spiderstudent17 said:

The other consideration is assuming we are both operating with the same(ish) amount of money per year for MBB now, then we can offer an individual more than other P5s. Other P5s will have more top players they’re recruiting and also on their roster already. They will all command more money. I’m not saying for us to try and have a full roster of top level players, but maybe like 2-3 of them. Maybe P5s offer a player $400K per year because they have more mouths to feed and need to compensate other great players too. On the other hand, we can offer that player $500K+ and pay the players on our current roster less. This operates under the assumption that we aren’t handing out NIL money like candy just because someone has been here longer. Might be a wrong assumption to make.

Click to expand...

yes, if we somehow have the money to outbid a P5 of course we have a chance.
but I'll believe that when I see it.
I don't even think we'll outbid VCU and GMU level teams.

That argument assumes the kid is being told (or thinks) he'll be the 7th or 8th guy off the bench at a P5.
I'm betting most are being told they'll have a chance to compete for a major role. Maybe even start. "That's why we're paying you X hundred thousand dollars".

I never understand the "Don't go to X University. You're not good enough for them. You'll star here", argument.
That same argument could be used by W&M when recruiting against us. Yet we'd be appalled if a recruit chose W&M over us.

spiderstudent17 said:

2-3 new players is likely all we need to see a considerable impact. I posted this in the house settlement thread, but how we allocate our NIL money is just as important as having the money to spend in the first place. I would rather get 2 absolute studs and difference makers next year and give them each more money than get 4-5 guys who are all okay and maybe one has a break out season and does well here.

Click to expand...

I was just answering the thread question. and that I don't see a high qty of transfers in, compared to our last few classes. & yeah it could be 1. in theory. Get a Cooper Flagg. Offer him 20.5 million make him say no. But like sman said the issue is finding those studs. I'd take 2 studs too.

Problem is Mooney offensive & defensive systems and his style are not conducive to that. Except possibly the 1 & 5 guys. the small PG and the shooting/passing big. But it seems like that's where we're most set positionally. Tyne terrible shooting but 2 years of development I don't see Moon recruiting over him. we need another guard but Moon likely sees with Tyne not over Tyne. In reality with this team we could recruit over anyone. But in Moon mind he thinks i got the 1 & 5 set (maybe bring in another devlopmental 5 depending on who we lose) and blend in the 5 frosh of course big time. well call it 3 or 4 of them. I bet he redshirts 1 or 2 of the frosh. Anyway my confidence in Moon getting a couple relative studs is low.

spiderman said:

yes, if the offer's the same, then we're back to pre-NIL when all the offers were the same(just a scholarship). you typically chose the highest level, and within that the highest program. and I doubt we'll be outspending a P5.

Click to expand...

All things being equal, I don't think a kid is just going to choose the highest level. Because if I were a player, playing time would be a prime consideration. Am I going to go to a P5 and be the 7th, 8th guy off the bench or do I go to an A-10 school and be a starter and one of the focal points of the team? Most players wanna play.

I know this is not directly relatable but my son last year "moved" down a level in travel soccer. Previous team he was coming off the bench, current team he starts, plays loads of minutes. As a player he is much happier with his PT and role on his current team than he was on the prior.

Anyone who plays high level sports wants to be on the field as much as possible, we can offer that. Mooney just has to better with his talent evaluation than he was last year.

spiderman said:

Well ... we'll see. our recruiting pitch vs P5's has always been "come here, get a lot of minutes and make an immediate impact". We always assume they won't get that chance at a P5 ... or at least think they will.

Click to expand...

The other consideration is assuming we are both operating with the same(ish) amount of money per year for MBB now, then we can offer an individual more than other P5s. Other P5s will have more top players they’re recruiting and also on their roster already. They will all command more money. I’m not saying for us to try and have a full roster of top level players, but maybe like 2-3 of them. Maybe P5s offer a player $400K per year because they have more mouths to feed and need to compensate other great players too. On the other hand, we can offer that player $500K+ and pay the players on our current roster less. This operates under the assumption that we aren’t handing out NIL money like candy just because someone has been here longer. Might be a wrong assumption to make.

Well ... we'll see. our recruiting pitch vs P5's has always been "come here, get a lot of minutes and make an immediate impact". We always assume they won't get that chance at a P5 ... or at least think they will.

spiderman said:

everyone has a price, but "absolute studs" are in high demand and will have high major offers with really large NILs. How much do you think we'd have to overspend to land that kind of stud?

Click to expand...

I think we’ll be able to compete more than you think, assuming we aren’t completely incompetent with how we allocate the money. In terms of absolute studs, we have never and will never be landing 5 start recruits. So I’m referring to high 3 star/4 star guys, or players who played very well for 2-3 years and are looking to move up a level. Unlike many P5s who will have a full roster of high level players and more mouths to feed with NIL, our recruiting pitch could be come here, get a lot of minutes and make an immediate impact. And hoping we are smart with how we distribute NIL, those top players would have a greater piece of the same size pie (assuming we do in fact spend $3 mill per year like most P5s would do).

We've got something with the bigs - Walz has come on towards the end of the season and I think Soulis has potential. I don't think Tyne can be our lead guard - he can be a secondary piece (doesn't seem to make players around him better with his passing and plays out of control at times) - but history has shown here that we need the lead guard to be exceptional - he can be good, but not sure he's next in line of the likes of KA, K0, Lindsay, Gilly, even SDJ.

The rest of the roster - meh.

97spiderfan said:

But damn, you would have to wonder how he would do in a system that utilizes his natural strengths. If I'm Walz, I have to wonder that as well. What if I went to a system that played their centers in a more traditional format?

Click to expand...

As I noted he seems like a guy that will return, but yes maybe he would like a system that plays more to his strengths and heck an SEC team can offer him big bucks even if they think of him as the 9th man

SpiderTrap said:

Not sure how everyone else feels, but I don't love that we are not paying the other sports right away. Maybe there is room to pay them in future years, but again - that itself sends a message of UR's overall committment to athletics. I don't believe VCU and Mason - both who have made public statements about paying athletes said they would only pay hoops. They may have said more money will be directed to the hoops teams, but I don't believe they said other sports will not get paid right away. On some level - that is a red flag.

Click to expand...

Which non-rev sport do you think deserves more than a scholarship? lol

8legs1dream said:

Not to mention if we are "spending roughly the same amount as P5 team X" if the bottom line on both offers are similar most would just choose the bigger name school anyway right 🤷‍♂️

Click to expand...

yes, if the offer's the same, then we're back to pre-NIL when all the offers were the same(just a scholarship). you typically chose the highest level, and within that the highest program. and I doubt we'll be outspending a P5.

Ferrum Spider said:

Always liked Walz, but I am not sure he was a natural fit for this system that involves a passing big man which slowed his progress. This is a guy that would thrive under a Jerry Wainwright/Dick Tarrant type of coach.

Click to expand...

And yes on Walz. Walz is a banger but he plays in a system where we want our big men to passers and to facilitate the offense. I give Walz credit for developing his game to hit some outside shots and at the end of the season make some passes from the top of the key.

But damn, you would have to wonder how he would do in a system that utilizes his natural strengths. If I'm Walz, I have to wonder that as well. What if I went to a system that played their centers in a more traditional format?

spider23 said:

Walz had Penn State offer. Go re-read my postsfrom last year and this year. I had expectations and many others did too that after two years in system would be ready to step in. And moons talk preseason. I do think he is mostly on schedule now, but took a long time to get there. He was pretty decisive and good metrics last season in limited minutes but did not do that much for first half of season. Coming on again late. I'm not sure I believe the Tanner D metrics, but he makes my eyes bleed with inability to keep guys in front of him. But I have watched less spider hoops than most on here so could be wrong.

Click to expand...

No, you are correct. Tanner lacks the athletic quickness to play guard/wing at the A-10 level. He is kind of like Roche in that regards, but Roche at least had the potential to be sniper on offense, which Tanner lacks. He isn't getting the quick twitch muscle movement, no matter how many developmental years he has in our system and that ultimately is the problem. He probably would do really well in like the Patriot League or Big South though.

ESPN still has us as a 9-seed, but now playing Illinois in the South Carolina pod.

spider23 said:

Walz had Penn State offer. Go re-read my postsfrom last year and this year. I had expectations and many others did too that after two years in system would be ready to step in. And moons talk preseason. I do think he is mostly on schedule now, but took a long time to get there. He was pretty decisive and good metrics last season in limited minutes but did not do that much for first half of season. Coming on again late. I'm not sure I believe the Tanner D metrics, but he makes my eyes bleed with inability to keep guys in front of him. But I have watched less spider hoops than most on here so could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Always liked Walz, but I am not sure he was a natural fit for this system that involves a passing big man which slowed his progress. This is a guy that would thrive under a Jerry Wainwright/Dick Tarrant type of coach.

spiderstudent17 said:

2-3 new players is likely all we need to see a considerable impact. I posted this in the house settlement thread, but how we allocate our NIL money is just as important as having the money to spend in the first place. I would rather get 2 absolute studs and difference makers next year and give them each more money than get 4-5 guys who are all okay and maybe one has a break out season and does well here.

Click to expand...

everyone has a price, but "absolute studs" are in high demand and will have high major offers with really large NILs. How much do you think we'd have to overspend to land that kind of stud?

Spiders gaining ground in the AP poll...21 votes this week up from 12 last week, good for 27th!

Texas holds at #1, Tennessee down 7 spots to #18 after getting blown out by Kentucky and falling to Georgia last week, Alabama up a spot to #18, and Oklahoma State holding steady at #21. Fairfield got a couple votes.

Eight Legger said:

Mooney is on record saying he wants to pay more to the players who stay longer. So basically we're screwed. Some other school will be offering a lot on the front end, and our offer will be "Come to UR now and we'll pay you a good amount in 2-3 years."

Brilliant.

Click to expand...

Not to mention if we are "spending roughly the same amount as P5 team X" if the bottom line on both offers are similar most would just choose the bigger name school anyway right 🤷‍♂️

Eight Legger said:

Mooney is on record saying he wants to pay more to the players who stay longer. So basically we're screwed. Some other school will be offering a lot on the front end, and our offer will be "Come to UR now and we'll pay you a good amount in 2-3 years."

Brilliant.

Click to expand...

I hope he changes his mind or at least acts differently behind the scenes. This isn’t youth league sports where everyone should get paid more just because they’re here longer. Might as well give them capri suns and orange slices after the games too. Some guy riding the bench all 4 years should absolutely not be getting more than a high impact recruit or even player on the team already who has more impact. If players have a problem with it, they can work harder and get better to play more minutes, and have more of an impact. This would increase their NIL value. That’s how the real world works.

Us having the NIL money is only half the battle. The other half is not being dumb in how we spend it.

SpiderTrap said:

Not sure how everyone else feels, but I don't love that we are not paying the other sports right away. Maybe there is room to pay them in future years, but again - that itself sends a message of UR's overall committment to athletics. I don't believe VCU and Mason - both who have made public statements about paying athletes said they would only pay hoops. They may have said more money will be directed to the hoops teams, but I don't believe they said other sports will not get paid right away. On some level - that is a red flag.

Click to expand...

In an ideal world I wish we spent more on all sports too, but don’t think us not doing it this year or subsequent years is a red flag. Everyone knows the hierarchy of what people care about and thus where the investments will be in college athletics. FBS football > basketball >>> everything else. Every school is doing this across the board. Not just UR.

GKiller said:

for some reason we don't have increased expectations for a 20-year coach or so I've been told

Click to expand...

one of the many Mooneyite tenets that simply holds no water.

Lakers Look to Ride Momentum into Matchup with Richmond​

GKiller said:

so as of now I'll call it 2-3 new guys from portal. we'll see.

Click to expand...

2-3 new players is likely all we need to see a considerable impact. I posted this in the house settlement thread, but how we allocate our NIL money is just as important as having the money to spend in the first place. I would rather get 2 absolute studs and difference makers next year and give them each more money than get 4-5 guys who are all okay and maybe one has a break out season and does well here.