2026-2027 Eligibility Chart

WANTED: Passionate Sycamore Fanatics. That You?

Register NOW to join our community of die-hard Sycamore fans.

Register Log in
treeman said:
if a guy like ESB is getting offers that high from other suitors I have no problem with ISU not trying to match. I love ESB, I want him in the program, I want him to graduate a Sycamore. But at some point your head has to take over your heart and say - “is this guy worth $xxxxxx”? For as much as I love the kid I don’t know if I could justify spending that much money when he doesn’t have an outside shot or ball handling skills.

Don’t know what the right answer is but I’m sure there 100s of players in the portal that could produce like ESB for a much lower rate.

It’s year 4 or 5 of portal and NIL madness and I still can’t wrap me head around it. What’s the right thing to do? Is it worth spending a little more to keep a known but limited player or spend less, roll the dice and try to find diamonds in the rough? Is it worth spending $600,000 a year and finishing 4-7 in the conference? I don’t envy the coaches in this landscape at all.
Click to expand...

For me... Based on my overall budget I'm probably assigning a value to any player I want to keep and any player I don't want to keep I am letting them know in season ending meetings that they need to find another home. If a player wants to test free agency and see if they can get a better deal in the market - depending on how important of a piece they are I'm probably telling them the offer is off the table the second they step into the portal. As a coach, I reserve the right to move the goal posts on that "rule" because every player/situation is different.

But I think you've also got to look at the overall "fit" of a player as well. I hate to always got back to the NIT team and the season prior to it - but everyone on the floor on those two teams was a threat to shoot the ball. Larry wasn't as much of a threat the year prior but the second he became a threat we became much more dynamic as an offense.

If you are truly trying to replicate that offensive output - I don't know how you can look at ESB and say he "fits" because he's not a threat to shoot, he's not a threat off the dribble and he's not a great passer. He gives you a lot of other valuable things - but some of the skills I thought this offense was predicated on he does not poses so I'd probably factor that into how much I am willing to spend outside of the initial value I set on a given player.
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
SycamoreStateofMind said:
There is a finite pool of players who can genuinely move the needle, and every program with NIL money is chasing the same guys. That’s not Econ 101, that’s a supply problem. More dollars don’t create more elite players.
Click to expand...
It is totally Econ 101. Most of the top teams this year BOUGHT their players. We are doing the same thing at a lower level. More dollars don't create more elite players. More dollars GETS more elite players.
There is evaluation, coaching, LUCK, and team chemistry: but money creates the pecking order.
 
sycamorebacker said:
It is totally Econ 101. Most of the top teams this year BOUGHT their players. We are doing the same thing at a lower level. More dollars don't create more elite players. More dollars GETS more elite players.
There is evaluation, coaching, LUCK, and team chemistry: but money creates the pecking order.
Click to expand...

Yeah… Tell that to the 19-12 Kentucky Wildcats. Tell that to the 18-13 Indiana Hoosiers. Tell that to the 12-19 Kansas State Wildcats. Tell that to BYU who has a player with an NIL valuation of $4.1 million currently sitting at 21-10 (10th in the Big 12). Tell that to Cincy sitting at 17-14 (9th in the Big 12) has a player with a $1.8 million valuation - a single player.

You are trying to wayyyy over simplify this for argument sake. It’s not as easy as just having more money to be able to buy better players. More $$$ does not = more elite level players. If you honestly think that then you can’t be helped here. Just take L on this one.
 
SycamoreStateofMind said:
Yeah… Tell that to the 19-12 Kentucky Wildcats. Tell that to the 18-13 Indiana Hoosiers. Tell that to the 12-19 Kansas State Wildcats. Tell that to BYU who has a player with an NIL valuation of $4.1 million currently sitting at 21-10 (10th in the Big 12). Tell that to Cincy sitting at 17-14 (9th in the Big 12) has a player with a $1.8 million valuation - a single player.
Click to expand...
I noticed you left out the top 10. Maybe you don't understand that there are intangibles and unkowns when recruiting and how important luck and team chemistry are. It is supply and demand and the big robin gets the big worm.
It's all about money.
Some of you mentioned talent evaluation. That's silly. Most college coaches know what a good player looks like.
 
I've read several hundred NIL threads across most of the MM forums as well as questioning another 8 AI agents. The consensus is the average pay for non-power conference guys is $15k-25k per. Just that low at that alone and at 13 (because we didn't do all 15) is 13 x $15k = $195k. I was seeing head dogs at MMs rumored to be in the $200-300k range with the upper crust MM, if you want to call them that, like the A-10 going even higher.

This is just my pay breakdown, but if you have a million to spend, can ID talent, and don't fuck up the valuation:

$200k, $200k, $150k, $100k, $100k -- So $750k on your projected starting lineup.

Leaves $250k between the remaining -- $50k, $50k, $50k for guys that are your top rotation subs.

Then $25k, $25k for the next two guys that usually give you 8-15mpg.

Super bench now has you at $950k and your bottom 5 are your unproven returnees, freshman (unless really highly ranked) or gambles -- $10k for each.

That is going to and paying the full 15 scholarship players that are now allowed vs the 13 of yesteryear.

We do not have a single guy that will be returning that is worth that top range. I would not pay more than $50k for any returner based on statistical analysis and the eye test from this year. If any of the guys can find more than that, I wish them well.
 
Last edited:

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
Jason Svoboda said:
I've read several hundred NIL threads across most of the MM forums as well as questioning another 8 AI agents. The consensus is the average pay for non-power conference guys is $15k-25k per. Just that low at that alone and at 13 (because we didn't do all 15) is 13 x $15k = $195k. I was seeing head dogs at MMs rumored to be in the $200-300k range with the upper crust MM, if you want to call them that, like the A-10 going even higher.

This is just my pay breakdown, but if you have a million to spend, can ID talent, and don't fuck up the valuation:

$200k, $200k, $150k, $100k, $100k -- So $750k on your projected starting lineup.

Leaves $250k between the remaining -- $50k, $50k, $50k for guys that are your top rotation subs.

Then $25k, $25k for the next two guys that usually give you 8-15mpg.

Super bench now has you at $950k and your bottom 5 are your unproven returnees, freshman (unless really highly ranked) or gambles -- $10k for each.

That is going to and paying the full 15 scholarship players that are now allowed vs the 13 of yesteryear.

We do not have a single guy that will be returning that is worth that top range. I would not pay more than $50k for any returner based on statistical analysis and the eye test from this year. If any of the guys can find more than that, I wish them well.
Click to expand...
I am assuming we did NOT spend $500,000 this year. ????
 
Is it even worth offering freshman that you know are redshirt candidates any money that first year? Are you just not going to land them if you have that discussion.

I think some multi-year deals are the only way moving forward in some circumstance. Offering 15 players money is crazy considering you are only going to get production out 10 at most. That means you are literally throwing away $ on 5 guys. 5 guys at $10k a pop is still $50,000, and for what?

What if there was a deal structured as year 1 you get $0 and either redshirt or play. Year 2 you are guaranteed at least 25k.

That way if they leave after a redshirt or freshman year you are out $0. If they come back you assume a guy in the program for 2 years would at least be worth $25,000 at that point. What a messed up world
 
In my opinion the 2 most important things for our coaching staff are talent evaluation and player development. I'm not feeling good about us in either area. We need to be great at both. I'd love to be able to tell a high school recruit "Hey, I'd love for you to stay here all 4 years, get an ISU degree of your choosing, and have a place for you to call home. But if you put in the work and give me at least 2 years we'll develop you and you'll be highly attractive in the transfer portal."
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
treeman said:
Is it even worth offering freshman that you know are redshirt candidates any money that first year? Are you just not going to land them if you have that discussion.

I think some multi-year deals are the only way moving forward in some circumstance. Offering 15 players money is crazy considering you are only going to get production out 10 at most. That means you are literally throwing away $ on 5 guys. 5 guys at $10k a pop is still $50,000, and for what?

What if there was a deal structured as year 1 you get $0 and either redshirt or play. Year 2 you are guaranteed at least 25k.

That way if they leave after a redshirt or freshman year you are out $0. If they come back you assume a guy in the program for 2 years would at least be worth $25,000 at that point. What a messed up world
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. Look at some of the MMs that are landing higher 3- and 4-star recruits for example. It's because power conferences are now assigning them a lesser value so you can come in and grab them. These are potentially kids that are first year performers -- like I expect Speckman to be for us. His AAU video, for example, reminds me of a slightly more athletic Justin Gant.
 
Jason Svoboda said:
Yes, it is. Look at some of the MMs that are landing higher 3- and 4-star recruits for example. It's because power conferences are now assigning them a lesser value so you can come in and grab them. These are potentially kids that are first year performers -- like I expect Speckman to be for us. His AAU video, for example, reminds me of a slightly more athletic Justin Gant.
Click to expand...
If you have a freshman recruit who you believe can perform day 1. Yeah you offer whatever. But if you have a freshman recruit who you know is going to be a “developmental” guy, why even offer $$$$$? Chances of him producing are slim, chances of him staying are not in your favor.

I don’t know. It’s nearly impossible to figure this system out.
 
treeman said:
If you have a freshman recruit who you believe can perform day 1. Yeah you offer whatever. But if you have a freshman recruit who you know is going to be a “developmental” guy, why even offer $$$$$? Chances of him producing are slim, chances of him staying are not in your favor.

I don’t know. It’s nearly impossible to figure this system out.
Click to expand...

It's all relationships. I look at it as a measure of good will.
 
CardLake49 said:
In my opinion the 2 most important things for our coaching staff are talent evaluation and player development. I'm not feeling good about us in either area. We need to be great at both. I'd love to be able to tell a high school recruit "Hey, I'd love for you to stay here all 4 years, get an ISU degree of your choosing, and have a place for you to call home. But if you put in the work and give me at least 2 years we'll develop you and you'll be highly attractive in the transfer portal."
Click to expand...
Evaluation is easy. Development is not a factor now.
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
CardLake49 said:
In my opinion the 2 most important things for our coaching staff are talent evaluation and player development. I'm not feeling good about us in either area. We need to be great at both. I'd love to be able to tell a high school recruit "Hey, I'd love for you to stay here all 4 years, get an ISU degree of your choosing, and have a place for you to call home. But if you put in the work and give me at least 2 years we'll develop you and you'll be highly attractive in the transfer portal."
Click to expand...

Player development why? Development for the next program they play in? I don’t understand the logic here if the most you keep a player on average is 2 years. It’s literally a non factor or at least much further down on the list of things that actually matter.
 
Jason Svoboda said:
Yes, it is. Look at some of the MMs that are landing higher 3- and 4-star recruits for example. It's because power conferences are now assigning them a lesser value so you can come in and grab them. These are potentially kids that are first year performers -- like I expect Speckman to be for us. His AAU video, for example, reminds me of a slightly more athletic Justin Gant.
Click to expand...
Thank you......Every time I watched clips of him he kept reminding me of a player and I couldn't ever land who it was I was thinking about. You are spot on with this. He should be a good one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top