Let's get it on the record

[TheOriginalCane]

For starters 8 is in the realm of 10. Secondly are we expecting a final four run this year? Slightly under the top is a good starting point. Let's see what kind of coach Jai is before determining a ceiling.

$8M is not "in the realm" of $10M when you are talking about the smallest roster size of the revenue sports. AND when you are trying to erase the stink of the last 2 years. An extra $2M spread across 15 players is an extra $133K per player, assuming you paid everyone the same. The reality is that some players would get an extra $200K or $250K on their offers.

$10M is 25% more than $8M. If you can offer any kid 25% more than another school, you are far more likely to sign that kid. Particularly when you have a better and more accomplished head coach than the school offering 25% less money.

I remember the good old days, when JD Arteaga was hired and we were promised that the boosters were stepping up with a ton of NIL money to help JD sign the best talent. How did that work out?

 

[Calinative]

Look, we were going to raise our budget anyhow (House settlement, etc.), so the question is "do you want to compete on a serious level?".

And if we (a) hire a head coach with head-coaching experience, and (b) are continuing our quest to join the Big 10, then I would argue that we were GOING TO increase our NIL to $8M a year whether we hired Lucas or not.

The point that I am making by mocking the "tripling our NIL budget" claim is that certain unintelligent porsters were citing that statistic as a self-evident point and then dropping the microphone, without providing any context. So if we spend $8M and a bunch of other schools spend $10M, are we really making ourselves better? Are we really closing the gap?

And more importantly, if you don't arm a blueblood Super Recruiter coach like Lucas with the one key piece of ammunitition he had at Texas and Kentucky and Duke (more "resources"), then you are taking away the one advantage that we "seemed" to get by hiring long-time assistant Jai Lucas over guys with more and/or better head-coaching ability.

Again, not everything is a "complaint", per se. Some of what I've posted involves sarcastic observations of what we were "promised" with this risky hire...versus what is currently being delivered.

I want to believe. I want to succeed. I want to win games and make tournaments. I'm a UM alum who can never, and will never, root for any other college basketball program. But I'm not a blind homer who will white-knight for some assistant-coach-turned-head-coach without acknowledging the massive risks, and potential failures, that come when we ask the boosters for a bunch of money THAT ISN'T ENOUGH MONEY.

As a final point of comparison, we COULD NOT even spend all the NIL money available for baseball. We simply couldn't get the top players, even when throwing money at them. Our baseball coaching is JUST THAT BAD. I'm not saying the basketball situation is as bad as the baseball situation. But if we don't have good coaching, then all the money in the world won't fix the problem.

Well I really don't know why anyone should honestly expect us to really be competing at all with the true blue bloods in basketball. Like what in our basketball history have we accomplished to make anyone think that is a realistic goal at all?

So when Indiana says they're spending $10M, well they're a basketball school with a long successful basketball history in their state I'm pretty sure. UNC, Duke, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisville, UCLA, etc, etc all SHOULD be far better at basketball and more invested NIL wise than us cause they don't even come close to the top for football spend.

For me I just don't see how people can just expect us to have top 5 bags across like every major sport then complain when we make other cheap decisions. We are a small private school with a small alumni base, And most of these other small schools that ARE successful in basketball don't have football to support (or baseball lol). We don't come close to MANY schools endowments and **** either... And then everyone knows the Texas schools and the like have a **** load of money and can outspend anyone. Like if ND, Stanford, etc wanted to heavily invest in basketball they could easily outspend us...

I just don't at all think it's realistic to honestly think we should be top 15 in basketball spend. Even being top 25 is a **** load to ask for given how many programs athletic departments are SOLELY focused on Basketball (like the Gonzagas, Xavier's, etc).

 

[TwentySix]

Well I really don't know why anyone should honestly expect us to really be competing at all with the true blue bloods in basketball. Like what in our basketball history have we accomplished to make anyone think that is a realistic goal at all?

So when Indiana says they're spending $10M, well they're a basketball school with a long successful basketball history in their state I'm pretty sure. UNC, Duke, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisville, UCLA, etc, etc all SHOULD be far better at basketball and more invested NIL wise than us cause they don't even come close to the top for football spend.

For me I just don't see how people can just expect us to have top 5 bags across like every major sport then complain when we make other cheap decisions. We are a small private school with a small alumni base, And most of these other small schools that ARE successful in basketball don't have football to support (or baseball lol). We don't come close to MANY schools endowments and **** either... And then everyone knows the Texas schools and the like have a **** load of money and can outspend anyone. Like if ND, Stanford, etc wanted to heavily invest in basketball they could easily outspend us...

I just don't at all think it's realistic to honestly think we should be top 15 in basketball spend. Even being top 25 is a **** load to ask for given how many programs athletic departments are SOLELY focused on Basketball (like the Gonzagas, Xavier's, etc).

If we’re not going to throw money at an expensive roster then why in the absolute **** would we hire a coach whose claim to fame is that he’ll be able to bring in talent.

 

[Calinative]

If we’re not going to throw money at an expensive roster then why in the absolute **** would we hire a coach whose claim to fame is that he’ll be able to bring in talent.

Tripling our NIL money is en expensive roster. You know 64/68 teams make the tourney, right?
$8M may not be at the top. Maybe it's just fringe 25 in terms of roster Budget. But that doesn't mean it isn't expensive lol. There are just programs whose entire athletic program are their basketball team. There are teams who are historically elite at basketball and will pay up to maintain that. And there are teams where money grows on trees.

If I told you you had a TOTAL Budget of like $13M for your entire Basketball program as far as NIL+ Coaches salaries are concerned, how are you choosing to spend it?

 

[TwentySix]

Tripling our NIL money is en expensive roster. You know 64/68 teams make the tourney, right?
$8M may not be at the top. Maybe it's just fringe 25 in terms of roster Budget. But that doesn't mean it isn't expensive lol. There are just programs whose entire athletic program are their basketball team. There are teams who are historically elite at basketball and will pay up to maintain that. And there are teams where money grows on trees.

If I told you you had a TOTAL Budget of like $13M for your entire Basketball program as far as NIL+ Coaches salaries are concerned, how are you choosing to spend it?

Yeah. You know like 25 of those 68 comes from auto bids of mid-majors and below, right? So take those bids off the table. Fringe top 25 might even be generous. There are what, 34 teams in the SEC and B1G? The majority of those are going to spend money. Then you have the teams in the Big12 and the ACC that really care about basketball. I just think we’re kidding ourselves if we think Miami is going to compete in the bag game for basketball consistently.

As for how much I’d allocate, I’d spend a **** of a lot more of it on a proven coach than some other people on this site.

 

[Trav]

Lol there are currently 3 guys on the roster. Who would make any kind of prediction at this point? No one has a f'n clue. Rookie coach and no roster. Yea, place your bets you degenerates.

 

[AmherstCane]

Lol there are currently 3 guys on the roster. Who would make any kind of prediction at this point? No one has a f'n clue. Rookie coach and no roster. Yea, place your bets you degenerates.

Not only that (which is more than enough), but we don’t even know the OOC schedule to know if 6-7 conference wins get us to .500 based on OOC record.