Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread (Week of May 10th, 2021)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#128      

Loyalillini10

Urbana, IL
Have people really used the language “rebuild” for next season? If they have, I think that may be a bit off-base. My expectations aren’t as high as last season, but I still believe the Illini are in a position to win a lot of games (with current roster). If Kofi comes back, I would expect them to win A LOT of games.
 
#129      

Govoner Vaugn Fan

New Orleans
Have people really used the language “rebuild” for next season? If they have, I think that may be a bit off-base. My expectations aren’t as high as last season, but I still believe the Illini are in a position to win a lot of games (with current roster). If Kofi comes back, I would expect them to win A LOT of games.
With Hutch and Podz next year, we are Gold.
 
#130      
Have people really used the language “rebuild” for next season? If they have, I think that may be a bit off-base. My expectations aren’t as high as last season, but I still believe the Illini are in a position to win a lot of games (with current roster). If Kofi comes back, I would expect them to win A LOT of games.

My Loyalty peeve is this.
Reload Not Rebuild
 
#132      
Any thoughts on Quincy Guerrier, we're in his final 4. If we can't get Mitchell or Liddell seems a good match.
 
#138      
Real funny. I'm sure he thinks a lot of you too. It is ironic how many people on here want to make jokes about Hutcherson. Then say he needs to have thick skin. Probably the same whiners that badmouthed Curbelo for being a ball hog and getting way to much playing time last year, that are now worried he could transfer to Kentucky. What a joke. I'm sure any player would love getting on here and reading jokes about them. Classy.
Katharine Hepburn Break GIF by Maudit
 
#140      
1) If you have a contract with team A, you can not unilaterally choose to transfer to team B.
Regarding 1:
True, but you don't think any NIL-related contracts would have out clauses in the event that a player loses a starting spot or transfers? Lexington Ford Lincoln probably doesn't want to keep paying a player who rides the pine or transfers to Louisville. So it's different, but the effect will be similar. A national contract with Nike or something might be a little more resilient to a transfer, but Nike still doesn't want to pay a player to sit a year. Of anything, I'd think this incentivizes top players to stay put.
Either I'm missing your point, or you are missing my point.

At the moment Big10 contracts for Football/Basketball players (all sports?) are guaranteed for 4 years. The school is committed so long as the athlete meets their obligations.** The reverse obligation is not there. A player can now freely terminate one contract and accept another. (One free transfer.) A shoe contract may add limitations; those players will be in the minority. I expect that all scholarship, power6, basketball players*** will be paid going forward.

** There was a major dust up related to this at NWU a few years back. Collins wanted to dump a bench player. The player was meeting their obligations. It got nasty.
*** I don't know enough about the other sports to have an opinion.

2) Before it seemed like only the 5* players got a visit from the bagman. Now I expect that every 4* will expect a non-trivial payment. I also expect the bidding wars on the 5* players to go much higher than before.
Regarding 2:
I'm not sure both halves of this can be true at the same time. Big companies are already paying plenty under the table, and local companies are resource limited. Either way, I'm not 100% convinced this would be a bad thing. The schools and NCAA make billions. I don't see why players cashing in is such a problem.

Why can't these both be true?
a) Finding 5k/month for each scholarship basketball player is less than $1M/year. I expect that every power6 school has a single donor who would step up for this. Splitting it across a dozen donors makes it trivial.

b) I expect the star players to get more from the big companies for two reasons. First, the companies can more freely spend without fear of getting caught. Second, the player can freely engage in open bidding.

I'm not opposed to players getting paid. I object to the inequality between schools that the proposed system will generate. (And I expect that IL will do far better than most.) If the players generate enough value to pay them each 250k/year (arbitrary large amount), I'm be fine with it, so long as it every power 6 school paid equally.
 
#141      

Tevo

Wilmette, IL
Real funny. I'm sure he thinks a lot of you too. It is ironic how many people on here want to make jokes about Hutcherson. Then say he needs to have thick skin. Probably the same whiners that badmouthed Curbelo for being a ball hog and getting way to much playing time last year, that are now worried he could transfer to Kentucky. What a joke. I'm sure any player would love getting on here and reading jokes about them. Classy.
Do you also think Chuck Norris hates that everyone tells jokes about how unstoppable and otherworldly he is? That he is literally the poster-child for universal cool, and awesome? That's how I see all of the Hutch jokes. We love the guy!
 
#142      
The universities brought that problem on themselves. If you pay well below market, don't offer multi-year contracts or guarantees, ...
All Big10 BB and FB contracts are 4 years. This has been true for years. (It may be true for all Big10 sports scholarships.)
 
#143      

Illini92and96

Austin, TX
1) If you have a contract with team A, you can not unilaterally choose to transfer to team B.

Either I'm missing your point, or you are missing my point.

At the moment Big10 contracts for Football/Basketball players (all sports?) are guaranteed for 4 years. The school is committed so long as the athlete meets their obligations.** The reverse obligation is not there. A player can now freely terminate one contract and accept another. (One free transfer.) A shoe contract may add limitations; those players will be in the minority. I expect that all scholarship, power6, basketball players*** will be paid going forward.

** There was a major dust up related to this at NWU a few years back. Collins wanted to dump a bench player. The player was meeting their obligations. It got nasty.
*** I don't know enough about the other sports to have an opinion.




Why can't these both be true?
a) Finding 5k/month for each scholarship basketball player is less than $1M/year. I expect that every power6 school has a single donor who would step up for this. Splitting it across a dozen donors makes it trivial.

b) I expect the star players to get more from the big companies for two reasons. First, the companies can more freely spend without fear of getting caught. Second, the player can freely engage in open bidding.

I'm not opposed to players getting paid. I object to the inequality between schools that the proposed system will generate. (And I expect that IL will do far better than most.) If the players generate enough value to pay them each 250k/year (arbitrary large amount), I'm be fine with it, so long as it every power 6 school paid equally.
The issue is you will have to pay all athletes the same in today’s culture, regardless of contribution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.