Big Ten MBB: Year 2 offers little hope for the West’s quartet as losing and irrelevant

The sample size remains small but no longer small. Not with two seasons, four teams, and 160 games to prove it. Not with all the miles traveled, time zones crossed, and dollars spent. Not with all the losses received.

Life in the Big Ten has been a staple of the Oregon, UCLA, USC and Washington men’s basketball programs that joined the conference in 2024.

That’s not surprising given the preparation and logistics. And that’s no way to pass judgment on their decisions to leave the Pac-12 for the Big Ten. This move was about football and money to the exclusion of all other issues.

But the results on the court are a reason to wonder if their fate will change in the coming years or if the four programs are destined to live in the environment – mediocre records, low NET levels and, at best, a permanent position on the NCAA Tournament bubble.

Their second regular season of conference play ended Saturday night.

Carnage is easy to spot.

UCLA was very successful, producing a 13-7 conference record for the second consecutive season – good for sixth place and second division status.

Oregon finished tied for 15th place, worse (5-15) than last year.

USC? As was the case last season, the Trojans (7-13) ended up tied for 12th place.

Washington joined USC in that spot, an improvement over the Huskies’ last-place finish in their first Big Ten season.

Overall, the quartet is 68-92 in conference play over two seasons.

Only UCLA is seeded at-large in the NCAA Tournament, though the Bruins are closer to the bubble than the seed befitting their culture and reputation. Coach Mick Cronin’s tenure at Westwood looks to have flourished over the years, before the NIL and transfer portals dominated the sport.

Oregon was hampered by injuries. Despite a surprise run to the Big Ten tournament, 67-year-old coach Dana Altman will miss the NCAAs for the third time in five years.

Washington remains in recovery mode as second-year coach Danny Sprinkle struggles to prove he can build a program capable of reaching the NCAAs.

USC is dealing with a seven-game losing streak, a fired star (Chad Baker-Mazara), and a coach (Eric Musselman) looking for answers.

Nationally, they are irrelevant. Regionally, their influence is diminishing. Most of their games are played thousands of miles away, often at odd times on the West Coast. And when it plays at home, it usually catches enemies that are silent and make little noise.

The journey presents a great challenge to all four systems – in both directions.

Cross country can be difficult once. They don’t do it once. They do it four times in conference play, which creates increasing fatigue over the course of a long season.

And when they return home, the quartet sometimes face opponents who have stayed on the West Coast for days and are better rested.

Here’s an example: Washington lost at Illinois and beat Northwestern on a late January road trip, then returned home and had three days before facing Iowa. But because the Hawkeyes were coming off a game in Eugene, they were in the Pacific Northwest longer than UW. Their bodies were better prepared. (Iowa won at Seattle by 10.)

Another challenge: West Coast teams have little advantage on home courts because their stadiums are rarely full and often empty.

Washington averaged 7,712 per conference game at Alaska Airlines Arena this season, which was 77 percent of capacity.

UCLA was worse, reaching 8,678 fans at Pauley Pavilion — that’s just 63 percent of capacity.

USC had a similar attendance, with an average of 6,398 at the Galen Center, or 62.4 percent.

Oregon? Even worse: an average of 6,352 fans at Matthew Knight Arena, or 51.4 percent.

But when they hit the road, West Coast teams get off their long flights and into loud arenas with 14,000 (or more) fans.

Through two seasons, UCLA, USC, Oregon and Washington are 17-39 in conference games played on the opposite side of the Rockies.

USC: 5-9

Oregon: 5-9

Washington: 4-10

UCLA: 3-11.

What can change the trajectories, both on the road and on the whole?

It’s hard to see a path to continued success because every dollar and half of the energy is invested in football — certainly at USC, Oregon and Washington, and, to a lesser extent, at UCLA.

Even the Bruins, a basketball blue blood, realize that a floating ball is a ticket to the abyss of a new era of sports.

They spent less money on basketball than Illinois in the 2024-25 fiscal year.

Oregon finished under Minnesota.

Washington fell short of Penn State.

Admittedly, we are painting with a broad brush.

The full financial picture won’t be clear until next winter, when budgets for fiscal year 2026 — the first with revenue sharing — are made public.

But there is no reason to expect a dollar diversion from basketball when the demand for football success has never been greater.

No one wants to be left behind when the next round of restructuring (likely) comes in the early 2030s.

Everyone wants to stand in good stead if the Big Ten adopts a revenue distribution model based on performance.

And they all fear a cycle of disaster where low-quality football creates donor apathy that leads to tight budgets that result in reduced resources and growing losses and apathy that compounds and, ultimately, the Olympics on the cutting board.

Basketball was an afterthought when four schools joined the Big Ten, and understandably so.

For proof, look no further than long flights, empty seats, forgettable seasons and aversion to reptiles.

*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716

*** Follow me on social media X: @WilnerHotline