big 12, and they could push an east coast/west coast narrative that would be easily marketable. I understand the limitations of the ACC’s current deal, but for the long-term viability of both conferences, this is the most obvious solution.

Here is an analysis of potential expansion targets for the Big Ten from fivethirtyeight. This is probably the most thorough breakdown I've seen, and it has some pretty good commentary on each of the potential targets. The results fall in line with most people's expectations, although both UNC and Utah fared surprisingly well. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-should-the-big-ten-expand-next-we-crunched-the-numbers/ The final rankings for potential schools for the Big Ten look like this: Notre Dame North Carolina Oregon Florida State Washington Clemson Utah Miami Stanford Cal

Are there any details on where the marquee basketball games will be broadcast? I saw that some games will continue on CBS, but what about the games that traditionally went to ESPN? Will they go to FS1 or some other cable station? Will there be more games going to the BTN? Any details would be much appreciated.

I think the B12 would gobble up all the PAC teams if they could... they're not in those markets, and there really aren't any alternatives on the west coast that are attractive. If geography is no longer a concern, then I think the obvious solution would be a merger between the ACC and PAC 10. That conference would be much better situated for long-term success than the B12, even if more teams are picked off by the B10 and SEC. The academic makeup of both conferences is also much more complementary than either would be with the B12 (if that matters). Not doing something bold like that, dooms either conference to being second tier.

Supposedly the B12 has reached out to virtually every PAC team (LINK). I'm sure some of the PAC teams are holding out hope that the B10 comes knocking again. The remainder recognize that a B12 offer isn't going to go away, so they are in no rush to bail on the PAC. Since the media rights deals for the two conferences as currently constituted will only be marginally different at this point anyway, they are probably in a wait and see mode.

Agreed, I think completely ignoring basketball is a hole. Also the football rankings are based on just the last 5 years, which is too small a sample in my opinion. With that said, I’ve seen people mention Kansas and Houston as possibilities, and they are ranked as the 2 least desirable of all power 5 colleges by this ranking.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2022/07/14/power-5-desirability-rankings-sec-big-ten-acc Nice article from SI ranking the desirability of all power 5 colleges. It’s not perfect, but the end result is in line with the general sentiment. IU is #49 out of 69. Top 5 available is no big surprise. Washington Clemson Stanford Florida State North Carolina, Oregon (tie)

I’m a Lou’s guy too, but Pequod’s is fantastic. If you like deep dish, it’s as good as anywhere. I’d tell you to order a chocolate shake at Weiner Circle, but you probably shouldn’t if you want a 25th anniversary.

Big 10 is not done. I expect in the not too distant future Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and Colorado will make their case for joining. I'd bet some subset of those schools will end up in the Big Ten. Washington: 14th biggest market, good football school, AAU Oregon: 25th biggest market, good football school, NIKE $$$, AAU Stanford: 6th biggest market, elite academically, endowment $$$*, AAU Cal: 6th biggest market, may have an in as a sister school to UCLA, AAU Colorado: 17th biggest market, AAU All those schools are better fits academically with the Big Ten than the SEC, and USC and UCLA serve as local rivals facilitating the bridge. I think Notre Dame, Boston College, North Carolina, and Duke also seem like likely targets. Florida State and Miami would be great financially, but I just think it's going to be hard to pry them from the SEC where they seem like better fits. *Stanford has a $37.8B endowment... the entire Big Ten has a $75B endowment.

This is dumb… the point of scheduling this game is not just to have a competitive game on the schedule. The point is that Indiana and Kentucky are border states with rabid fan bases that already have a storied rivalry. This game is about the history and emotions that come with that. You can schedule IU-Arizona or UK-Michigan State and they may look just as good on KenPom, but those games will never have the same meaning to the fans.

I think it’s becoming clear that the NIL stuff was the reason Fife was let go. That’s clearly one of our primary recruiting pitches, and we can’t have any assistants not buying in. If he had problems with it, then we had to let him go. All the other stuff is background noise.

Maybe it’s old fashioned thinking, but if you are going to enroll at an Ivy League school, it seems like a waste to transfer after two years. If you are willing to devote that much extra work to academics, why miss out on the pay off by transferring to a typical state school before you get your degree?

It really doesn't matter whose fault this whole situation is. If Woodson and Fife didn't get along, then obviously Fife has to go. Optics aren't good and it's unfortunate, but Woody has to do what he thinks gives the team the best chance to succeed. Maybe it's a red flag, or maybe this is just an opportunity to get the whole staff on the same page. At the end of the day, Woodson's success isn't riding on one assistant coach.

B: I think given the talent level on this team, we had a pretty low ceiling to begin with and the odds of making the tournament were probably 50/50 at best. We made it and beat Purdue, so right there we already have vast improvement over the last 5 years. As others have said, the offense was ugly. I think it was mostly due to our lack of shooting and perimeter playmakers, but the sets weren’t creative. With that said, I think we did a good job of getting Trayce and Race opportunities on the block. We had issues feeding the post in past regimes, but not this year. The defense was great. This team over achieved on that end of the floor, which really says a lot about the coaches. The body language and team chemistry was night and day compared to last year. As for next year I really have no sense about how competitive this team will be. Who will still be around and what we can get in the portal and from the freshmen? Can Bates and Geronimo develop into difference makers? I think that’s imperative if we want to be a tournament team. We really are heading into the unknown, but I think the success of next years team will be pretty telling on whether Woodson will work out here. If we somehow are a bubble team or better next year, I think there will be reason for hope.