UR opts in to House settlement, will only pay hoops players

[97spiderfan]

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.

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]

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.

 

[SpiderTrap]

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

I am not saying we break the bank for the other sports and I think everyone knows, even the athletes, which sports are the focus and therefore will get paid the most. But to give the other sports nothing? When schools in our own conference appear at this time - who knows it could change - will at least give them something - that doesn't look bad at all?

I think it again goes to the thinking that in these non-revenue sports, UR will rely on kids coming to UR strictly for the education. And you might win that argument some of the time. But remember your also dealing with 18 year old kids. The men's golf player who might be able to go to Davidson, and get $5,000 a year on top of their scholarship - might decide otherwise. And if the answer is - we don't care about those sports, then why have them. Lets go ALL in on this. Lets eliminate all sports except Men's and Women's hoops. Title IX - easy, rosters are the same. We cut all the expenses and dead weight from all other sports, and all that money can go into Men's and Women's hoops. We could then easily increase that $3 million per year because we have no expenses in the other sports, and not to mention - we will have about 200-300 more kids coming to UR purely for academic reasons - which means more tuition money.

If we don't care about the non-revenue sports, then ax them and make UR a basketball only school. And if the NCAA requires you to have so many sports to stay D1, then keep the bare minimum - but offer no scholarships. Just make those glorified club teams competing against other colleges and thank them for taking the losses so hoops can take the money. If it works and UR becomes a top 25 team because we can outspend other schools - would anyone really mind?

 

[spider23]

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.

No my point was the SEC team may be thinking that, but willing to spend big b/c they can. No, I don't think they would ever say that obviously. They would be selling on the outright spot, or competing for the spot. I would take the spot on the bench for half a million, no problem

 

[spider23]

Dutcher helping retain his players

spotfund

 

[urmite]

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.

I heard a similar quote from a coaching competitor.

“I will gladly pay you a NIL in 2028 for a basketball performance in 2026” - Coach Wimpy

 

[spiderman]

Trap, I actually have pondered the question about why non-rev sports get so many scholarships. It really doesn't make much sense unless someone is so special that they attract interest in your school. But that's where we are.

I personally think a scholarship is more than enough for a student athlete that isn't adding to the bottom line. It's always been enough until now. The new NIL stuff ... that's for revenue generators to me.

Where does it stop? In your example, do we really need to outbid Davidson for a golfer?

 

[GKiller]

Trap, I actually have pondered the question about why non-rev sports get so many scholarships. It really doesn't make much sense unless someone is so special that they attract interest in your school. But that's where we are.

I personally think a scholarship is more than enough for a student athlete that isn't adding to the bottom line. It's always been enough until now. The new NIL stuff ... that's for revenue generators to me.

Where does it stop? In your example, do we really need to outbid Davidson for a golfer?

Nope. Unless it's Charlie Woods lol.

The other week Trap had U of R assuming we'd pay our own FCS football players 4 mil, on average 50k per player. spiderstudent17 just the other day had CAA football teams paying up to 2 milly. Teams like Monmouth. I don't even know if Monmouth works with a full allotment of ships. So that was all bizarro world to me. I think there is some miscalculation on what is going to be available to most athletes. Not at the top, & those guys will have to even find ways to pay baseball, which has become a big deal at the sec level. At same time, I guess it only takes 1 to start a trend and in the wild wild west who knows the trends could hit us. not much is predictable.

the new NIL...tbf at U of R...is anyone a real revenue generator even hoops? I don't think so. Not if u calculate expenses.

 

[spiderstudent17]

Trap, I actually have pondered the question about why non-rev sports get so many scholarships. It really doesn't make much sense unless someone is so special that they attract interest in your school. But that's where we are.

I personally think a scholarship is more than enough for a student athlete that isn't adding to the bottom line. It's always been enough until now. The new NIL stuff ... that's for revenue generators to me.

Where does it stop? In your example, do we really need to outbid Davidson for a golfer?

I think it's simple. We should invest in the non-revenue sports that can bring us more publicity and a chance to win at a national level. So right now that includes men's and women's lacrosse. If baseball continues this trajectory under Aoki, add baseball too. Even golf is something where only 5 players play with 4 scores counted in the conference and NCAA tournaments. So if the school wanted to gain more notoriety in a sport, golf could be a good bang for your buck value, since it only takes 4 really good players to have success whereas a sport like lacrosse or baseball might need like 10+ players.

When I complimented Hardt the other day for doing a good job with our overall athletic success and how I take pride that we are doing well in our Olympic sports too, I got criticized for it. I see tremendous value in being good in those sports too for similar reasons as basketball, albeit to a smaller extent. But I digress...