Tracking what the rest of the Big 10 is doing

RU-ROCS

All-American
Feb 5, 2003
12,462
7,695
113
I find it funny how some fans can dismiss a player's talent just because he didn't start out at a power conference school. Talent can fall through the cracks for a number of reasons, but if they develop in time and straighten up, people will find them. D1 is still D1. It's not like they are D3 players trying to make a major jump in competition.
One name proves that point - Steph Curry!
 

RUfan1977

Senior
Mar 24, 2024
636
958
93
If true, that's just insane! And some people are all excited that RU just got to $8 to $10 million.
If true, is a very important qualifier. That being said, if a team has 25 million to spend and Rutgers has 10 million, they are outspending us 2.5 to 1, but that is much better than being outspent by over 6 to 1, which we would be if we only had 4 million.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RAC93

PSAL_Hoops

Heisman
Feb 18, 2008
13,643
12,937
78
If true, is a very important qualifier. That being said, if a team has 25 million to spend and Rutgers has 10 million, they are outspending us 2.5 to 1, but that is much better than being outspent by over 6 to 1, which we would be if we only had 4 million.

There’s also some marginal utility that comes into play after a certain spend level. Managing a roster with 12+ guys who would start and be stars on most other teams creates all kinds of chemistry challenges.

To compete - you need to have enough money to buy a minimum of 6-7 starter level rotational pieces. Having millions of dollars to spend on your 10th and 11th guys is better I suppose than not having it, but doesn’t help nearly as much as the difference between being able to buy 6 starter calibers vs only 3 or 4 (for example).
 
  • Like
Reactions: RAC93 and NickRU714

RU-ROCS

All-American
Feb 5, 2003
12,462
7,695
113
If true, is a very important qualifier. That being said, if a team has 25 million to spend and Rutgers has 10 million, they are outspending us 2.5 to 1, but that is much better than being outspent by over 6 to 1, which we would be if we only had 4 million.
Ture. But it also means likely means that RU is never sniffing the top 25 again.
 

RUfan1977

Senior
Mar 24, 2024
636
958
93
We will get there just have to do some house cleaning first! Coaching matters
Coaching does matter, which is why Rutgers was able to win 7 Big Ten games with a budget 1/3 the amount of many of the other Big Ten teams relying on a starting center that should at most have been a backup and an extremely young team with 7 freshmen. Looking forward to seeing how he does this upcoming season, I think he will win at least 3 more games this year and have a winning record. Hopefully, he will do better than 3 additional wins.

However he does, I assume several posters will call for him to be fired on this board. For those who think anything less than a final four team is a failure, I would note that Rutgers final four team had five players on that team play in the NBA. And yes I agree that the Bailey Harper team did not play up to their potential.
 

Mholinko

All-Conference
Apr 25, 2023
1,555
2,353
77
There’s also some marginal utility that comes into play after a certain spend level. Managing a roster with 12+ guys who would start and be stars on most other teams creates all kinds of chemistry challenges.

To compete - you need to have enough money to buy a minimum of 6-7 starter level rotational pieces. Having millions of dollars to spend on your 10th and 11th guys is better I suppose than not having it, but doesn’t help nearly as much as the difference between being able to buy 6 starter calibers vs only 3 or 4 (for example).
I imagine most teams in that theoretical stratosphere like a Michigan are spending most of that money on the 7-8 guys that will actually play and not concerning themselves with finding a 2 million dollar 12th man
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac