Coaching Carousel (Basketball)

[Ill in Cols]

Wow. What a rant.

First, I agree Bennett's move was extremely low class.

As to his opinion, first has he offered one? I haven't yet seen it. Who values it? I haven't noticed.

I'm not sure why you believe a multi-year contract screws the players. But any player who thinks it screws them doesn't have to do it.

replying to yours only because it's the latest criticism of Bennett. Here is an article expressing a different viewpoint:

UVA Basketball: ‘Towering Fraud’ Pat Forde gets one last lick in at Tony Bennett

Dean Smith retired on Oct. 9, 1997, to engineer giving the UNC job to Bill Guthridge, and SI.com columnist Pat Forde had no issue.

augustafreepress.com

 

[the juiceman cometh]

replying to yours only because it's the latest criticism of Bennett. Here is an article expressing a different viewpoint:

UVA Basketball: ‘Towering Fraud’ Pat Forde gets one last lick in at Tony Bennett

Dean Smith retired on Oct. 9, 1997, to engineer giving the UNC job to Bill Guthridge, and SI.com columnist Pat Forde had no issue.

augustafreepress.com

I read this, and some thoughts:

1. The author does not even defend what Bennett did. Just basically "Dean Smith did it too" and then a bunch of ad hominem attacks against Pat Forde.

2. I don't care if Pat Forde is a hypocrite. If he actually agrees with what Dean Smith did, then he's wrong for that, but he's right about Bennett. That being said, there's no support in this article for the contention that he actually supports how Dean Smith retired. He announced the naming an award after the guy, 8 years after that retirement. The award was named because of Smith's legacy over his entire coaching career, not the manner in which he retired. To equate this with Forde supporting Dean Smith retiring in similar circumstances to Bennett is a massive leap.

3. If it wasn't already obvious that this article was worthless, this passage did it for me:

"Tony Bennett, like Dean Smith, is not only a coach who won, but a coach who won with actual student-athletes – not one-and-done kids who pretended to attend classes for a few weeks until it was time to focus on training for the NBA Draft – actively demonstrates a concern for his kids outside the basketball complex"

Tony Bennett was not out there forcing kids to stay longer to get degrees. He tried to recruit one-and-dones but they didn't pick his team. He did have two-and-dones though, and the fact that it took Ryan Dunn an extra year to work his way into the first round does not make Tony Bennett a more virtuous person.

To flip this a bit, if KJ and Riley ball out this season and go pro - does that make BU a bad guy who doesn't care about his players? This article seems to imply that it would.

I'm sure there is a good defense to be made for Tony Bennett - this article ain't it though.

 

[sacraig]

I read this, and some thoughts:

1. The author does not even defend what Bennett did. Just basically "Dean Smith did it too" and then a bunch of ad hominem attacks against Pat Forde.

2. I don't care if Pat Forde is a hypocrite. If he actually agrees with what Dean Smith did, then he's wrong for that, but he's right about Bennett. That being said, there's no support in this article for the contention that he actually supports how Dean Smith retired. He announced the naming an award after the guy, 8 years after that retirement. The award was named because of Smith's legacy over his entire coaching career, not the manner in which he retired. To equate this with Forde supporting Dean Smith retiring in similar circumstances to Bennett is a massive leap.

3. If it wasn't already obvious that this article was worthless, this passage did it for me:

"Tony Bennett, like Dean Smith, is not only a coach who won, but a coach who won with actual student-athletes – not one-and-done kids who pretended to attend classes for a few weeks until it was time to focus on training for the NBA Draft – actively demonstrates a concern for his kids outside the basketball complex"

Tony Bennett was not out there forcing kids to stay longer to get degrees. He tried to recruit one-and-dones but they didn't pick his team. He did have two-and-dones though, and the fact that it took Ryan Dunn an extra year to work his way into the first round does not make Tony Bennett a more virtuous person.

To flip this a bit, if KJ and Riley ball out this season and go pro - does that make BU a bad guy who doesn't care about his players? This article seems to imply that it would.

I'm sure there is a good defense to be made for Tony Bennett - this article ain't it though.

I've read nothing, but Forde probably deserved it.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

I've read nothing, but Forde probably deserved it.

 

[OrangeKrush1981]

... I don't understand why everyone in my replies is so vehemently siding with ADs/Coaches here....

Excellent discussion, and very well handled -- thanks!

A point that hovers just outside the focus point of this discussion is that there are, at least it seem to me, three interested parties: players, coaches/ADs, and fans. As the system of collegiate athletics evolves, I am becoming less invested in the interests of the coaches (mercenaries in pursuit of gigantic salaries and who ALSO enjoy little loyalty from the AD and fans) and of the players (often short residence time in the basketball program). Instead, I am becoming more invested in fan interests, a set of interests I don't think I would have actually been able to distinguish as separate from those of coaches and players prior to the last few years.

What fan interests? For example, I would like to see the sports information folks in the athletic director's office, and maybe Daily Illini writers, produce much more in-depth journalism regarding the players -- who they are, what their life stories are, what makes them tick. We don't have years and years to gradually get to know them in most cases now. More video of pre-season play, so we can get to know how players perform (yes, that could be annoying to coaches and players, but it is happening a little bit already).

And financial costs to fans. Men's basketball game ticket prices are becoming high, especially when factoring in the I-fund donation that may be needed to get decent seats. Will average alumni end up being priced out of attending games and be reduced to watching via television in many cases?

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

I've read nothing, but Forde probably deserved it.

 

[IlliniFan42]

Excellent discussion, and very well handled -- thanks!

A point that hovers just outside the focus point of this discussion is that there are, at least it seem to me, three interested parties: players, coaches/ADs, and fans. As the system of collegiate athletics evolves, I am becoming less invested in the interests of the coaches (mercenaries in pursuit of gigantic salaries and who ALSO enjoy little loyalty from the AD and fans) and of the players (often short residence time in the basketball program). Instead, I am becoming more invested in fan interests, a set of interests I don't think I would have actually been able to distinguish as separate from those of coaches and players prior to the last few years.

What fan interests? For example, I would like to see the sports information folks in the athletic director's office, and maybe Daily Illini writers, produce much more in-depth journalism regarding the players -- who they are, what their life stories are, what makes them tick. We don't have years and years to gradually get to know them in most cases now. More video of pre-season play, so we can get to know how players perform (yes, that could be annoying to coaches and players, but it is happening a little bit already).

And financial costs to fans. Men's basketball game ticket prices are becoming high, especially when factoring in the I-fund donation that may be needed to get decent seats. Will average alumni end up being priced out of attending games and be reduced to watching via television in many cases?

This discussion is one of those times I advocate against myself as a fan, as I value the player interest the highest because they're providing the product and for the longest time were not fairly compensated. I fully accept being priced out of attending games as long as they're selling out and the tickets don't go to waste because it means more money to an athletic department that desperately needs it.

 

[Bucktown]

This discussion is one of those times I advocate against myself as a fan, as I value the player interest the highest because they're providing the product and for the longest time were not fairly compensated. I fully accept being priced out of attending games as long as they're selling out and the tickets don't go to waste because it means more money to an athletic department that desperately needs it.

I actually think the vast majority of former college athletes think they were 'fairly compensated'.

 

[jamarvelous31]

I've read nothing, but Forde probably deserved it.

I got bored of the discussion and I still think we all can agree with that.

 

[grue2]

This discussion is one of those times I advocate against myself as a fan, as I value the player interest the highest because they're providing the product and for the longest time were not fairly compensated. I fully accept being priced out of attending games as long as they're selling out and the tickets don't go to waste because it means more money to an athletic department that desperately needs it.

People keep making this claim. I'd love to see numbers backing it. As far as I can tell from the NCAA submitted school forms, the vast majority of DivI schools run at a loss on BB. They do it as an advertising mechanism, and for school spirit. UIUC making any profit is an anomoly. They are in the top 10% (maybe top 5%). Even UIUC only "makes money" because donors cover a lot of the expenses. Without the donations UIUC runs negative. (Remember, the entire Assembly hall retrofit cost was all hidden by donors.)

 

[the juiceman cometh]

People keep making this claim. I'd love to see numbers backing it. As far as I can tell from the NCAA submitted school forms, the vast majority of DivI schools run at a loss on BB. They do it as an advertising mechanism, and for school spirit. UIUC making any profit is an anomoly. They are in the top 10% (maybe top 5%). Even UIUC only "makes money" because donors cover a lot of the expenses. Without the donations UIUC runs negative. (Remember, the entire Assembly hall retrofit cost was all hidden by donors.)

I mean right here in your text you provide solid examples of how student athletes provide value to a university. Advertising is a thing organizations pay a lot of money for. Keeping donors happy is a pretty important thing for a major university. The program running at a loss is kind of irrelevant to the question of whether the players generate value or whether their compensation is fair.

The fact that a deluge of NIL money came rushing in the second players were allowed to receive it is all the proof needed that players were not receiving the fair compensation they would on the open market.

 

[skyIdub]

 

[grue2]

...
The fact that a deluge of NIL money came rushing in the second players were allowed to receive it is all the proof needed that players were not receiving the fair compensation they would on the open market.

Question on the table: Are the current NIL numbers fair value to the university, or grossly inflated due to rich alumni egos?
I strongly suspect the latter.

Question (not addressed): How much value do the kids get beyond cash from their 4 year education, experience and exposure?

The current NIL rates are exceeding pro contract values all around the world other than the NBA. So the fair value would seem to be limited by the value to the university vs. what the players could get elsewhere.

Winning in, not getting to, the NCAA tournament does help small liberal arts colleges significantly. The value to larger universities appears to be much less. Unlike the smaller liberal art schools, big ten schools mostly get more qualified applicants than they can accept (IA, NE and OR excepted of course). So, can we approximate the value to the school as the increase in non-sports school donations because of loyal FB/BB alumni? I've never found numbers for this type of question. (In industry, I found that whenever we measured the "we think" claims, they were high by a factor of 10 or 100. Programs hated actually measuring them because they knew the most likely result was to be shut down.)

Putting my slow cook crow in the oven: I expect the NIL prices to drop significantly within 5 years as people discover they are overpaying.

 

[OrangeKrush1981]

This discussion is one of those times I advocate against myself as a fan, as I value the player interest the highest because they're providing the product and for the longest time were not fairly compensated. I fully accept being priced out of attending games as long as they're selling out and the tickets don't go to waste because it means more money to an athletic department that desperately needs it.

Fair enough, no doubt.

I want to win too. I also want to be able to be involved, maybe, however little that might be now that I am decades past walking to home games.

 

[OrangeKrush1981]

I actually think the vast majority of former college athletes think they were 'fairly compensated'.

I agree. Especially if one includes athletes beyond those on the football team and mens basketball.

 

[OrangeKrush1981]

... I value the player interest the highest because they're providing the product ...

Hm. I can't sign on to that, though I don't completely disagree either. I guess my reaction is: what is the 'product' that you refer to? Football? Basketball? Either way, there will be no success without excellent, committed players. None at all. Winning a National Championship, Coach Underwood's repeated goal, won't happen without outstanding player talent and player character.

But the players' coaches are awfully, awfully important. Recruiting, teaching, encouraging, demanding. Program-building coaches who inspire and find a way to lead their players to believe they can succeed during dark, challenging moments and under intense scrutiny are essential.

And the fans? What is any of this whatsoever if the bleachers or seats are empty. Not.One.Thing.

Fans are fanatics, they are crazy, they are romantically involved in the glory and nostalgia and vicarious experience. They are -- we are -- irrational, I firmly believe ( ) Without fans, collegiate athletics isn't on TV, isn't generating millions, isn't the subject of impassioned interactions across the country. No fans, and this would all be as thrilling as field hockey on a rainy, cold day. (Which would be fine -- those who pursue their interests in the absence of outside cheering are amazing, I think.)

So who is responsible for the product? Those who make great plays? Those who bring it all together? Or those who appreciate it and provide the only reason for collegiate sports?

So while I completely agree that the players are central, I would actually characterize them as a vital part of a three-piece pie. Pizza pie, I mean. Not cherry (this time).

 

[OrangeKrush1981]

Question on the table: Are the current NIL numbers fair value to the university, or grossly inflated due to rich alumni egos?
I strongly suspect the latter.

Question (not addressed): How much value do the kids get beyond cash from their 4 year education, experience and exposure?

The current NIL rates are exceeding pro contract values all around the world other than the NBA. So the fair value would seem to be limited by the value to the university vs. what the players could get elsewhere.

Winning in, not getting to, the NCAA tournament does help small liberal arts colleges significantly. The value to larger universities appears to be much less. Unlike the smaller liberal art schools, big ten schools mostly get more qualified applicants than they can accept (IA, NE and OR excepted of course). So, can we approximate the value to the school as the increase in non-sports school donations because of loyal FB/BB alumni? I've never found numbers for this type of question. (In industry, I found that whenever we measured the "we think" claims, they were high by a factor of 10 or 100. Programs hated actually measuring them because they knew the most likely result was to be shut down.)

Putting my slow cook crow in the oven: I expect the NIL prices to drop significantly within 5 years as people discover they are overpaying.

Interesting prediction. I hadn't thought along these lines, at least clearly. I will not be surprised to see you proven correct in this prediction in the years to come.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Question on the table: Are the current NIL numbers fair value to the university, or grossly inflated due to rich alumni egos?
I strongly suspect the latter.

Question (not addressed): How much value do the kids get beyond cash from their 4 year education, experience and exposure?

The current NIL rates are exceeding pro contract values all around the world other than the NBA. So the fair value would seem to be limited by the value to the university vs. what the players could get elsewhere.

Winning in, not getting to, the NCAA tournament does help small liberal arts colleges significantly. The value to larger universities appears to be much less. Unlike the smaller liberal art schools, big ten schools mostly get more qualified applicants than they can accept (IA, NE and OR excepted of course). So, can we approximate the value to the school as the increase in non-sports school donations because of loyal FB/BB alumni? I've never found numbers for this type of question. (In industry, I found that whenever we measured the "we think" claims, they were high by a factor of 10 or 100. Programs hated actually measuring them because they knew the most likely result was to be shut down.)

Putting my slow cook crow in the oven: I expect the NIL prices to drop significantly within 5 years as people discover they are overpaying.

You are overcomplicating this. The value of anything is determined by what people will pay for it. The fact that college athletes (at least those in revenue sports) were paid under the table previously, and that now they are being paid handsomely in NIL, is incontrovertable proof that the compensation of scholarship and housing was well below what they would get on the open market.

Further, look at what college football and basketball coaches make. You complain about how NIL values exceed foreign pro basketball leagues, but Kirby Smart makes more than all but 5 NFL head coaches. Only 6 NBA coaches make more than Bill Self. It looks like the highest paid Euroleague head coach makes 2 million Euros ($2.16 million) a year. That wouldn't crack the top 60 in NCAA basketball. NCAA basketball generates more revenue than any foreign pro league. So it's only natural that its players have more value.

 

[IlliniFan42]

Question on the table: Are the current NIL numbers fair value to the university, or grossly inflated due to rich alumni egos?
I strongly suspect the latter.

Question (not addressed): How much value do the kids get beyond cash from their 4 year education, experience and exposure?

The current NIL rates are exceeding pro contract values all around the world other than the NBA. So the fair value would seem to be limited by the value to the university vs. what the players could get elsewhere.

Winning in, not getting to, the NCAA tournament does help small liberal arts colleges significantly. The value to larger universities appears to be much less. Unlike the smaller liberal art schools, big ten schools mostly get more qualified applicants than they can accept (IA, NE and OR excepted of course). So, can we approximate the value to the school as the increase in non-sports school donations because of loyal FB/BB alumni? I've never found numbers for this type of question. (In industry, I found that whenever we measured the "we think" claims, they were high by a factor of 10 or 100. Programs hated actually measuring them because they knew the most likely result was to be shut down.)

Putting my slow cook crow in the oven: I expect the NIL prices to drop significantly within 5 years as people discover they are overpaying.

I've seen this theory before but completely disagree with it. NIL has to compete with other opportunities such as playing overseas and the NBA G-League (and it has successfully killed the latter's attempted expansion), so it makes sense for NIL to be greater than those opportunities for it to attract top talent. The first pick in the NBA draft will make around $15M in his first year. Cooper Flagg, the projected first pick next year, is supposedly making around 10% of that in NIL. If anything that sounds like an underpay to me. Yes he could bust, but think about it, does one year difference really demand a 1000% pay increase or is it perhaps he's actually grossly underpaid in college? The same applies to the rest of the players, just in much smaller numbers.

The "education, experience, exposure" is the old way of doing things. Most of the big NIL earners aren't planning on completing a four-year degree. And we have to think about how little it costs a university to enroll an additional student when it's enrolling tens of thousands already. Selling someone on experience is like an unpaid internship, it's actually illegal if they're doing the work a paid worker would've done otherwise (like how a team can't exist without players). And then exposure, well if it doesn't come with money, nobody really cares. Players can't send exposure back home to take care of their siblings.

 

[grue2]

I've seen this theory before but completely disagree with it. NIL has to compete with other opportunities such as playing overseas and the NBA G-League (and it has successfully killed the latter's attempted expansion), so it makes sense for NIL to be greater than those opportunities for it to attract top talent. The first pick in the NBA draft will make around $15M in his first year. Cooper Flagg, the projected first pick next year, is supposedly making around 10% of that in NIL. If anything that sounds like an underpay to me. Yes he could bust, but think about it, does one year difference really demand a 1000% pay increase or is it perhaps he's actually grossly underpaid in college? The same applies to the rest of the players, just in much smaller numbers.

The "education, experience, exposure" is the old way of doing things. Most of the big NIL earners aren't planning on completing a four-year degree. And we have to think about how little it costs a university to enroll an additional student when it's enrolling tens of thousands already. Selling someone on experience is like an unpaid internship, it's actually illegal if they're doing the work a paid worker would've done otherwise (like how a team can't exist without players). And then exposure, well if it doesn't come with money, nobody really cares. Players can't send exposure back home to take care of their siblings.

I spent about an hour writing a nice post to watch it get eaten. Here is the quick and dirty gist without any wordsmithing.

Comparing to other opportunities -- the current NIL far, far exceeds them.
(Flagg can't play in the NBA this year. If he could, he would. The NIL exceeds ALL other leagues.)

There are three groups of players in the NCAA (1) ~15 who will make the NBA for some period, along with another ~15 who will kick around the g league (2) ~500 who will try overseas leagues, and (3) the other 5000.

The median NBA career is not quite 2 years. The average career is 4.5 years. Most second round picks never make a team. If they do, it is at the league minimum deep bench. More likely they are in the G league hoping for a call up, or a contract next year. Unless they were a lottery pick, they did not earn enough during this time to retire. (50-60 years is a long time to live on savings.)

The numbers are not that different in the foreign leagues other than the pay is much lower. 250-300k is a good salary in the higher leagues. The lower leagues don't pay much. Search for my detailed post on league salaries around the world from a year or two ago if you want more details.

The result: Most of the students are 4 year students. 99.9%+ of the students are dependent on their education going forward.

What I'm hearing (3rd/4th hand) for the current NIL demands for the group 2 players exceeds what they will make as pros once their game matures. There is no way they could get that money anywhere else in the world right now. These demands are on top of the room/board and education they get.

My opinion: Group 1 may be worth the NIL. Groups 2 is being way overpaid. This is the group that I expect to have their NIL drop dramatically within the next 5 years. The 4 year scholarship is a bargain. Group 3, I have no idea what they are asking.

 

[sbillini]

all this wrangling over whether contracts are good for players or not is fascinating. NCAA athletics has gone from one of the least free market sports leagues to the most in a span of what, 3 or 4 years? there's gonna be bumps along that way.

if you ask me (and nobody asked me), the only meaningful non-free market element left here is restrictions on when players can go pro (age, years out of high school, etc.). get rid of all those, let the players decide where the value is maximized, and then let the rest of the market play out as it will.

i think the deeper, underlying question being debated is where the true value lies in college sports. Do we watch college sports for the the teams? or the players? if you took the "Illinois" off of TSJ's jersey last year and called them the "Champaign Corkscrews" or something like that, would you still watch? I certainly wouldn't be. So meaningful value exists with the school (and, as an aside, let's not kid ourselves, when we talk about "school" in college athletics - it's really the DIA, not the school).

But, the school DIAs need athletes to be competitive. If you want to just be in the game and cut a check, then you won't pay your players much. If you want to win, then you're gonna have to pay something. What that amount is, and how it's structured (contracts, CBAs, etc.) will be decided with the free market. Will be interesting how it plays out.

Lastly, a quick comment on contracts being bad for players. In my 30 years of following sports and the associates lockouts, etc., I have never once heard a players union advocating for, or even off-hand mentioning, eliminating contracts as something they wanted (whether they got it or not). The notion that contracts are automatically bad for players seems ridiculous to me. If it was, why would Tom Brady, Michael Jordan, Lebron, Steph, etc. etc. ever sign a more than 1 year contract? or any contract at all?

 

[phats22]

 

[AirNeazy]

So just to confirm, we need more uber-arrogant, pompous jerks who continuously play the victim to generate interest instead of upstanding individuals like Tony Bennett. Got it.

There's a reason why I sometimes wonder if being a good person and being successful in a competitive environment are mutually exclusive things . . .

The only pompous one here is the coach that decided to take his ball and go home 2 weeks before the season starts because no elite talent in 2024 wants to transfer to play his unappealing style of basketball when they could get paid more to play in better systems elsewhere.

 

[IlliniFan42]

all this wrangling over whether contracts are good for players or not is fascinating. NCAA athletics has gone from one of the least free market sports leagues to the most in a span of what, 3 or 4 years? there's gonna be bumps along that way.

if you ask me (and nobody asked me), the only meaningful non-free market element left here is restrictions on when players can go pro (age, years out of high school, etc.). get rid of all those, let the players decide where the value is maximized, and then let the rest of the market play out as it will.

i think the deeper, underlying question being debated is where the true value lies in college sports. Do we watch college sports for the the teams? or the players? if you took the "Illinois" off of TSJ's jersey last year and called them the "Champaign Corkscrews" or something like that, would you still watch? I certainly wouldn't be. So meaningful value exists with the school (and, as an aside, let's not kid ourselves, when we talk about "school" in college athletics - it's really the DIA, not the school).

But, the school DIAs need athletes to be competitive. If you want to just be in the game and cut a check, then you won't pay your players much. If you want to win, then you're gonna have to pay something. What that amount is, and how it's structured (contracts, CBAs, etc.) will be decided with the free market. Will be interesting how it plays out.

Lastly, a quick comment on contracts being bad for players. In my 30 years of following sports and the associates lockouts, etc., I have never once heard a players union advocating for, or even off-hand mentioning, eliminating contracts as something they wanted (whether they got it or not). The notion that contracts are automatically bad for players seems ridiculous to me. If it was, why would Tom Brady, Michael Jordan, Lebron, Steph, etc. etc. ever sign a more than 1 year contract? or any contract at all?

30 years is a little too short for that analysis; you need to go back 50, to the fight over free agency, which has a lot of similarities with the pre-NIL world. Players signed with a team and that was who they were stuck with until the team no longer wanted them and then they could go elsewhere.

Salaries were suppressed as a result, but fans loved the artificial loyalty it created. Once free agency started, salaries began to boom and some fans sided with the owners and complained it was the players being greedy when they demanded a bigger piece of the pie. They believed salaries couldn't keep rising, surely they'd bankrupt the league or plateau, and yet it turns out billion dollar institutions can actually afford to pay people millions. Imagine that?

 

[IlliniFan42]

I spent about an hour writing a nice post to watch it get eaten. Here is the quick and dirty gist without any wordsmithing.

Comparing to other opportunities -- the current NIL far, far exceeds them.
(Flagg can't play in the NBA this year. If he could, he would. The NIL exceeds ALL other leagues.)

There are three groups of players in the NCAA (1) ~15 who will make the NBA for some period, along with another ~15 who will kick around the g league (2) ~500 who will try overseas leagues, and (3) the other 5000.

The median NBA career is not quite 2 years. The average career is 4.5 years. Most second round picks never make a team. If they do, it is at the league minimum deep bench. More likely they are in the G league hoping for a call up, or a contract next year. Unless they were a lottery pick, they did not earn enough during this time to retire. (50-60 years is a long time to live on savings.)

The numbers are not that different in the foreign leagues other than the pay is much lower. 250-300k is a good salary in the higher leagues. The lower leagues don't pay much. Search for my detailed post on league salaries around the world from a year or two ago if you want more details.

The result: Most of the students are 4 year students. 99.9%+ of the students are dependent on their education going forward.

What I'm hearing (3rd/4th hand) for the current NIL demands for the group 2 players exceeds what they will make as pros once their game matures. There is no way they could get that money anywhere else in the world right now. These demands are on top of the room/board and education they get.

My opinion: Group 1 may be worth the NIL. Groups 2 is being way overpaid. This is the group that I expect to have their NIL drop dramatically within the next 5 years. The 4 year scholarship is a bargain. Group 3, I have no idea what they are asking.

I could see what you're saying but here's my counter. Let's say there's those groups like you say. The 30 players demand their millions and playing time so most likely a team gets two of these players at most. So you're a school that has those two guys and with that you think you can probably make the tournament but will probably lose first round if you surround them with scrubs. So my question is- how much money would you pay to the group 2 guys to improve your team to the point it could reach the final?

Asking that question feeds into why the group 2 guys are being paid so much, because that means there's 15-30 teams that think they have the core guys to win it all but need to supplement their talent and then after those teams you have the losers who couldn't secure any group 1 players so now they need to overcompensate with group 2 players.

As an aside I think we're about to see two + scrubs this upcoming season at Rutgers. (Sorry, Rutgers)