Welcome Ishan Sharma

[TheA_Bomb]

Ishan Sharma

From UVA 

• HS Class of 24'
• SG 
• 6-5 
• 192

[brianstl]

Nice 

[Scoop]

I really like this one.

[FatherB]

We are SG/SF heavy. Could use more depth at PG and C. 

[Old guy]

Welcome to the Bills Ishan Sharma.

[gobillsgo]

Glad to see Schertz picking up some more guys with more than a year of eligibility remaining.  Impressive portal work

[Aquinas]

I really like this kid. He looks like Gibson with the ability  to bring the ball up the floor. Watched some video. It's easy to like his deep 3s, but watch closer and he is often one of the 2 guards bringing  the ball up the floor when pressed.

[wgstl]

1 hour ago, FatherB said:

We are SG/SF heavy. Could use more depth at PG and C. 

We’re only heavy if Thames plays. And we don’t know if he will. Agree on PG and center, although Paul will play a decent amount behind Robbie and I don’t hate Kerr getting some min 

[Billiken4life5]

10 hours ago, gobillsgo said:

Glad to see Schertz picking up some more guys with more than a year of eligibility remaining.  Impressive portal work

Agreed.  Favorite thing about the 2 signings yesterday was 3 years of eligibility left.  Multiple years of Schertz's system and development with our staff are so much more appealing than a senior mercenary. 

[billikenfan05]

25 minutes ago, Billiken4life5 said:

Agreed.  Favorite thing about the 2 signings yesterday was 3 years of eligibility left.  Multiple years of Schertz's system and development with our staff are so much more appealing than a senior mercenary. 

Who is to say they will stick around though? It's nice to think about, but there's no way to know if any of these guys will be here next year. I am of the opinion that we'll see less turnover, especially if this year goes well. If this year goes poorly, well all bets are off. 

[billiken_roy]

i believe retention of successful rostered players will depend on how much we pay them.   if their agent says they can get more.   i am betting most if not all will test the portal waters.  once they do that, it is a crap shoot if they stick around.  its a new ballgame.  one i sure dont like.   if there ever was an industry that i think we need to take a socialist view, college sports may be it.  across the board salary control.  this is getting crazy and i dont think it is sustainable.  

[brianstl]

I’m thinking Sharma can fill that Julian Larry role in Schertz’s offense that the team was missing last season.

[slu72]

To stem the tidal wave of transfers there has to be some type of term contacts put in place, if they want to follow the pro model of play for pay they should follow the idea of term contracts as well. 

[slu72]

12 hours ago, FatherB said:

We are SG/SF heavy. Could use more depth at PG and C. 

The Villanova model? 4 big guards 1 big. 

[brianstl]

9 minutes ago, slu72 said:

To stem the tidal wave of transfers there has to be some type of term contacts put in place, if they want to follow the pro model of play for pay they should follow the idea of term contracts as well. 

Teams have tried that and including buyouts. To this point the agents have been pretty successful in keeping stuff like that out.  It will be interesting to see how the Nico thing plays out from here.  He ditched a lucrative multi year NIL agreement.

[billikenfan05]

13 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i believe retention of successful rostered players will depend on how much we pay them.   if their agent says they can get more.   i am betting most if not all will test the portal waters.  once they do that, it is a crap shoot if they stick around.  its a new ballgame.  one i sure dont like.   if there ever was an industry that i think we need to take a socialist view, college sports may be it.  across the board salary control.  this is getting crazy and i dont think it is sustainable.  

I would like to see the number of players who actually have an agent. What type of agent they have. 

One of the things I think Schertz is good at is finding players who aren't solely motivated by "reaching the next tax bracket". I think the idea that every player out there is going to jump because they are offered $X more, is a cynical one. 

Now that's not to say that every player isn't motivated to make more money. I think people there's much more nuance to every player's decision to leave. Schertz made it sound like no player walked into his office ready to jump. 

[dlarry]

10 minutes ago, brianstl said:

Teams have tried that and including buyouts. To this point the agents have been pretty successful in keeping stuff like that out.  It will be interesting to see how the Nico thing plays out from here.  He ditched a lucrative multi year NIL agreement.

I’m hoping he ends up at Appalachian State doing “Becky Queen of carpet” type commercials for 100 bucks a showing and a year supply of ramen noodles. 

[VeniceMenace]

24 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said:

I would like to see the number of players who actually have an agent. What type of agent they have. 

One of the things I think Schertz is good at is finding players who aren't solely motivated by "reaching the next tax bracket". I think the idea that every player out there is going to jump because they are offered $X more, is a cynical one. 

Now that's not to say that every player isn't motivated to make more money. I think people there's much more nuance to every player's decision to leave. Schertz made it sound like no player walked into his office ready to jump. 

Schertz is good at finding players who are motivated by a briefcase of Two Men and A Garden.

[cheeseman]

Do you think with more years to play that those players are easier to get?  They have less of a resume and are willing to come for a bit less to improve their stock.  If schools actually start paying the players directly, could they all put in a non-compete clause?  Would that slow this yearly switching?  I could see that a player with more than one year left to play could be very motivated to perform at a high level for selfish reasons rather that one with only one year playing only for the possible last pay day.  Of course, they always have the chance to play overseas so maybe not.

[Billiken4life5]

1 hour ago, billikenfan05 said:

Who is to say they will stick around though? It's nice to think about, but there's no way to know if any of these guys will be here next year. I am of the opinion that we'll see less turnover, especially if this year goes well. If this year goes poorly, well all bets are off. 

True.  The new reality unless the legislation by Cruz/Booker passes.  Although it is kind of like your argument about coaching hires and if somebody is successful enough to leave after 2 years then at least you had some good times and the program is in decent shape.  Plus we've had success retaining our All-Conference players that we've developed.  Yuri, Gibson last year, Robbie this year.  Both impressive and sad that we haven't had anybody plucked by a Power 4.  Tells you that we have resources to keep our best players but also that we haven't had a Conference POY type that is going to demand multi-million of dollars & create an outrageous bidding war.  I agree with you that Schertz is doing a good job of recruiting guys who aren't only thinking about the top dollar.  That being said, how quickly we wrapped up 6 transfers would seem to indicate that we made some strong offers that made guys cancel other visits.  The combination of Schertz's reputation as an offensive guru, solid NIL, & multiple open starting spots seems to have been a pretty appealing pitch.  

[WVBilliken]

1 hour ago, slu72 said:

The Villanova model? 4 big guards 1 big. 

If you have 3 or 4 guys on the floor, who are athletic, can handle the ball well, dribbling & passing .... then I think a traditional point guard is not necessary, in most games, in the Schertz system ..... me, not concerned with the point guard depth on this squad at all.

[billikenfan05]

10 minutes ago, Billiken4life5 said:

True.  The new reality unless the legislation by Cruz/Booker passes.  Although it is kind of like your argument about coaching hires and if somebody is successful enough to leave after 2 years then at least you had some good times and the program is in decent shape.  Plus we've had success retaining our All-Conference players that we've developed.  Yuri, Gibson last year, Robbie this year.  Both impressive and sad that we haven't had anybody plucked by a Power 4.  Tells you that we have resources to keep our best players but also that we haven't had a Conference POY type that is going to demand multi-million of dollars & create an outrageous bidding war.  I agree with you that Schertz is doing a good job of recruiting guys who aren't only thinking about the top dollar.  That being said, how quickly we wrapped up 6 transfers would seem to indicate that we made some strong offers that made guys cancel other visits.  The combination of Schertz's reputation as an offensive guru, solid NIL, & multiple open starting spots seems to have been a pretty appealing pitch.  

I think the difference, as the industry stands currently, is that players don't have buyout clauses. Yes the program is in "better shape" but that's only if they make an NCAA Tournament. If a program came along after this season and said we want Josh Schertz, okay thanks for the exorbitant buyout. It's a bummer we didn't get NCAA cash, but that buyout is still lovely. With players, if you don't get to the tournament you really didn't get too much of a profit off (a) player(s). All you can really do is try to go out and replace them or pay to keep them. If we get to a point with buyouts, that would level the playing field alone, IMO. 

[willie]

20 hours ago, billiken_roy said:

i think this is a good point.   i am doubting Schertz's walk on plan.   seems like a loophole that programs could take advantage of to hide players. and still stay under the limit and still have a number of walkons.   

 I wo 

 

2 hours ago, billikenfan05 said:

Who is to say they will stick around though? It's nice to think about, but there's no way to know if any of these guys will be here next year. I am of the opinion that we'll see less turnover, especially if this year goes well. If this year goes poorly, well all bets are off. 

I would assume that if the year goes well we would have more money to pay. 

[Billikenbooster]

1 hour ago, billikenfan05 said:

I think the difference, as the industry stands currently, is that players don't have buyout clauses. Yes the program is in "better shape" but that's only if they make an NCAA Tournament. If a program came along after this season and said we want Josh Schertz, okay thanks for the exorbitant buyout. It's a bummer we didn't get NCAA cash, but that buyout is still lovely. With players, if you don't get to the tournament you really didn't get too much of a profit off (a) player(s). All you can really do is try to go out and replace them or pay to keep them. If we get to a point with buyouts, that would level the playing field alone, IMO. 

Just was thinking the same thing. A buyout clause adds to the likelihood a player stays. 

[slu72]

2 hours ago, WVBilliken said:

If you have 3 or 4 guys on the floor, who are athletic, can handle the ball well, dribbling & passing .... then I think a traditional point guard is not necessary, in most games, in the Schertz system ..... me, not concerned with the point guard depth on this squad at all.

Rebounding may be a problem for a 4 guard team. Especially since Robbie’s not known for his stellar board work. Here’s hoping Kellen finds his cure, because he worked the boards pretty effectively. If we’re playing 4 guys that are between 6’3” and 6’7” plus Robbie they better be aggressive and skilled at blocking out.