Roster Finish
- Thread starter edub72
- Start date
I wouldn’t say that. Iceland kid and a long, athletic, rim protecting big…save 13 for a last minute no brainer, or for Goode.
You're correct but when I asked the question a couple of months ago it was pointed out the Coach was probably going to stand pat at 13 (or less)...
Unless it can from DD I wouldn't put any stock into that. He doesn’t tell any media what his plans are. See how no one knew about Sam committing last night.
If he wants someone last minute and has 13 scholarships filled, I promise he extends a scholarship to make it 14.
Darian DeVries has said that to media. A specific example is a quote from Darian DeVries to Jeff Rabjohns that IU would cap scholarships at 13. Anything above 13 negatively impacts revenue sharing so most schools are capping at 13, despite having the ability to go up to 15. Unless plans have changed, IU is going to use no more than 13 scholarships.
Same thing Cig is doing with football and keeping his number at 85... anything over and rev sharing drops by about 2 million I've heard.
I believe the roster will be finished as follows: scholarship #11 will go to a rim-protector and lob threat on pick and roll situations. Federiko Federiko has been linked, has not committed elsewhere and makes a lot of sense. That leaves two spots. If IU is confident Luke Goode ultimately gets another season, #13 is saved for him and they pursue whichever incoming freshman they like best that they could get (Leo Curtis? Azayvier Robinson from LN? Dez Briscoe from Attucks?). If they do not feel Goode gets another season OR would rather better balance the classes on the roster, they use #12 and #13 to bring in two incoming freshmen (in addition to Trent Sisley). I'd imagine we see intentions become clear on that after this weekend.
Your overall point about how quiet things are from this staff is very accurate though. Sam Alexis did not visit but no one knew he was talking with the Hoosiers on Zoom and no one had any idea a commitment was coming. Nothing wrong with a pleasant surprise every now and then!
Matty P has said same thing about Purdue. It's two more guys you have to coach, recruit, pay, etc that will likely never play.
I think we need two more impact type guys. I really only see four starters right now. And bringing in freshman is ok I guess but they could simply transfer next year so thats always a risk now.
No more walk-ons. Hence the 15 scholarships. I like the idea. I would think there is a need to still have a scout team that was once a role filled by predominantly walk-ons.
Yes. Because the roster now seems senior laden[which is good]. But they need a few that will not totally deplete the roster again next year with the exception of Sisley. so far and Dorn, I think.
Good 4 is a decent start for building. Now 3 to go to finish up this roster.So far this is one of the best depth rosters with actual shooters that IU has had,.
Definitely. The Iceland kid would be nice. And I'd say a multi year "lead guard" too. Both for depth this year, but also for the start of building next year's roster.
IU will have the ability to rebuild its entire roster, pretty much any year it needs to...but having a good returning core, every year, will do nothing but help them.
As we're seeing, most of the best of the best teams, have a decent amount of returning production.
I'm sure there are probably 2 guys out there from Indiana that would love to wear the candy stripes as walk ons.
So do you feel like an Avazier Robinson would be a good take as a fr. point guard to have for next year and all the great practice he will get with these seniors? I would like Curtis as a next year player too. Fredricko as a guy this year or the Lville guy. That would be a strong finish.
I think it would be a mistake to not have walk-ons or in this case two more players that get a free education to be on the scout team. The elimination of walk-ons was largely due to coaches using NIL to add additional talent without having to use scholarships.
Hope DeVries gets 1 more HS kid. Gives him a year in the weight room and college ball.
Maybe on Robinson. Solid guard. Never really got a good handle on what kind of kid he is. If he's a gym rat guy, good locker room guy, someone that would push the main rotation guards in practice, then certainly.
With Conerway, Drake, and Enright in the fold, probably gonna be tough to get a highly rated lead guard...and if you take a high school kid for that 4th lead guard role, if they're highly rated, it'll be tough to keep them past this year. If Robinson is a kid CDD would like for his potential, his mindset, and feels confident he could keep him past this year, without having to play him a ton, he'd be the perfect fit.
The bigs side is more open, I'd say. DeVries has the option of playing Bailey alongside a rim protecting type big, and sliding Tucker to a "3" position. Or he could have Bailey slide to the 5, and play DeVries and 3 guards. Regardless, I'd say both for depth, and for rim protection, he needs to get a taller and longer athlete with one of the remaining 3 spots.
I'll do my best...it's a complicated (at least to me) subject but here is my attempt at understanding: Starting in 2025-2026, Division 1 schools that opt into the House settlement can provide up to 15 scholarships. That is two more than previously allotted. 15 is the new total roster limit and that eliminates an estimated 255 roster spots nationally (based on 2024 numbers). The House settlement says "the full cost-of-attendance dollar value of any new or incremental athletic scholarships - that were not previously permitted by NCAA rules - up to $2,500,000 will count against the revenue-sharing pool". That means that for any new scholarship added beyond the current limits (13, in this case), the full cost of attendance price tag would be reduced from that school's total revenue-sharing salary cap.
So, if the total cost of attendance is $60,000 and IU added scholarship players #14 and #15, you'd have to pay them that full amount in revenue-sharing (which would reduce $120,000 from the total pool you'd be giving others). If that player was worthwhile, you'd also need to have a good NIL deal for them and that would reduce the total NIL pool you have available for others. Is there a 14th or 15th player out there worth making those reductions for? Nearly every coach appears to be saying "nope". Hope that helps!
yes, makes sense, so you add a 14th player you're cutting the revenue share for the rest of the team by approx. 1/14th. with NIL I don't see it being a huge issue. what I've been told is if a 5th year is granted to the non-covid seniors from last year, which they expect to happen, but not guaranteed. a couple of guys have already agreed to finish their careers at IU. if that happens, I think we may be at 15 next year. but going forward I would guess 12-13 will be pretty standard.
In your scenario...with respect to IU...
CDD would like to still sign Federico, Curtis, and one other (as examples of signing 3 more he'd know have eligibility)... and then if Goode and Shef Clemson get their 5th years, CDD would take them and IU would figure out the money side (or already has someone ponying up to cover it)...
That a decent summary?
The ONLY problem I see with the roster, at that point... how on earth are you gonna figure out how to play, manage, make happy 15 guys that will all probably deserve at least a little bit of regular playing time??
Goode isn't coming back, unless something changes. never say never, I guess. Clemson dude is a real possibility. one other possible 5-year guy
Yeah. I think 12 might be cutting it close if many injuries though. Feel like it has to be about 13. I 'm not getting this entirely ...does the school have to pay walk-ons or do they pay a stipend to defray costs of schooling? Like your posts too.
Robinson is committed to Butler. He is gonna be a good PG. Plays with power, speed, elevation. Soft touch. Can hit jumpers and freethrows. Excellent open court defender. Dives for steals and gets them.
Woodson missed there. Go figure. Top 5 Indiana HS seniors are excellent as are some underclassmen.
But can we keep them multiple years? I hate this uncertainty.
If the shooting percentage is high ,that works great. If some struggle ,then offensive rebounds will be low with that unit. Gotta get those shooters /slashers out there though. I look forward to watching these guys play together. Just like I enjoyed watching Ware a couple years ago. Watched very few games last year because they just looked like a strung together unit. No unity or oneness in their goals of teamwork. Even Galloway looked like he was going through the motions at times.
I do not know how IU's hunt for a rim-protector will play out but there are some interesting rumors out there. Federiko Federiko is one to watch but he reportedly wants $2 million in NIL. He's a positive add and would be a good fit for IU's system but to be blunt, that seems like an absurd ask for a player with a very limited offensive game and less than dominant shot-blocking. Baba Miller reportedly is seeking a deal in excess of that. He has a whole lot of potential but has yet to come close to producing at that level.
Structure it as $500K up front, another $500K for a conference championship, and $1M for a natty.
(Yes I know NIL doesn't work that way -- but it should, since everyone but the NCAA thinks it's pay-for-play)
I don't disagree with you but even if you could structure deals that way, would an in-demand player agree to a contract that was structured that way? I'll be shocked if Federiko Federiko ends up getting $2 million but I don't blame him for "wanting" it. I mean, I too would like $2 million. Unlike myself, Federiko has some unique size and skills that means even if he doesn't get exactly $2 million, his agent is betting on a school getting desperate at the end of the cycle here and giving him something way more than you'd think a 5 ppg player with one year left would get.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Fareed's Take: Trump is gutting what made American science great- Latest: BradStevens
-
-
-
