Illinois Football Recruiting Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
#126      
I want that. I’ll take guys that were highly productive at the G5 level over non-impact, highly touted, recruits from big programs all day long

This is how we will build a winning program consistently is winning the transfer portal with guys like this rather than the 5 star transfer that couldn’t get on the field for his former team
Well Rhode Island isn’t a G5 school is it? But I get your point.
 
#131      
I want that. I’ll take guys that were highly productive at the G5 level over non-impact, highly touted, recruits from big programs all day long

This is how we will build a winning program consistently is winning the transfer portal with guys like this rather than the 5 star transfer that couldn’t get on the field for his former team
I think how you build a winning program is avoiding any definitive pronouncements like this and evaluating each player and situation on a case-by-case basis. After all, Luke was a pretty highly touted recruit who couldn't get on the field for Ole Miss.
 
#134      
I think how you build a winning program is avoiding any definitive pronouncements like this and evaluating each player and situation on a case-by-case basis. After all, Luke was a pretty highly touted recruit who couldn't get on the field for Ole Miss.
Agreed. There are no hard and fast rules. If for example, there's a player who didn't get many snaps because he was playing behind an All-American (and he ought to stay around for his chance next year, but he decides to leave anyway), you take him. On the other hand, I love finding the guy who worked hard and developed at a lower level and is anxious to prove themselves at the highest level (Fej, Chase Brown and lots of other examples). Both options can be rewarding so that's why you look at the film like 0440 said.
 
#140      
That's got to be their entire collective. No way in hell is that just for football.
Yeah, I looked it up and confirmed the original source, it's the estimated entire NIL collective (all sports):

https://nil-ncaa.com/power5/

This is their summary of B10 schools (public only, no NW/USC):

2. OSU- 20.5M
6. Mich- 16.4
12. PSU- 13.8
13. Ind- 13.6
14. MSU- 13.0
20. Ore- 10.6
22. Iowa- 9.7
25. Wash- 9.4
26. ILL- 9.3
27. Wisc- 9.0
30. Neb- 8.0
35. Minn- 7.2
42. UCLA- 5.9
44. Pur- 5.5
51. MD- 3.7
52. Rut- 3.6

Basically dead center of the B10 on NIL stash.
 
#141      
Also, do we have any idea how true this is or how exaggerated this may be?
According to the source, it's based on estimated figures for valuation of their collective as NIL collectives are private companies and thus do not report their budgets, so take the numbers with a few healthy grains of salt. That said, it's probably closer to the truth than not as I'm not all that surprised by the numbers
 
#143      
Look like we have a lot of grounds to cover in NIL.

It's the perspective needed for when considering player acquisition cost. What Bielema has done at Illinois is borderline a miracle, and it came at a time when Illinois football was on the ropes at the precipice of a major shift that could have left Illinois on the outside looking in. The NIL improvement was necessary to avoid being stuck in the dregs, which is being faced by the Purdue's, Northwestern's, Rutger's, Miss State's, Wake Forest's, etc. of the world. Seriously, look at us!

Look At Us Paul Rudd GIF by First We Feast: Hot Ones



The reality is also that NIL is going up, up, up across college football. We shouldn't be looking at Illinois going from $2 million to $8 million (hypothetical), but how much that number has increased relative to P4 and our closest recruiting/conference competitors, like Wisconsin - Minnesota - Iowa - Purdue. Just important to understand the increases may not lead to improved transfer portal results. But it doesn't hurt!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back