Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

nerdvana

UCLA and USC Joining the Big Ten

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cthomas said:

We can abandon any pretence of concern for the student-athlete at this point. College athletes is, and probably has been for a long time, only about how much money the universities can make off of their athletic programs. Greed is a human weakness that cannot be killed. Doesn't matter who it hurts. Admittedly, I'm out of touch with today's world, but this doesn't feel right in any way. 

Amateurism and student/athlete have been dead for a while now. I hate it as well. 

With super conferences and NIL, it's just more visible today. But the iceberg has been there for a while. 

I'm waiting for the HS kids at IMG, and other academies to start asking for NIL... only halfway kidding.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, go iu bb said:

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?

I don't think the PAC has one a natty in 25 years. So I'm guessing it's the clobbering route. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Southside said:

I don't think the PAC has one a natty in 25 years. So I'm guessing it's the clobbering route. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, go iu bb said:

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?

I think UCLA’s style fits in well based off their coach; however, I think they could adopt a more open style of play!  I think the B10 should adopt a more open style of play.  Get rid of the way Wisconsin & Matt Painter coaches and plays the game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, go iu bb said:

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.

The B10 has not won, but they've been frequently in the championship game over the last 20 years. I can't recall the last time a PAC has been in a championship game. 

And point is, doubt the B10 is changing style because of USC and UCLA. Both sides will adjust based on outcome, but guessing UCLA and USC will be doing most of the early adjustments.

Both have been decent lately in BB, but AZ and Oregon have been the top 2 teams out there for the last 10 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Southside said:

The B10 has not won, but they've been frequently in the championship game over the last 20 years. I can't recall the last time a PAC has been in a championship game. 

And point is, doubt the B10 is changing style because of USC and UCLA. Both sides will adjust based on outcome, but guessing UCLA and USC will be doing most of the early adjustments.

Both have been decent lately in BB, but AZ and Oregon have been the top 2 teams out there for the last 10 years. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, go iu bb said:

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.

I get it, you don't like the style.

But here's how the finals have gone since 2000....

                          B10          PAC

Champ               2               0

Runner up         7               2

I mean, feel free to look at however you want. But if we're talking top teams, the B10 has gone deeper more often. 

And honestly I don't care for the B10 style of play... But I'm certainly not going to try and replicate what the PAC does. If I'm going to change things, I'll look at the ACC, B12, and BE for best practices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Southside said:

Just to level set, LA to Seattle is almost a 3 hour flight. LA to Indy (in the middle of current B10 schools) is a little over 4 hours. The time zone shift will need the game times to adjust, but the flight times are nt exactly big deltas unless you're talking about Rutgers and Maryland. 

For quick turn arounds I think the time zone difference (especially for PST vs EST games) is a fairly big (but not huge) deal. I used to often fly east coast to Seattle and would feel some late afternoon fatigue the first couple of days. Granted the players are in much better shape, and younger, than I was but they also have a much more physically demanding task when they arrive.

In any case, I think there is zero doubt that they will have some west coast conference buddies soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DChoosier said:

For quick turn arounds I think the time zone difference (especially for PST vs EST games) is a fairly big (but not huge) deal. I used to often fly east coast to Seattle and would feel some late afternoon fatigue the first couple of days. Granted the players are in much better shape, and younger, than I was but they also have a much more physically demanding task when they arrive.

In any case, I think there is zero doubt that they will have some west coast conference buddies soon.

I used to be a 60-70% travel guy (domestic and intl). The flight duration itself didn't really bother me. On quick trips (WC), so long as I kept my home TZ sleep schedule, I was more than fine. If I was out there for a week, I'd bite the bullet, stay up super late, and hope on PST. A little sleepy the next day, but I wouldn't call it fatigue. Not a frequent user of 5 hour energy, but it works very well when I do need it. Always carry a few when heading to the WC or across the pond. 

I'm assuming the games will mostly be noonish PST / 3-4 PMish EST. Get out there the day before, hit the pillow early, play, and can leave that night or early the next day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Southside said:

I used to be a 60-70% travel guy (domestic and intl). The flight duration itself didn't really bother me. On quick trips (WC), so long as I kept my home TZ sleep schedule, I was more than fine. If I was out there for a week, I'd bite the bullet, stay up super late, and hope on PST. A little sleepy the next day, but I wouldn't call it fatigue. Not a frequent user of 5 hour energy, but it works very well when I do need it. Always carry a few when heading to the WC or across the pond. 

I'm assuming the games will mostly be noonish PST / 3-4 PMish EST. Get out there the day before, hit the pillow early, play, and can leave that night or early the next day. 

That’s football but what about basketball? The time change will play a role in this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stuff is coming in hot lol...

a lot of conflicting stuff too

Finebaum said ND is a must get for the ACC, B10, and SEC. Said the ACC collapses with ND. Expects ND is getting bids for all 3 lol. 

His sidekick said Swarbuck said (last year) that for ND to join a conference, it would take at least one of three conditions.

The need to secure a playoff path. The need to secure a TV partner. Or not joining would be a significant financial loss. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IUFAN1976 said:

That’s football but what about basketball? The time change will play a role in this!

My guess...

For USC and UCLA, they spend a whole week, every other week in B10 territory, doing remote classes.

For B10 teams going out, one week long trip each season to check both boxes, doing remote classes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Southside said:

I get it, you don't like the style.

But here's how the finals have gone since 2000....

                          B10          PAC

Champ               2               0

Runner up         7               2

I mean, feel free to look at however you want. But if we're talking top teams, the B10 has gone deeper more often. 

And honestly I don't care for the B10 style of play... But I'm certainly not going to try and replicate what the PAC does. If I'm going to change things, I'll look at the ACC, B12, and BE for best practices. 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, go iu bb said:

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 win 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.

 

The numbers are the numbers. You can say the championships are a long ways back, but the runners up are not. It's not skewed. It is what it is. Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative or preferred system. 

At the end of the day, AZ and Oregon have been the best two programs in the PAC the last 10 years. Sean Miller grew up under Matta, and does a lot of the same things Izzo does. So you could say he was B10ish in the PAC. Aside from his press, I don't know much about Altman at Oregon, so can't really say one way or another about system or style. 

But heck, if you want to talk about what recruits like, or don't like.... I'd be more interested in how many guys each conference goes in the top 10 or 15 (lottery-ish) each year in the draft. I'd guess if you look back in the last 10 years, not much difference. And I'd expect a lot of the PAC guys are from Miller's system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all I hate all of this expansion in college sports but if we do this then go to 20 teams. Add Oregon, Washington, Stanford and ND then go to 4 5 team division.

West - USC, UCLA, Standford, Washington and Oregon

Midwest- Neb., Iowa, UW, Minnesota and UI.

Central- MSU, UM, PU, NW, ND.

East- Maryland, Rutgers, PSU, OSU, IU

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

First of all I hate all of this expansion in college sports but if we do this then go to 20 teams. Add Oregon, Washington, Stanford and ND then go to 4 5 team division.

West - USC, UCLA, Standford, Washington and Oregon

Midwest- Neb., Iowa, UW, Minnesota and UI.

Central- MSU, UM, PU, NW, ND.

East- Maryland, Rutgers, PSU, OSU, IU

I'd go

West - USC, UCLA, Oregon, Nebraska, Baylor

East - Rutgers, Maryland, PSU, OSU, UNC or Clemson or FSU or Miami

Great Lakes - Wisconsin, NW, MI, MSU, ND

MW - Iowa, IU, PU, IL,  MN

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Southside said:

I'd go

West - USC, UCLA, Oregon, Nebraska, Baylor

East - Rutgers, Maryland, PSU, OSU, UNC or Clemson or FSU or Miami

Great Lakes - Wisconsin, NW, MI, MSU, ND

MW - Iowa, IU, PU, IL, Iowa, MN

 

 

You have Iowa twice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all I hate all of this expansion in college sports but if we do this then go to 20 teams. Add Oregon, Washington, Stanford and ND then go to 4 5 team division.
West - USC, UCLA, Standford, Washington and Oregon
Midwest- Neb., Iowa, UW, Minnesota and UI.
Central- MSU, UM, PU, NW, ND.
East- Maryland, Rutgers, PSU, OSU, IU
 
 
 

Pretty reasonable idea here. If I’m being greedy, you take Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Notre Dame.

I feel like ND, PU, IU need to be together. Probably with The Michigan teams. I don’t know what to do with the East. From a athletic standpoint, dump Northwestern and add an East team (Clemson, Virginia, Syracuse-yuck,).


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×