Lordy...
- Thread starter mmckell
- Start date
I should have added the players’ agents to the discussion regarding which NIL to accept . I do believe in some instances they play a significant part in the decision making
Does it though? I think the tournament is showing that it doesn't matter how good your coach is, NIL will overcome that. That is why there is not one mid-major team left already.
Garcia is also easily replaceable...every single player on this team is. Let's hope the increased money helps.
How many top 30-40 teams do you think replaced their entire rosters this past year? Building a contender from scratch isn’t an easy thing to accomplish. We need to get to a point where we can at least retain a core group
- Are there better players out there? Yeah, for sure.
- Can a coach with our NIL budget replace an entire roster of bad guys to upgrade? Yeah, but it's hard and you'll probably max out at about 5 or 6 quality players and have a fairly low ceiling.
- Can Konkol accomplish this? Uh, well, hmm...
It sounds like our NIL budget has SIGNIFICANTLY increased. Time will tell...
It sure sounds like it after speaking to someone highly connected to the program. As I said before, a GM of a CLOSE professional franchise has been playing the role of consultant for the athletic department as well.
Gonna be honest, I'd prefer they invest the money in lottery tix, better chance of paying off than giving it to Konkol.
The youth of today like money just as much as the youth of yesterday. You are being idealistic. If the situation is the money is close, they might take the lesser, but that's if it's within a couple of grand. Most people out there won't take the money if there is 50K difference. Haggerty was a player. He said he was definitely coming back to Tulsa to play Memphis for more money. I'd like to see how 'your' kids would react when there is 200 grand and 250 on the table. Just talking bout it is one thing, acting on it when it is a real live situation. And your kids sound like they came from money. Totally different than an athlete from a poor background.
Also if there is more money on the table, the more they are willing to sacrifice if the other team is in the ballpark. The difference between 700k and 750k is a lot less than the difference between 200k and 250k even though the amount of the difference stays the same.
Last edited:
Do you know any youth of today? Why did you put the quoteys around 'your'? Are you implying that I don't actually have kids? How very strange.
I'm thinking about the "youth of today" who work at the homeless shelter where I volunteer, many works 3 jobs, 2 non-profits and one in the service industry to afford to work the first two. They'd make more as an assistant manager at Arby's than they do at the non-profits. That's rubber hits the road, if you want to talk about "acting on it".
And yes, I'm familiar with the theory of diminishing marginal utility of money. But here's the thing, when you get to a certain point, you should in theory become indifferent to changes in wealth unless the differences are massive. This "plateau" happens at different points for poor and rich people - it's much lower for poor people than for rich people, so what qualifies as an actionable difference is different depending on how much money you have to start with. In effect, what is "enough" differs, and the benefit of amounts above "enough" are limited unless they are massive. So poor athletes should be less impacted by increases once they cross the (lower) enough threshold, not more. We learned a lot of law and economics in law school, these are the same basic theories behind theories of judgments.....
You misunderstood 'your' kids. That was meant to imply your youth of today that you know, not your kids.
Working at an 'Arby's' is not even the same concept. Most kids working at two volunteer outfits probably came from money. You can stop talking down to me because I disagreed with you. I have an economics degree. I came to it in a round about way that started in liberal arts.(English lit & and Art) Now that we have our degree arguments out of the way we can ignore that digression.
The people working at the non-profits I know mostly don't have money and didn't come from money, that's such a bizarre thing to say. Do you actually know any real, live people?
I assume if you have a degree in econ that you understand the implications of the diminishing marginal utility of money in this context and misstated them to "win" the argument, which is totally on brand.
Am I the only person who's known someone who left a crappy higher paying job for a better lower paying one? Bc I know a lot of people who have (myself included) or have chosen fields that don't pay much because they think the work is valuable and rewarding. I know I'm not, research on attrition shows that things other than pay have a lot to do with actual attrition. There's this strange belief on here that kids today are craven money whores who care about nothing but money but research shows that kids today care less about money and more about other things than prior generations and even prior generations cared about and acted on things other than money. How can this be a controversial point?
I think that keeping a core group year to year requires the team winning a lot of games. Players want the $, but they also want to be in a winning environment. You can get several players to give you a “hometown discount “ if they really like the coach & the winning environment. We haven’t had that in years.
The only good news is there are very good teams built completely in one year through the portal. I’m just not convinced Konkol can do it. I guess we will see this fall.
One lottery winner pro tip for you , TUMU. Instead of $10 million to one player, go with 5 million for the (new) head coach and $1 million each to 5 very good players!
Konkol's first 3 seasons have all been lame duck seasons
There was a post showing the teams in the sweet sixteen and where their starting 5 played last year. BYU had 3 starters who played at BYU last year, Purdue's starting 5 were all at Purdue last year (tells you something about Matt Painter right?). Everyone else was at 2 or fewer and in some cases none of the starters played at the school they're with now. The post only posted the logos of the schools they were at last year but didn't list the school this year...so in some cases you had no idea which school was which.
I hate what "college" sports has become.
Last edited:
It's not a bizarre thing to say. Support from home, and more easily accessible money from a degree, often leads to working on a volunteer basis or for low pay, while working that more easily accessible job to support oneself. Certainly working as a poor person from a poor background does not always lead to a better job to support oneself.
Did not expect to get as much airplay out of this post as did. Guess the criticism hit harder than expected. But I expect players from poor backgrounds will be more influenced by Nil. We are coming from different viewpoints. I have worked for volunteer and nonprofits, and saw at least half coming from wealthy backgrounds. Enuff said, on my part.
I no longer get too high after wins or low after losses
It does’nt really matter any more
A sweet 16 of all power conference teams with big huge NL money tells us that smaller schools have no place competing anymore
It does’nt really matter any more
A sweet 16 of all power conference teams with big huge NL money tells us that smaller schools have no place competing anymore
I can't get over the fact that we have only seen him play as a freshman, and everybody is certain he isn't a game changer. There would have been lots of excitement to see what he did as a sophomore even 4 or 5 years ago. I won't say he isn't a game changer until we get into conference play for a game or three.
Exactly. I saw enough in the few minutes I watched this year to know the kid has some good talent. In order to reach that full potential, he needs some quality big man coaching (we don't have that right now), and a good PG who can make that over the top entry pass (we haven't had that since maybe Ben Uzoh). We saw how effective playing inside/out on offense was for the team when they actually tried it instead of playing Hoosier ball and making 5 passes around the perimeter before someone jacked up an ill-advised 3. Were there some situational mistakes...sure. But with good coaching, you can fix those. You can teach talent and you can't really teach desire or instincts. Smikle has all three.
On the thread where we were discussing that Konkol was returning next year, I mentioned that maybe we need to move on to some new assistant coaches. I mean we've always had good to great assistant coaches at TU. Guys who could coach players up in situations, help develop positions, coach defensive schemes, etc. But they always seemed to move to a bigger, better program after a couple of years. Say what you will about Haith, but he had a knack for seeing coaching talent and always seemed to surround himself with really good assistants. And they'd be gone too soon for many of us. Why hasn't Konkol had that problem? We even discussed it with Tre Lamb and how he's had a plethora of assistants who were only with him at his previous stops for a year or two before they get plucked up by a P5. Again, all of our coaches should be striving to get to the next level of coaching and after they've given their time (and hopefully successfully) to TU, we should be glad they move on to the next bigger thing...it means we did something right.
Plus I'm not sold that the assistants can really help our players on the court. I know it's hard with the constant turnover every season....it takes 1/2 the year to identify the areas where they need to improve and then another good amount of time to develop the plan to help them.
It's part of the problem and when you combine it with what essentially turns out to be annual free agency, college athletics has absolutely lost its identity. I mean if we're being honest, the only thing "college" about it these days is the name associated with it. There should be no illusion that 65% of players don't give a rats ass about the degree anymore (probably higher at some of the football factories like Ohio State) and actual enforcement of academic standards has basically dwindled to nothing. Plus you can load all these players up with gimme online classes that a 10 year old could pass and no one bats an eye anymore because "student athlete" has not been the focus in a really really long time.
Similar threads
