nustudent

He was certainly the best rebounder in the front court on our team, but that's not saying much. Not sure I would say he excelled though. I think he's a pretty average rebounder at best for a Big 10 starting frontcourt player.

If Cale leaves...so be it. I'm fine with him returning as a practice player walk-on. I think Kyle's value may have dropped some. I'd hope the staff realizes some of our deficiencies the last few years and sees how he checks a lot of those boxes. And I don't see why they would turn away from him after one denial. This staff has shown that they keep going back for more (Sandfort, the kid from WF, etc) after getting turned down once. I agree it's all subjective and I am investing no money in the lottery ticket scenario that I provided. But just saying...it would make me pretty excited/intrigued for next year/the future if we pull it off.

Ideal situation for me: Gavin Griffiths transfers PG - Jalen Jackson, IUPUI SG - Athletic CG who can get to the rim and defend SF- Pryce Sandfort, Iowa PF/C- William Kyle, SDSU/UCLA PF/C - Bangot Dak, Colorado (not in portal yet but rumored too, with the coaches following him) PF- Maikol Perez, HS, Italy Would give you this roster: 1. Rienk Mast, C, rSr 2. Connor Essegian, SG, Sr 3. Jalen Jackson, PG, rSr 4. William Kyle, PF, Sr 5. Unknown Combo Guard 6. Berke, PF, Jr 7. Bangot Dak, PF/C, Jr 8. Pryce Sandford, SF, Jr 9. Braden Frager, SF, rFr 10. Nick Janowski, SG, rFr 11. Quentin Rhymes, SG, Fr 12. Maikol Perez, PF, Fr Walk-Ons: 1. Sam Hoiberg, CG, rSr 2. Cael Jacobson, CG, rJr 3. Justin Bolis, PF, rSo

You need more than 2 front court players on your roster. Especially when both are behind the curve athletically in the Big 10. Mast is skilled enough offensively to make up for it. Berke is not. Not to mention you have Essegian, Frager, Rhymes, Janowski, Hoiberg, Griffiths (currently) and Sandfort (possibly) who can play the guards and wings. Now...I'm not enamored by that group. But that's 7 guys to play 2 spots. That's plenty. We currently have 2 guys to play 2 spots in the front court. I do agree that PG is the #1 need. But an athletic big is easily #2 at this stage.

I'd rather have Jackson from IUPUI than Cadeau. He costs you less and gives you more. Though...having a distributor like Cadeau would make a wing tandem of Essegian and Sandfort intriguing. But that still leaves you without a big man. I'd argue we need two bigs as well as well as an athletic combo guard.

I'd take Cadeau.

I’m surprised more collectives have nt instituted things like balloon payments at the end of the year after the portal has opened and closed.

There are still unmeasurables at play. What I’m saying is is that one program is maxing out those unmeasurable’s while the other isn’t. If those ever change the gap wide and significantly. No matter how good volleyball is or how good basketball is, volleyball will never make more money than the basketball team so don’t take from them Take from the other programs and operate in the red and let’s also remember that if Nebraska ever makes and performs in the NCAA tournament, they make more money than what they already do.

It’s why I don’t think we can start Berke and Mast together. Will be very slow and athletic front court. We need an explosive player to pair alongside Mast to make up for his shortcomings.

We do. That’s the point. One team is at its pinnacle and the other team is the opposite. And yet it’s still worth that much more. God forbid Nebraska ever performs in basketball. If it does that gaps only go wide it by a significant advantage. Nevraska can go 0-20 it conference play next year and it still gives me worth $10 million more per year than the volleyball program. If Nebraska ever makes it to the round of 32 or a sweet 16 or the volleyball program falls off at all, that gap is going wide significantly.

I suppose that’s possible. But it’s also possible that DBK is the Solich to Cook’s Osborne. I’m not saying she is, but both of those are pretty big what ifs. but it’s probably more likely that things fall off a little bit with her then all of a sudden doubling what was happening under what is considered arguably the greatest volleyball coach of all time. What’s not a big what if is the money that men’s basketball brings in from the TV deal. women’s volleyball will never do that

I understand your point and I get that. But $700,000 five or six years from now isn’t very much. Men’s basketball can learn that in one weekend in March. It doesn’t need to become great to do it. It needs one good weekend.

At some point in time it is though. When a 'bad product' is worth 10x as much as a 'great product'.....how much is the 'great product' really worth? And what happens if that great product ever takes a step back or the bad product takes a step forward. Throwing more money at the VB program isn't going to make it more profitable. It's pretty close to being capped because it's already at a pinnacle. Men's BB can grow at lot more. And again....you can give more to VB without taking from MBB.

It's bad business if you are taking away from other more profitable programs and not taking from other less profitable and otherwise lower ceiling programs. (I.E Taking away from men's hoops while not taking away from women's hoops or track and field, etc) Volleyball's reputation is pretty much as high as it can be...and it's still well behind MBB....a perennial underachiever. Don't handcuff your #2 sport to invest in a sport with a semi-capped ceiling when you have plenty of others who also don't perform/have a very low ceiling. Especially when you already have an elite level NIL program outside the university for VB

I think the VB team will get a higher % than 95% of other VB teams. But I still think it falls into that 'Other' Category. It's not going to take away from Football or Men's Basketball. That's bad business. Those programs have underperfomed but are still the two most prominant programs in the AD. And their ceiling is so much higher than where they are at now. It's going to take away from Baseball, Women's Hoops, Wrestling, etc. Those programs don't have the ceiling or impact that Football or MBB do. That's smart business.

I'm not saying it's not important. But all it takes is one sweet 16 run in basketball to offset that real quick. And I still think there is a monetary value to everything. If you have one of the top 2-3 volleyball programs in the country and you are still that far behind the men's basketball team who is nothing....the value can only be carried so far. And god forbid that value drops with Cook stepping away....

Is it? If Nebraska volleyball goes 0-35 next year, I wouldn’t care one bit. It’s a pretty subjective thing. Don't get me wrong either. I'm not rooting against them. I'd would just watch the same amount of volleyball either way,

And some things aren’t.

I'm sure they will. And they will get more than other schools too. But that doesn't mean we're going to partake in bad business and take away from football or men's basketball. Women's basketball and olympic sports are going to be the casualties in the women's volleyball debate. Not FB or MBB.

Is the brand that valuable, if it makes 10 times less than what the men’s basketball team does. And I’d also argued that the men’s basketball team won’t have as many fans showing up in two years if they regress back again and again like they have this year

It makes sense. We aren’t getting him. Focus your resources on what you can actually land.

They can try. Doesn’t mean they’ll get it. For as good as they are…..men’s hoops still makes 10x as much as they do.

That pretty much jt. It’s going to be a 75-15-10 model. That aligns with the percentage of revenue at most schools. 75%-Football 15%-MBB 10%- Everything else

If you put half that money in basketball, you’re going to have a really bad football team. most p4 schools will put around $15m towards football and $3.5-$4m towards basketball. They’ll allocate it based on revenue %

We’re not in a position to be choosy this year. find the best players available, regardless of year. Don’t waste Mast’s last year like we did Williams and Gary. Griffiths, Berke, Jankowski, Frager and Rhymes (along with Perez if we add him) all have multiple years left. That’s 6 of 13 scholarship players. That’s a foundation. not to mention legit players with multiple years cost a lot more and are wanted by everyone.