Maryland Terrapins play in Big Ten Tournament against the Illinois Fighting Illini
Illinois Fighting Illini (21-11, 13-8 Big Ten) vs. Maryland Terrapins (24-7, 14-6 Big Ten)
BETMGM SPORTSBOOK LINE: Terrapins -1.5; over/under is 159
BOTTOM LINE: No. 11 Maryland and No. 24 Illinois square off in the Big Ten Tournament.
The Terrapins have gone 14-6 against Big Ten teams, with a 10-1 record in non-conference play. Maryland ranks fourth in the Big Ten in rebounding with 34.5 rebounds. Julian Reese paces the Terrapins with 9.3 boards.
The Fighting Illini's record in Big Ten action is 13-8. Illinois ranks second in college basketball with 27.8 defensive rebounds per game led by Tomislav Ivisic averaging 6.0.
Maryland averages 8.1 made 3-pointers per game, 1.6 more made shots than the 6.5 per game Illinois gives up. Illinois averages 9.5 made 3-pointers per game this season, 3.0 more made shots on average than the 6.5 per game Maryland allows.
The teams meet for the second time this season. The Terrapins won 91-70 in the last matchup on Jan. 24. Reese led the Terrapins with 27 points, and Kasparas Jakucionis led the Fighting Illini with 21 points.
TOP PERFORMERS: Derik Queen is scoring 15.7 points per game with 9.2 rebounds and 2.0 assists for the Terrapins. Rodney Rice is averaging 16.2 points over the past 10 games.
Jakucionis is scoring 15.0 points per game and averaging 5.5 rebounds for the Fighting Illini. Will Riley is averaging 15.7 points and 5.0 rebounds over the last 10 games.
LAST 10 GAMES: Terrapins: 8-2, averaging 77.6 points, 35.2 rebounds, 12.2 assists, 7.2 steals and 4.3 blocks per game while shooting 44.5% from the field. Their opponents have averaged 69.1 points per game.
Fighting Illini: 6-4, averaging 82.5 points, 33.2 rebounds, 15.9 assists, 4.0 steals and 3.4 blocks per game while shooting 47.3% from the field. Their opponents have averaged 82.6 points.
___
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Well done, Illinois! State gives women's sports teams access to public funding
After decades of making do with leftovers and scraps, women's sports teams now officially have a seat at the table in Illinois. The Illinois Sports Facilities Authority Act was amended last weekend to ensure women's teams are included in any conversations about public funding. The bill now goes to Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who intends to sign it. Advertisement 'That codification is everything,' Karen Leetzow, president of the NWSL's Chicago Stars, which led the push for the change, told USA TODAY Sports. 'When you look at history, so many examples (of inequities) exist and, absent legislation, nothing changes. To have it codified and to bring attention to past inequities and make sure that those don't happen in the future, is huge.' The Stars aren't asking for money. Not yet, anyway. Neither are the WNBA's Chicago Sky. That's not the point. OPINION: New York Liberty value soars. Time for WNBA owners to invest or get out of the way No women's team has ever gotten public funding for a facility in Illinois. Or most other states, for that matter. The idea they'd dare even ask is met with incredulousness — and, let's be honest, a healthy dose of condescending misogyny — while no one is surprised when a men's team puts its hand out. Advertisement By making this change, the Illinois legislature is sending a strong message that, in this state at least, women's teams are of equal value and worth to men's teams. That if the state has resources, the Stars and the Sky have as much right to them as the Chicago Bears, Chicago White Sox and any other team. Now, before the Neanderthals start howling that women's teams don't make money or that men's teams should get preference because they do, let's remember that men's professional sports have at least a half-century head start on women's teams. And for much of that existence, they've been bolstered by public support. That means the public built or helped build the stadiums and arenas in which they play and the infrastructure that made them accessible to fans. The same stadiums and arenas that are a significant source of their wealth. Advertisement Take the White Sox. While they technically are tenants at Rate Field, they own the stadium for all intents and purposes. They reportedly pay less than $2 million a year in rent for a ballpark built with public funds and, in return, get to keep the revenue from ticket sales, concessions, parking and merchandise. The team also gets the bulk of the profits from the naming rights deal. The White Sox signage is permanent. So, too, the spaces used by the players. Oh, the White Sox also get to set the calendar at Rate Field. If there's a concert or some other non-baseball event at the ballpark, it has to work with the White Sox's schedule and wishes. WOMEN'S PRO SOFTBALL IN ILLINOIS: Schedule, how to watch 2025 AUSL games The Stars, meanwhile, are basically house guests at SeatGeek Stadium in suburban Bridgeview — as they were not so subtly reminded last summer. Advertisement After the season had begun, the Stars learned that village officials planned to stage Riot Fest, a three-day punk, rock and alternative music festival, on the stadium grounds the same weekend the Stars had a home game. Nothing says professional like the sweet, sweet sounds of St. Vincent and Beck drowning out the P.A.! Riot Fest wound up being moved, but that's immaterial. The Stars have no control over their facility, financially or otherwise, which makes it hard — not impossible, but really, really hard — to build valuation. OPINION: Homes of their own critical for continued growth of women's sports. Stadiums equal revenue Still not convinced? According to Forbes, the Kansas City Current's $36 million in revenue last season was the most in the NWSL, more than $10 million more than the third-place San Diego Wave and triple that of eight clubs. Advertisement Why such a gap? Because the Current last year opened the first purpose-built stadium for a women's team and is now reaping the benefits. This year, in fact, Forbes estimates the Current will generate $45 million in revenue. 'As women's sports grow, we ought to have facilities of our own that we can monetize so hopefully we can grow,' Leetzow said. 'Without those resources, we are literally being starved. That is not going to help us move forward.' The Stars have already said they are planning to leave the geographically undesirable SeatGeek Stadium when their lease expires at the end of this season. The team prefers to train and play in the city, and is exploring its options. This doesn't mean the Stars will ask the state for money. But for the first time in their existence, it's an option. And that is another sign of progress, to have access to what men's teams have always had. Advertisement Follow USA TODAY Sports columnist Nancy Armour on social media @nrarmour. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Illinois gives women's sports teams access to state public funding
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
NCAA's House settlement approved, ushering in new era where schools can directly pay athletes
College athletics is officially entering a new world. A California judge on Friday night a little bit past 9 p.m. ET granted approval to the NCAA's landmark settlement of three antitrust cases, often referred to as the 'House settlement,' ushering in an era where schools are permitted to share revenue with athletes within a new enforcement structure led by the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC. Advertisement Claudia Wilken, the 75-year-old presiding judge in California's Northern District, granted approval of an agreement between the named defendants (the NCAA and power conferences) and the plaintiffs (dozens of suing athletes) to settle three consolidated cases, all of them seeking more compensation for athletes. "Despite some compromises, the settlement agreement nevertheless will result in extraordinary relief for members of the settlement classes. If approved, it would permit levels and types of student-athlete compensation that have never been permitted in the history of college sports, while also very generously compensating Division I student-athletes who suffered past harms," Wilken said as part of the 76-page opinion. Unsuccessful in so many legal battles recently — most notably a 9-0 loss in a 2021 Supreme Court decision — the NCAA and its richest, most influential conferences decided last spring to strike a revolutionary agreement by settling these cases instead of risking a court defeat that might cost them as much as $10 billion. The House settlement will pay thousands of former athletes — playing from 2016-2024 — a whopping $2.8 billion in backpay from lost name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation. Even more groundbreaking, the settlement paves the way for schools, for the first time ever, to directly compensate athletes in a system that features an annual cap and a new enforcement entity that is expected to more heavily scrutinize booster-backed payments. While paychecks can begin to be distributed from schools to athletes on July 1 — the official start date of settlement implementation — the new enforcement entity, the College Sports Commission, an LLC operated mostly by the power leagues, immediately takes effect with Wilken's approval of the agreement. "This is new terrain for everyone. ... Opportunities to drive transformative change don't come often to organizations like ours. It's important we make the most of this one," NCAA president Charlie Baker said in a statement released Friday night. "We have accomplished a lot over the last several months, from new health and wellness and academic requirements to a stronger financial footing. Together, we can use this new beginning to launch college sports into the future, too." Advertisement It means that any new contract struck between an athlete and a third-party entity, such a business, brand, booster or collective, is now subject to the new Deloitte-run NIL clearinghouse. The clearinghouse, dubbed "NIL Go," is charged with evaluating NIL deals between athletes and third parties to determine their legitimacy. It puts an end, perhaps, to schools hurriedly signing current players and transfers to new contracts before the approval of the settlement in deals that frontload a majority of the compensation. Contracts signed before the settlement approval and paid out before July 1 were not subject to the clearinghouse or cap, leading to a 'mad dash' in the basketball and football portal. Power conference leaders are targeting a Major League Baseball executive to manage the College Sports Commission as CEO, multiple sources tell Yahoo Sports. Bryan Seeley, a former assistant U.S. attorney who has served for more than a decade as MLB's vice president of investigations and deputy general counsel, is believed to be the preferred candidate for the CEO role of college sports' new enforcement entity. Despite plenty of hurdles in the settlement's years-long approval process, those who negotiated the deal have long expected it to be approved because of the sheer numbers involved. More than 85,000 athletes have filed claims for the backpay and just 600 have opted out or objected to the agreement — a paltry number that did not faze the judge. Advertisement Wiken's decision, coming two months after the final hearing in Oakland, California, puts an end to what was thought to be one of the last looming hurdles of a deal: roster limits. In a concept authored by the power conferences, the settlement imposes new limits on sports rosters, many of which had not previously existed. In a recent filing, the NCAA and power leagues agreed to revise settlement language to permit schools to grandfather-in athletes on existing teams or those who have been cut this year, as well as recruits who enrolled on the promise of a roster spot. College sports is about to enter a whole new era. (Taylor Wilhelm/Yahoo Sports) With its approval, the settlement ushers into college sports a more professionalized framework but one, many believe, that is ripe for more legal scrutiny. Already, attorneys are gearing up for future legal challenges over, at the very least, the new NIL clearinghouse, Title IX and the capped compensation system — much of which can be resolved, legal experts contend, with a collective bargaining and/or employment model that college executives have so far avoided. Advertisement The settlement's approval is only the first in what many college leaders describe as a two-step process to usher in stability in the college sports landscape. Step 2 may be even more difficult: lawmakers producing a congressional bill to codify the settlement terms and protect the NCAA and power conferences from legal challenges over enforcement of their rules. Five U.S. senators have been meeting regularly in serious negotiations over legislation, but no agreement has been reached. Here's an explainer of college sports' new world delivered by the settlement's approval: Revenue-share pool Each school is permitted — not required — to share up to a certain amount of revenue annually with their athletes (the cap). Per the settlement agreement, the cap is calculated by taking 22% of the average of certain power school revenues, most notably ticket sales, television dollars and sponsorships. Advertisement In Year 1 — July 2025 through June 2026 — the cap amount is projected to be $20.5 million. While each school is charged with determining how to distribute those funds, most power conference programs are planning to distribute 90% to football and men's basketball, as those are, for the most part, the only revenue-generating sports for an athletic department. In Year 1, that's about $13-16 million for a football roster and $2-4 million for men's basketball, with the remaining amount shared with women's basketball, baseball, volleyball and other Olympic sports. While the 22% cap will remain the same through the 10-year settlement agreement, the cap money figure will rise based on built-in escalators (4% increase in Year 2 and Year 3), scheduled recalculations (after each third year) and additional cash flows into athletic departments, such as when conferences enter into new, more lucrative television deals or/and begin receiving new College Football Playoff monies. Advertisement Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork told Yahoo Sports this summer that he expects the cap to break $25 million by the time the Year 4 recalculation happens. There are exceptions, though, that can artificially lower the annual cap, most notably up to $2.5 million in additional scholarships that a school offers. Enforcement entity A new non-NCAA enforcement entity — an LLC predominantly managed by the power conferences — will oversee and enforce rules related to the revenue-share concept. The company, College Sports Commission, is expected to be headed by a CEO as well as a head investigator for enforcement matters. The entity is charged with assuring that schools remain under the cap and that third-party NIL deals with athletes are not the phony booster-backed deals so prevalent over the last four years. Advertisement An enforcement staff is expected to be hired to investigate and enforce rules related to cap circumvention, tampering, etc., and are charged with levying stiff penalties. Violators may be subject to multi-game coach suspensions, reductions in a school's rev-share pool as well as reductions in allowed transfers, and significant schools fines. However, the biggest looming uncertainty of the settlement agreement involves a Deloitte-run NIL clearinghouse that must approve all third-party NIL deals of at least $600 in value. The "NIL Go" clearinghouse is using a fair market value algorithm to create 'compensation ranges' for third-party deals. Deloitte is expected to approve or disapprove deals in as little as one day, and athletes can resubmit rejected deals at least once with alterations suggested by the clearinghouse. For example, Deloitte may deem a submitted $100,000 deal between an athlete and third party to actually be valued at $50,000. The player can alter the deal to align with the clearinghouse's suggested figure or the school can cover the difference by accepting a reduction against their revenue-pool cap. Deals rejected for a second time are referred to the CEO and enforcement staff and are then processed through an appeals system via court-overseen arbitration. Arbitration rulings are expected within 45 days, according to the settlement. Advertisement Athletes who lose arbitration cases and still accept compensation in the rejected deal are deemed ineligible. Rev-share contracts Starting with the fall basketball and football signing periods, schools began readying for this new era. Some even signed players to revenue-sharing agreements that begin to make payments on July 1 or later, contingent on the settlement's approval. Other players signed contracts with school booster collectives that featured a clause assigning the contract to the school on July 1. For the most part, the contracts grant schools permission to use a player's NIL rights — a reason for the compensation — but these agreements feature language often found in employment contracts, including buyouts, athlete requirements and prohibitions as well as the freedom for schools to reduce the players' compensation based on their academic standing and performance. Advertisement Already, the agreements are a subject of legal scrutiny. In January, Wisconsin defensive back Xavier Lucas left the university to enroll at Miami despite signing a revenue-share contract with UW. In public statements, Wisconsin has suggested it will pursue legal action against Lucas and/or Miami, which, it suggested, tampered with an athlete under contract. Lucas' representatives believe the contract is not enforceable as it was contingent on settlement approval when signed. The situation is a potential landmark case on settlement-contingent revenue-sharing agreements.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Big Ten football 2025 win-loss record predictions, per ESPN's FPI
Big Ten football 2025 win-loss record predictions, per ESPN's FPI The 2025 Big Ten football season continues to draw closer. As of June 7, only 82 days remain until Rutgers, Minnesota and Wisconsin kick off their Week 1 games on Thursday, August 28. We continue to pass important offseason milestones as we count down the days until the season begins. The latest milestone is the release of season power rating metrics, specifically ESPN's SP+ and Football Power Index. Once those numbers are released and updated through the spring, the countdown to the upcoming season can truly begin. This topic is timely because ESPN released its FPI for the 2025 season earlier this week. With SP+ already out, we now have a full picture of what to expect when the games kick off. As a reminder, here is how ESPN describes the methodology behind its Football Power Index. The Football Power Index (FPI) is a measure of team strength that is meant to be the best predictor of a team's performance going forward for the rest of the season. FPI represents how many points above or below average a team is. Projected results are based on 20,000 simulations of the rest of the season using FPI, results to date, and the remaining schedule. Ratings and projections update daily. FPI data from seasons prior to 2019 may not be complete. That picture is both sport-wide and conference-specific. While it's valuable to compare the Big Ten's best to the top teams in the SEC, Big 12 and ACC, it's also important to focus on how the 18 Big Ten members line up. For that specific lineup, here are ESPN's FPI's record predictions for every Big Ten football team in 2025, ordered from lowest to highest. They're also compared with our recent win-loss projections for each team after spring practice. Purdue Boilermakers FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 3.2 - 8.8 FPI Rating: -6.9 (No. 92 overall) Purdue enters 2025 with low expectations. New coach Barry Odom won't have much trouble improving on the team's 1-11 2024 campaign. But anything more than three wins would be surprising. The FPI gives the Boilermakers only a 6.3% chance to make a bowl game Northwestern Wildcats FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 4.1 - 7.9 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 3-9 FPI Rating: -3.6 (No. 74 overall) Northwestern forms the Big Ten's bottom tier with Purdue. David Braun was the conference's coach of the year just two years ago after leading the Wildcats to an 8-5 record in his first year in charge. 2024's 4-8 output created questions about the sustainability of that success. The FPI sees a repeat of that performance in 2025. Michigan State Spartans FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 5.2 - 6.8 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 6-6 FPI Rating: 2.3 (No. 59 overall) Michigan State needs to build momentum somehow, whether on the field or the recruiting trail. Since the latter is not happening at the moment, Jonathan Smith will need to show significant improvement when the team takes the field for his second year in charge. The FPI gives the Spartans a 42.4% chance to reach a bowl game and quiet the outside noise. Get more (Michigan State) news, analysis and opinions on Spartans Wire UCLA Bruins FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 5.4 - 6.6 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 8-4 FPI Rating: 4.6 (No. 47 overall) UCLA is one of our breakthrough picks in 2025. The FPI disagrees, forecasting another fringe-bowl season for the program. Tennessee transfer QB Nico Iamaleava will have a significant say in the season's result. Get more (UCLA) news, analysis and opinions on UCLA Wire Wisconsin Badgers FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 5.6 - 6.5 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 6-6 FPI Rating: 6.3 (No. 38 overall) Wisconsin is not far down this list due to a lack of quality -- the team holds a top-40 ranking entering the year. It is instead due to a gauntlet schedule that includes games against the FPI's No. 3 (Alabama), No. 4 (Ohio State), No. 6 (Oregon), No. 17 (Michigan), No. 27 (Washington), No. 31 (Indiana) and No. 39 (Iowa) teams. The Badgers would do extremely well to make a bowl game, something the FPI gives them a 51.1% chance to do. Rutgers Scarlet Knights FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 5.8 - 6.2 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 4-8 FPI Rating: 3.5 (No. 55 overall) The FPI gives Rutgers a 57.1% chance to extend its bowl streak to three seasons. We're less optimistic about the team's chances after it lost numerous defensive starters and contributors to the portal or graduation. Maryland Terrapins FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 5.9 - 6.1 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 5-7 FPI Rating: 1.9 (No. 61 overall) Mike Locksley might need a bowl-eligible season to keep his job. Maryland just hired a new athletic director, which only heightens questions surrounding the program after its 4-8 record last season. The FPI gives it a 59% chance to reach the postseason, thanks in part to an easy nonconference slate. Iowa Hawkeyes FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 6.2 - 5.8 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 7-5 FPI Rating: 6.3 (No. 39 overall) Iowa can be projected as a fringe-six-win team entering 2025, but history matters. The Hawkeyes haven't won fewer than seven games in any non-COVID season since 2012, and only once since 2000. Given that trend, I'll comfortably predict another seven or eight-win campaign. Get more (Iowa) news, analysis and opinions on Hawkeyes Wire Illinois Fighting Illini FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 6.8 - 5.2 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 10-2 FPI Rating: 5.0 (No. 44 overall) Unlike most other metrics and ranking systems, the FPI is low on Illinois entering 2025. A mid-40s ranking leads to a 7-5 record projection. We see a breakthrough season for the program, potentially leading to a College Football Playoff appearance. Minnesota Golden Gophers FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 6.9 - 5.2 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 7-5 FPI Rating: 5.2 (No. 43 overall) Minnesota is beginning to enter the Iowa tier of the conference, where seven wins feels like an annual occurrence. The FPI gives the Golden Gophers a 79.2% chance to reach a bowl game and a longshot 4.3% chance to reach the CFP. Washington Huskies FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 7.1 - 4.9 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 8-4 FPI Rating: 8.8 (No. 27 overall) Washington is another of our breakthrough picks in 2025, especially if young quarterback Demond Williams Jr. pans out. The FPI agrees, slotting the Huskies as a fringe-top-25 team. The schedule is a challenge, but don't be surprised if Washington threatens a playoff spot this season. Get more (Washington) news, analysis and opinions on Huskies Wire Indiana Hoosiers FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 7.5 - 4.5 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 6-6 FPI Rating: 8.3 (No. 31 overall) Indiana is an interesting test case entering 2025. The team lost significant production off a stellar 2024 team. However, coach Curt Cignetti proved last year that he doesn't need years of continuity to win at a high level. The FPI gives the Hoosiers an 87.5% chance to reach a bowl game and an 8.9% shot to return to the CFP. Nebraska Cornhuskers FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 7.5 - 4.5 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 8-4 FPI Rating: 9.3 (No. 25 overall) Projections are high on Nebraska entering the season. The Cornhuskers are the FPI's sixth-highest-ranked Big Ten team, with a 1.5% chance to win the conference title. The team's success, or lack thereof, will come down to the development of sophomore quarterback Dylan Raiola, who showed flashes during his true freshman season. Get more (Nebraska) news, analysis and opinions on Cornhuskers Wire USC Trojans FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 8.3 - 3.9 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 8-4 FPI Rating: 13.0 (No. 19 overall) USC always finds itself near the top of the FPI. The metric gives the Trojans a whopping 21% chance to make the CFP and a 4.2% shot to win the Big Ten. Remember, those numbers are for a program that is just 15-11 over the last two seasons. Get more (USC) news, analysis and opinions on Trojans Wire Michigan Wolverines FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 8.4 - 3.7 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 9-3 FPI Rating: 14.6 (No. 17 overall) The question surrounding Michigan entering 2025 isn't whether the team will be good. The question is whether it is good enough to contend for the Big Ten and reach the CFP. The FPI's prediction is a bit measured, giving the Wolverines a 25.3% chance to reach the CFP and 6% shot to win the conference. Get more (Michigan) news, analysis and opinions on Wolverines Wire Oregon Ducks FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 10.0 - 2.4 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 9-3 FPI Rating: 20.5 (No. 6 overall) Oregon begins the Big Ten's top tier entering 2025. That tier mirrors the 2024 standings, which doesn't come as a surprise. The Ducks are an odds-on favorite to return to the CFP (57.5%), with a 4.3% shot to win the national title. Get more (Oregon) news, analysis and opinions on Ducks Wire Penn State Nittany Lions FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 10.2 - 2.2 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 11-1 FPI Rating: 21.5 (No. 5 overall) Penn State finally broke through in 2024. With it returning its starting quarterback and its two star running backs, expectations are even higher entering 2025. The FPI gives the Nittany Lions a 25.1% shot to win the Big Ten, a 63.8% chance to return to the CFP, a 14.4% chance to, unlike last season, reach the national title game and a 7% chance to win it. Get more (Penn State) news, analysis and opinions on Nittany Lions Wire Ohio State Buckeyes FPI Projected Win-Loss Record: 10.4 - 2.2 Badgers Wire Record Prediction: 10-2 FPI Rating: 23.8 (No. 4 overall) The only numbers that matter for Ohio State are its win-loss result against Michigan, which it hasn't defeated in a half-decade, and its chance to win the national title. The FPI has the latter at 10.8% entering the year, tied for the third-shortest with Alabama. Only Texas (24.1%) and Georgia (17.9%) have better odds. Get more (Ohio State) news, analysis and opinions on Buckeyes Wire Contact/Follow @TheBadgersWire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Wisconsin Badgers news, notes and opinion
