Toggle sidebar

Pike - scholarship usage

S

Scangg

Heisman
Mar 19, 2016
25,448
49,369
113
We have 3 open scholarships. 2 if Caleb comes back. If he doesn't, we will bring in a wing to replace him so it's a wash for this discussion.

That leaves 2 open spots. Pike likes to leave 1 open scholarship so that ends up being 1 open spot.

Seems from mods here and BF that the plan may be to leave 2 open spots.

To me, this is not ideal. Injuries and players not living up to expectations can happen. I get not everyone can be happy etc so 1 open scholarship is fine. 2 seems a bit much. Take a shot on a high upside kid. Bring in a depth 5. It should be used IMO. Originally we heard the plan was to redshirt Woolfolk, but that can't happen if we don't bring in any other bigs. We only have Cliff and Dean.

Would you be OK with leaving 2 spots open / giving those to walk on?

What would you do with the last spot? (or 2 if you don't believe in leaving any open)

Has to be a depth 5 or a scoring wing for me
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rokodesh, Anon1751594821 and rubigtimenow
N

NBKnight

Heisman
Jul 8, 2008
24,656
15,574
61
Scangg said:
We have 3 open scholarships. 2 if Caleb comes back. If he doesn't, we will bring in a wing to replace him so it's a wash for this discussion.

That leaves 2 open spots. Pike likes to leave 1 open scholarship so that ends up being 1 open spot.

Seems from mods here and BF that the plan may be to leave 2 open spots.

To me, this is not ideal. Injuries and players not living up to expectations can happen. I get not everyone can be happy etc so 1 open scholarship is fine. 2 seems a bit much. Take a shot on a high upside kid. Bring in a depth 5. It should be used IMO. Originally we heard the plan was to redshirt Woolfolk, but that can't happen if we don't bring in any other bigs. We only have Cliff and Dean.

Would you be OK with leaving 2 spots open / giving those to walk on?

What would you do with the last spot? (or 2 if you don't believe in leaving any open)

Has to be a depth 5 or a scoring wing for me
Click to expand...
I don’t think the plan is to leave two spots open. I think they would want to bring in a 4/5, there is just not someone identified at this point.
 
G

Greene Rice FIG

Heisman
Dec 30, 2005
40,437
23,613
0
I didn't know your boyfriend was in to Rutgers basketball.

Too many questions marks and not enough offense on the roster. I am rolling the dice on the 3rd string 5 and looking for a perimeter player that can score. If you get a crappy 3rd string 5 he may end up on the bench when you hypothetically need him because Mag or Caleb or even Paul can guard the opposing 5 just as good/bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUJMM78
P

PSAL_Hoops

Heisman
Feb 18, 2008
13,304
12,623
78
Greene Rice FIG said:
I didn't know your boyfriend was in to Rutgers basketball.

Too many questions marks and not enough offense on the roster. I am rolling the dice on the 3rd string 5 and looking for a perimeter player that can score. If you get a crappy 3rd string 5 he may end up on the bench when you hypothetically need him because Mag or Caleb or even Paul can guard the opposing 5 just as good/bad.
Click to expand...
I agree - though I’d still prefer to use the last schollie on a crappy 5 who wants to be here (helpful for practice squad) than give it to a walk on who would be here anyway.

The problem with focusing on perimeter players though is that now that we brought in Spencer, RU isn’t as appealing to a talented transfer guard. We’re not going to be the choice for anyone who played starter minutes previously that has limited eligibility remaining. We could take a chance with an up kid that played reserve minutes as a frosh or sophomore but then if they don’t turn out to be that good we’re potentially stuck with them for several more years.
 
J

Jtg=04131996

All-Conference
Aug 2, 2010
8,165
4,878
81
I agree with your premise - I’m all about competition for playing time so I’d have added Hammond if he wanted to be here or a backup 5 if not (I mentioned Chad Venning in another thread).

But we’re not there everyday like Pike is. He’s obviously trying to build the program the right way through player development and hard-working, 4/5 year kids with some hard-working transfers sprinkled in.

So if Pike believes the extra schollies should go to Terry/Stephens, I will trust him. He has certainly earned that trust.
 
G

Greene Rice FIG

Heisman
Dec 30, 2005
40,437
23,613
0
PSAL_Hoops said:
The problem with focusing on perimeter players though is that now that we brought in Spencer, RU isn’t as appealing to a talented transfer guard. We’re not going to be the choice for anyone who played starter minutes previously that has limited eligibility remaining. We could take a chance with an up kid that played reserve minutes as a frosh or sophomore but then if they don’t turn out to be that good we’re potentially stuck with them for several more years.
Click to expand...
100%
 
K

kcg88

Heisman
Aug 11, 2017
10,862
17,230
0
chrebet80 said:
Not taking Hammond or dawes because we got spencer is a terrible decision in my opinion
Click to expand...
The more I think about the less I'd like Hammond/Dawes and Spencer together. Neither Hammond nor Dawes was a true PG. The problem is, what PG can we entice now when he looks at the roster and sees Mulcahy, Spencer, McConnell, and Simpson due to take some time as the primary ballhandler. What forward can we get that will be an appreciable upgrade? (Remember, Hyatt was seen as at least a mild win from the portal last season so getting this year's version of Hyatt does us no good) And what C are we going to get that wants to be at best the backup to someone who's gonna play 30 MPG?

Our roster right now is sort of jammed up. There's no obvious playing time available to really interest players unless Pikiell is completely ready to push Hyatt and Mag's playing time down, which doesn't seem to be the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gudenham, rubigtimenow and Scangg
C

chrebet80

Junior
Jan 22, 2022
226
328
0
kcg88 said:
The more I think about the less I'd like Hammond/Dawes and Spencer together. Neither Hammond nor Dawes was a true PG. The problem is, what PG can we entice now when he looks at the roster and sees Mulcahy, Spencer, McConnell, and Simpson due to take some time as the primary ballhandler. What forward can we get that will be an appreciable upgrade? (Remember, Hyatt was seen as at least a mild win from the portal last season so getting this year's version of Hyatt does us no good) And what C are we going to get that wants to be at best the backup to someone who's gonna play 30 MPG?

Our roster right now is sort of jammed up. There's no obvious playing time available to really interest players unless Pikiell is completely ready to push Hyatt and Mag's playing time down, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Click to expand...
Both those guys can create their own shot, which is something that no one else on the team can currently do on a consistent basis. Worse case scenario is they are sixth men who provide scoring punch. That player is needed on this roster.
 
S

Scangg

Heisman
Mar 19, 2016
25,448
49,369
113
kcg88 said:
The more I think about the less I'd like Hammond/Dawes and Spencer together. Neither Hammond nor Dawes was a true PG. The problem is, what PG can we entice now when he looks at the roster and sees Mulcahy, Spencer, McConnell, and Simpson due to take some time as the primary ballhandler. What forward can we get that will be an appreciable upgrade? (Remember, Hyatt was seen as at least a mild win from the portal last season so getting this year's version of Hyatt does us no good) And what C are we going to get that wants to be at best the backup to someone who's gonna play 30 MPG?

Our roster right now is sort of jammed up. There's no obvious playing time available to really interest players unless Pikiell is completely ready to push Hyatt and Mag's playing time down, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Click to expand...
This is how I see it too. No obvious PT. Pike wants to develop guys so it doesn't seem he is interested in a PG bc it will limit Miller and Simpson's minutes. He doesn't want a wing (unless Caleb doesn't come back) bc he wants Hyatt and Mag to play.

Pike is loyal to his guys and doesn't like to recruit over people, for better or for worse... we shall see
 
  • Like
Reactions: Loyal-Son and rubigtimenow
J

jordkap

All-Conference
Jul 11, 2016
2,828
4,467
77
Scangg said:
This is how I see it too. No obvious PT. Pike wants to develop guys so it doesn't seem he is interested in a PG bc it will limit Miller and Simpson's minutes. He doesn't want a wing (unless Caleb doesn't come back) bc he wants Hyatt and Mag to play.

Pike is loyal to his guys and doesn't like to recruit over people, for better or for worse... we shall see
Click to expand...
It’s not overly shocking that nobody has tried the transfer for this reason. The team loves Pike and Pike loves his team. With Baker and Harper leaving every kid should be thinking they have a shot to play, and mostly that’s true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scangg
C

chrebet80

Junior
Jan 22, 2022
226
328
0
jordkap said:
It’s not overly shocking that nobody has tried the transfer for this reason. The team loves Pike and Pike loves his team. With Baker and Harper leaving every kid should be thinking they have a shot to play, and mostly that’s true.
Click to expand...
Eh besides mulcahy, omoruyi and maybe Hyatt who could transfer to another P5 school? None are guarantees.
 
K

KnightTerrors

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2015
1,034
2,985
82
RUJMM78 said:
Who is replacing the scoring from Harper at the forward position?Spencer will replace Baker but the team needs additional 15 points to reach the same scoring level per game as last season.
Click to expand...

You have to consider a jump in production from returning players given the increased opportunity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scangg and Rokodesh
R

RUChoppin

Heisman
Dec 1, 2006
19,270
13,695
0
KnightTerrors said:
You have to consider a jump in production from returning players given the increased opportunity.
Click to expand...

Not of returning players will really see much increased opportunity. Omoruyi, McConnell, and Mulcahy will probably see the same number of minutes. Spencer and Simpson will take up all of Baker's departing minutes, and we'll likely get another transfer that will take up some of Harper's departing minutes.

The players best positioned to gain opportunity are probably Hyatt and Mag, and to a small extent Reiber.
 
P

PSAL_Hoops

Heisman
Feb 18, 2008
13,304
12,623
78
RUJMM78 said:
Who is replacing the scoring from Harper at the forward position?Spencer will replace Baker but the team needs additional 15 points to reach the same scoring level per game as last season.
Click to expand...
You don’t directly replace Ron’s 15. Instead you expect to get 7ish from his replacement so the net loss is really 8. Then if we gey an extra point or so per game from Cliff, Caleb and Paul it brings the loss down to 4-5 points which we better be able to replace with better bench production. We can’t possibly get less production from the bench.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rubigtimenow, Scangg and Rokodesh
N

needmorecowbell

Heisman
Oct 28, 2007
9,631
10,757
78
PSAL_Hoops said:
You don’t directly replace Ron’s 15. Instead you expect to get 7ish from his replacement so the net loss is really 8. Then if we gey an extra point or so per game from Cliff, Caleb and Paul it brings the loss down to 4-5 points which we better be able to replace with better bench production. We can’t possibly get less production from the bench.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It’s not like Rutgers won’t shoot shots. Those shots taken by Ron and Geo last year will now be spread out to 6-7 guys. The question is will they make them at the same rate? Spencer shoots at a very good % and hopefully Cliff gets more shots at a high %. Pike has plenty of guys available to step up and take advantage of the opportunities. I would agree that adding one more big off the bench would round out the roster nicely.
 
N

needmorecowbell

Heisman
Oct 28, 2007
9,631
10,757
78
AreYouNUTS said:
I have NEVER, nor will I EVER, understand the "leave a scholarship open" thing. CVS drives me nuts with that nonsense.
Click to expand...
You make not like it but there is a reason. Pike is only going to play 8-9 guys and probably 7-8 down the final stretch. You need 2 more in case of injury. So 2-4 guys aren’t going to play, ever. Those 2-4 guys become a problem ultimately. It’s about managing a team successfully. Leaving a spot open give you the flex ability to add an extra whenever needed. Many coaches subscribe to this thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TRU2RU_rivals, ColonelRutgers and Scarlet Beach
R

RU-Choppin-Ohio

Heisman
Jul 31, 2011
32,987
37,771
113
Seems like we had these same conversations last year.

Who is gonna replace Young's points ? Who is gonna replace Mathis' points and defense? Who is gonna replace Duke"s cheering from the bench?

Someone always steps in and up to fill the void. The scoring is always in the same 68 to 70 ppg Pikiell era range. It will not be 2 dominant scorers. It will be way more balanced. 5 starters between 7 and 15. Could be 4 bench guys scoring between 4 and 7 ppg
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: TRU2RU_rivals, rubigtimenow, Scangg and 1 other person
K

KnightTerrors

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2015
1,034
2,985
82
RUChoppin said:
Not of returning players will really see much increased opportunity. Omoruyi, McConnell, and Mulcahy will probably see the same number of minutes. Spencer and Simpson will take up all of Baker's departing minutes, and we'll likely get another transfer that will take up some of Harper's departing minutes.

The players best positioned to gain opportunity are probably Hyatt and Mag, and to a small extent Reiber.
Click to expand...

Minutes and opportunity are not the same. Paul/cliff/Caleb are going to be looked at to score more than they have in the past. In years past those guys had different roles given the roster around them.

Mag/Reiber/Hyatt will have the benefit of both more minutes and an increased role.
 
A

AreYouNUTS

Heisman
Aug 1, 2001
123,327
57,361
113
mugrat86 said:
Because there is only 1 basketball to go around, and with the advent of portal where players are no longer required to sit a year, keeping 15 people happy is impossible
Click to expand...
Good thing there are only 13 full scholarships for an NCAA men's basketball team.
 
A

AreYouNUTS

Heisman
Aug 1, 2001
123,327
57,361
113
needmorecowbell said:
You make not like it but there is a reason. Pike is only going to play 8-9 guys and probably 7-8 down the final stretch. You need 2 more in case of injury. So 2-4 guys aren’t going to play, ever. Those 2-4 guys become a problem ultimately. It’s about managing a team successfully. Leaving a spot open give you the flex ability to add an extra whenever needed. Many coaches subscribe to this thought.
Click to expand...
Then offer the $$$ to a sport that needs it to cover an out-of-state scholarship. Sorry, still think it's stupid, you NEVER know what could happen during a season. Nothing's going to change my mind, but it's okay, you (nor anyone else) has to agree with me. All good.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DHajekRC84
S

Scangg

Heisman
Mar 19, 2016
25,448
49,369
113
AreYouNUTS said:
I have NEVER, nor will I EVER, understand the "leave a scholarship open" thing. CVS drives me nuts with that nonsense.
Click to expand...
This is a pre portal mindset.

Honestly, I can't understand how you can't understand why a spot would be open
 
A

AreYouNUTS

Heisman
Aug 1, 2001
123,327
57,361
113
Scangg said:
This is a pre portal mindset.

Honestly, I can't understand how you can't understand why a spot would be open
Click to expand...
Kids transfer out, as well, that's why. Also, scholarships are renewable on a yearly basis, they're NOT 4-year deals. People forget about this sometimes. Hence why you see guys not being asked back - or being told "there's really nothing here for you - in football.
 
A

AreYouNUTS

Heisman
Aug 1, 2001
123,327
57,361
113
As someone who worked in the athletic department and understands all too well the struggle we've faced for DECADES to fully fund Olympic Sports, especially with out-of-state scholarship $$$, this just annoys me. Sorry.
 
D

DHajekRC84

Heisman
Aug 9, 2001
30,709
19,818
0
needmorecowbell said:
You make not like it but there is a reason. Pike is only going to play 8-9 guys and probably 7-8 down the final stretch. You need 2 more in case of injury. So 2-4 guys aren’t going to play, ever. Those 2-4 guys become a problem ultimately. It’s about managing a team successfully. Leaving a spot open give you the flex ability to add an extra whenever needed. Many coaches subscribe to this thought.
Click to expand...
And what if..and I know a big if.. you stumble across a player that "who knew" would be so good after a year. Or a player that just needs a year or two of development? I.e. investing for down the road?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AreYouNUTS
D

DHajekRC84

Heisman
Aug 9, 2001
30,709
19,818
0
AreYouNUTS said:
As someone who worked in the athletic department and understands all too well the struggle we've faced for DECADES to fully fund Olympic Sports, especially with out-of-state scholarship $$$, this just annoys me. Sorry.
Click to expand...
100%
Ok if you don't want to use them. Them give em back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AreYouNUTS
N

needmorecowbell

Heisman
Oct 28, 2007
9,631
10,757
78
1984 said:
And what if..and I know a big if.. you stumble across a player that "who knew" would be so good after a year. Or a player that just needs a year or two of development? I.e. investing for down the road?
Click to expand...
You still want to redshirt guys and develop so you save 1-2 spots and redshirt 1-2 guys. It’s hard to redshirt 4 guys. Everyone wants to play.
 
A

AreYouNUTS

Heisman
Aug 1, 2001
123,327
57,361
113
needmorecowbell said:
You still want to redshirt guys and develop so you save 1-2 spots and redshirt 1-2 guys. It’s hard to redshirt 4 guys. Everyone want to play.
Click to expand...
That has zero to do with not using all your scholarships. Sorry, again, just don't agree with this line of thinking. Not gonna change my mind lol!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom