Big12Fan2024 said:

---

I don't think there is any desire for Wright or particularly Little to start. The coaching staff is actively looking for an experienced point guard and a Bridges replacement but those replacements will probably come from smaller schools instead of existing P5 schools since we can't compete with the money Louisville, Texas, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Arkansas and St. Johns are throwing around to top transfers. I hope the Drew situation helps push us to get more NIL in place.

It makes me want to vomit when I see all of these accolades for Rodney Terry and his sudden recruiting skills with Tre and then all the transfers in the past couple of days. The only thing different for Rodney Terry is that the UT collective has basically given him several more million dollars to spend.

---

I guess I'm seeing it differently, but I think Little is a long term developmental priority. 6-4 barrel chested guards with a +4 wing span differential and good (not great) quickness/speed don't grow on trees. That's a basically a poor man's mini-Mark Vital with much better offensive range. I'd agree that starting him is probably not the priority next year, but rotation minutes will happen with a real possibility of playing important, high-leverage defensive possessions.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Ballo to Indiana. Not a shock, but the number of premier big men out there just shrunk by one.

ETA: Goodman reporting that Ballo's asking price for one year of hooping was $1.2mm

---

I get that was his asking price but do we think this is honestly what he gets?

You're talking teams like Arkansas setting aside $6m a year and they're near the top. It's insane to me to think someone's going to be willing to commit 20-30% of their NIL budget on one player.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Big12Fan2024 said:

---

I don't think there is any desire for Wright or particularly Little to start. The coaching staff is actively looking for an experienced point guard and a Bridges replacement but those replacements will probably come from smaller schools instead of existing P5 schools since we can't compete with the money Louisville, Texas, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Arkansas and St. Johns are throwing around to top transfers. I hope the Drew situation helps push us to get more NIL in place.

It makes me want to vomit when I see all of these accolades for Rodney Terry and his sudden recruiting skills with Tre and then all the transfers in the past couple of days. The only thing different for Rodney Terry is that the UT collective has basically given him several more million dollars to spend.

---

I guess I'm seeing it differently, but I think Little is a long term developmental priority. 6-4 barrel chested guards with a +4 wing span differential and good (not great) quickness/speed don't grow on trees. That's a basically a poor man's mini-Mark Vital with much better offensive range. I'd agree that starting him is probably not the priority next year, but rotation minutes will happen with a real possibility of playing important, high-leverage defensive possessions.

---

You say it right here in your post, developmental priority. Not sure we can rely on Little to be in our top 4 guard rotation. He looked a year away from being a year away. I am a huge fan of Little's skill set as a facilitator on the offensive end, but overall he was very slow, a very bad defender, and a very bad shooter. For a program with Fnal 4 aspirations I think we need an impact guard from the portal in case he doesn't improve adequately over the offseason.

IvanBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Ballo to Indiana. Not a shock, but the number of premier big men out there just shrunk by one.

ETA: Goodman reporting that Ballo's asking price for one year of hooping was $1.2mm

---

I get that was his asking price but do we think this is honestly what he gets?

You're talking teams like Arkansas setting aside $6m a year and they're near the top. It's insane to me to think someone's going to be willing to commit 20-30% of their NIL budget on one player.

---

Not insane. In NBA roster construction terms, the max players eat up between 25 to 30% of payroll for any given team (and that's with a cap system in place).

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Big12Fan2024 said:

---

I don't think there is any desire for Wright or particularly Little to start. The coaching staff is actively looking for an experienced point guard and a Bridges replacement but those replacements will probably come from smaller schools instead of existing P5 schools since we can't compete with the money Louisville, Texas, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Arkansas and St. Johns are throwing around to top transfers. I hope the Drew situation helps push us to get more NIL in place.

It makes me want to vomit when I see all of these accolades for Rodney Terry and his sudden recruiting skills with Tre and then all the transfers in the past couple of days. The only thing different for Rodney Terry is that the UT collective has basically given him several more million dollars to spend.

---

I guess I'm seeing it differently, but I think Little is a long term developmental priority. 6-4 barrel chested guards with a +4 wing span differential and good (not great) quickness/speed don't grow on trees. That's a basically a poor man's mini-Mark Vital with much better offensive range. I'd agree that starting him is probably not the priority next year, but rotation minutes will happen with a real possibility of playing important, high-leverage defensive possessions.

---

You say it right here in your post, developmental priority. Not sure we can rely on Little to be in our top 4 guard rotation. He looked a year away from being a year away. I am a huge fan of Little's skill set as a facilitator on the offensive end, but overall he was very slow, a very bad defender, and a very bad shooter. For a program with Fnal 4 aspirations I think we need an impact guard from the portal in case he
doesn't improve adequately over the offseason.

---

He shot 36% from 3 last season. He was 72% from free throw (just on the cusp of good for college). Sure, he was a spacer scoring option, but I'm not getting the bad shooter argument here. The data doesn't back you up. Indeed, those numbers form a freshmen are reasons to be optimistic.

When we went zone, coach Drew had him at the top and in the flex position on the strong side of zone. That's not where you stick your bad defender in the zone. His man wasn't great, but nobody was great there last year. I'm not saying he's good yet, but my guess is, depending on the portal, he'll be a 10-15 minute a game guy next year.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

IvanBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Ballo to Indiana. Not a shock, but the number of premier big men out there just shrunk by one.

ETA: Goodman reporting that Ballo's asking price for one year of hooping was $1.2mm

---

I get that was his asking price but do we think this is honestly what he gets?

You're talking teams like Arkansas setting aside $6m a year and they're near the top. It's insane to me to think someone's going to be willing to commit 20-30% of their NIL budget on one player.

---

Not insane. In NBA roster construction terms, the max players eat up between 25 to 30% of payroll for any given team (and that's with a cap system in place).

---

Max players eat up that percentage because there's a cap in place -- and because there are only 30 teams.

In an environment where there are 100-plus high major caliber programs and payroll isn't restricted, transfers and elite freshmen aren't going to accept being paid a fraction of what their teammates are.

bear2be2 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

IvanBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Ballo to Indiana. Not a shock, but the number of premier big men out there just shrunk by one.

ETA: Goodman reporting that Ballo's asking price for one year of hooping was $1.2mm

---

I get that was his asking price but do we think this is honestly what he gets?

You're talking teams like Arkansas setting aside $6m a year and they're near the top. It's insane to me to think someone's going to be willing to commit 20-30% of their NIL budget on one player.

---

Not insane. In NBA roster construction terms, the max players eat up between 25 to 30% of payroll for any given team (and that's with a cap system in place).

---

Max players eat up that percentage because there's a cap in place -- and because there are only 30 teams.

In an environment where there are 100-plus high major caliber programs and payroll isn't restricted, transfers and elite freshmen aren't going to accept being paid a fraction of what their teammates are.

---

In the NBA there is an aggregate team cap and an individual player pay cap in place precisely because the biggest WAR contributors would eat up an even higher percentage of the team cap without the individual cap.

Payroll is effectively restricted in the NCAA because no team has unlimited resources (yet). While there will be differences, at the end of the day, teams are distributing limited resources either from a practical perspective (NCAA) or mandated perspective (NBA). Unless there is some magic involved here, one would expect the behavior in both instances to converge and become very similar over time.

Finally, given that a typical team has an 8-9 man rotation, 20-30% of total spend to the rarest commodities is about right.

Hopefully we can land some moves since it seems like every big team besides us is landing someone right now.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

IvanBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Ballo to Indiana. Not a shock, but the number of premier big men out there just shrunk by one.

ETA: Goodman reporting that Ballo's asking price for one year of hooping was $1.2mm

---

I get that was his asking price but do we think this is honestly what he gets?

You're talking teams like Arkansas setting aside $6m a year and they're near the top. It's insane to me to think someone's going to be willing to commit 20-30% of their NIL budget on one player.

---

Not insane. In NBA roster construction terms, the max players eat up between 25 to 30% of payroll for any given team (and that's with a cap system in place).

---

Max players eat up that percentage because there's a cap in place -- and because there are only 30 teams.

In an environment where there are 100-plus high major caliber programs and payroll isn't restricted, transfers and elite freshmen aren't going to accept being paid a fraction of what their teammates are.

---

In the NBA there is an aggregate team cap and an individual player pay cap in place precisely because the biggest WAR contributors would eat up an even higher percentage of the team cap without the individual cap.

Payroll is effectively restricted in the NCAA because no team has unlimited resources (yet). While there will be differences, at the end of the day, teams are distributing limited resources either from a practical perspective (NCAA) or mandated perspective (NBA). Unless there is some magic involved here, one would expect the behavior in both instances to converge and become very similar over time.

Finally, given that a typical team has an 8-9 man rotation, 20-30% of total spend to the rarest commodities is about right.

---

College basketball's recruiting/payroll dynamics will never match the NBA's because there are way more options for the players. In the NBA, even the biggest free agents may have five legitimate suitors in a given cycle and that cycle won't repeat again for those players for several seasons. In college basketball, guys can market themselves to more than 10 times that many schools and choose the one that bites at their desired price -- and then do the same thing again any or all of the next three offseasons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison.

bear2be2 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

IvanBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Ballo to Indiana. Not a shock, but the number of premier big men out there just shrunk by one.

ETA: Goodman reporting that Ballo's asking price for one year of hooping was $1.2mm

---

I get that was his asking price but do we think this is honestly what he gets?

You're talking teams like Arkansas setting aside $6m a year and they're near the top. It's insane to me to think someone's going to be willing to commit 20-30% of their NIL budget on one player.

---

Not insane. In NBA roster construction terms, the max players eat up between 25 to 30% of payroll for any given team (and that's with a cap system in place).

---

Max players eat up that percentage because there's a cap in place -- and because there are only 30 teams.

In an environment where there are 100-plus high major caliber programs and payroll isn't restricted, transfers and elite freshmen aren't going to accept being paid a fraction of what their teammates are.

---

In the NBA there is an aggregate team cap and an individual player pay cap in place precisely because the biggest WAR contributors would eat up an even higher percentage of the team cap without the individual cap.

Payroll is effectively restricted in the NCAA because no team has unlimited resources (yet). While there will be differences, at the end of the day, teams are distributing limited resources either from a practical perspective (NCAA) or mandated perspective (NBA). Unless there is some magic involved here, one would expect the behavior in both instances to converge and become very similar over time.

Finally, given that a typical team has an 8-9 man rotation, 20-30% of total spend to the rarest commodities is about right.

---

College basketball's recruiting/payroll dynamics will never match the NBA's because there are way more options for the players. In the NBA, even the biggest free agents may have five legitimate suitors in a given cycle and that cycle won't repeat again for those players for several seasons. In college basketball, guys can market themselves to more than 10 times that many schools and choose the one that bites at their desired price -- and then do the same thing again any or all of the next three offseasons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison.

---

I disagree. Markets are markets. There is nothing so special about college basketball that will make it materially different from every other observed athletic market place.

Behavior converges across markets with differences built into each market to address its specific needs.

NBA free agents can sign one year deals and college athletes can sign multiyear deals. Given the greater information uncertainty, younger college players have less negotiating leverage and will see reduced offers which guides them toward one-year deals with upside potential to reentering the market after one year.

NBA players choose to sign multiyear deals because the injury risk/reward calculus tilts toward locking in the massive amount of cash. The point is that the difference in behavior between college free agents and NBA free agents isn't structural but rather information based.

And while there are more suitors in the college market, each team is still subject to having finite resources. Which means they'll have to work within the constraints of a limited budget and you'll see their behavior be very similar to professional teams: the top of the line guys will consume disproportionately greater resources.

MLB is probably most instructive here (revenue disparity across clubs is similar concept to college sports, although the degree of disparity is not nearly as wide). MLB attempts to process 600 new domestic amateurs each year (via the draft) and probably a similar number of international players. 1200 new players into the system each year is pretty close to D1 basketball: in the domestic amateur draft, despite a team expecting to draft 20 players, the first round pick will get slotted for upward of 50% of a team's draft pool comp. And those amateur players have the optionality of college so conceptually they have similar leverage as college players (not exactly the same). MLB has perfected this system over a century and it isn't a coincidence that the statistical efficiency revolution started there. Everyone else followed.

College basketball will be the same. You'll see college teams spend 20-30% of their NIL on the rarest commodities, just like every other professional sports team does.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

IvanBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Ballo to Indiana. Not a shock, but the number of premier big men out there just shrunk by one.

ETA: Goodman reporting that Ballo's asking price for one year of hooping was $1.2mm

---

I get that was his asking price but do we think this is honestly what he gets?

You're talking teams like Arkansas setting aside $6m a year and they're near the top. It's insane to me to think someone's going to be willing to commit 20-30% of their NIL budget on one player.

---

Not insane. In NBA roster construction terms, the max players eat up between 25 to 30% of payroll for any given team (and that's with a cap system in place).

---

Max players eat up that percentage because there's a cap in place -- and because there are only 30 teams.

In an environment where there are 100-plus high major caliber programs and payroll isn't restricted, transfers and elite freshmen aren't going to accept being paid a fraction of what their teammates are.

---

In the NBA there is an aggregate team cap and an individual player pay cap in place precisely because the biggest WAR contributors would eat up an even higher percentage of the team cap without the individual cap.

Payroll is effectively restricted in the NCAA because no team has unlimited resources (yet). While there will be differences, at the end of the day, teams are distributing limited resources either from a practical perspective (NCAA) or mandated perspective (NBA). Unless there is some magic involved here, one would expect the behavior in both instances to converge and become very similar over time.

Finally, given that a typical team has an 8-9 man rotation, 20-30% of total spend to the rarest commodities is about right.

---

College basketball's recruiting/payroll dynamics will never match the NBA's because there are way more options for the players. In the NBA, even the biggest free agents may have five legitimate suitors in a given cycle and that cycle won't repeat again for those players for several seasons. In college basketball, guys can market themselves to more than 10 times that many schools and choose the one that bites at their desired price -- and then do the same thing again any or all of the next three offseasons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison.

---

I disagree. Markets are markets. There is nothing so special about college basketball that will make it materially different from every other observed athletic market place.

Behavior converges across markets with differences built into each market to address its specific needs.

NBA free agents can sign one year deals and college athletes can sign multiyear deals. Given the greater information uncertainty, younger college players have less negotiating leverage and will see reduced offers which guides them toward one-year deals with upside potential to reentering the market after one year.

NBA players choose to sign multiyear deals because the injury risk/reward calculus tilts toward locking in the massive amount of cash. The point is that the difference in behavior between college free agents and NBA free agents isn't structural but rather information based.

And while there are more suitors in the college market, each team is still subject to having finite resources. Which means they'll have to work within the constraints of a limited budget and you'll see their behavior be very similar to professional teams: the top of the line guys will consume disproportionately greater resources.

MLB is probably most instructive here (revenue disparity across clubs is similar concept to college sports, although the degree of disparity is not nearly as wide). MLB attempts to process 600 new domestic amateurs each year (via the draft) and probably a similar number of international players. 1200 new players into the system each year is pretty close to D1 basketball: in the domestic amateur draft, despite a team expecting to draft 20 players, the first round pick will get slotted for upward of 50% of a team's draft pool comp. And those amateur players have the optionality of college so conceptually they have similar leverage as college players (not exactly the same). MLB has perfected this system over a century and it isn't a coincidence that the statistical efficiency revolution started there. Everyone else followed.

College basketball will be the same. You'll see college teams spend 20-30% of their NIL on the rarest commodities, just like every other professional sports team does.

---

No one is denying that it's a market. It's just not a market that will mirror that of the NBA ... for a lot of different reasons.

The biggest is that there is far more competition for players' services and far more limited resources for each school. The first gives the players' leverage to pit more suitors against each other and the second forces schools to ration their NIL dollars in a way that allows them to build a competitive roster.

And unlike the NBA, which incentivizes tanking when not in a position to compete -- thus limiting the number of teams in the free agent market every year -- everyone is trying to build a competitive roster at the college level, and anyone with the NIL funds available to attract talent will use them.

Players aren't often going to settle for less than they can get in a wide-open players' market. And the ability to re-enter it year after year forces schools to re-recruit and pay their own players every offseason.

There will certainly be a discrepancy in pay between the best players and rotational guys, but rotational guys won't accept the same level of discrepancy that NBA role players do because they don't have to. They're perpetual free agents and they'll get paid somewhere.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Big12Fan2024 said:

---

I don't think there is any desire for Wright or particularly Little to start. The coaching staff is actively looking for an experienced point guard and a Bridges replacement but those replacements will probably come from smaller schools instead of existing P5 schools since we can't compete with the money Louisville, Texas, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Arkansas and St. Johns are throwing around to top transfers. I hope the Drew situation helps push us to get more NIL in place.

It makes me want to vomit when I see all of these accolades for Rodney Terry and his sudden recruiting skills with Tre and then all the transfers in the past couple of days. The only thing different for Rodney Terry is that the UT collective has basically given him several more million dollars to spend.

---

I guess I'm seeing it differently, but I think Little is a long term developmental priority. 6-4 barrel chested guards with a +4 wing span differential and good (not great) quickness/speed don't grow on trees. That's a basically a poor man's mini-Mark Vital with much better offensive range. I'd agree that starting him is probably not the priority next year, but rotation minutes will happen with a real possibility of playing important, high-leverage defensive possessions.

---

You say it right here in your post, developmental priority. Not sure we can rely on Little to be in our top 4 guard rotation. He looked a year away from being a year away. I am a huge fan of Little's skill set as a facilitator on the offensive end, but overall he was very slow, a very bad defender, and a very bad shooter. For a program with Fnal 4 aspirations I think we need an impact guard from the portal in case he
doesn't improve adequately over the offseason.

---

He shot 36% from 3 last season. He was 72% from free throw (just on the cusp of good for college). Sure, he was a spacer scoring option, but I'm not getting the bad shooter argument here. The data doesn't back you up. Indeed, those numbers form a freshmen are reasons to be optimistic.

When we went zone, coach Drew had him at the top and in the flex position on the strong side of zone. That's not where you stick your bad defender in the zone. His man wasn't great, but nobody was great there last year. I'm not saying he's good yet, but my guess is, depending on the portal, he'll be a 10-15 minute a game guy next year.

---

I didn't even know his shooting percentages because of such a tiny sample size. He hardly ever shot the ball and when he did it did not look good. That is a skill that can be developed and with that, his confidence. I agree he is a player worth investing time in. 10-15 minutes would be reasonable but that's more in line with a 5th or 6th guard, not a key rotation piece to be relied upon against top competition. Offseason will be big for him. He needs to develop quickness and agility. I love the kid's attitude and mindset and love that he's in our program.

bear2be2 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

IvanBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Ballo to Indiana. Not a shock, but the number of premier big men out there just shrunk by one.

ETA: Goodman reporting that Ballo's asking price for one year of hooping was $1.2mm

---

I get that was his asking price but do we think this is honestly what he gets?

You're talking teams like Arkansas setting aside $6m a year and they're near the top. It's insane to me to think someone's going to be willing to commit 20-30% of their NIL budget on one player.

---

Not insane. In NBA roster construction terms, the max players eat up between 25 to 30% of payroll for any given team (and that's with a cap system in place).

---

Max players eat up that percentage because there's a cap in place -- and because there are only 30 teams.

In an environment where there are 100-plus high major caliber programs and payroll isn't restricted, transfers and elite freshmen aren't going to accept being paid a fraction of what their teammates are.

---

In the NBA there is an aggregate team cap and an individual player pay cap in place precisely because the biggest WAR contributors would eat up an even higher percentage of the team cap without the individual cap.

Payroll is effectively restricted in the NCAA because no team has unlimited resources (yet). While there will be differences, at the end of the day, teams are distributing limited resources either from a practical perspective (NCAA) or mandated perspective (NBA). Unless there is some magic involved here, one would expect the behavior in both instances to converge and become very similar over time.

Finally, given that a typical team has an 8-9 man rotation, 20-30% of total spend to the rarest commodities is about right.

---

College basketball's recruiting/payroll dynamics will never match the NBA's because there are way more options for the players. In the NBA, even the biggest free agents may have five legitimate suitors in a given cycle and that cycle won't repeat again for those players for several seasons. In college basketball, guys can market themselves to more than 10 times that many schools and choose the one that bites at their desired price -- and then do the same thing again any or all of the next three offseasons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison.

---

I disagree. Markets are markets. There is nothing so special about college basketball that will make it materially different from every other observed athletic market place.

Behavior converges across markets with differences built into each market to address its specific needs.

NBA free agents can sign one year deals and college athletes can sign multiyear deals. Given the greater information uncertainty, younger college players have less negotiating leverage and will see reduced offers which guides them toward one-year deals with upside potential to reentering the market after one year.

NBA players choose to sign multiyear deals because the injury risk/reward calculus tilts toward locking in the massive amount of cash. The point is that the difference in behavior between college free agents and NBA free agents isn't structural but rather information based.

And while there are more suitors in the college market, each team is still subject to having finite resources. Which means they'll have to work within the constraints of a limited budget and you'll see their behavior be very similar to professional teams: the top of the line guys will consume disproportionately greater resources.

MLB is probably most instructive here (revenue disparity across clubs is similar concept to college sports, although the degree of disparity is not nearly as wide). MLB attempts to process 600 new domestic amateurs each year (via the draft) and probably a similar number of international players. 1200 new players into the system each year is pretty close to D1 basketball: in the domestic amateur draft, despite a team expecting to draft 20 players, the first round pick will get slotted for upward of 50% of a team's draft pool comp. And those amateur players have the optionality of college so conceptually they have similar leverage as college players (not exactly the same). MLB has perfected this system over a century and it isn't a coincidence that the statistical efficiency revolution started there. Everyone else followed.

College basketball will be the same. You'll see college teams spend 20-30% of their NIL on the rarest commodities, just like every other professional sports team does.

---

No one is denying that it's a market. It's just not a market that will mirror that of the NBA ... for a lot of different reasons.

The biggest is that there is far more competition for players' services and far more limited resources for each school. The first gives the players' leverage to pit more suitors against each other and the second forces schools to ration their NIL dollars in a way that allows them to build a competitive roster.

And unlike the NBA, which incentivizes tanking when not in a position to compete -- thus limiting the number of teams in the free agent market every year -- everyone is trying to build a competitive roster at the college level, and anyone with the NIL funds available to attract talent will use them.

Players aren't often going to settle for less than they can get in a wide-open players' market. And the ability to re-enter it year after year forces schools to re-recruit and pay their own players every offseason.

There will certainly be a discrepancy in pay between the best players and rotational guys, but rotational guys won't accept the same level of discrepancy that NBA role players do because they don't have to. They're perpetual free agents and they'll get paid somewhere.

---

No, this is incorrect and misreads history. You also have the economic relationship backwards.

The disparity between role players and projected stars in pro leagues was GREATER prior to the institution of salary caps (Sam Bradford and Glenn Robinson say hi!) and draft slots. The NFL AND NBA solved the problem by essentially allocating more of the money pot for non-superstar veterans (role players) in exchange for capping the earnings of superstars and selling out the rookies. The PAs (where role player vets have the real power) gladly went along with it. The current discrepancy in pro sports between stars/role players/rookies isn't "accepted" by the role players/vets, it is enthusiastically embraced by them because it is a much better deal than they would get in an unregulated system. In an unregulated system the value flows to proven superstars and high draft choices. That's why NFL and NBA owners went to war with their PAs to fix the problem.

Again, MLB is instructive because they've been doing it the longest. Guys that produce WAR get paid. Rotational/replacement level players don't get paid nearly as much. All sports are now a straightforward capital allocation game. It doesn't quite matter as much as you think how many allocators there are for a variety of reasons, but the market value of 1 WAR is the market value of 1 WAR.

Coaches are not dummies. The guys running NIL collectives aren't dummies. . They'll bargain basement hunt for role players/back end rotational guys and leave the bulk of their cash for the guys that produce value.

I also think you're getting the Econ backwards: 1 year NIL deals force teams to rerecruit and reset values for proven producers. But they also act as a dumping mechanism for guys who didn't work out. If the guy didn't work out, you cut him loose on the NIL deal.

Do you really think Caleb Williams didn't get a two-year deal with Dr Peoper and the NIL collective when he went to USC? Every single coach in the country would gladly give Donovan Cllingan a 2-year NIL deal right now.

The fact that there are more teams doesn't move the needle enough. Realistically, Kentucky isn't competing with UC Santa Barbera for any player.

Hell, Nick Saban said that less than a third of his players got money via the Alabama NIL collective which sounds like the role players/back end rotational guys at a powerhouse program have accepted the discrepancy.

Yes, there will be differences, but ultimately, the behaviors of capital allocators will converge because that's pretty much what happens across markets as people figure things out. Basketball teams will spend the bulk of their NIL on two or three key guys. College Football teams will spend it on QB,OT and pass rush.

Tarris Reed, transfer C from Michigan, committed to UConn today.

So… At what point are we going to need a salary cap?

Jerry Jones is reportedly offering DOUBLE whatever the Kentucky commits were making to come to Arkansas, per @trillydonovan

Jerry Jones is an Arkansas booster, and reportedly helped them hire John Calipari last week. pic.twitter.com/McgxAF77X1

— College Basketball Report (@CBKReport) April 18, 2024

It won't happen until the schools themselves are footing the payroll bill. A) No regulatory measures will pass legal muster/survive court rulings until the schools are sharing their revenue and collectively bargaining with the players, and B) The schools that benefit most from the current NIL model have no incentive to institute limits while spending other people's money.

Revenue sharing is coming. It will either fix the chaos by bringing needed regulation to college sports or break them permanently.

As a lifelong Cowboys fan it's funny/sad/ironic to see Jerry finally being active in the free agent market this Spring....but it's college bball

boognish_bear said:

---

As a lifelong Cowboys fan it's funny/sad/ironic to see Jerry finally being active in the free agent market this Spring....but it's college bball

---

Is the lesson here Jerry really hates the salary cap?

whitetrash said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

So… At what point are we going to need a salary cap?

Jerry Jones is reportedly offering DOUBLE whatever the Kentucky commits were making to come to Arkansas, per @trillydonovan

Jerry Jones is an Arkansas booster, and reportedly helped them hire John Calipari last week. pic.twitter.com/McgxAF77X1

— College Basketball Report (@CBKReport) April 18, 2024

---

If he's involved that just means Arkansas will never make it past the first round of the postseason.

---

So he and Cal are made for each other...

Why didn't Jerry do this for Muss?

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Why didn't Jerry do this for Muss?

---

I think it's less that and more the boosters got to pick the coach this time and they got their preferred first pick, over the athletic director, so they're energized and invested on another level. You have one booster (Tyson) paying half Cal's salary and throwing out like 6m a year for NIL. It's become a let me show how much money I have to throw around pride thing at this point.

All that said, Arkansas' AD may be on shaky ground, the basketball search was a dumpsterfire until the boosters got involved and he's got a lot riding on the football season this year.

Quinton said:

---

Pipe dream but Rutgers kid and Roach (Duke) would be ideal. Still think we need a wing, a big, and a facilitator. Staff probably thinks differently but can dream.

---

Didn't think there was any shot but apparently its more than a chance. You pick up Roach (my preference) and one of the Rutgers kid or TN kid and I only see KU with close in talent. Pick up a wing too and thats a top 5 team.

Like that roster better than Iowa St or Houston (assuming Shead stays in the draft).

Baylor has emerged as the front-runner to land Duke transfer Jeremy Roach, source told @TheFieldOf68.

Roach averaged 14 points per game this past season and shot 43 percent from 3.

Would be a perfect addition for Scott Drew - a proven, veteran, high-character guard who can…

— Jeff Goodman (@GoodmanHoops) April 18, 2024

Agreed, but a wing is a must, even with roach and say the Rutgers guy I fail to see us doing much without a competent 4, be it a defensive minded (mark vital) kind of wing or a Bridges type either would be fine.

The rotation would look at lot like

Roach, Love, VJ, Wing, Big man,

Then 3 guards and a big off the bench with Nunn, Wright, and Little, and Josh O off the bench as well.

247 predictions have been updated tonight and are now showing Roach AND Aidoo to BU.

OkieBear12 said:

---

247 predictions have been updated tonight and are now showing Roach AND Aidoo to BU.

---

Man...how the feelings around this program have changed since Tuesday of last week