Calipari has talked about only having 8-9 guys on scholarship going forward and he's not the only one thinking that way.

Reason? You aren't going to play more than that number significant minutes and nobody today wants to sit the bench. Why waste NIL $ and schollies/tuition let alone coaching and fitness and development time on guys who are just going to bolt and play against you?

Not sure I agree with it but offering an example where more and more schollies might start going unused.

It’s a good discussion. In our case, you’d think there’s another Searls out there (grad/upperclassman) looking to make the jump up for their final season or two that can help.

To your point, it’s the staff’s jobs to be able to identify these types.

I'm cool with standards, but I doubt everyone remaining falls under those categories. We also took a chance on Paveletzke as a two-time transfer (Jason Carter too, if you count that). Point being, I'd like to think there are a few guys still unsigned worth bringing in that wouldn't be problems.

I can live with Paveletzke looking for quality PT.

It bothers me more in football when kids are coming into programs in May or June... not able to get up to speed... and then are back into the portal by December. THAT is a huge NCAA error that should be cleaned up.

It is May 20 and less than half of the portal entrants between D1 and D2 have committed to a new school.

It’s the federal court system,not the NCAA.

Courts made it okay to transfer 14 times and be eligible. They didn't set the dates.

Men's D1 basketball graduation rates reached an all-time high of 86% in 2023.

To an extent, I agree. My hesitation is that this is the "transfer age" and it feels like Boals is trying to build a program from youth in an era when the youth doesn't often stay where they started. I know we've done well the past couple of years of retaining talent, but in any given season, we can be gutted. Akron may have to reboot their roster every couple of years, but the guys they are bringing in seem more likely to contribute immediately rather than develop in the program and play in a year or two. If we develop guys and keep them here, I'm all for it. I just can't depend on that happening in the current era.

I think Boals has shown he wants a mixture of players. He's gone after upperclassmen transfers as well as high school seniors. The hope is that you can retain the youngsters for a few seasons and limit the roster turnover on a yearly basis.

It's not guaranteed to work but it should help with roster retention since you'll commit less NIL money to unproven players while they're developing with more experienced players in front of them. When the older players leave, it provides the opportunity for the young players to step up. If they haven't shown enough in practice, you can advise them to move on and target more experienced transfers. It's honestly not a bad strategy if Boals can continue to cultivate a successful culture with the "right type of guys"

The Akron method is hit-or-miss. You can hit a home run and be very successful or you can bomb. Either scenario, it'll likely lead to high turnover on a yearly basis.

So far, the Zips have had more success so it's hard to argue with their approach but it's certainly more of a grind and leaves less margin of error. If you miss out on your intended targets or they don't live up to your expectations, it can make things really difficult.

My philosophy as well. Will be disappointing if we bank the schollie and don't add another portal big for 2024-2025.

https://x.com/low_madness/status/1793679963855720457

Lots of D1 scholarships available around the country.