PartyintheVillas

In every sport with objective data, we know that college and sometimes high school athletes are the equivalent of the top athletes in the world in the 60s. There is romance in thinking these players were extreme athletes with extreme skills that could compete with the best for eternity, but it's just not the truth. Wilt would be an NBA player if he were transported from the 60s to now, but I'm not sure he's even an all-star. Michael Jordan and maybe 2-3 other players in the 80s could dunk from the free throw line. High schools kids do that now. High school kids now regularly compete against track and field world records from the 60s. So much has changed, and it's not an insult to the 60's athletes. What they did given their knowledge and circumstances was absolutely amazing, perhaps relatively moreso than athletes today, but not equal in performance and ability.

Then why are you here in this thread? To lecture us? LOL. No one is allowed to comment on anything in the past now I guess.

I'm so happy neither of these guys are currently at Indiana University. What a couple of self-centered, entitled brats.

Good, it's better to get the lies out front in political threads.

It still takes more than 1 year to be great when you have to replace literally the entire roster. It's not just a math problem.

People who aren't Star Wars fans also hate Star Wars, but not as much as Star Wars fans do.

No one hates Star Wars like Star Wars fans.

Don't like that. I'm happy for him, but he's a solid recruiter in the state.

It seems like it costs slightly more to buy a new player than retain a current one. Also, after a few years, you find some guys to keep around that work in your program and system, and can push the ones that don't out the door.

The guys we got were wanted by all the other teams with the big budgets, too. We weren't competing against Ball St. for these guys. Recruiting rankings mean a whole lot less once the ball is tossed in the air, even less so after the first year.

A power conference starter is about a million bucks in this market. All-conference team type players for 2-4m. Devries and Wilkerson are both in the 2m+ range as I understand. That's almost half the budget, and normal for teams with the 10-12m total budgets. We probably paid 4 more guys starter money, and could be more since we were building an entire roster from scratch, sometimes paying a premium. That's another 4 million we'll say. So now, we're into 8-9 mil range already. Add in NIL for 4 more bench guys at 500k, and we are now in the 10-11 range. The math maths. Am I wrong? Other teams are having issues, too, and some of them with us. Kentucky didn't have the money to match for Wilkerson as just one example.

Doubt it. We're experts here.

He's also a proven anchor in the middle offensively preventing drives and cuts by taking up space by himself and with his defender while Bailey is a threat from outside with his shooting and passing which forces his defender to leave the lane.

Who could we have spent that on to get two players? The big boy P5s wanted Bailey just like we did.

Same price range as who? Miller and Fed are asking for as much money as Bailey got and Bailey is ranked about 100 spots higher than either of those guys. There's a reason Bailey was signed almost immediately and coveted by many other schools while Miller and Fed are still waiting. Maybe Bailey struggles to guard traditional lumbering Big 10 5's (looking around I'm not seeing much to be concerned about) but they have to guard him too.