go iu bb

6'4" and 205 lb as a HS freshman? Yowzah

Sounds like Arizona is the team to beat.

https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/College-basketballs-stockrisers-after-transfer-portal-empties-189979724/#189979724_7 They have Bates on their list. Here's what they say about him: "G Tamar Bates, Indiana: Mike Woodson did not add anyone out of the transfer portal because the Hoosiers ran out of available scholarships when Trayce Jackson-Davis announced he was returning. That means Bates has a path to a huge role staring him right in the face. Bates might really be the X-Factor for Indiana in 2022-23. Indiana really needs that playmaking wing who can put pressure on the rim and be an All-Big Ten caliber weapon. Race Thompson is a really good player, but he’d be a fantastic fourth option behind Jackson-Davis, Xavier Johnson and Bates. The 6-foot-5 wing has the frame to be an impact defender, too. If Bates can earn the trust from Woodson and the Indiana coaching staff, the ceiling for the Hoosiers just completely changes."

Sometimes. Trying to predict what the committee will think is important is kind of a crapshoot. Some years they've openly rewarded more wins regardless of SOS while others they do place more emphasis on SOS. It is the NCAA who isn't known for consistency.

I don't pay attention to AAU numbers but is that kind of inconsistency common?

That's why I'm not too worried about IU get kicked out of the conference. Outside of football they do add a lot to the conference. In football they give the top teams a game they can win.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/college-basketball-rankings-arizona-moves-into-top-15-after-five-star-pg-kylan-boswell-reclassifies-to-2022/ I wonder if that will work out better for them than Lander did for IU.

Look at the dive by McNeil. After the comments he made discussing his transfer to his new prep school, I'd be perfectly fine missing on him.

This is true, but it's also true for IU. The reason so many are optimistic about IU's upcoming season is that they seemed to put it all together the last few weeks of the year and then return a lot. UNC did an even better job of putting it together than IU did as they had the much better tournament run. The question for both teams is whether they are able to build on that momentum or if they revert back to the teams they were for most of last season. Or they might show some improvement but not as large as expected, similar to UCLA last season. UCLA had huge expectations entering the season after a great 2021 tournament run even though the season before was mediocre. They were improved but not close to the '21-'22 preseason predictions.

Yes, they absolutely could lock up more schools while waiting for ND. However, they've publicly stated that they're not going to do that. They could be lying but on of the schools on their supposed wish list (Oregon) apparently requested to join the B1G and were rebuffed at that time.

The B1G can't wait on ND to make up their minds if they want to pull in schools on their supposed wish list like Oregon and Stanford.

Sounds like it's well organized.

https://www.insidethehall.com/2022/07/05/five-takeaways-from-indianas-2022-23-non-conference-schedule-release/

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/big-ten-expansion-means-revenue-estimate-spikes-especially-with-the-college-football-playoff-per-report/ Says the B1G TV rights are now in the $1.28B-1.6B per year range. Up from $1B.

Is now the time to mention shooting? I don't think that's been discussed on this board...

I think they negotiate their next rights deal after the SEC, which is an advantage for the B1G.

That was my point. Even before USC/UCLA, the B1G media rights outside of the BTN we're with $1B. That works out to ~$70B/school (assuming an even split). Now it'll be worth even more. This is all on top of the BTN. I don't think that network is expected to produce $100M pretty school. It's the combined media payments which are that number. USC and UCLA joining undoubtedly increases the sold media rights value and will also increase BTN subscriptions.

I don't think all, or even most, of that expected $100M media money is from the BTN. I saw Fox was expected to pay the B1G $1B/year for media rights for games not on the BTN. That was a long time ago, like a week ago, before USC and UCLA announced that they wanted to join the party.

ASU is also the more popular of the two, at least in Phoenix (where I live). If be happy with either two but ASU would also be my preference. I'll admit that part of the reason is selfish since it's much closer to me.

Arizona and Kansas both have garbage football programs.

You're champion numbers are absolutely skewed. You choose the last 22 years to get MSU's championship in there. If you had said 25 years that wouldn't included Arizona's and 20 would've been neither. Then you tried to count Maryland's championship or to count Michigan as the champion even though they lost. In the last 22 years the B1G has won 1 championship, not the 2 you say. I get it. You don't think the B1G's style is hurting it abd that Final Fours and runners up is good enough. Agree to disagree.

When you have to skew the numbers to try to make your point you're not doing well. The last championship game a B1G team won was in 2000 (probably not a coincidence that's your starting year). In 2002 Maryland won but they were ACC at that time. Louisville vacated their championship from 2013 but Michigan still lost that game. (Were they awarded the championship or is there no winner from that year?) So the B1G had won 1 championship since 2000 and that was in 2000. Extend that timeline back 3 years to make it the last 25 years instead of 22 and each conference has won 1. I do not like the B1G style of play. Neither do a lot of recruits which is certainly part of the reason for such a long national championship drought. I'm not saying they should play the style of the PAC but they definitely need to change the style of play or the conference might have another 22 years with just 1 championship.

UCLA was in the FF in '21 while MSU was the B1G's most recent in '19. Sure, Michigan lost in the championship game in '18 but I still don't think that makes a difference. Neither conference has had a team win 6 NCAAT games since 2000. Since they're outnumbered by the teams that are committed to the crappy B1G style, they'll probably have to conform but looking at the last national championship, the last national championship runner up, or even the last to make the FF has no bearing on this. I'm hoping that the B1G can change and adding these teams helps. I'm doubtful it will but it would be nice. I know Woodson would like to be able to play a more open style of play.

Their last was in 1997 (AZ). As opposed to the B1G who has a much more recent champion in 2000. I don't think that 3 year difference in national championships before almost all (probably all by 2024) of the players in any of the involved schools were born will be a factor.

Since this is a basketball board, how do you all see the addition of these teams affecting B1G basketball? Does it help the league transition away from the bruising style of basketball or do UCLA and USC get clobbered until they conform to that style?