Less high school kids more transfers

btowngopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
9,517
Reaction score
5,904
Points
113
Is this the formula? Spend your NIL on about 15 high school kids and get the rest through the portal? Gets you an experienced roster and less wasting of resources on kids that transfer after a year.
 

Depends on the situation and team I think.

A lot of portal guys simply don't get picked up by anyone ...

You could in theory do a lot of portal, and still highly rely on high school more than portal.
 

It is probably cheaper to build depth with high school players

But I don’t know
 

Is this the formula? Spend your NIL on about 15 high school kids and get the rest through the portal? Gets you an experienced roster and less wasting of resources on kids that transfer after a year.
Where are you seeing that?
 



It is probably cheaper to build depth with high school players

But I don’t know
Is it? What’s the price for a four star high schooler vs a three star transfer? The four star high schooler probably still has to develop for some time in most cases before being a contributor. Take Kollock for example, is he more expensive now? I’m sure there are bargains to be found either route, but the transfer is likely never a waste unless your evaluation was off. The high schooler can be everything you dreamed of, but if you can’t get him to stay it’s money thrown away.
 

Is it? What’s the price for a four star high schooler vs a three star transfer? The four star high schooler probably still has to develop for some time in most cases before being a contributor. Take Kollock for example, is he more expensive now? I’m sure there are bargains to be found either route, but the transfer is likely never a waste unless your evaluation was off. The high schooler can be everything you dreamed of, but if you can’t get him to stay it’s money thrown away.
taking a bad 22 year old is worse than taking a bad 18 year old

At least the 18 year old may get better
 

taking a bad 22 year old is worse than taking a bad 18 year old

At least the 18 year old may get better
The bad 22 year old is gone faster, the 18 year old has to be convinced to leave if you want him gone.
 




Wasn’t really looking for it…but turns out Indiana isn’t far off…17, 23, 19 high school enrollees the past three years.
I see 22 for 2026. Those numbers are not that much different. 2020 class had 20, 2019 class had 23.
 

I see 22 for 2026. Those numbers are not that much different. 2020 class had 20, 2019 class had 23.
My bad, was looking at enrollees. Regardless, I still think it’s a plan that makes a lot of sense. Not sure what you’re referencing 2019 and 2020 for.
 


Not sure it’s as simple as that, but if it is, you can do the same thing with an older player and go get a different one.
Yeah

I am saying equal talent the younger player is cheaper.

I could be wrong
 




Is this the formula? Spend your NIL on about 15 high school kids and get the rest through the portal? Gets you an experienced roster and less wasting of resources on kids that transfer after a year.
Seems like we are taking the opposite approach although we brought in quite a few transfers as well
 

I think it's going to take a few years for things to shake out before I think patterns or successful recruiting/portal strategies truly develop. Part of me thinks that a lot of high 3-star guys will be heading to lower-profile schools to build up their performance portfolios. Hard to say at this point.
 




Top Bottom