IUCrazy2

Big Ten West: UCLA, USC, Oregon, Washington, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, (1 more team from Big 12/Pac 12) Big Ten East: Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St., Michigan St, Maryland, Rutgers Those are pretty evenly matched and would make for some good matchups and potential championship games. You could even break those down into subdivisions. Like the Big Ten East could have 2 divisions of 5 (Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan) and you could do something where one year Big East Div A plays all the teams in their division and then all the teams in West Division B. So say Colorado was that last team for the West. IU would play all the teams in their subdivision (4 games) and then play all the teams in the West "Pacific" division (UCLA, USC, Washington, Oregon, Colorado) for a total of 9 games. Then you have the top teams in each division square off for a chance to play for the Big Chapionship.

Yeah, I think that is almost what you have to do at this point. The SEC is going to push hard for the Florida ACC schools. It is going to be a race to 20 teams. The SEC is picking up a bunch of good football programs but they are keeping themselves a regional conference. The Big Ten's play is as I mentioned earlier is to get 6 teams (mainly from the Pac 12 and 1 or 2 from what is left of the Big 12) and then create a Big 10 East and a Big Ten West. You compete with the SEC by being a national brand while they are a regional brand. You could have the Big Ten tournaments and football championships from LA to New York and everywhere in between. And being nakedly selfish, Indianapolis still looks like a really good centralish location for those types of events as well.

I am sure they will find a team to play, but you and I both know that Purdue does not have the same draw in Indianapolis that IU does. So it will be interesting to see what it is replaced with on your end. Purdue usually does go out and grab a Marquette or Arkansas or whatever to fill the schedule and I have no doubt they will do that to replace this event. I just don't see that being a draw in Indianapolis so you are probably looking at a home and home replacement IMO.

He is going to miss the IU provided welfare and an opportunity for Purdue to play in the state capitol every year. None of those other teams has ever shown that they can be the anchor for that type of event in Indianapolis. Purdue tried with the Blockbuster and that is gone. Indiana can still get good competition to come play in Indianapolis. They don't need the other 3 to pull off and Indy event, the other 3 do need IU though. I have always said that if you pulled IU from that event and replaced them with a team like Ball State, that the event would fall apart. Conversely, you could replace any of the other 3 and it would still be viable because Indiana.

Your last paragraph is something I was thinking too, I think OSU is one of the few BIG programs in football to embrace that SEC culture as well. I think the "bag man" culture is going to give way to the NIL culture and that should level the playing field back to the historic programs who have not been performing historically lately but have the big fanbases. Notre Dame and Michigan are two programs that could really improve themselves in that regard. Additionally, I know football is king now but I could see its popularity wane over the next few decades with the injury issues the sport has.

What has hurt the BIG is two programs basically no showing for the past 10 to 20 years. Michigan in football and Indiana in basketball.

In the context of the convo, yeah. The SEC doing well in this draft is not necessarily a trend and much like football, that would be driven by the success of 1 team.

Kind of a cherry pick though.

https://thespun.com/pac-12/usc/college-football-world-reacts-to-big-ten-usc-rumors/amp?fbclid=IwAR1gQDOAS62GODRK6RH0wx23aZwQ0BTLwpf_dVQOS6jnpbs_V8VhokYHUcE Appears there are talks happening...

Yes, and there are more markets to poach from the PAC 12. Phoenix is one of the largest markets in the country. Grab Arizona. A&M is leary of Texas being in the SEC, poach them to add Texas. Then with those last 2 spots you look at Oregon, Washington, Kansas, Ga. Tech, and Notre Dame and see who you can get to fill them. Then you have a Big Ten East and a Big Ten West. Having 2 divisions of 10 that play each other mostly but face off in Championships yearly would be a good way to keep things somewhat normal. Adding Kansas and Iowa St. doesn't do much of anything. Poaching the Pac 12 and A&M would make the Big Ten a truly national conference while the SEC is regional. And with 2 10 team divisions, you could still keep the divisions fairly regional (at least in the case of the east which Indiana would be solidly in). Is this the way I want to see things go? No. But it is happening and I want the BIG to be positioned as well as possible because that is what is best for IU.

Money. Think of all the money the BTN pumped into schools like IU. Then take into account NIL. If you are a program in THE mega conference that is getting conference network money along with ESPN/CBS/Fox etc. type of money (and exposure) you are going to have a leg up on everyone.

Possibly? Not like we have not played out west during the preseason before.

It is coming, might as well get schools that make IU money. And if we add 6 and make it a BIG10 East/West type of scenario, then you would hardly ever play those western teams. Edit: Also, from an IU perspective, we want the B10 to remain strong. Look where Kansas is falling on those lists, see how often Duke gets brought up as a desirable add, we would not fair well in a huge realignment that blew up the Big 10.

Arizona, USC/UCLA, and a Texas team expand your brand to some of the biggest markets the BIG is not in yet.

Get in A&M's ear and bring in Oklahoma State as well. Then you have 2 8 team divisions, Big Ten East and West. Get to 20 teams and the Big Ten name still makes sense. Add USC, UCLA, Arizona, and Kansas and maybe have a Big Ten West that is USC, UCLA, Arizona, Kansas, A&M, Ok. St., Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and then an East that is everyone else.

Sounds like A&M was not consulted about adding Texas. Maybe we try and steal them and add Kansas. And if we push for 20 go for Notre Dame, Virginia, UNC, and Clemson.

That would be horrible for Indiana at the moment if we are being honest. Yes our football team may be on the rise but would you bet a conference spot on that? And our basketball program has been mediocre at best for 2 decades.

So they would destroy everything else for football. Good plan.

Haven't seen the kid play but the measurables look good. Trust in Woody.

I don't think there is much of a market for this to be honest. Look at the NBA's numbers. They are the pinnacle of their sport and it is not like the NBA is appointment TV. I mean, if the kid can get a million at 16, you do you man. However, I just don't see long term sustainability for a league paying that kind of money to high school kids to play basketball. There is only a short window in the summer where they would not be competing with more popular alternatives. Why watch these semi pros when the NBA is available? Why watch these guys you have no connection to when your Alma Mater or state school is available? Why watch this when the NFL and college football are available? Only the most diehard sports fans are going to be looking for something like this and it will only be when a whole host of other options is not available. That does not scream "league capable of inking $1 million deals with 16 year olds and staying viable" to me.

And put their names on them. Just completely go in a different direction than our norm.

I think 2 things worked against Roberts: 1. What type of recruits was he getting relationships with and bringing in under Miller. And 2. How has our big man development (particularly TJD) gone since he was here? Fair or not for both of those questions, the answers are not really pretty for Mike IMO.

Sign me up for your newsletter.

I think we talked past each other. Yes, the value is there IF the school is attached. Which is what I said. We have a clear cut case of their value without the school attached in the G League for all but the top 25 or so players each year. And on average that is about $35k a year. Someone used TJD as an example up above. With Twitter followers and such he is worth about $120k a year. However, without an Indiana University fanbase and hype machine around him, what is he worth if he was just playing for a team like the Mad Ants in Fort Wayne? "He is the next big thing for the Pacers!!!" Cool, ask Triple A baseball players what that ends up being worth. My point was not that colleges would not be trying to pay guys or get them money through the NIL. I believe that will happen, particularly with the NIL. However, I think a bunch of people are in denial about the players' value when not attached to one of these big schools. If you did away with the NCAA and had a minor league system like baseball, the Zion Williamsons of the world would go straight to the pros and guys like TJD would languish in a minor league system gaining little attention outside their small geographic footprint. IU is the draw more than any one player because in college the players are not around long enough to be the draw, particularly the uber talented ones.