JimmerNoe

Man, 3m is getting close to the number I would say is “too much”, but I stand by my feeling that we need to make at least one splash recruiting wise even if it’s an overpay. Especially for a local-ish kid. Especially in year one. The more top 5 caliber guys we can get and provide a good experience for (wins, pay, staff relationship), the more we become a destination for top players from a national perspective in the future. Perception is important.

Would think it’s a rising tide that lifts all boats scenario though. Massive influx of revenue and interest in the Indiana athletics pot because of football would probably offset a slightly lower percentage of the pot.

Patiently waiting all day for this thread to get a new post… I’m out of new football hype to read and need a gif. Any gif will do. Preferably a candy striped one.

UCONN has massive success in the last 25 years and recruits whoever they want. Last year they relied heavily on Liam McNeeley who was a top 10 guy who they certainly paid handsomely. Before that they had Stephon Castle who was top 10. Houston and Purdue have two of the absolute best system coaches in basketball and are outliers in any metric talent wise. (Although Houston has grabbed a few burger boys recently) Florida was not in fact aided by any top 25-50 guys that THEY recruited. They won with really good proven transfers. i get that we have different ideas on this, but you’re cherry picking the absolute cream of the crop, and we just frankly aren’t in that ballpark right now. I’d rather spend heavily to become relevant quickly, and let the success follow that however it may.

To be completely fair, I would rather win 25-30 games a year riding mega talent, just for the next few years, than try to moneyball a team together right now that MIGHT have a chance to win it all. We desperately need to energize our brand and fanbase in this new era. Give me a roster constructed more like Duke or UK with Coach Devries for a few years to make our brand ultra relevant again, our pile of cash grows with yearly success (even without a title), and then once we are sitting pretty and have some clout let’s grab a few more of the top 50 guys that might pop big time in a year or two. may not be the prevailing opinion but I just want to win some damn games.

Ok, my initial phrase was top 5-ish. I guess I consider that 3-7, but it’s all semantics at that level of talent. You’re going to spend 25% of the budget on three guys that are almost certainly not going to be stars? And then may transfer because they aren’t playing? I’ll use that extra few million for some mid major guys with a chip on their shoulder and something to prove. IMO, we desperately need to start spending aggressively at the top of the roster. We should have a minimum of three guys in that 2 million range. Jimmies and Joes. There are plenty of players to be had that fit perfectly well in roster spots 4-8 that are reasonably priced.

Facts. And for all the lamenting about Mgbako, he still was a starting caliber player in the big ten in a system that was truly the opposite of what he needed to succeed.

Cool, you just spent 3 million or more on three roster spots that are unlikely to be starter level players in the big ten. So now are down 3/12 million with zero star caliber players. Money gonna go quick that way.

I said top five. And even still, Mgbako (#10 was his best final ranking), was Big Ten freshman of the year with an absolutely awful system for his skill set. If you look through the last several years the majority of top 5 players in final recruiting rankings are high level college contributors from day one being overly judicious with the money is going to leave us in situations where the big prizes are gone and we are getting nickel and dimed by what is left, typically good but not great mid-major guys. You can probably win that way, but give me a headliner or two every year for my money.

Sure, I just mean that using your high school budget for the year on a top 5 guy is fine with me. You just better make sure you go grab 2-3 big portal contributors too. This year is a bit of an outlier with the coaching change, but if you told me we spent 5-6 million on a top 3 of Lamar, Tucker, and a top 5 freshman I would be on board. Leaves you 7-8 million to get the rest of the roster I think? My main point is that I think it makes way more sense to spend 2-3 million on a single top five guy instead of spending 1 million each for three guys in the top 25.

Personally, I’m okay giving ONE top 5ish kid this kind of money per year. In that range, you are buying a starter who you expect to be a focal point of your team, no different than a top tier portal guy imo. I would rather do that instead of giving several top 20ish kids a medium sized bag. Hit one home run that you expect will be a starter/major contributor/surefire NBA guy, then you save the rest for a few 50-75 range guys that may contribute or project as sophomore/juniors, then the rest goes for portal studs.

I know it’s not necessarily a sure thing to build one way or another in the portal/NIL era, and there are differences in opinion on where money should go… But I would love to see us just one offseason drop a metric **** ton of cash on a top five guy and let the chips fall. Give us some recruiting clout and send someone to the league who ends up being an all star level ambassador for IU. If it works out, we have a monster year and suddenly become a destination for top 10ish players year in and year out. If it doesn’t work out, we probably still have a year like the ones we are getting used to and then you can start fresh one year later. i just want to win one of the “big time”recruitments I suppose.

Allmond and Thompson both pop next week, gut says we get one at least? Do you think there is a preference or one more likely than the other?

With Harris alone it keeps us at 33. If you add Goode and Harris it moves to 26. I could be using it wrong. I did not stay at a holiday inn last night.

You may be right. But just looking at our roster and putting faith in our budget it would make sense they are going to bring in one more big that would be a starter level guy. Only 80 minutes to go around spread amongst Devries, Bailey, Federiko/Miller, and Alexis. I would have to expect Alexis falls at the bottom of those four guys in this hypothetical. Maybe that lands between 5-15 minutes depending on the night.