November 20, 2025 • 43 mins
On this episode, Alex Bozich is joined by Zach Osterman of The Indianapolis Star to discuss early takeaways from the 2025-26 IU basketball season and the Big Ten's flirtation with private equity.
Support Inside the Hall and Podcast on the Brink with a donation: https://www.insidethehall.com/recommends/donate-to-inside-the-hall/
Subscribe to Peacock to watch Indiana men’s and women’s basketball: https://www.insidethehall.com/recommends/peacock (affiliate link)
Subscribe to B1G+ to watch Indiana men’s and women’s basketball: https://www.insidethehall.com/recommends/big-ten-plus/ (affiliate link)
Buy IU basketball tickets at Vivid Seats: https://www.insidethehall.com/recommends/vivid-seats (affiliate link)
Support Inside the Hall and Podcast on the Brink with a donation: https://www.insidethehall.com/recommends/donate-to-inside-the-hall/
Subscribe to Peacock to watch Indiana men’s and women’s basketball: https://www.insidethehall.com/recommends/peacock (affiliate link)
Subscribe to B1G+ to watch Indiana men’s and women’s basketball: https://www.insidethehall.com/recommends/big-ten-plus/ (affiliate link)
Buy IU basketball tickets at Vivid Seats: https://www.insidethehall.com/recommends/vivid-seats (affiliate link)
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Welcome back to another episode of Podcast on the Brink
Thursday and November twentieth.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Indiana Basketball.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
It's going to be an action later this evening against
linden Wood at Assembly Hall. Not expecting that to be
much of a game looking at the kind of the
analytics leading into that one. Anywhere from twenty nine to
thirty point favorite for Indiana in that game. So not
going to focus too much on that game, or really
any specific game for IU. But today's guest Zach Austin.
(00:47):
I have the Indian Apple Star before.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
We get to Zach.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
If you enjoy the show, please leave us a rating
and review over on Apple Podcast or Spotify. And if
you watch the show on YouTube. Recently just asked nine
thousand subscribers on YouTube, so keep hitting that like button.
Subscribing really helps us grow the reach of the channel,
so we appreciate your support there. Zach, Welcome back to
the show. Haircut looks nice, sweatshirt looks nice. You've had
(01:15):
a bye week, club, big big week for you, bye week,
but the work hasn't stopped. I assume with everything going
on with football basketball. Well, you've been in Bloomington some
for or another for for quite a while now, I
don't know exactly what what was your freshman year at IU.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Two thousand and five, Okay, so twenty years with one
year away.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
Did you ever anticipate that there would be a situation
where IU football would be in this this spot.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
No, I mean not not this spot. I think there was.
You know, when you watch, certainly when you you recognize
the investment Fred Glass and then scottdlton're putting into the program,
and you watched so of the success that Kevin Wilson
and Tom Allen had, you thought, well, Indiana, there is
a formula there for Indiana to be okay in football,
especially when Indiana finally got to shed the Big Ten
(02:14):
East and not have to play Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State,
and and at that time anyway, Michigan State, because I
think people forget Michigan State was I mean a national
for a run of about seven or eight years at least,
Michigan State was as much of a Big ten powerhouse
as any of those other three programs. Traditionally that once
(02:37):
Indiana kind of got out from under the thumb of
that that there would be years. You know, we thought
last year would be one where the schedule was set up,
set up favorally. Maybe they win eight or nine games,
get to a nice ball, maybe build some recruiting momentum,
but you know, to have to have gone this far
in uh in the the the winning direction is is
(02:59):
I think something nobody really saw it coming, not just
for Indiana, but you know, I think we could have
maybe not to quite the extreme, but a similar conversation
about Texas Tech, about Ole miss about Vanderbilt. I mean,
this is you know, this is a this is kind
of a function of modern college football in a lot
of ways, but Indiana is I think the example and
(03:22):
extremists of it. And so that's why, you know, maybe
Indiana winds up kind of being the the the banner
that everybody flies for geez, look a look at what's
possible here in this modern age.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Yeah, it kind of speaks to just how the rest
of the countries looking at this. I opened up ESPN
dot com the other day and there was a story
paraphrasing the headline, but it's like identifying the next Kurt
Signetti from the coaching pool this spring. So it kind
of just gives you an idea of how remarkable this
turnaround has been. Been a lot of fun to watch, obviously, Zach,
(03:58):
you cover it much closer than I do. But want
to talk to you about AU basketball right now because
the Hoosiers are four and o likely moving to five
and oh tonight when they play London Wood. You've been
at I think most of these early season games exhibitions.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
What what?
Speaker 1 (04:16):
What are your takeaways so far from from watching this
team play. The Marquette win obviously opened some eyes, but
as we've watched Marquette here a little bit more recently, recently,
they've faltered, losing it home to Maryland. I believe they
also lost at home to Dayton, so I'm not quite
sure how good of a team they are, but impressive win. Nonetheless,
Indiana's won most of their games pretty convincingly. Had what
(04:38):
I kind of wrote was maybe a good experience against
Incarnate Word to get some actual game pressure and not
just win a game by thirty points like they're likely
going to do tonight. But just curious for your big
picture takeaways from from watching this team early in the season.
You were obviously down in Puerto Rico as well.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Yeah, I mean it's funny like I and I'm looking
up here at their kimpon profile while we're talking, and
I know I'm going to have to eat these words
at some point because it's impossible for a team to
be fully formed on November twentieth. But it does feel
like a lot of the terms of you know, sort
of this team's path to success and failure have kind
(05:19):
of in set already, Like we know how they win.
I think we can recognize how they lose. Obviously, we
haven't seen them lose yet. They won all three games
in Puerto Rico, they won both exhibitions, therefore no in
the regular season. But you know, you can see how
they lose when they face a team that's maybe got
that athletic advantage on them, certainly a team that can
really punish them with extra possessions because of their inability
(05:42):
to rebound the ball consistently. And also just you know,
that Incarnate Word game was a reminder that a team
that wants to build its offense around shooting a lot
of threes is gonna every once in a while live
on the extreme end of the variance curve, and you
know that's going to be sometimes they're gonna hit eighteen
(06:03):
threes and you know, blowout Illinois and Champagne or something
like that. You know, I'm obviously making this up, but
they're you know, they're gonna go to Kentucky and they're
just gonna wipe Kentucky away because they make so many
threes that Kentucky just can't keep up. And it completely
defines the complexion of the game. And Indiana wins, and
then there are gonna be some games that they lose.
You know, and if you look at Incarnate word, you
(06:25):
recognize me. Even at home where they get good shots,
maybe not great shots. Darren devreesaid he didn't think necessarily
they were all great looks, but a lot of them
were good looks at least, and they just don't go
in because if you're you know, the the the the
Maybe Indiana fans have forgotten this over time, but the
(06:46):
the the sort of risk and reward of the three
pointer is pretty obvious. They're harder to make, but they
get you more points. And and I think in modern basketball,
if you know, especially the way Indiana wants to play,
you know, the risk reward is that that when you
start to struggle scoring, the other stuff creeps in. Right,
(07:06):
Like I mean, Indiana was defending really well in the
first half. I think they only gave up nineteen points
in the first half against Incarnate Word. But then the
shots keep you know, bouncing rem and off, missing, left, whatever,
and suddenly Indian it's not rebounding as well. Suddenly Indiana
it's not defending as well. Suddenly Indiana's maybe you know,
not taking away the spots on the floor. Incarnate Word
wants to get to score. But the flip side is
(07:30):
it's not just about the raw making of the threes.
You look back at that Marquette game, like, yes, Marquette
is now lost to Maryland and Dayton, but it lost
to Maryland by seven, and it lost to Dayton in
overtime by six. It lost to Indiana by one hundred
or super very excuse me, by by twenty three, giving
up one hundred, and a big part of that was
because every time Marquette looked like it was getting a
(07:52):
foothold in the game, Indiana just made another couple of threes.
And obviously that was kind of at the extreme end
in that game, which it was. You know, six of
those threes each came from Lamar Wilkerson and Tucker DeVries.
Only two other players hit a three. But like that's
what this team is capable of, and that's you know,
That's why I say, you know, I think we can
recognize sort of what works for Indiana what doesn't, and
(08:15):
also just that every once in a while, this team
is going to do something either very very good or
very frustratingly bad, simply because if you're gonna live on
you know, the the sort of three point side of
the line, there are gonna be nights when when the
outcome variance is kind of extreme.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
You were in port Rico, so you saw Josh Harris
play a little bit, you saw Reestitch play. Obviously, Jason Drake,
we have not seen. One of the big questions I have,
just as the schedule maybe toughens up a little bit
and the games start to take on a little bit
more meaning, is the depth of this team. Obviously we
know there's not going to be some big front court
(08:58):
piece that's out there that's going to come and provide
rem protection or shot blocking anything more than what they
have now. But I'm curious of those three pieces to
what you know and what you've been able to observe.
To me, it feels like just looking at the status
from last year in the experience level, it feels like
Jason Drake is somewhat pivotal to kind of get back
(09:20):
in the rotation or to get something from him as
another guard, another ball handler. I think he shot thirty
nine percent on threes last year. But I'm curious of
those three guys, which of them do you feel like
has the biggest chance to make an impact on this team?
And do you think they need they need to get
another rotation guy going in there, because it kind of
(09:42):
feels like right now, Josiah Miles's friend rotation depending on
the game, and we've seen a little bit of Nick
Dorn and you can kind of see where he potentially
fits in. But I feel like they're going to need
at least one of those three players to come through
and be a reliable rotation piece if nothing else.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Yeah, I think I think there's kind of two answers
to that question. Number one, I think one of the
two point guards, I think you need one more, you know,
sort of. I know you'll put the ball on Tucker
Divree's hands, I know you'll put the ball on Lamar
Wilkerson's hands, But I think you need one more to
find sort of ball handler that's my role. That's what
I'm comfortable with. That's how I grew up in the game.
(10:21):
You know, you mentioned Drake, and he's obviously got the
experience in college. I would say for Restitch like he
is twenty. I think a lot of people don't realize,
like a lot of these kids coming over from Europe
are a little older. They're not seventeen eighteen, they're usually
more like nineteen twenty. So he's at least got a
significant amount of experience, and he's you know, he was
playing against professionals for a while over in Serbia. When
(10:44):
we saw him in Puerto Rico, I was really impressed,
especially given that I think he joined the team like
two days before they left. And you know, Darren DeVries
said then like I'm calling out plays and having to
check myself because I remember he doesn't know what they are.
And yet he did not look at all lost. He
didn't look tentative, he didn't look uncomfortable running the offense,
(11:06):
which Indiana needed a lot because the other thing that
you know, I think you need a third ball handler
for kind of the obvious reasons. I would really stress
a third ball handler because Connor and Wright and taking
Connorway are both like really important to the way you're
going to defend, which means they're going to be nights
when they get in foul trouble. You know, we saw
(11:26):
them both get in foul trouble in Puerto Rico. That's
why we saw so much of research down there already.
You know, this season it's an obviously an early sample size,
but Connor Enwright is averaging five point four fouls per
forty minutes. You know, I think the foul numbers will
come down a little bit. I think, you know, we
see this a lot where they decide to overemphasize something
in the off season and then you know, after a
(11:48):
month or two, it just kind of gets abandoned and
the foul numbers kind of, you know, average out. But
I think you need if we're talking positional, I think
you need one more ball handler to just be able
to give you ten at least ten to twelve minutes
a night of kind of letting one of Connorway or
in right always be resting on the bench and you know,
(12:10):
having just sort of another steady hand if anybody's ever
in foul trouble. Honestly, the other thing I think you
would really like. And this is where, not knowing these timelines,
you wonder if Indiana is going to get it, because
it is already November twentieth. I think the other thing
you'd really like is to get a couple guys back,
simply so in some of these, you know, some of
these blowout games, Lendon would attune Cookman and Chicago State.
(12:35):
You know, you maybe don't have to play your starters
so much like if we're talking, if we're looking at
the advanced numbers, like Tucker Devriez is already playing eighty
percent of available minutes, Lamar Wilkerson's almost seventy seven, Taton
Connorway is over seventy four. You know, like you'd love
it if because this is the time of year where
you can take games in minutes out of their leg right.
(12:55):
You're not going to do that in February. You're not
going to do that in March. And you know it
if you get healthy by I don't know januine I'm
looking at just to picking out a date on the
calendar January tenth, which is when Indiana hosts Nebraska. Then
you know, sure in theory that's great, but by that point,
(13:17):
your your rotation is probably pretty defined. A lot of
your roles are are pretty settled. You're not going to
try and you know, sort of upend the rhythm that
your team is if you know, if you're Darren Derees
ideally in by that point just to sort of say,
let's go steal some minutes. Now, obviously, you can hope
that maybe you win a few of these big ten
(13:37):
games kind of heavy at home. I'm looking at like
a you know, maybe like a Washington or a Penn
State or something like that, but like those aren't you
can't bank on that. You can't just sort of assume that.
And I think that's that's where if you could get
one or two of these guys back kind of in
(13:57):
the mix within maybe then couple of weeks, you could
also just take some minutes out of the legs of
your more experienced players. Because it is worth remembering in general,
this team season started a lot earlier. They were they
had ten full practices in the summer. They played five
exhibition games overall, instead of the usual three. And I
(14:19):
know that Thereese practices tend to be a little bit
you know, more sort of streamlined and efficient. You know,
they don't tend to be on thee the floor for
more than like ninety minutes at a time, sometimes less
than that, but still it just you know, if we're
talking about the long tail impact of fatigue, I think
the other reason you would like to get healthy sooner
rather than later is simply so in some of these
(14:42):
games where you should be able to steal minutes out
of guy's leg, you actually have the personnel to do it. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
I was looking at that two game stretch right before
Christmas Chicago State and CNA. You would hope if if
Drake or Reese is just going to come back and
play a meaningful role, I think you at least want
to have them back before those games and give them
a chance to could act them. But even tonight's game,
I know we're not talking about guys coming back, but
tonight you look at a team that just lost to
(15:08):
Alabama A and M, a team that Indiana beat handily
in the season opener. Lyndon would lost on Alabama A
and M by nine in this last game. Tonight's a
game where you know, Indiana could you know, get a
little rest from some of these guys maybe and get
some more minutes from guys like you know, Nick Dorn,
Josiah Miles, even get the walk Ons in there late
like they did in those couple of early early games
(15:30):
in the season. So just the last thing I wanted
to ask you about on this topic is have your
expectations for this team and all changed based on what
you've seen so far. You're kind of still in the
wait and see mode. I know you picked them middle
of the pack in the Big Ten and you look
at obviously their analytics have gone up because this coaching
(15:51):
staff kind of understands the value of running up the
score on some of these lesser opponents. It does have
some meaning when you come out and beat team by
twenty five thirty points like you're supposed to, it helps
boost your numbers.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
And we've seen some Big Ten teams.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
I looked early in the week and did a post
just kind of highlighting the movement of some of these
teams and the analytics since the start of the season,
and by no means of these final numbers, and they're
going to move a lot by seasons in. But it's
it's good to have that base where you are moving
up rather than moving down and having to play catch
up later in the year. But I'm just kind of
(16:25):
curious big picture, if anything you've seen so far changes
your expectations feelings on where this team could end up
ultimately by seasons in Yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Mean I think I had a night in the in
the preseason either eight or ninth. And right now and
ken Palm, they're the seventh highest rated team in the conference.
So I mean, like that's not a tremendous departure. Now
it's we're saying they are top twenty five and kN Palm,
I think they started maybe at thirty eight or forty. Yeah,
even with the incarnate word, you know, kind of I'm
not sure i'd call it a scare. But even you know,
(16:56):
winning that game by less than what the computer models expected,
you know, Indiana is still a top twenty five team.
I do always believe, and no one can convince me
of this. Nobody really can convince me otherwise. I do
believe these models can be fooled by scoring, and I
like I think they and I'm kind of fine with that,
Like basketball is an offensive game, Like I'm sorry. You know,
(17:18):
years ago, I got a chance to be part of
the lunch with Bob Ryan and he said he was
talking about how much he hated coaches that preached defense
first in basketball. He said, no kid ever goes out
and defends the game winning shot his driveway at night.
Like you said, it is a game that is inherently offensive.
Edge offense should be encouraged. And so I'm not even
really complaining about the idea that I think, you know,
(17:38):
some of these models can be influenced by a team
that just scores efficiently and a lot, even if sometimes
that's that comes with some sacrifice at the other end
of the floor. That said, I mean, frankly, my impression
of this team has changed a little bit for the
positive because they have they have a combination of traits
(18:02):
that in my experience, and it's very early on, I
understand that. But listen, you know, incarnate words just inside
of the top two hundred and Ken Palm Milwaukee was
picked to win its conference, like those are at least
like those are the best of the bad opponents you
could be playing in games like that, right, Like you know,
if that makes sense, and then whatever Marquette's done or
not done, I mean, one hundred points on a neutral
(18:24):
floor against the Big East team, is is that that
is not nothing? Teams that can score the ball in
a lot of different ways through a number of different
players that shoot it really well, that know how to
create those shots and don't make a lot of sort
(18:44):
of self created mistakes, tend to have a really high floor.
You know, like if you think about like what wins
in the in the NCAA tournament, it's not wasting possessions,
whether with bad shots or turnovers. It's being able to
pivot to multiple leading scores. You know, go go look
(19:06):
at any successful instead of a tournament runs. Sometimes yes
it's Walter Clayton, but like a lot more often it's
that a team has two or three players and they
they sort of like one in the in the you know,
the first round, it's this guy, and in the second round,
this guy stets up and whatever this team has that
(19:26):
I think they have the ability to hit threes, and
you know, you don't want to live on those. And
that's why maybe I wonder how high this team ceiling
is when you couple that to you know what, I
think are going to remain defensive issues for most of
the year, just because of roster construct and and and
choices that Darren DeVries had to make when he was
(19:46):
pulling an entirely new roster together. But like, to me,
the the stuff that really marks out this team is successful.
Tens to be pretty high floor basketball, like I mean,
you know, I mean, like we've all made a lot
of Creighton comparisons. They obviously play at a different pace,
(20:10):
but it kind of reminds me Wisconsin too. Like Wisconsin,
you know, Wisconsin just does not does not you know,
sort of self destruct. Wisconsin creates and makes a lot
of good shots. Wisconsin is very tough to beat at home.
And that means that like wherever the ceiling is on
a Wisconsin team, the floor is always pretty high, right
(20:33):
like under Greg Guard and obviously before him, Bill Ryan,
this team has a lot of that quality to it.
And so I think, you know, I think when the
season started they were projected at either seventeen or eighteen
wins in Ken Palm. They got up to twenty two
projected wins. Very quickly, they're back down to twenty one.
(20:53):
I presumably because of the incarnate word game. But you
know it, I mean it really I I really would
not be shocked if this is a team that can
win you know, maybe maybe twenty two games, maybe eleven
or like like twelve in conference and just kind of
just be a really good, solid team that starts to
(21:14):
put a lot of proof of concept of what Darreen
Devrees wants to do, what he can do on the floor,
to kind of show future transfers, future recruits, et cetera.
You know, moving forward, I think this team is certainly
and not like I was, you know, forming hard and
fast opinions of this team back in the summer, because
(21:36):
you knew they were going to improve. But you and
I were both at that open practice in July, and man,
they looked rough, you know what I mean, Like, especially defensively.
They were struggling. And I don't mean struggling like they
did in the second half against the incarrent World. I
mean struggling and that was against what like walk On's
you know, managers gas like, you know, that was that
(21:57):
was a problem. The the improvement from then to now
makes me think that there is a higher ceiling for
this team and that it wouldn't be unreasonable to think
that they can finish in the top eight of the
Big Ten, which means comfortably in the NCAA tournament and
you know, maybe win twenty one to twenty two, maybe
(22:18):
even twenty three games in the regular season, and then
you know from there, it depends on your draw it
depends on how well you shoot the ball. But teams
that do with this team, you know, through what we've
seen so far does well, tend to at least make
the second weekend a lot of the time, and so
I think it. I think this is I'm certainly more
bullish on this group than I probably was, you know,
(22:42):
going back into July and August.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Yeah, it also helps that they have just a ton
of experienced guys, a lot of seniors, guys that have
played a lot of minutes, a lot of starts, scored
a lot of points. Tucker to Braze is the leading
active scoring off college basketball. Lamar Wilkerson was one of
the best three point shooters and score ors in all
the country less your Connor in Wright's had a ton
of reps read malely.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
I mean, the list goes on.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
All these guys have played a lot of minutes and
have a lot of experience, and it'll be interesting to
kind of see how it all plays out. Last thing
I wanted to talk to you about because you've written
a lot about it. I've been reading as much as
I can about it, just because I think it's fascinating.
Is the Big Ten's flirtation with whatever you want, however
you want to call whatever you want to call it
(23:24):
private equity, private capital.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
I think the people who.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
Are maybe in favor of the dealer are calling it
private capital because of the negative connotation that sometimes private
equity brings. But just the Big Ten, what's going on
with everything there? Just as easily as you can in
the cliff Notes version for those maybe maybe who haven't
followed it, What is the driving factors behind the Big
(23:52):
Ten kind of seeking this outside money? What are the
potential implications, and kind of where do you things stand
right now with this because it sounded like maybe.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Prior to this week there was.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
Some momentum to move forward without a couple of schools,
and now it seems like that might not be the
case until everyone's on board. I know it's a lot
to unpack, but you know, I think it's something that
you've obviously studied pretty closely written about. I've told you personally,
you know, I thought you did a really good job
with the column that you wrote about it, just in
terms of assessing the risk and maybe why might not
be a good idea, But I'm just kind of curious
(24:28):
for the listeners and maybe for those who haven't followed it,
kind of what your thoughts are on everything going on
there and a big picture of what it means for
the league.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
Yeah, there are a lot of layers to it. So
I guess the what first is the Big Ten. All conferences,
virtually all, even the ones that say they aren't are
almost certainly lying, have been exploring the idea of private
capital and an infusion of immediate money, like money up
(25:00):
front for some kind of partnership or you know, I mean,
for lack of a more artful term ownership within the
league moving forward. The Big Ten was the first school
to really like move this to the front burner. They
(25:21):
My understanding was actually that there were a few proposals,
but the one they settled on was a two point
four billion dollar cash infusion capital infusion from the investment
arm of the University of California pension system or in
retirement fund or whatever they kind of call themselves, the
investment arm of that. And people who might not know this,
(25:43):
like when you put money into your retirement, people are
investing that, like people are, and that's why your retirement
like mine has been going down the last few days,
like you know you, that's why it goes up and down.
The investment arm of that fund is called you see investments.
In the proposal was that the use investments would hand
(26:04):
the Big ten a two point four billion dollar capital
infusion in exchange for I think it was a ten
percent share of an entity that the Big ten is
going to wants to create called Big Ten Enterprises, which
basically is going to become like the financial clearinghouse for
all the money the Big ten makes. And that's going
to be like your media rights. I assume your bowl
(26:26):
revenues going there, because the Big ten is always split
playoff in bowl revenues evenly. But the Big Ten's argument
is even kind of the idea that, you know it,
all these different brands within the conference negotiate so many
of their own commercial partnerships, so many of their own
sort of marketing deals. Well, what if we were offering
(26:47):
Big ten wide, like, could we not get more money
for everyone if we bundled all those brands together and
we said we're negotiating on behalf of the Big ten.
And history tells us that the answer is yes. You know,
when the NCUABLEA a million years ago unilaterally controlled television
rights in college football, it actually made more money than,
(27:11):
at least initially, at least in the immediate aftermath, than
what the individual school started making when they sued, it
took the ncaat Spring Court and got the Supring Court
to say the NCAA was was exercising an unfair monopoly
on TV rights. Like in the late nineteen eighties, all
the schools that wanted their TV rights to be able
to negotiate their their own TV rights at a school
(27:33):
or conference level found they lost money because their brands
individually were less were less valuable than what the NCUBA
was able to sort of do when it packaged the
entirety of college football together. So like the idea behind
Big ten Enterprise, Big ten enterprises at least in very works,
and what the UC investments would do is they would
(27:56):
commit to a minimum fifteen year term and they would
get I believe it is a ten percent share of
annual revenues out of Big ten enterprises, and then the
rest would go to the schools. And the belief the
Big ten's argument is we get this capital infusion now
because everyone needs money for a whole host of reasons,
(28:17):
and we can talk about that if you know, in
a minute, But we also create this entity that makes
everyone more money even while we're paying our private capital
partner and the Big ten has been it pains to
say that it's not private equity because there's no debt involved.
You see, Investments is not owed a minimum amount of
(28:38):
money per year. You know, you and I were talking
about this before coming on air, Like, you see, investments
isn't a bank loan and you have to pay the
agreed amount annually regardless of how much money you made that.
You know. That's that the Big Ten's not on the
hook for a set amount, no matter whether that the
you know, the money's great or the money's bad. You see,
(29:00):
Investments is just betting on the idea, like if you
were a silent partner in a restaurant or something. You see,
Investments is just betting on the idea that they would
see return on their investment in the form of you know,
greater revenues over that fifteen year period than the two
point four billion that they would put in up front.
(29:21):
The how in this is basically that ten percent stake
to you see investments, and then the big ten carved out.
If I'm remembering the number correctly, Michigan, Ohio State, and
Penn State would get five point five percent annually each
Oregon in USC I think we'd get five and everyone
else would get four point nine. Now that's caused some
consternation within the conference, but by and large most of
(29:45):
the most of the schools have signed off on it.
I think there's been some kind of like, you know, oh,
we really is you know, invaluable to the conference as Rutgers,
but like most everyone is behind it. The why in
the is number one? Everyone needs the money? The do
every Does everyone need it? Or does I mean even
(30:06):
Ohio State is running a budget deficit? Is my understanding
Like I mean it because I mean this is a
horrible metaphor that I keep using. Like we can we
can certainly single out all the entities that should have
seen these financial challenges coming ten years ago when Ed
O'Bannon won his lawsuit. We should have, you know, we
should have started saving for a rainy day. We should
(30:28):
have carved out for the idea that eventually we were
going to have to pay athletes and what it was
going to look like. But you know, at this point
in time, we can either argue about who broke the
plane or we can try and fix it before it crashes.
Because you know, these athletics departments have you know, some
of them have tremendous debts. Some of them have tremendous
debt service. And when you are when you were funneling
(30:52):
twenty point five million dollars of your budget into rev
share and then probably I would guess annually for a
competitive school at least another ten to twelve maybe fifteen
million in donor dollars to nil, you know needs like
think about thirty million. Think about taking thirty million dollars
(31:12):
a year out of your budget. Well, what do you
think that thirty million dollars was doing well over a
let's say a you know, over a twenty year period,
thirty million dollars a year would have pay down a
new five hundred million uh dollar football stadium for example.
You know, I did something with Bloomington Press Club with
our good friend Mike Nys Like yesterday I said, I
think I think one of the next real financial challenges
(31:34):
for a lot of these schools is these stadiums are
going to start getting old, and there's not really a
public utility argument for using taxpayer dollars in a lot
of cases to pay to either fix or replace them. Well,
what are you going to do then, because you know
suddenly you're strapped for cash, you have to pay players.
I mean, we can have conversations about coaching salaries going up.
Whatever the point is, in the near term, everyone needs
(31:57):
this money. And in the long term, enough people in
conference are convinced that the big ten enterprises piece will
make them more money annually, that will that essentially that
you know, Michigan, I think a Michigan a member of
the Michigan Board of Regents called this a payday loan.
I think I think, you know sort of critics or
those on the other side of the argument would say no,
(32:20):
because we believe that not only am we getting this
money up front, but also being able to create this
big ten enterprises piece is going to make us more
money annually down the line. Now, why you need private
capital to create big ten enterprises? Maybe that's another conversation.
The other big why is that this deal comes with
a ten year extension of the grant of rights, which
(32:41):
is an agreement that all of the conference's schools sign
granting their rights as universities, you know, as brands, to
be marketed, to be put on television, to be you know,
to be packaged into a media rights deal, things like that.
They grant those rights over to the Big Ten. And
(33:02):
anyone who has followed all of the drama and the
acc the last few years will know the grant of
rights is essentially as much as any one thing the
legal force that binds a conference together. And so if
you are anybody other than Michigan, Ohio State, or USC,
there's probably a real value in trying to lock all
(33:23):
of the big schools that might one day if some
super conference developed somewhere want to break away and leave
the Big Ten into another ten years in the conference,
make it much more difficult for them to get out.
There are two big objectors to this. One is Michigan,
which I think probably that grant of rights concerned they
(33:43):
would look at and say, do we really need that?
You know everyone, I mean that we are in a
position of great power to sort of say no to that.
There's also some political stuff there. I think it's probably
fair to say that people at Michigan aren't thrilled with
the way Tony Pettiti kind of handled the whole Connor
(34:04):
Stallion's scandal, and we don't need to get too much
into that today, but there is there are some political
elements to this. His best I can read it, and
maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but as best I can read it,
USC's objection is just that they think they that if
they if they're going to enter into this, they just
think they should get more money from it. I think
the more fundamental objections are just that Number one, you know,
(34:27):
there's this promise that you see investments will stand for
a minimum of fifteen years, and they've said, we see
this as a one hundred year investment. That's easy to say,
but history tells us private capital, private equity, whatever you
want to call it, it creeps and eventually the creek
becomes destructive. And I also just think, you know, when
you start fracturing the conference for money, other conferences have
(34:50):
done that. The PAC twelve has done that, the ACC
has done that. History tells us when you start doing that,
when you start compromising on you know, sort of harmony
and togetherness, especially at a time when the Big Ten
is probably less culturally bound than it's ever been, you
(35:11):
know less just sort of like bound by cultural ties
and and and shared common sort of worldview than it's
ever been. If you start creating intentional division in the
name of cash, I think that the outcomes there don't
feel good. Like if you start to play the potential
outcomes through to their conclusions, none of them are that encouraging.
(35:35):
So is this going to happen? Use the investments actually
press pause on it. This week they released a statement
saying that basically that they I mean, they were more
artful than this, but basically just saying they're not comfortable
moving forward until the Big ten is like completely on board,
which makes sense. They're they're the ones putting this money
(35:58):
up up front that essentially values the Big Ten is
a full brand at twenty four billion dollars. That's what
they're buying into. They don't want to buy in if
they think that brand is somehow becoming more volatile because
of this deal. So I can understand from their perspective
why they would want to to sort of take a beat,
take a pause, and try to get everyone on the
(36:20):
same page. It will be interesting because, particularly at Michigan,
there seems to be some very sort of direct and discernible.
I don't know, like like basically opposition to this, like
I think like I think it's some of it is
(36:40):
just the politics, but I think some of it is
truly like philosophical, philosophical disagreement with this. And then there
is the congressional element of it too. Maria Cantwell as
a Democratic Senator from Washington, which it's worth pointing out
is a big ten state. She's also from Indianapolis. I
know that she is in the halls of Congress, or
(37:00):
at least in the halls of Indiana's other Senate offices.
I think, I think respectfully referred to as Indiana's third Senator.
At times, she has she has been pretty bullish about
sports reform. She's on the Commerce Committee, which is where
any kind of college sports reform bill would pass in
(37:21):
the Senate. Ted Cruz is the chair of that committee,
so anything that goes through that committee has to be
approved by Ted Cruz. But it is worth saying Maria
Campwell has been pretty outspoken about a lot of this stuff,
and she is the one that has kind of led
the charge for the idea that if you if a
conference starts doing things like taking on private capital, then
maybe we need to re examine their tax exempt status,
(37:44):
and that would obviously dramatically change the conversation around this,
because if university athletic departments have to start paying taxes
on all their revenues, that that becomes a lot more
complicated very quickly. So the point is there are a
lot of layers to this. That was like a ten
minute answer. I'm sorry, but it's a I mean it is.
(38:08):
There are a lot of reasons for this. There are
a lot of various reasons for the objections to this.
You know, is it possible this winds up being if
it goes through, Is it possible it winds up being
a good thing? Yes, I will freely admit that there
it is possible this winds up being a forward thinking,
positive financial development in college sports. But the land mines
(38:30):
are many, and some of them are substantial, and I
just don't I think it is It is difficult to
look at this deal and what you would have to
compromise to get it done and not feel like that
price would be too high.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
Is there still a feasible path forward for the Big
ten as it's currently constructed? If there isn't, this infusion
of cash. Is it Is it a dire situation right now?
Speaker 2 (38:57):
Or yeah? I mean it depends on where you are.
I mean, like you see l I might tell you yes,
I believe at one point their their debt ran past
fifty million dollars, you know, I mean, I think you
could start to see some some difficult decisions made around
like cutting sports for example, in certain places. You know,
(39:18):
that has kind of been the red line. Now listen,
I say that's been the red line the you know,
complaining about that red line while paying coaches ten million
dollars a year. You know, I understand why people might
might blanche at that. But there is like just a
very difficult sort of hypocrisy to square in all of this.
(39:40):
And I talked about this at Bloomington Press Club yesterday too, Like,
we don't want to reduce sports two dollars and cents
and balance sheets, and we don't want to think that
you know, that that private capital is the answer. But
then we also, you know, we want athletics departments to
(40:02):
behave not like businesses, because if they behaved purely like businesses,
they would only sponsor two sports, because there are only
two sports that make money with the With a few
exceptions in women's basketball, baseball probably volleyball, there are only
two sports that genuinely generate any revenue in the average
college athletics department, even at the highest levels. So it's
(40:26):
hard to say, don't take that money. We want you
to operate like a at least a semi amateur, you know,
college athletics department, but then also say, but we want
you to do it at a time when the finances
have never been trickier. Like it's it's like it's a
(40:47):
I mean, that is a that is a philosophical square
to circle that is very difficult because there's kind of
like not a right answer to that and also therefore
not really a wrong one. Like if your athletics director
is saying, I want to take this money because I
don't want to cut sports, then you know, I mean,
(41:08):
it's hard to it's hard to say, no, don't take
the money, but you also can't cut the sports, and
it's and it's and it's equally hard to say, you know,
don't pay the coach ten million dollars a year, but
don't you better not lose them to Penn State, right,
Like it's I mean, this is this is the natural
tension that exists in college.
Speaker 3 (41:27):
That doesn't exist in the pros, which is, we want
these entities to run themselves like responsible businesses while making
what would be in the business world very irresponsible business decisions.
Speaker 2 (41:40):
And I'm not advocating for cutting sports, far from it.
I'm just pointing out if you want college sports to
be what people have come to want college sports to be,
you know that this is kind of the trade off.
Is like, like I said, don't pay the coach ten
million dollars a year. Okay, Well, then what are you
going to say when the coach leaves because someone else
(42:02):
will don't cut sports? All right? Well what are you
going to say when the solution is to get this
big infusion of private capital. I mean it like it
is a difficult conversation to have, and it's all politics
are short term and everybody acts in their own best interest,
so we're never going to get some kind of consensus
on how to you know, everybody sort of take a
(42:24):
bath to do the right thing for the long term
interest of the sport. But you know, it's it's like
people who argue for stuff like this aren't totally wrong.
It's just it's about weighing the costs and the benefits,
and it does feel in this case like the costs
(42:48):
are too heavy. But maybe I'm wrong.
Speaker 1 (42:52):
Yeah, it would be fascinating to see how it all
shakes out. I think you've written a great deal about it. Continue.
I'm sure you'll continue to follow it.
Speaker 2 (42:58):
Right about it.
Speaker 1 (42:59):
Make sure to check out all of Zach's work over
at indie star dot com. Also listen to this podcast.
Minor Banners and Mike do a terrific job, have a
lot of fun though. You guys have done some live
shows around Blowington as well, so continued success on that.
Keep up the great work, Zach. Thanks for joining us
on this week's episode of Podcast on the Brink.
Speaker 2 (43:21):
Thanks for having me. It's always always fun to jump
in and catch up. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
Thanks to our listeners for joining us on this week's
episode of Podcast on the Brank. As I mentioned at
the top, if you enjoyed the show, please leave us
star rating and review over on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
For watching on YouTube, like the video, subscribe to the
channel as we attempt to climb to ten thousand subscribers.
Going to be a long journey to get there as
we just passed nine thousand, but every subscriber along the
(43:49):
way helps us, so thanks for your continued support and
we'll be back soon with another episode of Podcast on
the braink
Welcome back to another episode of Podcast on the Brink
Thursday and November twentieth.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Indiana Basketball.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
It's going to be an action later this evening against
linden Wood at Assembly Hall. Not expecting that to be
much of a game looking at the kind of the
analytics leading into that one. Anywhere from twenty nine to
thirty point favorite for Indiana in that game. So not
going to focus too much on that game, or really
any specific game for IU. But today's guest Zach Austin.
(00:47):
I have the Indian Apple Star before.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
We get to Zach.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
If you enjoy the show, please leave us a rating
and review over on Apple Podcast or Spotify. And if
you watch the show on YouTube. Recently just asked nine
thousand subscribers on YouTube, so keep hitting that like button.
Subscribing really helps us grow the reach of the channel,
so we appreciate your support there. Zach, Welcome back to
the show. Haircut looks nice, sweatshirt looks nice. You've had
(01:15):
a bye week, club, big big week for you, bye week,
but the work hasn't stopped. I assume with everything going
on with football basketball. Well, you've been in Bloomington some
for or another for for quite a while now, I
don't know exactly what what was your freshman year at IU.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Two thousand and five, Okay, so twenty years with one
year away.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
Did you ever anticipate that there would be a situation
where IU football would be in this this spot.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
No, I mean not not this spot. I think there was.
You know, when you watch, certainly when you you recognize
the investment Fred Glass and then scottdlton're putting into the program,
and you watched so of the success that Kevin Wilson
and Tom Allen had, you thought, well, Indiana, there is
a formula there for Indiana to be okay in football,
especially when Indiana finally got to shed the Big Ten
(02:14):
East and not have to play Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State,
and and at that time anyway, Michigan State, because I
think people forget Michigan State was I mean a national
for a run of about seven or eight years at least,
Michigan State was as much of a Big ten powerhouse
as any of those other three programs. Traditionally that once
(02:37):
Indiana kind of got out from under the thumb of
that that there would be years. You know, we thought
last year would be one where the schedule was set up,
set up favorally. Maybe they win eight or nine games,
get to a nice ball, maybe build some recruiting momentum,
but you know, to have to have gone this far
in uh in the the the winning direction is is
(02:59):
I think something nobody really saw it coming, not just
for Indiana, but you know, I think we could have
maybe not to quite the extreme, but a similar conversation
about Texas Tech, about Ole miss about Vanderbilt. I mean,
this is you know, this is a this is kind
of a function of modern college football in a lot
of ways, but Indiana is I think the example and
(03:22):
extremists of it. And so that's why, you know, maybe
Indiana winds up kind of being the the the banner
that everybody flies for geez, look a look at what's
possible here in this modern age.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Yeah, it kind of speaks to just how the rest
of the countries looking at this. I opened up ESPN
dot com the other day and there was a story
paraphrasing the headline, but it's like identifying the next Kurt
Signetti from the coaching pool this spring. So it kind
of just gives you an idea of how remarkable this
turnaround has been. Been a lot of fun to watch, obviously, Zach,
(03:58):
you cover it much closer than I do. But want
to talk to you about AU basketball right now because
the Hoosiers are four and o likely moving to five
and oh tonight when they play London Wood. You've been
at I think most of these early season games exhibitions.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
What what?
Speaker 1 (04:16):
What are your takeaways so far from from watching this
team play. The Marquette win obviously opened some eyes, but
as we've watched Marquette here a little bit more recently, recently,
they've faltered, losing it home to Maryland. I believe they
also lost at home to Dayton, so I'm not quite
sure how good of a team they are, but impressive win. Nonetheless,
Indiana's won most of their games pretty convincingly. Had what
(04:38):
I kind of wrote was maybe a good experience against
Incarnate Word to get some actual game pressure and not
just win a game by thirty points like they're likely
going to do tonight. But just curious for your big
picture takeaways from from watching this team early in the season.
You were obviously down in Puerto Rico as well.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Yeah, I mean it's funny like I and I'm looking
up here at their kimpon profile while we're talking, and
I know I'm going to have to eat these words
at some point because it's impossible for a team to
be fully formed on November twentieth. But it does feel
like a lot of the terms of you know, sort
of this team's path to success and failure have kind
(05:19):
of in set already, Like we know how they win.
I think we can recognize how they lose. Obviously, we
haven't seen them lose yet. They won all three games
in Puerto Rico, they won both exhibitions, therefore no in
the regular season. But you know, you can see how
they lose when they face a team that's maybe got
that athletic advantage on them, certainly a team that can
really punish them with extra possessions because of their inability
(05:42):
to rebound the ball consistently. And also just you know,
that Incarnate Word game was a reminder that a team
that wants to build its offense around shooting a lot
of threes is gonna every once in a while live
on the extreme end of the variance curve, and you
know that's going to be sometimes they're gonna hit eighteen
(06:03):
threes and you know, blowout Illinois and Champagne or something
like that. You know, I'm obviously making this up, but
they're you know, they're gonna go to Kentucky and they're
just gonna wipe Kentucky away because they make so many
threes that Kentucky just can't keep up. And it completely
defines the complexion of the game. And Indiana wins, and
then there are gonna be some games that they lose.
You know, and if you look at Incarnate word, you
(06:25):
recognize me. Even at home where they get good shots,
maybe not great shots. Darren devreesaid he didn't think necessarily
they were all great looks, but a lot of them
were good looks at least, and they just don't go
in because if you're you know, the the the the
Maybe Indiana fans have forgotten this over time, but the
(06:46):
the the sort of risk and reward of the three
pointer is pretty obvious. They're harder to make, but they
get you more points. And and I think in modern basketball,
if you know, especially the way Indiana wants to play,
you know, the risk reward is that that when you
start to struggle scoring, the other stuff creeps in. Right,
(07:06):
Like I mean, Indiana was defending really well in the
first half. I think they only gave up nineteen points
in the first half against Incarnate Word. But then the
shots keep you know, bouncing rem and off, missing, left, whatever,
and suddenly Indian it's not rebounding as well. Suddenly Indiana
it's not defending as well. Suddenly Indiana's maybe you know,
not taking away the spots on the floor. Incarnate Word
wants to get to score. But the flip side is
(07:30):
it's not just about the raw making of the threes.
You look back at that Marquette game, like, yes, Marquette
is now lost to Maryland and Dayton, but it lost
to Maryland by seven, and it lost to Dayton in
overtime by six. It lost to Indiana by one hundred
or super very excuse me, by by twenty three, giving
up one hundred, and a big part of that was
because every time Marquette looked like it was getting a
(07:52):
foothold in the game, Indiana just made another couple of threes.
And obviously that was kind of at the extreme end
in that game, which it was. You know, six of
those threes each came from Lamar Wilkerson and Tucker DeVries.
Only two other players hit a three. But like that's
what this team is capable of, and that's you know,
That's why I say, you know, I think we can
recognize sort of what works for Indiana what doesn't, and
(08:15):
also just that every once in a while, this team
is going to do something either very very good or
very frustratingly bad, simply because if you're gonna live on
you know, the the sort of three point side of
the line, there are gonna be nights when when the
outcome variance is kind of extreme.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
You were in port Rico, so you saw Josh Harris
play a little bit, you saw Reestitch play. Obviously, Jason Drake,
we have not seen. One of the big questions I have,
just as the schedule maybe toughens up a little bit
and the games start to take on a little bit
more meaning, is the depth of this team. Obviously we
know there's not going to be some big front court
(08:58):
piece that's out there that's going to come and provide
rem protection or shot blocking anything more than what they
have now. But I'm curious of those three pieces to
what you know and what you've been able to observe.
To me, it feels like just looking at the status
from last year in the experience level, it feels like
Jason Drake is somewhat pivotal to kind of get back
(09:20):
in the rotation or to get something from him as
another guard, another ball handler. I think he shot thirty
nine percent on threes last year. But I'm curious of
those three guys, which of them do you feel like
has the biggest chance to make an impact on this team?
And do you think they need they need to get
another rotation guy going in there, because it kind of
(09:42):
feels like right now, Josiah Miles's friend rotation depending on
the game, and we've seen a little bit of Nick
Dorn and you can kind of see where he potentially
fits in. But I feel like they're going to need
at least one of those three players to come through
and be a reliable rotation piece if nothing else.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Yeah, I think I think there's kind of two answers
to that question. Number one, I think one of the
two point guards, I think you need one more, you know,
sort of. I know you'll put the ball on Tucker
Divree's hands, I know you'll put the ball on Lamar
Wilkerson's hands, But I think you need one more to
find sort of ball handler that's my role. That's what
I'm comfortable with. That's how I grew up in the game.
(10:21):
You know, you mentioned Drake, and he's obviously got the
experience in college. I would say for Restitch like he
is twenty. I think a lot of people don't realize,
like a lot of these kids coming over from Europe
are a little older. They're not seventeen eighteen, they're usually
more like nineteen twenty. So he's at least got a
significant amount of experience, and he's you know, he was
playing against professionals for a while over in Serbia. When
(10:44):
we saw him in Puerto Rico, I was really impressed,
especially given that I think he joined the team like
two days before they left. And you know, Darren DeVries
said then like I'm calling out plays and having to
check myself because I remember he doesn't know what they are.
And yet he did not look at all lost. He
didn't look tentative, he didn't look uncomfortable running the offense,
(11:06):
which Indiana needed a lot because the other thing that
you know, I think you need a third ball handler
for kind of the obvious reasons. I would really stress
a third ball handler because Connor and Wright and taking
Connorway are both like really important to the way you're
going to defend, which means they're going to be nights
when they get in foul trouble. You know, we saw
(11:26):
them both get in foul trouble in Puerto Rico. That's
why we saw so much of research down there already.
You know, this season it's an obviously an early sample size,
but Connor Enwright is averaging five point four fouls per
forty minutes. You know, I think the foul numbers will
come down a little bit. I think, you know, we
see this a lot where they decide to overemphasize something
in the off season and then you know, after a
(11:48):
month or two, it just kind of gets abandoned and
the foul numbers kind of, you know, average out. But
I think you need if we're talking positional, I think
you need one more ball handler to just be able
to give you ten at least ten to twelve minutes
a night of kind of letting one of Connorway or
in right always be resting on the bench and you know,
(12:10):
having just sort of another steady hand if anybody's ever
in foul trouble. Honestly, the other thing I think you
would really like. And this is where, not knowing these timelines,
you wonder if Indiana is going to get it, because
it is already November twentieth. I think the other thing
you'd really like is to get a couple guys back,
simply so in some of these, you know, some of
these blowout games, Lendon would attune Cookman and Chicago State.
(12:35):
You know, you maybe don't have to play your starters
so much like if we're talking, if we're looking at
the advanced numbers, like Tucker Devriez is already playing eighty
percent of available minutes, Lamar Wilkerson's almost seventy seven, Taton
Connorway is over seventy four. You know, like you'd love
it if because this is the time of year where
you can take games in minutes out of their leg right.
(12:55):
You're not going to do that in February. You're not
going to do that in March. And you know it
if you get healthy by I don't know januine I'm
looking at just to picking out a date on the
calendar January tenth, which is when Indiana hosts Nebraska. Then
you know, sure in theory that's great, but by that point,
(13:17):
your your rotation is probably pretty defined. A lot of
your roles are are pretty settled. You're not going to
try and you know, sort of upend the rhythm that
your team is if you know, if you're Darren Derees
ideally in by that point just to sort of say,
let's go steal some minutes. Now, obviously, you can hope
that maybe you win a few of these big ten
(13:37):
games kind of heavy at home. I'm looking at like
a you know, maybe like a Washington or a Penn
State or something like that, but like those aren't you
can't bank on that. You can't just sort of assume that.
And I think that's that's where if you could get
one or two of these guys back kind of in
(13:57):
the mix within maybe then couple of weeks, you could
also just take some minutes out of the legs of
your more experienced players. Because it is worth remembering in general,
this team season started a lot earlier. They were they
had ten full practices in the summer. They played five
exhibition games overall, instead of the usual three. And I
(14:19):
know that Thereese practices tend to be a little bit
you know, more sort of streamlined and efficient. You know,
they don't tend to be on thee the floor for
more than like ninety minutes at a time, sometimes less
than that, but still it just you know, if we're
talking about the long tail impact of fatigue, I think
the other reason you would like to get healthy sooner
rather than later is simply so in some of these
(14:42):
games where you should be able to steal minutes out
of guy's leg, you actually have the personnel to do it. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
I was looking at that two game stretch right before
Christmas Chicago State and CNA. You would hope if if
Drake or Reese is just going to come back and
play a meaningful role, I think you at least want
to have them back before those games and give them
a chance to could act them. But even tonight's game,
I know we're not talking about guys coming back, but
tonight you look at a team that just lost to
(15:08):
Alabama A and M, a team that Indiana beat handily
in the season opener. Lyndon would lost on Alabama A
and M by nine in this last game. Tonight's a
game where you know, Indiana could you know, get a
little rest from some of these guys maybe and get
some more minutes from guys like you know, Nick Dorn,
Josiah Miles, even get the walk Ons in there late
like they did in those couple of early early games
(15:30):
in the season. So just the last thing I wanted
to ask you about on this topic is have your
expectations for this team and all changed based on what
you've seen so far. You're kind of still in the
wait and see mode. I know you picked them middle
of the pack in the Big Ten and you look
at obviously their analytics have gone up because this coaching
(15:51):
staff kind of understands the value of running up the
score on some of these lesser opponents. It does have
some meaning when you come out and beat team by
twenty five thirty points like you're supposed to, it helps
boost your numbers.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
And we've seen some Big Ten teams.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
I looked early in the week and did a post
just kind of highlighting the movement of some of these
teams and the analytics since the start of the season,
and by no means of these final numbers, and they're
going to move a lot by seasons in. But it's
it's good to have that base where you are moving
up rather than moving down and having to play catch
up later in the year. But I'm just kind of
(16:25):
curious big picture, if anything you've seen so far changes
your expectations feelings on where this team could end up
ultimately by seasons in Yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Mean I think I had a night in the in
the preseason either eight or ninth. And right now and
ken Palm, they're the seventh highest rated team in the conference.
So I mean, like that's not a tremendous departure. Now
it's we're saying they are top twenty five and kN Palm,
I think they started maybe at thirty eight or forty. Yeah,
even with the incarnate word, you know, kind of I'm
not sure i'd call it a scare. But even you know,
(16:56):
winning that game by less than what the computer models expected,
you know, Indiana is still a top twenty five team.
I do always believe, and no one can convince me
of this. Nobody really can convince me otherwise. I do
believe these models can be fooled by scoring, and I
like I think they and I'm kind of fine with that,
Like basketball is an offensive game, Like I'm sorry. You know,
(17:18):
years ago, I got a chance to be part of
the lunch with Bob Ryan and he said he was
talking about how much he hated coaches that preached defense
first in basketball. He said, no kid ever goes out
and defends the game winning shot his driveway at night.
Like you said, it is a game that is inherently offensive.
Edge offense should be encouraged. And so I'm not even
really complaining about the idea that I think, you know,
(17:38):
some of these models can be influenced by a team
that just scores efficiently and a lot, even if sometimes
that's that comes with some sacrifice at the other end
of the floor. That said, I mean, frankly, my impression
of this team has changed a little bit for the
positive because they have they have a combination of traits
(18:02):
that in my experience, and it's very early on, I
understand that. But listen, you know, incarnate words just inside
of the top two hundred and Ken Palm Milwaukee was
picked to win its conference, like those are at least
like those are the best of the bad opponents you
could be playing in games like that, right, Like you know,
if that makes sense, and then whatever Marquette's done or
not done, I mean, one hundred points on a neutral
(18:24):
floor against the Big East team, is is that that
is not nothing? Teams that can score the ball in
a lot of different ways through a number of different
players that shoot it really well, that know how to
create those shots and don't make a lot of sort
(18:44):
of self created mistakes, tend to have a really high floor.
You know, like if you think about like what wins
in the in the NCAA tournament, it's not wasting possessions,
whether with bad shots or turnovers. It's being able to
pivot to multiple leading scores. You know, go go look
(19:06):
at any successful instead of a tournament runs. Sometimes yes
it's Walter Clayton, but like a lot more often it's
that a team has two or three players and they
they sort of like one in the in the you know,
the first round, it's this guy, and in the second round,
this guy stets up and whatever this team has that
(19:26):
I think they have the ability to hit threes, and
you know, you don't want to live on those. And
that's why maybe I wonder how high this team ceiling
is when you couple that to you know what, I
think are going to remain defensive issues for most of
the year, just because of roster construct and and and
choices that Darren DeVries had to make when he was
(19:46):
pulling an entirely new roster together. But like, to me,
the the stuff that really marks out this team is successful.
Tens to be pretty high floor basketball, like I mean,
you know, I mean, like we've all made a lot
of Creighton comparisons. They obviously play at a different pace,
(20:10):
but it kind of reminds me Wisconsin too. Like Wisconsin,
you know, Wisconsin just does not does not you know,
sort of self destruct. Wisconsin creates and makes a lot
of good shots. Wisconsin is very tough to beat at home.
And that means that like wherever the ceiling is on
a Wisconsin team, the floor is always pretty high, right
(20:33):
like under Greg Guard and obviously before him, Bill Ryan,
this team has a lot of that quality to it.
And so I think, you know, I think when the
season started they were projected at either seventeen or eighteen
wins in Ken Palm. They got up to twenty two
projected wins. Very quickly, they're back down to twenty one.
(20:53):
I presumably because of the incarnate word game. But you
know it, I mean it really I I really would
not be shocked if this is a team that can
win you know, maybe maybe twenty two games, maybe eleven
or like like twelve in conference and just kind of
just be a really good, solid team that starts to
(21:14):
put a lot of proof of concept of what Darreen
Devrees wants to do, what he can do on the floor,
to kind of show future transfers, future recruits, et cetera.
You know, moving forward, I think this team is certainly
and not like I was, you know, forming hard and
fast opinions of this team back in the summer, because
(21:36):
you knew they were going to improve. But you and
I were both at that open practice in July, and man,
they looked rough, you know what I mean, Like, especially defensively.
They were struggling. And I don't mean struggling like they
did in the second half against the incarrent World. I
mean struggling and that was against what like walk On's
you know, managers gas like, you know, that was that
(21:57):
was a problem. The the improvement from then to now
makes me think that there is a higher ceiling for
this team and that it wouldn't be unreasonable to think
that they can finish in the top eight of the
Big Ten, which means comfortably in the NCAA tournament and
you know, maybe win twenty one to twenty two, maybe
(22:18):
even twenty three games in the regular season, and then
you know from there, it depends on your draw it
depends on how well you shoot the ball. But teams
that do with this team, you know, through what we've
seen so far does well, tend to at least make
the second weekend a lot of the time, and so
I think it. I think this is I'm certainly more
bullish on this group than I probably was, you know,
(22:42):
going back into July and August.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Yeah, it also helps that they have just a ton
of experienced guys, a lot of seniors, guys that have
played a lot of minutes, a lot of starts, scored
a lot of points. Tucker to Braze is the leading
active scoring off college basketball. Lamar Wilkerson was one of
the best three point shooters and score ors in all
the country less your Connor in Wright's had a ton
of reps read malely.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
I mean, the list goes on.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
All these guys have played a lot of minutes and
have a lot of experience, and it'll be interesting to
kind of see how it all plays out. Last thing
I wanted to talk to you about because you've written
a lot about it. I've been reading as much as
I can about it, just because I think it's fascinating.
Is the Big Ten's flirtation with whatever you want, however
you want to call whatever you want to call it
(23:24):
private equity, private capital.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
I think the people who.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
Are maybe in favor of the dealer are calling it
private capital because of the negative connotation that sometimes private
equity brings. But just the Big Ten, what's going on
with everything there? Just as easily as you can in
the cliff Notes version for those maybe maybe who haven't
followed it, What is the driving factors behind the Big
(23:52):
Ten kind of seeking this outside money? What are the
potential implications, and kind of where do you things stand
right now with this because it sounded like maybe.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Prior to this week there was.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
Some momentum to move forward without a couple of schools,
and now it seems like that might not be the
case until everyone's on board. I know it's a lot
to unpack, but you know, I think it's something that
you've obviously studied pretty closely written about. I've told you personally,
you know, I thought you did a really good job
with the column that you wrote about it, just in
terms of assessing the risk and maybe why might not
be a good idea, But I'm just kind of curious
(24:28):
for the listeners and maybe for those who haven't followed it,
kind of what your thoughts are on everything going on
there and a big picture of what it means for
the league.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
Yeah, there are a lot of layers to it. So
I guess the what first is the Big Ten. All conferences,
virtually all, even the ones that say they aren't are
almost certainly lying, have been exploring the idea of private
capital and an infusion of immediate money, like money up
(25:00):
front for some kind of partnership or you know, I mean,
for lack of a more artful term ownership within the
league moving forward. The Big Ten was the first school
to really like move this to the front burner. They
(25:21):
My understanding was actually that there were a few proposals,
but the one they settled on was a two point
four billion dollar cash infusion capital infusion from the investment
arm of the University of California pension system or in
retirement fund or whatever they kind of call themselves, the
investment arm of that. And people who might not know this,
(25:43):
like when you put money into your retirement, people are
investing that, like people are, and that's why your retirement
like mine has been going down the last few days,
like you know you, that's why it goes up and down.
The investment arm of that fund is called you see investments.
In the proposal was that the use investments would hand
(26:04):
the Big ten a two point four billion dollar capital
infusion in exchange for I think it was a ten
percent share of an entity that the Big ten is
going to wants to create called Big Ten Enterprises, which
basically is going to become like the financial clearinghouse for
all the money the Big ten makes. And that's going
to be like your media rights. I assume your bowl
(26:26):
revenues going there, because the Big ten is always split
playoff in bowl revenues evenly. But the Big Ten's argument
is even kind of the idea that, you know it,
all these different brands within the conference negotiate so many
of their own commercial partnerships, so many of their own
sort of marketing deals. Well, what if we were offering
(26:47):
Big ten wide, like, could we not get more money
for everyone if we bundled all those brands together and
we said we're negotiating on behalf of the Big ten.
And history tells us that the answer is yes. You know,
when the NCUABLEA a million years ago unilaterally controlled television
rights in college football, it actually made more money than,
(27:11):
at least initially, at least in the immediate aftermath, than
what the individual school started making when they sued, it
took the ncaat Spring Court and got the Supring Court
to say the NCAA was was exercising an unfair monopoly
on TV rights. Like in the late nineteen eighties, all
the schools that wanted their TV rights to be able
to negotiate their their own TV rights at a school
(27:33):
or conference level found they lost money because their brands
individually were less were less valuable than what the NCUBA
was able to sort of do when it packaged the
entirety of college football together. So like the idea behind
Big ten Enterprise, Big ten enterprises at least in very works,
and what the UC investments would do is they would
(27:56):
commit to a minimum fifteen year term and they would
get I believe it is a ten percent share of
annual revenues out of Big ten enterprises, and then the
rest would go to the schools. And the belief the
Big ten's argument is we get this capital infusion now
because everyone needs money for a whole host of reasons,
(28:17):
and we can talk about that if you know, in
a minute, But we also create this entity that makes
everyone more money even while we're paying our private capital
partner and the Big ten has been it pains to
say that it's not private equity because there's no debt involved.
You see, Investments is not owed a minimum amount of
(28:38):
money per year. You know, you and I were talking
about this before coming on air, Like, you see, investments
isn't a bank loan and you have to pay the
agreed amount annually regardless of how much money you made that.
You know. That's that the Big Ten's not on the
hook for a set amount, no matter whether that the
you know, the money's great or the money's bad. You see,
(29:00):
Investments is just betting on the idea, like if you
were a silent partner in a restaurant or something. You see,
Investments is just betting on the idea that they would
see return on their investment in the form of you know,
greater revenues over that fifteen year period than the two
point four billion that they would put in up front.
(29:21):
The how in this is basically that ten percent stake
to you see investments, and then the big ten carved out.
If I'm remembering the number correctly, Michigan, Ohio State, and
Penn State would get five point five percent annually each
Oregon in USC I think we'd get five and everyone
else would get four point nine. Now that's caused some
consternation within the conference, but by and large most of
(29:45):
the most of the schools have signed off on it.
I think there's been some kind of like, you know, oh,
we really is you know, invaluable to the conference as Rutgers,
but like most everyone is behind it. The why in
the is number one? Everyone needs the money? The do
every Does everyone need it? Or does I mean even
(30:06):
Ohio State is running a budget deficit? Is my understanding
Like I mean it because I mean this is a
horrible metaphor that I keep using. Like we can we
can certainly single out all the entities that should have
seen these financial challenges coming ten years ago when Ed
O'Bannon won his lawsuit. We should have, you know, we
should have started saving for a rainy day. We should
(30:28):
have carved out for the idea that eventually we were
going to have to pay athletes and what it was
going to look like. But you know, at this point
in time, we can either argue about who broke the
plane or we can try and fix it before it crashes.
Because you know, these athletics departments have you know, some
of them have tremendous debts. Some of them have tremendous
debt service. And when you are when you were funneling
(30:52):
twenty point five million dollars of your budget into rev
share and then probably I would guess annually for a
competitive school at least another ten to twelve maybe fifteen
million in donor dollars to nil, you know needs like
think about thirty million. Think about taking thirty million dollars
(31:12):
a year out of your budget. Well, what do you
think that thirty million dollars was doing well over a
let's say a you know, over a twenty year period,
thirty million dollars a year would have pay down a
new five hundred million uh dollar football stadium for example.
You know, I did something with Bloomington Press Club with
our good friend Mike Nys Like yesterday I said, I
think I think one of the next real financial challenges
(31:34):
for a lot of these schools is these stadiums are
going to start getting old, and there's not really a
public utility argument for using taxpayer dollars in a lot
of cases to pay to either fix or replace them. Well,
what are you going to do then, because you know
suddenly you're strapped for cash, you have to pay players.
I mean, we can have conversations about coaching salaries going up.
Whatever the point is, in the near term, everyone needs
(31:57):
this money. And in the long term, enough people in
conference are convinced that the big ten enterprises piece will
make them more money annually, that will that essentially that
you know, Michigan, I think a Michigan a member of
the Michigan Board of Regents called this a payday loan.
I think I think, you know sort of critics or
those on the other side of the argument would say no,
(32:20):
because we believe that not only am we getting this
money up front, but also being able to create this
big ten enterprises piece is going to make us more
money annually down the line. Now, why you need private
capital to create big ten enterprises? Maybe that's another conversation.
The other big why is that this deal comes with
a ten year extension of the grant of rights, which
(32:41):
is an agreement that all of the conference's schools sign
granting their rights as universities, you know, as brands, to
be marketed, to be put on television, to be you know,
to be packaged into a media rights deal, things like that.
They grant those rights over to the Big Ten. And
(33:02):
anyone who has followed all of the drama and the
acc the last few years will know the grant of
rights is essentially as much as any one thing the
legal force that binds a conference together. And so if
you are anybody other than Michigan, Ohio State, or USC,
there's probably a real value in trying to lock all
(33:23):
of the big schools that might one day if some
super conference developed somewhere want to break away and leave
the Big Ten into another ten years in the conference,
make it much more difficult for them to get out.
There are two big objectors to this. One is Michigan,
which I think probably that grant of rights concerned they
(33:43):
would look at and say, do we really need that?
You know everyone, I mean that we are in a
position of great power to sort of say no to that.
There's also some political stuff there. I think it's probably
fair to say that people at Michigan aren't thrilled with
the way Tony Pettiti kind of handled the whole Connor
(34:04):
Stallion's scandal, and we don't need to get too much
into that today, but there is there are some political
elements to this. His best I can read it, and
maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but as best I can read it,
USC's objection is just that they think they that if
they if they're going to enter into this, they just
think they should get more money from it. I think
the more fundamental objections are just that Number one, you know,
(34:27):
there's this promise that you see investments will stand for
a minimum of fifteen years, and they've said, we see
this as a one hundred year investment. That's easy to say,
but history tells us private capital, private equity, whatever you
want to call it, it creeps and eventually the creek
becomes destructive. And I also just think, you know, when
you start fracturing the conference for money, other conferences have
(34:50):
done that. The PAC twelve has done that, the ACC
has done that. History tells us when you start doing that,
when you start compromising on you know, sort of harmony
and togetherness, especially at a time when the Big Ten
is probably less culturally bound than it's ever been, you
(35:11):
know less just sort of like bound by cultural ties
and and and shared common sort of worldview than it's
ever been. If you start creating intentional division in the
name of cash, I think that the outcomes there don't
feel good. Like if you start to play the potential
outcomes through to their conclusions, none of them are that encouraging.
(35:35):
So is this going to happen? Use the investments actually
press pause on it. This week they released a statement
saying that basically that they I mean, they were more
artful than this, but basically just saying they're not comfortable
moving forward until the Big ten is like completely on board,
which makes sense. They're they're the ones putting this money
(35:58):
up up front that essentially values the Big Ten is
a full brand at twenty four billion dollars. That's what
they're buying into. They don't want to buy in if
they think that brand is somehow becoming more volatile because
of this deal. So I can understand from their perspective
why they would want to to sort of take a beat,
take a pause, and try to get everyone on the
(36:20):
same page. It will be interesting because, particularly at Michigan,
there seems to be some very sort of direct and discernible.
I don't know, like like basically opposition to this, like
I think like I think it's some of it is
(36:40):
just the politics, but I think some of it is
truly like philosophical, philosophical disagreement with this. And then there
is the congressional element of it too. Maria Cantwell as
a Democratic Senator from Washington, which it's worth pointing out
is a big ten state. She's also from Indianapolis. I
know that she is in the halls of Congress, or
(37:00):
at least in the halls of Indiana's other Senate offices.
I think, I think respectfully referred to as Indiana's third Senator.
At times, she has she has been pretty bullish about
sports reform. She's on the Commerce Committee, which is where
any kind of college sports reform bill would pass in
(37:21):
the Senate. Ted Cruz is the chair of that committee,
so anything that goes through that committee has to be
approved by Ted Cruz. But it is worth saying Maria
Campwell has been pretty outspoken about a lot of this stuff,
and she is the one that has kind of led
the charge for the idea that if you if a
conference starts doing things like taking on private capital, then
maybe we need to re examine their tax exempt status,
(37:44):
and that would obviously dramatically change the conversation around this,
because if university athletic departments have to start paying taxes
on all their revenues, that that becomes a lot more
complicated very quickly. So the point is there are a
lot of layers to this. That was like a ten
minute answer. I'm sorry, but it's a I mean it is.
(38:08):
There are a lot of reasons for this. There are
a lot of various reasons for the objections to this.
You know, is it possible this winds up being if
it goes through, Is it possible it winds up being
a good thing? Yes, I will freely admit that there
it is possible this winds up being a forward thinking,
positive financial development in college sports. But the land mines
(38:30):
are many, and some of them are substantial, and I
just don't I think it is It is difficult to
look at this deal and what you would have to
compromise to get it done and not feel like that
price would be too high.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
Is there still a feasible path forward for the Big
ten as it's currently constructed? If there isn't, this infusion
of cash. Is it Is it a dire situation right now?
Speaker 2 (38:57):
Or yeah? I mean it depends on where you are.
I mean, like you see l I might tell you yes,
I believe at one point their their debt ran past
fifty million dollars, you know, I mean, I think you
could start to see some some difficult decisions made around
like cutting sports for example, in certain places. You know,
(39:18):
that has kind of been the red line. Now listen,
I say that's been the red line the you know,
complaining about that red line while paying coaches ten million
dollars a year. You know, I understand why people might
might blanche at that. But there is like just a
very difficult sort of hypocrisy to square in all of this.
(39:40):
And I talked about this at Bloomington Press Club yesterday too, Like,
we don't want to reduce sports two dollars and cents
and balance sheets, and we don't want to think that
you know, that that private capital is the answer. But
then we also, you know, we want athletics departments to
(40:02):
behave not like businesses, because if they behaved purely like businesses,
they would only sponsor two sports, because there are only
two sports that make money with the With a few
exceptions in women's basketball, baseball probably volleyball, there are only
two sports that genuinely generate any revenue in the average
college athletics department, even at the highest levels. So it's
(40:26):
hard to say, don't take that money. We want you
to operate like a at least a semi amateur, you know,
college athletics department, but then also say, but we want
you to do it at a time when the finances
have never been trickier. Like it's it's like it's a
(40:47):
I mean, that is a that is a philosophical square
to circle that is very difficult because there's kind of
like not a right answer to that and also therefore
not really a wrong one. Like if your athletics director
is saying, I want to take this money because I
don't want to cut sports, then you know, I mean,
(41:08):
it's hard to it's hard to say, no, don't take
the money, but you also can't cut the sports, and
it's and it's and it's equally hard to say, you know,
don't pay the coach ten million dollars a year, but
don't you better not lose them to Penn State, right,
Like it's I mean, this is this is the natural
tension that exists in college.
Speaker 3 (41:27):
That doesn't exist in the pros, which is, we want
these entities to run themselves like responsible businesses while making
what would be in the business world very irresponsible business decisions.
Speaker 2 (41:40):
And I'm not advocating for cutting sports, far from it.
I'm just pointing out if you want college sports to
be what people have come to want college sports to be,
you know that this is kind of the trade off.
Is like, like I said, don't pay the coach ten
million dollars a year. Okay, Well, then what are you
going to say when the coach leaves because someone else
(42:02):
will don't cut sports? All right? Well what are you
going to say when the solution is to get this
big infusion of private capital. I mean it like it
is a difficult conversation to have, and it's all politics
are short term and everybody acts in their own best interest,
so we're never going to get some kind of consensus
on how to you know, everybody sort of take a
(42:24):
bath to do the right thing for the long term
interest of the sport. But you know, it's it's like
people who argue for stuff like this aren't totally wrong.
It's just it's about weighing the costs and the benefits,
and it does feel in this case like the costs
(42:48):
are too heavy. But maybe I'm wrong.
Speaker 1 (42:52):
Yeah, it would be fascinating to see how it all
shakes out. I think you've written a great deal about it. Continue.
I'm sure you'll continue to follow it.
Speaker 2 (42:58):
Right about it.
Speaker 1 (42:59):
Make sure to check out all of Zach's work over
at indie star dot com. Also listen to this podcast.
Minor Banners and Mike do a terrific job, have a
lot of fun though. You guys have done some live
shows around Blowington as well, so continued success on that.
Keep up the great work, Zach. Thanks for joining us
on this week's episode of Podcast on the Brink.
Speaker 2 (43:21):
Thanks for having me. It's always always fun to jump
in and catch up. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
Thanks to our listeners for joining us on this week's
episode of Podcast on the Brank. As I mentioned at
the top, if you enjoyed the show, please leave us
star rating and review over on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
For watching on YouTube, like the video, subscribe to the
channel as we attempt to climb to ten thousand subscribers.
Going to be a long journey to get there as
we just passed nine thousand, but every subscriber along the
(43:49):
way helps us, so thanks for your continued support and
we'll be back soon with another episode of Podcast on
the braink
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.