3star_recruit

What's the advantage in getting a player out of high school ranked in the 75-150 range and getting them as transfers two years later? The player in the second scenario actually has a better chance at playing. The freshman version has to outperform two upperclassmen.

We struggled last year because there wasn't anybody of similar quality behind Thames. Barring injury, I don't think that's an issue this year. If Thames is playing 20 min a game and has to go out again, we've got a capable player behind him.

Coach Tillett has never been in one place long enough for the fanbase to get a handle on what a Coach Tillett team looks like. But somehow she's able to make it to the NCAA tournament wherever she goes. I'm curious as to what she can accomplish over a five year period.

Or Anya develops a jump hook and elevates his free throw shooting to 70% over the summer. Stranger things have happened.

The only benefit to SLU is if the local kid stays. If he isn't good enough to be in the top 8 as a freshman (most freshmen aren't), he's just going to transfer. The version of the player MBMs want is the guy that has played starter minutes 30-60 games somewhere else and is significantly better than he was in high school. You can only get that guy in the portal. You're never getting that guy if he's stuck behind two upperclassmen as a freshman.

When It comes to high school guards, Coach Schertz has shown a preference for long, athletic scorers. Principia's Quentin Coleman in the 2026 class fits that criteria. And to top it off, he led his squad to a state championship the month after we offered.

SLU's nonconference back in the day was full of mid-majors and the house was still full. Coach Spoon, Claggs and Highmark were the hometown heroes we didn't know we needed. Here's the home non-con in the season where Spoonball started winning: 1 Sat, Nov 27, 1993 REG Mercer TAAC -15.60 W 86 52 1 0 W 1 St. Louis Arena 2 Wed, Dec 1, 1993 REG @ Southern Methodist SWC -3.69 W 90 85 OT 2 0 W 2 Moody Coliseum 3 Sat, Dec 4, 1993 REG Cornell Ivy -15.18 W 84 47 3 0 W 3 St. Louis Arena 4 Mon, Dec 6, 1993 REG @ Creighton MVC -9.79 W 78 71 4 0 W 4 Omaha Civic Auditorium 5 Wed, Dec 8, 1993 REG Chicago State ECC -21.85 W 97 69 5 0 W 5 St. Louis Arena 6 Wed, Dec 15, 1993 REG Augustana (IL) W 97 64 6 0 W 6 7 Sat, Dec 18, 1993 REG @ Murray State OVC 3.83 W 92 89 7 0 W 7 Racer Arena 8 Mon, Dec 20, 1993 REG Samford TAAC -9.01 W 70 68 8 0 W 8 St. Louis Arena 9 Thu, Dec 30, 1993 REG Southern Illinois MVC 7.09 W 100 87 9 0 W 9 St. Louis Arena 10 Sun, Jan 2, 1994 REG Detroit Mercy MW Coll -0.05 W 91 77 10 0 W 10 St. Louis Arena 11 Wed, Jan 5, 1994 REG Missouri State MVC 0.15 W 81 48 11 0 W 11 St. Louis Arena

The only time we filled the arena is with a 1) A folksy grandfatherly figure and 2) hometown heroes. In St. Louis, It's not just winning it's who you win with.

Sounds like there's an East Coast club and we ain't in it.

You get ranked based on stats. Player A averages 16 ppg at a mid-major. He moves up and averages 7 ppg for a P6 as an upperclassman. Player B averages 4ppg as underclassman at a P6, moves down and averages 16 ppg. According to the portal ranking, Player A is a higher quality player than Player B. But is that true? By definition the guys moving down won't have stats. That's why they're moving down. In some cases its an indicator of quality. In other cases, it isn't.

Early in the transfer cycle you'll see players move up and later in the cycle you'll see players move down. It was the same thing last year. Our program is an outlier in not only getting multiple P6 transfers, but getting them this early. It's not unusual to see players still committing months from now. Javon Bess didn't commit to us until June. And that was pre-portal. There are more players looking for new homes now.

I said the portal is a two way street. Strong performers from our conference move up and weak performers from the P6 move down. We don't seem to acknowledge that some of the players moving down become all-conference performers in the A10. Some of the players moving up won't do much at their new home. I agree that programs who don't have a certain amount of money are screwed under this system. They don't have the resources to retain good players or to attract talented players who didn't pan out at the P6 level.

I found the following excerpt interesting. This sounds a lot more like reality. The 1.2 million for a role player business in that other article sounds like sports agents circulating wild numbers to improve their bargaining position. ---- One program I spoke to earlier this cycle said they wanted to ensure they spent 75% of their overall budget on their projected starting five after spreading their dollars around far too much the previous year, and that general framework is something that has been echoed in a number of conversations in recent days and weeks. The thinking: Spending $500,000 each on two mediocre wings is less efficient than betting big on a $700,000 or $800,000 potential high-level starter and using a developmental piece in the $200,000 range behind them.

I'm calling BS on CBSports's story. If the role player in the article is getting 1.2 million then how much are the starters getting: 3-5 million apiece? I don't buy it.

Depending on the court ruling on players who came from D2, he may have one more year to hire himself out to the highest bidder. I think you will see a lot of this going forward.