menu
Logo
dark_mode
Logo
dark_mode
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Portal starts up again March 18th
Page: 27 of 31
SBH
General User
SBH
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 4,752
SBH
mail
SBH
mail
Posted: 5/18/2024 12:42 PM
Boals has made it clear that he will not go after kids with character issues, grade problems or those who have been in the portal multiple times
GraffZ06
General User
Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 2,451
mail
GraffZ06
mail
Posted: 5/18/2024 10:20 PM
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
I don't really understand the banking of a scholarship mentality but it feels like we've been doing that a lot lately.
Calipari has talked about only having 8-9 guys on scholarship going forward and he's not the only one thinking that way.

Reason? You aren't going to play more than that number significant minutes and nobody today wants to sit the bench. Why waste NIL $ and schollies/tuition let alone coaching and fitness and development time on guys who are just going to bolt and play against you?

Not sure I agree with it but offering an example where more and more schollies might start going unused.
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
C66
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 5/19/2024 8:45 AM
GraffZ06 wrote:expand_more
I don't really understand the banking of a scholarship mentality but it feels like we've been doing that a lot lately.
Calipari has talked about only having 8-9 guys on scholarship going forward and he's not the only one thinking that way.

Reason? You aren't going to play more than that number significant minutes and nobody today wants to sit the bench. Why waste NIL $ and schollies/tuition let alone coaching and fitness and development time on guys who are just going to bolt and play against you?

Not sure I agree with it but offering an example where more and more schollies might start going unused.
Not sure this really applies much to our situation , Calipari is recruiting 4 and 5 star guys who will play or will bolt. Not exactly the same here. I also don’t think we have to pay any/much NIL to many of the guys who are left now. I know it not necessarily easy to find the hidden gems, but that’s part of what these coaches are paid for . As far as how much it costs to take care of them, most of the money is already sunk costs and incremental costs are relatively minor.
FJC31
General User
FJC31
Member Since: 3/31/2022
Post Count: 2,446
FJC31
mail
FJC31
mail
Posted: 5/19/2024 9:10 AM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
I don't really understand the banking of a scholarship mentality but it feels like we've been doing that a lot lately.
Calipari has talked about only having 8-9 guys on scholarship going forward and he's not the only one thinking that way.

Reason? You aren't going to play more than that number significant minutes and nobody today wants to sit the bench. Why waste NIL $ and schollies/tuition let alone coaching and fitness and development time on guys who are just going to bolt and play against you?

Not sure I agree with it but offering an example where more and more schollies might start going unused.
Not sure this really applies much to our situation , Calipari is recruiting 4 and 5 star guys who will play or will bolt. Not exactly the same here. I also don’t think we have to pay any/much NIL to many of the guys who are left now. I know it not necessarily easy to find the hidden gems, but that’s part of what these coaches are paid for . As far as how much it costs to take care of them, most of the money is already sunk costs and incremental costs are relatively minor.
It’s a good discussion. In our case, you’d think there’s another Searls out there (grad/upperclassman) looking to make the jump up for their final season or two that can help.

To your point, it’s the staff’s jobs to be able to identify these types.
GraffZ06
General User
Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 2,451
mail
GraffZ06
mail
Posted: 5/19/2024 12:01 PM
SBH wrote:expand_more
Boals has made it clear that he will not go after kids with character issues, grade problems or those who have been in the portal multiple times
This adds a layer of complexity to the equation as well. I 100% support Jeff on having these standards for the program, but it likely eliminates large swaths of players.

Just because Player A, is in the portal and unsigned and is 6'8+ doesn't mean we do or should have interest.

Just like interviews in business. The resume and qualifications get you the interview but it's your interpersonal skills and how you fit with the team and culture that determines whether you're actually offered. Boals has to find that team and culture fit. It's a tough job and why he earns the big bucks.
FJC31
General User
FJC31
Member Since: 3/31/2022
Post Count: 2,446
FJC31
mail
FJC31
mail
Posted: 5/20/2024 9:58 AM
GraffZ06 wrote:expand_more
Boals has made it clear that he will not go after kids with character issues, grade problems or those who have been in the portal multiple times
This adds a layer of complexity to the equation as well. I 100% support Jeff on having these standards for the program, but it likely eliminates large swaths of players.

Just because Player A, is in the portal and unsigned and is 6'8+ doesn't mean we do or should have interest.

Just like interviews in business. The resume and qualifications get you the interview but it's your interpersonal skills and how you fit with the team and culture that determines whether you're actually offered. Boals has to find that team and culture fit. It's a tough job and why he earns the big bucks.
I'm cool with standards, but I doubt everyone remaining falls under those categories. We also took a chance on Paveletzke as a two-time transfer (Jason Carter too, if you count that). Point being, I'd like to think there are a few guys still unsigned worth bringing in that wouldn't be problems.
FJC31
General User
FJC31
Member Since: 3/31/2022
Post Count: 2,446
FJC31
mail
FJC31
mail
Posted: 5/20/2024 10:33 AM
Myle Foster to Clemson.
M.D.W.S.T
General User
Member Since: 12/23/2021
Post Count: 3,812
mail
M.D.W.S.T
mail
Posted: 5/20/2024 12:54 PM
FJC31 wrote:expand_more
Boals has made it clear that he will not go after kids with character issues, grade problems or those who have been in the portal multiple times
This adds a layer of complexity to the equation as well. I 100% support Jeff on having these standards for the program, but it likely eliminates large swaths of players.

Just because Player A, is in the portal and unsigned and is 6'8+ doesn't mean we do or should have interest.

Just like interviews in business. The resume and qualifications get you the interview but it's your interpersonal skills and how you fit with the team and culture that determines whether you're actually offered. Boals has to find that team and culture fit. It's a tough job and why he earns the big bucks.
I'm cool with standards, but I doubt everyone remaining falls under those categories. We also took a chance on Paveletzke as a two-time transfer (Jason Carter too, if you count that). Point being, I'd like to think there are a few guys still unsigned worth bringing in that wouldn't be problems.
I can live with Paveletzke looking for quality PT.

It bothers me more in football when kids are coming into programs in May or June... not able to get up to speed... and then are back into the portal by December. THAT is a huge NCAA error that should be cleaned up.
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,861
GC105
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 5/20/2024 4:16 PM
M.D.W.S.T wrote:expand_more
Boals has made it clear that he will not go after kids with character issues, grade problems or those who have been in the portal multiple times
This adds a layer of complexity to the equation as well. I 100% support Jeff on having these standards for the program, but it likely eliminates large swaths of players.

Just because Player A, is in the portal and unsigned and is 6'8+ doesn't mean we do or should have interest.

Just like interviews in business. The resume and qualifications get you the interview but it's your interpersonal skills and how you fit with the team and culture that determines whether you're actually offered. Boals has to find that team and culture fit. It's a tough job and why he earns the big bucks.
I'm cool with standards, but I doubt everyone remaining falls under those categories. We also took a chance on Paveletzke as a two-time transfer (Jason Carter too, if you count that). Point being, I'd like to think there are a few guys still unsigned worth bringing in that wouldn't be problems.
I can live with Paveletzke looking for quality PT.

It bothers me more in football when kids are coming into programs in May or June... not able to get up to speed... and then are back into the portal by December. THAT is a huge NCAA error that should be cleaned up.
Or the flip side to that coin, which is what we just saw this spring. A bunch of guys transfer as soon as their season is over, join a new team and find out they're not going to be getting much PT during spring practice and the spring game, then end up in the portal again before the summer. So they'd be in 3 schools (or on 3 rosters) in less than a calendar year.
shabamon
General User
Member Since: 11/17/2006
Location: Cincinnati
Post Count: 7,460
mail
shabamon
mail
Posted: 5/20/2024 4:20 PM
It is May 20 and less than half of the portal entrants between D1 and D2 have committed to a new school.
GraffZ06
General User
Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 2,451
mail
GraffZ06
mail
Posted: 5/20/2024 6:50 PM
shabamon wrote:expand_more
It is May 20 and less than half of the portal entrants between D1 and D2 have committed to a new school.
Sure if you include D2, but if you only look at D1 1232 out of 2032 have signed. 60.6%

As always the biggest/best mostly sign first and each tier successively fills in the gaps later until there's no spots left. Explains why D2 has lower percent signed than D1.

There will also be a certain percent, say 10-20% who end up either deciding not to play or ending up without a chair.

Means closer to 67-76% done of those that eventually will sign.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,860
BTC
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 5/20/2024 11:14 PM
M.D.W.S.T wrote:expand_more
Boals has made it clear that he will not go after kids with character issues, grade problems or those who have been in the portal multiple times
This adds a layer of complexity to the equation as well. I 100% support Jeff on having these standards for the program, but it likely eliminates large swaths of players.

Just because Player A, is in the portal and unsigned and is 6'8+ doesn't mean we do or should have interest.

Just like interviews in business. The resume and qualifications get you the interview but it's your interpersonal skills and how you fit with the team and culture that determines whether you're actually offered. Boals has to find that team and culture fit. It's a tough job and why he earns the big bucks.
I'm cool with standards, but I doubt everyone remaining falls under those categories. We also took a chance on Paveletzke as a two-time transfer (Jason Carter too, if you count that). Point being, I'd like to think there are a few guys still unsigned worth bringing in that wouldn't be problems.
I can live with Paveletzke looking for quality PT.

It bothers me more in football when kids are coming into programs in May or June... not able to get up to speed... and then are back into the portal by December. THAT is a huge NCAA error that should be cleaned up.
It’s the federal court system,not the NCAA.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,860
BTC
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 5/20/2024 11:15 PM
GraffZ06 wrote:expand_more
It is May 20 and less than half of the portal entrants between D1 and D2 have committed to a new school.
Sure if you include D2, but if you only look at D1 1232 out of 2032 have signed. 60.6%

As always the biggest/best mostly sign first and each tier successively fills in the gaps later until there's no spots left. Explains why D2 has lower percent signed than D1.

There will also be a certain percent, say 10-20% who end up either deciding not to play or ending up without a chair.

Means closer to 67-76% done of those that eventually will sign.
Which is the historical average.
M.D.W.S.T
General User
Member Since: 12/23/2021
Post Count: 3,812
mail
M.D.W.S.T
mail
Posted: 5/21/2024 8:38 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Boals has made it clear that he will not go after kids with character issues, grade problems or those who have been in the portal multiple times
This adds a layer of complexity to the equation as well. I 100% support Jeff on having these standards for the program, but it likely eliminates large swaths of players.

Just because Player A, is in the portal and unsigned and is 6'8+ doesn't mean we do or should have interest.

Just like interviews in business. The resume and qualifications get you the interview but it's your interpersonal skills and how you fit with the team and culture that determines whether you're actually offered. Boals has to find that team and culture fit. It's a tough job and why he earns the big bucks.
I'm cool with standards, but I doubt everyone remaining falls under those categories. We also took a chance on Paveletzke as a two-time transfer (Jason Carter too, if you count that). Point being, I'd like to think there are a few guys still unsigned worth bringing in that wouldn't be problems.
I can live with Paveletzke looking for quality PT.

It bothers me more in football when kids are coming into programs in May or June... not able to get up to speed... and then are back into the portal by December. THAT is a huge NCAA error that should be cleaned up.
It’s the federal court system,not the NCAA.
Courts made it okay to transfer 14 times and be eligible. They didn't set the dates.
greencat
General User
Member Since: 3/12/2005
Post Count: 2,837
mail
greencat
mail
Posted: 5/21/2024 10:48 AM
It's a shame more of the kids don't recognize that if they are sitting the bench at low-mid-major state tech, pro ball is not in their future in any corner of the globe, thus they would be well off to turn their papers in on time and get a degree that will benefit them for the next 40-50 years.
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,734
BLSS
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 5/21/2024 12:14 PM
greencat wrote:expand_more
It's a shame more of the kids don't recognize that if they are sitting the bench at low-mid-major state tech, pro ball is not in their future in any corner of the globe, thus they would be well off to turn their papers in on time and get a degree that will benefit them for the next 40-50 years.
Men's D1 basketball graduation rates reached an all-time high of 86% in 2023.
GraffZ06
General User
Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 2,451
mail
GraffZ06
mail
Posted: 5/21/2024 12:37 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
It's a shame more of the kids don't recognize that if they are sitting the bench at low-mid-major state tech, pro ball is not in their future in any corner of the globe, thus they would be well off to turn their papers in on time and get a degree that will benefit them for the next 40-50 years.
Men's D1 basketball graduation rates reached an all-time high of 86% in 2023.
To be fair he said a degree that will benefit them.
100%Cat
General User
Member Since: 1/17/2013
Post Count: 2,763
mail
100%Cat
mail
Posted: 5/22/2024 11:40 AM
Andrew Ruck wrote:expand_more
Hard to dispute that, there does not seem to be much in the way of notable incoming freshmen around the MAC while we boast Elliott, Evans, & Burris. Call me crazy but I'd prefer this to Akron-like transfer excitement.
To an extent, I agree. My hesitation is that this is the "transfer age" and it feels like Boals is trying to build a program from youth in an era when the youth doesn't often stay where they started. I know we've done well the past couple of years of retaining talent, but in any given season, we can be gutted. Akron may have to reboot their roster every couple of years, but the guys they are bringing in seem more likely to contribute immediately rather than develop in the program and play in a year or two. If we develop guys and keep them here, I'm all for it. I just can't depend on that happening in the current era.
FJC31
General User
FJC31
Member Since: 3/31/2022
Post Count: 2,446
FJC31
mail
FJC31
mail
Posted: 5/22/2024 12:19 PM
100%Cat wrote:expand_more
Hard to dispute that, there does not seem to be much in the way of notable incoming freshmen around the MAC while we boast Elliott, Evans, & Burris. Call me crazy but I'd prefer this to Akron-like transfer excitement.
To an extent, I agree. My hesitation is that this is the "transfer age" and it feels like Boals is trying to build a program from youth in an era when the youth doesn't often stay where they started. I know we've done well the past couple of years of retaining talent, but in any given season, we can be gutted. Akron may have to reboot their roster every couple of years, but the guys they are bringing in seem more likely to contribute immediately rather than develop in the program and play in a year or two. If we develop guys and keep them here, I'm all for it. I just can't depend on that happening in the current era.
This is why I don't love the idea of banking schollies. Who knows what this roster looks like at the conclusion of next season. We're in win now mode with so many returnees and upperclassmen. Find another piece to the puzzle that can help now, worry about 25/26 at the end of 24/25.
Clown Ohio Fan
General User
COF
Member Since: 1/7/2022
Post Count: 350
COF
mail
Clown Ohio Fan
mail
Posted: 5/22/2024 12:54 PM
100%Cat wrote:expand_more
Hard to dispute that, there does not seem to be much in the way of notable incoming freshmen around the MAC while we boast Elliott, Evans, & Burris. Call me crazy but I'd prefer this to Akron-like transfer excitement.
To an extent, I agree. My hesitation is that this is the "transfer age" and it feels like Boals is trying to build a program from youth in an era when the youth doesn't often stay where they started. I know we've done well the past couple of years of retaining talent, but in any given season, we can be gutted. Akron may have to reboot their roster every couple of years, but the guys they are bringing in seem more likely to contribute immediately rather than develop in the program and play in a year or two. If we develop guys and keep them here, I'm all for it. I just can't depend on that happening in the current era.
I think Boals has shown he wants a mixture of players. He's gone after upperclassmen transfers as well as high school seniors. The hope is that you can retain the youngsters for a few seasons and limit the roster turnover on a yearly basis.

It's not guaranteed to work but it should help with roster retention since you'll commit less NIL money to unproven players while they're developing with more experienced players in front of them. When the older players leave, it provides the opportunity for the young players to step up. If they haven't shown enough in practice, you can advise them to move on and target more experienced transfers. It's honestly not a bad strategy if Boals can continue to cultivate a successful culture with the "right type of guys"

The Akron method is hit-or-miss. You can hit a home run and be very successful or you can bomb. Either scenario, it'll likely lead to high turnover on a yearly basis.

So far, the Zips have had more success so it's hard to argue with their approach but it's certainly more of a grind and leaves less margin of error. If you miss out on your intended targets or they don't live up to your expectations, it can make things really difficult.
Last Edited: 5/22/2024 12:59:27 PM by Clown Ohio Fan
Jeff McKinney
Moderator
JM
Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,171
JM
mail
Jeff McKinney
mail
Posted: 5/22/2024 5:49 PM
FormerMember wrote:expand_more
Hard to dispute that, there does not seem to be much in the way of notable incoming freshmen around the MAC while we boast Elliott, Evans, & Burris. Call me crazy but I'd prefer this to Akron-like transfer excitement.
To an extent, I agree. My hesitation is that this is the "transfer age" and it feels like Boals is trying to build a program from youth in an era when the youth doesn't often stay where they started. I know we've done well the past couple of years of retaining talent, but in any given season, we can be gutted. Akron may have to reboot their roster every couple of years, but the guys they are bringing in seem more likely to contribute immediately rather than develop in the program and play in a year or two. If we develop guys and keep them here, I'm all for it. I just can't depend on that happening in the current era.
I think Boals has shown he wants a mixture of players. He's gone after upperclassmen transfers as well as high school seniors. The hope is that you can retain the youngsters for a few seasons and limit the roster turnover on a yearly basis.

It's not guaranteed to work but it should help with roster retention since you'll commit less NIL money to unproven players while they're developing with more experienced players in front of them. When the older players leave, it provides the opportunity for the young players to step up. If they haven't shown enough in practice, you can advise them to move on and target more experienced transfers. It's honestly not a bad strategy if Boals can continue to cultivate a successful culture with the "right type of guys"

The Akron method is hit-or-miss. You can hit a home run and be very successful or you can bomb. Either scenario, it'll likely lead to high turnover on a yearly basis.

So far, the Zips have had more success so it's hard to argue with their approach but it's certainly more of a grind and leaves less margin of error. If you miss out on your intended targets or they don't live up to your expectations, it can make things really difficult.
Great post, Former. +1
FearLeon
General User
Member Since: 3/12/2005
Post Count: 5,173
mail
FearLeon
mail
Posted: 5/22/2024 8:34 PM
FJC31 wrote:expand_more
Hard to dispute that, there does not seem to be much in the way of notable incoming freshmen around the MAC while we boast Elliott, Evans, & Burris. Call me crazy but I'd prefer this to Akron-like transfer excitement.
To an extent, I agree. My hesitation is that this is the "transfer age" and it feels like Boals is trying to build a program from youth in an era when the youth doesn't often stay where they started. I know we've done well the past couple of years of retaining talent, but in any given season, we can be gutted. Akron may have to reboot their roster every couple of years, but the guys they are bringing in seem more likely to contribute immediately rather than develop in the program and play in a year or two. If we develop guys and keep them here, I'm all for it. I just can't depend on that happening in the current era.
This is why I don't love the idea of banking schollies. Who knows what this roster looks like at the conclusion of next season. We're in win now mode with so many returnees and upperclassmen. Find another piece to the puzzle that can help now, worry about 25/26 at the end of 24/25.
My philosophy as well. Will be disappointing if we bank the schollie and don't add another portal big for 2024-2025.
#BleedGreen #TrentIsGOAT #NoMissesAllowed #NoOtherTeamInAmericaFlexesLikeOhio #11Months
Last Edited: 5/22/2024 10:17:28 PM by FearLeon
Bobcat1998
General User
B1998
Member Since: 11/7/2012
Post Count: 2,788
B1998
mail
Bobcat1998
mail
Posted: 5/23/2024 11:46 AM
FearLeon wrote:expand_more
Hard to dispute that, there does not seem to be much in the way of notable incoming freshmen around the MAC while we boast Elliott, Evans, & Burris. Call me crazy but I'd prefer this to Akron-like transfer excitement.
To an extent, I agree. My hesitation is that this is the "transfer age" and it feels like Boals is trying to build a program from youth in an era when the youth doesn't often stay where they started. I know we've done well the past couple of years of retaining talent, but in any given season, we can be gutted. Akron may have to reboot their roster every couple of years, but the guys they are bringing in seem more likely to contribute immediately rather than develop in the program and play in a year or two. If we develop guys and keep them here, I'm all for it. I just can't depend on that happening in the current era.
This is why I don't love the idea of banking schollies. Who knows what this roster looks like at the conclusion of next season. We're in win now mode with so many returnees and upperclassmen. Find another piece to the puzzle that can help now, worry about 25/26 at the end of 24/25.
My philosophy as well. Will be disappointing if we bank the schollie and don't add another portal big for 2024-2025.
I agree. I don't necessarily need Dwight Wilson but I also don't want to settle on Vic Searls. I would absolutely love a Jon Smith.
shabamon
General User
Member Since: 11/17/2006
Location: Cincinnati
Post Count: 7,460
mail
shabamon
mail
Posted: 5/23/2024 1:24 PM
https://x.com/low_madness/status/1793679963855720457

Lots of D1 scholarships available around the country.
FearLeon
General User
Member Since: 3/12/2005
Post Count: 5,173
mail
FearLeon
mail
Posted: 5/23/2024 2:35 PM
Bobcat1998 wrote:expand_more
Hard to dispute that, there does not seem to be much in the way of notable incoming freshmen around the MAC while we boast Elliott, Evans, & Burris. Call me crazy but I'd prefer this to Akron-like transfer excitement.
To an extent, I agree. My hesitation is that this is the "transfer age" and it feels like Boals is trying to build a program from youth in an era when the youth doesn't often stay where they started. I know we've done well the past couple of years of retaining talent, but in any given season, we can be gutted. Akron may have to reboot their roster every couple of years, but the guys they are bringing in seem more likely to contribute immediately rather than develop in the program and play in a year or two. If we develop guys and keep them here, I'm all for it. I just can't depend on that happening in the current era.
This is why I don't love the idea of banking schollies. Who knows what this roster looks like at the conclusion of next season. We're in win now mode with so many returnees and upperclassmen. Find another piece to the puzzle that can help now, worry about 25/26 at the end of 24/25.
My philosophy as well. Will be disappointing if we bank the schollie and don't add another portal big for 2024-2025.
I agree. I don't necessarily need Dwight Wilson but I also don't want to settle on Vic Searls. I would absolutely love a Jon Smith.
+1
#BleedGreen #TrentIsGOAT #NoMissesAllowed #NoOtherTeamInAmericaFlexesLikeOhio #11Months
Showing Messages: 651 - 675 of 752
  • Previous
  • Next
View Other Ohio Basketball Topics
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links
chevron_left
Saturday, October 17, 2026
chevron_right
Who's Online

There are 75 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

75 Guests