Exile on Waveland

Yeah, we are screwed. UCLA is too tough. Wait... I said "tomorrow night" because I meant either UCLA or Georgetown. (UCLA was discussed earlier because of Raisin, but Georgetown did seem like a perfectly built team to take advantage of UCLA's youth.)

Georgia is actually a really bad team. Hulls is a nice college player but yeah.....that's it. Ha, Crean also said Jeremiah Rivers was an NBA player (on senior night). He's a cheerleader.

. . . and that's why some think IU will have serious issues tomorrow night.

Aren't they ranked fairly similar and both above the bottom 4-5 big ten schools? Yeah. They're in the AAU too. Academically, they're fine as a fit. I assume Tim was talking more about the athletic program.

For me, at least, there is some of that gut-level reaction to Rutgers. "Rutgers." Never in my life would I have considered them a Big Ten caliber school/athletic program. (Maryland, yes; my concerns are more geographic and if they are actually the best choice.) It seems so inapposite of the Nebraska expansion.

But that's the heart of my question. Is it just bc UM fans in NYC can't see UM games on the btn and they're going to tune in for the UM v App St rematch that isn't available to them on any of the channels that carries cfb on Saturday? Do they need a "local" team in order to get the btn into TV package? If that's the case, I see it from a financial perspective. I still don't like it overall. It's that UM fans alone (or UM and PSU fans together) aren't enough to get the cable companies to add BTN. Add in Rutgers and you have a fighting chance at saturation. This was always one of the most important points in favor of ND, was getting into the NYC market. Rutgers doesn't need to have a dominant share of the NYC fanbase, it just needs to make enough of a further dent to force the cable companies' hands. Huh. I guess I hope Delaney already has some info that the providers are going to be swayed. Otherwise you've just diluted the conf for nothing. I think it's a near certainty that Delaney has this figured out (otherwise, it's an incredibly myopic leap of faith). Even still, I'm worried about (1) the dilution; and (2) a change in the way media providers assess value.

Yeah. In football you only were able to see four different Big Ten teams play a year anyway (assuming you didn't attend road games). Indiana still hasn't played Nebraska in football in the Big Ten (nor has Nebraska been to Bloomington for basketball). But, for basketball, it's sad to me that some years I'll see Rutgers instead of Illinois or Ohio State or Iowa or whoever.

Agreed. Let's assume the money is right. I'd still rather not have this expansion.

That's the only possible rationale. The TV market thing makes sense in theory, but in practice I'm skeptical. Not to mention that I think either school dilutes the league/brand (meaning, even if the TV market thing is true, I'm still not sure I'd want to add them). Penn State and Nebraska made sense on various levels; this leaves me feeling that the Big Ten is selling its soul. People are leaving the midwest -- it's a demographic shift as much as it is anything else. BTN needs eyeballs and SI's Pete Thamel has speculated that the conference could gain $100M additionally annually from a Rutgers/MD addition. Sure, great. I'm all for eyeballs. I'm just not sold this is anything more than hypothetical eyeballs. As this blog points out, http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/ , Rutgers may be the most popular team in New York City, but with just 600,000 fans; a great comparison is that Nebraska is the most popular team in Omaha, Nebraska, with about 400,000 fans. Rutgers has more football fans than all of three Big Ten teams (Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern). Maryland has less fans than every single Big Ten team. I agree that Rutgers and Maryland are close to huge TV markets; but, at some point, doesn't actually being popular in those TV markets matter? Again, if this leads to $100 million more in revenue based on TV markets, that's great; I just do no understand why it would. Moreover, even if it does for the time being, surely someone eventually will realize that 600,000 fans aren't worth that much. And then the Big Ten will be left with Rutgers -- a team that has gone to less bowl games than Indiana. Less than Indiana!

That's the only possible rationale. The TV market thing makes sense in theory, but in practice I'm skeptical. Not to mention that I think either school dilutes the league/brand (meaning, even if the TV market thing is true, I'm still not sure I'd want to add them). Penn State and Nebraska made sense on various levels; this leaves me feeling that the Big Ten is selling its soul.

Crush? Maybe. But I think the general consensus - or at least it seemed to me - was that Bama was the better team in the first matchup, so them winning was hardly surprising. By that logic, it was silly to think Kansas State would beat a 4-5 Baylor team that can't play defense. I'm not sure why you think your second paragraph supports your argument and not mine. In a sport where blowouts sometimes happen for seemingly no reason, one would think a blowout would be, at least, on the table when: (1) the computers like one team better; (2) the eye test supports that same team; (3) the same team crushed a common opponent on a neutral field while the other team barely beat the common opponent at home; etc. For the record, if Alabama plays Notre Dame, I don't expect a "crushing" because I think Notre Dame's defense is too good for that. I think Alabama by ten-ish points would be likely though. You act as if I say there is no possible set of circumstances under which Alabama would destroy Notre Dame in a football game. That isn't what I said. I said it shouldn't be expected or assumed that they would, which several people seem to be doing. Fair; agree on that, it shouldn't be expected. Alabama isn't some juggernaut -- hey, I won a good deal of money betting that they wouldn't finish undefeated -- and Notre Dame's defense is excellent. But I think Alabama is definitely superior, so I just don't think it's unreasonable for someone to take the information we have now and think Alabama would win big.

He just has to keep working hard. He was a steal for Purdue. I'm pumped about him, Ronnie Johnson, and Simpson. I'm not sold on Davis yet. This year is going to be rough, but Painter brought that on himself with poor recruiting classes in 2 of the last 3 years. 5 freshmen getting significant minutes. Davis has talent, but every time I saw him he was an extreme ball hog. Painter will have to break him of that, if possible, though perhaps there may be room for such a player as of now.

If IU and UCLA do play, I actually expect IU to lose. IU is undersized right now and UCLA is pretty darn huge (including in the backcourt -- while IU can go bigger at guard, they start small). IU currently has one true interior player (a really good one, no doubt) and two players that are hybrid type college forwards (Watford, Hollowell), though Watford has certainly improved his rebounding/interior play.

How in the hell is Gotfried recruiting like this? For Anya, NC State was literally the only team still recruiting him. Indiana dropped out a couple weeks ago, so he didn't really have a choice unless he waited for other teams to recruit him. Why do you think those teams stopped recruiting him? We know IU didn't stop due to scholarship limits. Because, as I said at the time right before his rankings-drop, he's not that good. He has a lot of potential with his size/length, but he's not there yet. Which is why it was so laughable that people thought IU hired an assistant coach just for Anya.

Crush? Maybe. But I think the general consensus - or at least it seemed to me - was that Bama was the better team in the first matchup, so them winning was hardly surprising. By that logic, it was silly to think Kansas State would beat a 4-5 Baylor team that can't play defense. I'm not sure why you think your second paragraph supports your argument and not mine. In a sport where blowouts sometimes happen for seemingly no reason, one would think a blowout would be, at least, on the table when: (1) the computers like one team better; (2) the eye test supports that same team; (3) the same team crushed a common opponent on a neutral field while the other team barely beat the common opponent at home; etc. For the record, if Alabama plays Notre Dame, I don't expect a "crushing" because I think Notre Dame's defense is too good for that. I think Alabama by ten-ish points would be likely though.

Not really. Alabama was basically a better version of that LSU team, and Les Miles is by all accounts a terrible coach. So your argument is that because last year Alabama was a consensus favorite, a blowout wasn't surprising; yet, because this year Alabama would be a consensus favorite, a blowout would be surprising? You can make all the rationalizations you want, but it wouldn't be terribly surprising if, at this time next year, we were saying "Alabama was playing a team that barely beat a crappy Pitt team at home."

It was probably a "misguided idea" to believe Alabama would crush LSU in last year's title game. And yet . . .

He just has to keep working hard. He was a steal for Purdue.

Four years ago, IU lost at home to something called Lipscomb. IU has improved, a bit, since then.

Obvious as judged by whom? It's not much of a rule at that point. http://indiana.rivals.com/content.asp?highlight=oversign&CID=1290835 If pay-walled, the rule -- which is a Big Ten rule, not an NCAA rule, to be clear -- states, "An institution may have no more than 1 initial offer in excess of its institutional limit outstanding at any time." As for interpretation: "Where we get questions is, what standard has to be met?" Big Ten associate commissioner for compliance Chad Hawley said. "What if you had a cut and dried, no-doubt-about-it one and done player, zero chance that player is going to be back? What our advice has been - and it's not a set standard - but the advice has been, if you know with certainty that spot will be available, we will not consider you over-offered if you anticipate that situation. It can come up in different ways: Someone you know is going to turn professional, a situation where a student-athlete had a scholarship awarded and you awarded it to someone who knew they were only going to get it for one year." So...it's not much of a rule at that point. Nope.

This is also hilarious: Indiana has 16 commits for next season. Serious question on that, I understood the Big Ten rule to be you could only oversign by 1? I'm pretty sure Creek doesn't count because a medical redshirt isn't officially approved until it is needed, and so right now his eligibility runs out at the end of this year. But that would still leave IU over by two, and I'm not sure what else they could do to comply with that rule. A school is also able to over-sign if a player will obviously be gone (such as one-and-done's). It's pretty clear that IU would be able to do so with Cody Zeller's spot. Where the other spot is coming from, I have no idea. Obvious as judged by whom? It's not much of a rule at that point. http://indiana.rivals.com/content.asp?highlight=oversign&CID=1290835 If pay-walled, the rule -- which is a Big Ten rule, not an NCAA rule, to be clear -- states, "An institution may have no more than 1 initial offer in excess of its institutional limit outstanding at any time." As for interpretation: "Where we get questions is, what standard has to be met?" Big Ten associate commissioner for compliance Chad Hawley said. "What if you had a cut and dried, no-doubt-about-it one and done player, zero chance that player is going to be back? What our advice has been - and it's not a set standard - but the advice has been, if you know with certainty that spot will be available, we will not consider you over-offered if you anticipate that situation. It can come up in different ways: Someone you know is going to turn professional, a situation where a student-athlete had a scholarship awarded and you awarded it to someone who knew they were only going to get it for one year."

This is also hilarious: Indiana has 16 commits for next season. Serious question on that, I understood the Big Ten rule to be you could only oversign by 1? I'm pretty sure Creek doesn't count because a medical redshirt isn't officially approved until it is needed, and so right now his eligibility runs out at the end of this year. But that would still leave IU over by two, and I'm not sure what else they could do to comply with that rule. A school is also able to over-sign if a player will obviously be gone (such as one-and-done's). It's pretty clear that IU would be able to do so with Cody Zeller's spot. Where the other spot is coming from, I have no idea.

Because these players would have signed to play in Toronto instead of Miami? Dubious.

What about Jon Stewart? You know, without NC around anymore, someone has to pick up the slack. What happened to NC? Is this something I missed? Good developments in his life caused him to have vastly less time to spend online. Cool. Good for him.

What about Jon Stewart? You know, without NC around anymore, someone has to pick up the slack. What happened to NC? Is this something I missed?