Buy or sell: Men's basketball
- Thread starter pseudonym
- Start date
Well, history tells us that State basketball just isn’t capable of having a consistent Sweet 16 caliber team. We’ve had a lot of talent come through Starkville over the years, but we haven’t played a Sweet 16 game since 1996. Of course there were a few Sweet 16 caliber teams that just fell short, but not many.
For MSU…I’m going with soft sell….mainly due to the NBA factor. The small handful of players that are worth huge NIL investment will get it from Kansas, UK, UNC, etc. Then they’ll play for one year and its off to the NBA. Rinse / repeat for the following year. We can up our NIL contributions, but will still never compete with those schools for truly elite players.
MSU’s best bang for the buck is baseball….but we of course have to keep football afloat at least to a certain extent, too.
MSU’s best bang for the buck is baseball….but we of course have to keep football afloat at least to a certain extent, too.
The game has changed. It’s less about the one and done freshmen and more about getting old and staying old. Granted, some of the transfers are one year guys as well but the transfer pool is much deeper than the freshman pool, and the elite schools can’t take them all. Until/unless the portal rules change, that’s where the majority of the NIL for newcomers should go.
We could definitely upgrade baseball talent for less, but what does more for our overall athletics profile? Perennial Omaha program or perennial first weekend/sometimes Sweet Sixteen+ program?
Gonzaga has had 25 years of sustained elite success, and 85% of that success came before NIL.
If the 20th highest NIL player is worth $500k(on3 claim), then if Gonzaga can find a way for 9 players to average $350k, they will likely continue to dominate at the national level.
I would say there is absolutely value in paying 3.15MM in NIL per year for the next 25 years to ensure another 13 Sweet16s, another 6 Final4s, another 2 National Championship appearances, another 20 conference tournament championships, and another 23 regular season conference titles.
If that could be replicated at MSU, count me in for giving some to an NIL. That's something I would actually find value in. Heck, half of those results would be more than worth it to support.
If the 20th highest NIL player is worth $500k(on3 claim), then if Gonzaga can find a way for 9 players to average $350k, they will likely continue to dominate at the national level.
I would say there is absolutely value in paying 3.15MM in NIL per year for the next 25 years to ensure another 13 Sweet16s, another 6 Final4s, another 2 National Championship appearances, another 20 conference tournament championships, and another 23 regular season conference titles.
If that could be replicated at MSU, count me in for giving some to an NIL. That's something I would actually find value in. Heck, half of those results would be more than worth it to support.
Gonzaga basketball is really interesting. Before 1999, their all-time NCAA tournament record was 0-1.
They went on an unexpected Elite Eight run in 1999. The coach used it to land the Minnesota job. He is now at Long Beach State. His NCAA record since leaving Gonzaga is 0-2. Gonzaga (under Few) is 41-22 in that same span.
Yet it's still by far the program that isn't a drain on the budget that has historically done the best. That being said I have no idea the amount of NIL money that goes to basketball. Obviously baseball is the biggest waste of NIL money. I'd be perfectly happy to turn it into a club sport. If we spend ANY NIL on it, it's money wasted, same as any sport not football or men's basketball.
Gonzaga is interesting. They leaned in heavily internationally with some of their wary success. They also had Stockton and local interest in the program before they got good. They’re a little down right now. Not sure how much is NIL related, but there’s a lot of money invested in the program. Extremely hard to get tickets to games because it takes a ton in annual donations to get season tickets, and if you try to resell them, they see who you are and remove you from having season tickets. All to say, that I think the money is there for NIL still, but disappointing that they’re weaker/have less talent this year. The Sweet Sixteen streak is likely ending this year, and they’re on the bubble despite a very good NET
I vote yes because one elite player can easily be the difference in a solid NCAA tourney team & a team that can compete for a National Championship - Exhibit A Dontae Jones. RW got all he could out of the 95 team getting to the Sweet 16, brought most of team back in 96, & added Dontae.
Being a top 68 team? Not sure that's big bang really. We can generally be top 68 in most sports. If basketball wins tourney games then maybe so.
^ Thinks the top 68 teams make the NCAA. ^ Thinks being a top 68 team is somehow connected to being a consistent Sweet16 team.
How are you defining “bang for your buck”? Postseason success in any sport with no regard for financial return to the school?
If that’s the case, then it’s probably non-revenue women’s sports, like volleyball, soccer, or softball. I feel like you could throw money into any one of those and assemble an all-star team for much less than you could football, baseball, men’s basketball, or women’s basketball.
If that’s the case, then it’s probably non-revenue women’s sports, like volleyball, soccer, or softball. I feel like you could throw money into any one of those and assemble an all-star team for much less than you could football, baseball, men’s basketball, or women’s basketball.
I used to think so (speaking overall about money, not just NIL). You can make real money in basketball, but unfortunately to do so, I think you must have many suites and be located in a bigger metro area, that also likes basketball. Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina come to mind. Places where culture and tradition have been developed for 50 years. We don't have this ability, mainly due to fanbase size, and we also simply do not support the program the way the others do. I'm talking about showing up in the non-conference with crowds the same size as SEC crowds. And doing it year in, year out.
On the other hand, the rosters are small, so NIL would definitely help go further. Especially if you have a few boosters committed to the cause, as we do. So as far as NIL correlating to winning, we probably could do it quicker in basketball. But we'd need to maintain that winning over a long time to truly change our basketball culture. So it's really up to those boosters.
As far as our entire fanbase committing, I still think it's baseball. MS is a baseball state, and we have a great baseball culture, developed over 50 years. It helps attract students. Soon, it will actually make money.
We are going to have to get comfortable with the idea that we can't outspend ourselves. So this makes baseball a priority. Big boosters will need to take care of basketball. Football will have to be cobbled together, and executed through a strategic plan.
On the other hand, the rosters are small, so NIL would definitely help go further. Especially if you have a few boosters committed to the cause, as we do. So as far as NIL correlating to winning, we probably could do it quicker in basketball. But we'd need to maintain that winning over a long time to truly change our basketball culture. So it's really up to those boosters.
As far as our entire fanbase committing, I still think it's baseball. MS is a baseball state, and we have a great baseball culture, developed over 50 years. It helps attract students. Soon, it will actually make money.
We are going to have to get comfortable with the idea that we can't outspend ourselves. So this makes baseball a priority. Big boosters will need to take care of basketball. Football will have to be cobbled together, and executed through a strategic plan.
That is not what I mean by bang-for-buck. What brings value to the university relative to the necessary financial commitment? Football success brings the most value to the university but at an enormous price tag. Making the financial commitment to win a national title in a non-revenue sport is feasible but doesn't bring enough value to the university to move the needle.
That is why I think men's basketball is in the sweet spot: March Madness is a national event that gets eyeballs outside of diehard college sports fans. The cost of being competitive in men's basketball is much less than football.
I think Vic Schaefer proved that we will support a basketball winner. Stansbury did also. And to be clear, I'm not saying the goal should be to be Kentucky or North Carolina. Those are top-3 programs.
I think you'd be surprised at the exposure our baseball program gives us, at least regionally.
Why shouldn't it be the goal? The reason we supported Vic was because he was at that level. If we had won that damn Notre Dame game, it would have been cemented.
Part of your original point was why we can't just flip a switch and be Kentucky/North Carolina: big metro area, 50-year basketball culture/tradition, fanbase size, etc.
Vic produced a winning product, and we showed up. That should be the goal.
I can see this side of it, but for MSU I just don’t see the path.
Part of that is personal bias….while I used to be obsessed with MSU basketball and to a lesser extent college basketball as a whole, I can really no longer get into the current version of what it has become. I think a big part of that is going 20+ years without being nationally relevant….which is something you can’t even say about our historically subpar football program. So I personally don’t have much invested in our MBB program even now. Love Jans and hope we hang onto him, but its just not there for me overall. And I don’t think I’m alone….MBB isn’t nearly as popular as it once was.
But also, the more objective part of me recognizes that only the bluebloods are really making a significant amount of money on basketball…..and that amount is still dwarfed by football even at most of those places. We actually lost money on MBB last year. And those figures don’t include NIL payments, so the truth is that we are currently deep in the red in MBB in terms of true cost, despite having a solid NCAA tourney caliber team. I think even elevating us to a perreniel Sweet 16 team (which is a tall task….not even Kansas / UK / UNC / UCONN make it that far EVERY year) is not going to just bring in a ton of revenue for the school.
So, if we’re talking about spending a disproportionate amount of NIL on a low revenue or non-revenue sport….I say we stick to our strengths and use it on baseball. I don’t think either baseball or basketball success is going to drive our national profile like football does. But baseball is an obvious historical strength, and a niche area where we can succeed long term.
Gotcha. In the second post, I meant that in a different way, not necessarily Lexington/Chapel Hill vs. Starkville economy and making overall money, but just a national title winning program with our 'own' culture, that gets us exposure via the direct NIL investment to get wins. But I can see where that's confusing.
Get unlimited access today.