|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Apr 16, 2024 16:08:35 GMT -6
Isn’t Hendricks on his 8th or 9th year of eligibility? Why couldn’t it have been, say, Steve Payne or Duane Clemons that had that many?
|
|
|
|
Post by zonebuster on Apr 17, 2024 8:03:39 GMT -6
We know it is still early for portal commitments, but it looks like Akron has pulled in the most impressive commitments thus far. All three players are from P5 schools:
- 6'9" Center James Okonkow, North Carolina - He was not in their rotation as he saw only 44 minutes of action in 15 games. But, I'm guessing he'll be an effective player against MAC competition:
- 6'7" Forward Josiah Harris, West Virginia - He started 13 of 33 games. Averaged 19 minutes per game. Stats: 38% FG, 32% 3's, 81% FT, 5 ppg
- 6'1" Point Guard Seth Wilson, West Virginia - He started 3 of the 28 games he played in. Averaged 17 minutes per game. Stats: 32% FG, 38% 3's, 69% FT, 3.5 ppg, 25 assist / 23 TO's
I'm guessing they have some decent NIL dollars to recruit with. Hoping we start seeing some quality commitments in addition to Sparks. Again, would love to see us have 10+ players battling for starting positions and playing time.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 17, 2024 8:30:37 GMT -6
Akron one of the "power" teams in the MAC. Have to expect them to do well.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 17, 2024 9:10:32 GMT -6
They've picked up high level kids who weren't quite good enough for P5 and will do very well in the MAC. Maybe not immediately, but they'll be good players. We can't seem to attract those types. Gotta be money.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 17, 2024 9:46:15 GMT -6
They've picked up high level kids who weren't quite good enough for P5 and will do very well in the MAC. Maybe not immediately, but they'll be good players. We can't seem to attract those types. Gotta be money. Sparks is that kid for us theis year. Anderson was that kind of kid. Plenty of JUCO players. I'm happy to see us go that route, might keep those kids. Still will take more NIL than we seem to have. We'll see after the recruiting this year as the market clears.
There are a ton of those players out there. Many at about that level have had to choose after HS to go P5 where they have been recruited but are marginal, or go mid major. BSU has lost out going after those players for years.
I wonder if the portal isn't going to change their preference now. Even if they sign and progress at the P5 school, it is now so easy for them to be recruited over. And they may not get exposure. They do get some premium NIL, I guess.
Now, I'd expect at least a few more to just go mid major and "plan" on portal access to the big time. They can play as freshmen. We probably cannot afford to avoid recruiting those freshmen out of HS, hope to get a year or two (the new one and done for our level).
I'm trying to imagine who is going to be a 4 year player at a mid major now. Probably a kid from that category with upside out of HS who never quite reaches that potential, actually develops some affiliation to his coach and school. Borderline starters early. Solid as upper class players but not enough pop to get NIL boost in the portal? A player like Bumb is another possible, no high major possibility really, but can establish himself as a fixture at our level to fit other players around.
The corollary to this at the major level is that next better level player, clearly P5, who has no great pro prospects, but now can cash big NIL checks in P5 or shop himself in the portal to do well. He gets recruited over too, but he's going to get paid well.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 17, 2024 10:05:58 GMT -6
There are a bazillion kids in the portal, quite a large number of whom will NOT land a new opportunity and most likely lost their place on a roster. The key to success, obviously, is to wade through all of that, be patient till the dust settles, and then go in on who you feel you have a good chance at and whom you project will contribute like Anderson did. He was a nice pickup and we really needed him back next year. I'd absolutely take the USI kid. That we got him to visit is good and is an indication we are serious about him. There are several guards we are mentioned as being in contact with but that's preliminary. I'm totally in favor of hitting juco hard. Plenty of players like Bailey there.
|
|
|
|
Post by universityjim on Apr 17, 2024 10:17:39 GMT -6
Teams win with seniors, juniors, and grad students.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Apr 17, 2024 10:28:29 GMT -6
They've picked up high level kids who weren't quite good enough for P5 and will do very well in the MAC. Maybe not immediately, but they'll be good players. We can't seem to attract those types. Gotta be money. Why does its have to be the money? Akron has been kicking our ass for years before NIL and the portal were even a thing. Akron has been in the MAC final ten times since 2007 to our zero. The excuses change...the results stay the same. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 17, 2024 10:34:41 GMT -6
That's our reality. Money counts more.
We can hit the jackpot with an under the radar player, but maybe those high profile players are mostly obvious offensive individual talents.
We have a chance to be smart or lucky and get good fitting players. Especially defenders from the next level down. Some of the "lesser" offensive talents might flourish where effort and D counted more to the coach.
This AAU mentality inherent in roster turnover makes that a much more random variable.
UConn had awfully good defenders, really took away Purdue's outside game. They could score, sure, but they just swarmed on D as a team.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Apr 17, 2024 10:35:46 GMT -6
Of course, that's not to say Akron may not have drummed up a good deal more NIL money than we have, given Jeff Mitchell's focus on protecting BSU athletes from NIL money.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 17, 2024 10:41:37 GMT -6
They've picked up high level kids who weren't quite good enough for P5 and will do very well in the MAC. Maybe not immediately, but they'll be good players. We can't seem to attract those types. Gotta be money. Why does its have to be the money? Akron has been kicking our ass for years before NIL and the portal were even a thing. Akron has been in the MAC final ten times since 2007 to our zero. Akron has had a better funded BB program, that is still true. Money always was a factor. More now. Our woes had multiple causes, but money was always one, too. |
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 17, 2024 10:41:46 GMT -6
They've picked up high level kids who weren't quite good enough for P5 and will do very well in the MAC. Maybe not immediately, but they'll be good players. We can't seem to attract those types. Gotta be money. Why does its have to be the money? Akron has been kicking our ass for years before NIL and the portal were even a thing. Akron has been in the MAC final ten times since 2007 to our zero. The excuses change...the results stay the same. More than any money, it's the SUCCESS. Which, we kinda haven't had in awhile. |
|
|
|
Post by cbcjanney on Apr 17, 2024 12:19:26 GMT -6
Who's to say a head coach at our level making maybe $275K/yr decides he can live off $175K/yr and and decides it's a wise forward-looking investment to put the other $100K through the collective for the collective to pay his players, either anonymously or known. These collectives aren't transparent to that type of reporting. If BSU didn't get a penny besides that one $100K contribution, we could pick up at least 2-3 decent players.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 17, 2024 12:34:32 GMT -6
Why does its have to be the money? Akron has been kicking our ass for years before NIL and the portal were even a thing. Akron has been in the MAC final ten times since 2007 to our zero. The excuses change...the results stay the same. More than any money, it's the SUCCESS. Which, we kinda haven't had in awhile. Success surely breeds success, but usuaally requires resources to start with. Also, success means financial success and more resources that comes with the success. After Majerus, Hunsaker, it meant attendance in BB, and when sales expand, you make a new pro forma financial forecast. In BB that success unfortunately was not, or was not able to to be, invested in BB. Leading to "low budget" success there being expected as the norm. How'd that work when we hired Buck? His successor?
If you are making decisions anywhere in the athletic program and money is tight, that becomes a factor, and invites making decisions that are second best or that are more risky. The risky downside was seen with he who should not be mentioned, the low budget second or worse best, with Billy. And of course several FB coaches...
Given university administrators are notoriously risk adverse, that probably has meant for us a spiraling series of coaching hires, extensions, staff compensation and other decisions that were second best, at best.
The why we were so tight at critical times often came down to paying for mistakes made, for example, paying two coaches at the same time, for example the expensive error in FB after Brady. Any unexpected, not in the budget expense means the department pays for it everywhere else.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 17, 2024 12:40:06 GMT -6
Who's to say a head coach at our level making maybe $275K/yr decides he can live off $175K/yr and and decides it's a wise forward-looking investment to put the other $100K through the collective for the collective to pay his players, either anonymously or known. These collectives aren't transparent to that type of reporting. If BSU didn't get a penny besides that one $100K contribution, we could pick up at least 2-3 decent players. If not tax deductible, the collective would receive the after tax portion of the 100K.
Surely this would be reflected in the salary demands of any potential coach. Would you take the job here where that was necessary, a pay cut, or somewhere else where it wasn't, or where salary was higher? |
|
