menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: 2 important MAC men's BB rankings
Page: 1 of 1
SBH
General User
SBH
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 4,670
person
mail
SBH
mail
Posted: 9/25/2025 9:02 AM
settings_applications edit_note
"Player acquisition" budgets:

1. Akron
2. Kent
3. BGSU
4. Buffalo
5. WMU


MAC schools without a practice facility:

Ohio
FJC31
General User
FJC31
Member Since: 3/31/2022
Post Count: 2,243
person
mail
FJC31
mail
Posted: 9/25/2025 10:20 AM
settings_applications edit_note
SBH wrote:expand_more
"Player acquisition" budgets:

1. Akron
2. Kent
3. BGSU
4. Buffalo
5. WMU


MAC schools without a practice facility:

Ohio
Is there a source where the player acquisition budgets are coming from? One would think ours would be higher after this passed portal season that added Simmons and Breath. The market rate for skilled bigs as we know is at and around 6 figures.
Last Edited: 9/25/2025 10:20:56 AM by FJC31
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,809
person
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 9/25/2025 5:16 PM
settings_applications edit_note
SBH wrote:expand_more
MAC schools without a practice facility:

Ohio
I'd really like to know how much this plays into attracting and retaining talent. Also wondering if cost weren't an issue, how high on the priority list this would be for the AD.
SBH
General User
SBH
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 4,670
person
mail
SBH
mail
Posted: 9/25/2025 7:14 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Today's players want money and amenities. Having to share our court with volleyball and women's bball is a huge competitive disadvantage.
MonroeClassmate
General User
MC
Member Since: 8/31/2010
Post Count: 2,323
person
mail
MonroeClassmate
mail
Posted: 9/25/2025 8:17 PM
settings_applications edit_note
SBH wrote:expand_more
Today's players want money and amenities. Having to share our court with volleyball and women's bball is a huge competitive disadvantage.
Are saying a new practice facility wouldn't allow women? No need to share?
Deciduous Forest Cat
General User
DFC
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: OH
Post Count: 4,557
person
mail
Deciduous Forest Cat
mail
Posted: 9/25/2025 8:20 PM
settings_applications edit_note
MonroeClassmate wrote:expand_more
Today's players want money and amenities. Having to share our court with volleyball and women's bball is a huge competitive disadvantage.
Are saying a new practice facility wouldn't allow women? No need to share?
several teams on one court is the issue. More courts mean more time for all teams.
M.D.W.S.T
General User
Member Since: 12/24/2021
Post Count: 3,655
mail
M.D.W.S.T
mail
Posted: 9/26/2025 10:25 AM
settings_applications edit_note
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
MAC schools without a practice facility:

Ohio
I'd really like to know how much this plays into attracting and retaining talent. Also wondering if cost weren't an issue, how high on the priority list this would be for the AD.
Aside from potential scheduling conflicts, which they've been navigating for 100 years, I'd rather have a tricked out locker room, lounge areas, all that type of glitz and glamour you see with big programs. I can't imagine a dedicated "practice court" is too much of a draw. They'd end up practicing on the actual floor more often than not anyway. Maybe an entire facility like they're building for a couple WNBA teams these days, which they'd still likely share with the women. $15M (one I saw recently) is still a pretty tall order.
SBH
General User
SBH
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 4,670
person
mail
SBH
mail
Posted: 9/26/2025 10:47 AM
settings_applications edit_note
M.D.W.S.T wrote:expand_more
MAC schools without a practice facility:

Ohio
I'd really like to know how much this plays into attracting and retaining talent. Also wondering if cost weren't an issue, how high on the priority list this would be for the AD.
I can't imagine a dedicated "practice court" is too much of a draw.
I'm sure Jeff Boals and players will be in Peden tomorrow. Why not ask them? I can assure you Boals feels the lack of a practice facility has hurt him in recruiting and player development.
TWT
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,445
mail
TWT
mail
Posted: 9/26/2025 10:55 AM
settings_applications edit_note
M.D.W.S.T wrote:expand_more
MAC schools without a practice facility:

Ohio
I'd really like to know how much this plays into attracting and retaining talent. Also wondering if cost weren't an issue, how high on the priority list this would be for the AD.
Aside from potential scheduling conflicts, which they've been navigating for 100 years, I'd rather have a tricked out locker room, lounge areas, all that type of glitz and glamour you see with big programs. I can't imagine a dedicated "practice court" is too much of a draw. They'd end up practicing on the actual floor more often than not anyway. Maybe an entire facility like they're building for a couple WNBA teams these days, which they'd still likely share with the women. $15M (one I saw recently) is still a pretty tall order.
With four sports (volleyball, wrestling, women's basketball, men's basketball) all using it for competition I can see the value of the practice courts. Also with the location of The Convo on the other side of Richland it makes sense to have more sport locker rooms there and its own weight room which would indirectly help the football team so they don't have to schedule usage of the weight room at Peden around all of the other sports.
greencat
General User
Member Since: 3/13/2005
Post Count: 2,835
mail
greencat
mail
Posted: 9/26/2025 11:59 AM
settings_applications edit_note
M.D.W.S.T wrote:expand_more
I can't imagine a dedicated "practice court" is too much of a draw.
Any and every new shiny thing that can be added is a big plus.

Mid-majors who add those will use them as a draw...

https://images.sidearmdev.com/convert?url=https%3a%2f%2fd...
M.D.W.S.T
General User
Member Since: 12/24/2021
Post Count: 3,655
mail
M.D.W.S.T
mail
Posted: 9/26/2025 3:25 PM
settings_applications edit_note
greencat wrote:expand_more
I can't imagine a dedicated "practice court" is too much of a draw.
Any and every new shiny thing that can be added is a big plus.

Mid-majors who add those will use them as a draw...

https://images.sidearmdev.com/convert?url=https%3a%2f%2fd...
That's pretty snazzy. And if they had ability to make a sweet lounge area, I'm sure that would be draw. But if it came down to having a sweet practice floor, or injecting $15M into overall upgrades, and elevating the locker room at the Convo...?

I know what'd I'd choose. Though I'm 20 pounds overweight and have bad knees, so maybe I'm not the target market.
IceCat76
General User
IC76
Member Since: 12/5/2016
Location: Byfield, MA
Post Count: 301
person
mail
IceCat76
mail
Posted: 9/26/2025 3:56 PM
settings_applications edit_note
M.D.W.S.T wrote:expand_more
I can't imagine a dedicated "practice court" is too much of a draw.
Any and every new shiny thing that can be added is a big plus.

Mid-majors who add those will use them as a draw...

https://images.sidearmdev.com/convert?url=https%3a%2f%2fd...
That's pretty snazzy. And if they had ability to make a sweet lounge area, I'm sure that would be draw. But if it came down to having a sweet practice floor, or injecting $15M into overall upgrades, and elevating the locker room at the Convo...?

I know what'd I'd choose. Though I'm 20 pounds overweight and have bad knees, so maybe I'm not the target market.

How many of these mid-majors with practice facilities don't have an on-campus game facility?
OUcat
General User
OU
Member Since: 10/13/2011
Post Count: 213
person
mail
OUcat
mail
Posted: 9/26/2025 7:11 PM
settings_applications edit_note
If I'm not mistaken, EMU's practice facility is within its arena, same for BG. Not sure about Toledo but would guess SAvage has both under one roof. Akron and Kent practice facilities are essentially in adjoining rec buildings. Not sure about the rest of the MAC.
OUcat
General User
OU
Member Since: 10/13/2011
Post Count: 213
person
mail
OUcat
mail
Posted: 9/26/2025 7:16 PM
settings_applications edit_note
SBH wrote:expand_more
"Player acquisition" budgets:

1. Akron
2. Kent
3. BGSU
4. Buffalo
5. WMU


MAC schools without a practice facility:

Ohio


I'm not sure I buy these budgets, other than Akron's. Kent has cried for years about lack of funds. No way do I think WMU is Top 5, either. I've always suspected (under Oats and Hurley) the Buffalo had a much bigger budget that it appears to have now.

BG might be about right. They have had some talent, just haven't done much with it. I would hope Ball State and Miami would both be in the top tier, not to mention Umass.

Would love to know where this list originated, and what was the guidelines for making it.
greencat
General User
Member Since: 3/13/2005
Post Count: 2,835
mail
greencat
mail
Posted: 9/26/2025 7:32 PM
settings_applications edit_note
IceCat76 wrote:expand_more
I can't imagine a dedicated "practice court" is too much of a draw.
Any and every new shiny thing that can be added is a big plus.

Mid-majors who add those will use them as a draw...

https://images.sidearmdev.com/convert?url=https%3a%2f%2fd...
That's pretty snazzy. And if they had ability to make a sweet lounge area, I'm sure that would be draw. But if it came down to having a sweet practice floor, or injecting $15M into overall upgrades, and elevating the locker room at the Convo...?

I know what'd I'd choose. Though I'm 20 pounds overweight and have bad knees, so maybe I'm not the target market.

How many of these mid-majors with practice facilities don't have an on-campus game facility?
The practice gym in that link is a 5 minute walk to their arena.

Which has locker rooms and all...

https://b1292217.smushcdn.com/1292217/wp-content/uploads/...


and yes, a lounge area...

https://b1292217.smushcdn.com/1292217/wp-content/uploads/...
Last Edited: 9/26/2025 7:42:16 PM by greencat
SBH
General User
SBH
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 4,670
person
mail
SBH
mail
Posted: 9/26/2025 7:50 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OUcat wrote:expand_more
"Player acquisition" budgets:

1. Akron
2. Kent
3. BGSU
4. Buffalo
5. WMU


MAC schools without a practice facility:

Ohio


I'm not sure I buy these budgets, other than Akron's. Kent has cried for years about lack of funds. No way do I think WMU is Top 5, either. I've always suspected (under Oats and Hurley) the Buffalo had a much bigger budget that it appears to have now.

BG might be about right. They have had some talent, just haven't done much with it. I would hope Ball State and Miami would both be in the top tier, not to mention Umass.

Would love to know where this list originated, and what was the guidelines for making it.
Western received a $100 million gift for athletics. They paid $90k for a big man who was headed to Athens a couple of years ago.
Last Edited: 9/26/2025 7:58:16 PM by SBH
TWT
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,445
mail
TWT
mail
Posted: 9/28/2025 4:31 PM
settings_applications edit_note
SBH wrote:expand_more
"Player acquisition" budgets:

1. Akron
2. Kent
3. BGSU
4. Buffalo
5. WMU


MAC schools without a practice facility:

Ohio


I'm not sure I buy these budgets, other than Akron's. Kent has cried for years about lack of funds. No way do I think WMU is Top 5, either. I've always suspected (under Oats and Hurley) the Buffalo had a much bigger budget that it appears to have now.

BG might be about right. They have had some talent, just haven't done much with it. I would hope Ball State and Miami would both be in the top tier, not to mention Umass.

Would love to know where this list originated, and what was the guidelines for making it.
Western received a $100 million gift for athletics. They paid $90k for a big man who was headed to Athens a couple of years ago.
How does it stay fair to bring in an upperclassmen for 90k when the NIL value for a freshman is 50k? That I see as a limiting factor in terms of how much Ohio could/should pay. One way to bridge the gap is to use some of that revenue sharing money as performance bonuses if a player doesn't enter the portal.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,792
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 9/29/2025 8:37 AM
settings_applications edit_note
TWT wrote:expand_more
"Player acquisition" budgets:

1. Akron
2. Kent
3. BGSU
4. Buffalo
5. WMU


MAC schools without a practice facility:

Ohio


I'm not sure I buy these budgets, other than Akron's. Kent has cried for years about lack of funds. No way do I think WMU is Top 5, either. I've always suspected (under Oats and Hurley) the Buffalo had a much bigger budget that it appears to have now.

BG might be about right. They have had some talent, just haven't done much with it. I would hope Ball State and Miami would both be in the top tier, not to mention Umass.

Would love to know where this list originated, and what was the guidelines for making it.
Western received a $100 million gift for athletics. They paid $90k for a big man who was headed to Athens a couple of years ago.
How does it stay fair to bring in an upperclassmen for 90k when the NIL value for a freshman is 50k? That I see as a limiting factor in terms of how much Ohio could/should pay. One way to bridge the gap is to use some of that revenue sharing money as performance bonuses if a player doesn't enter the portal.
Well, what are s our “revenue sharing” model? How much do we have?
shabamon
General User
Member Since: 11/17/2006
Location: Cincinnati
Post Count: 7,298
mail
shabamon
mail
Posted: 9/29/2025 9:19 AM
settings_applications edit_note
OUcat wrote:expand_more
If I'm not mistaken, EMU's practice facility is within its arena, same for BG. Not sure about Toledo but would guess SAvage has both under one roof. Akron and Kent practice facilities are essentially in adjoining rec buildings. Not sure about the rest of the MAC.
Miami's is in the Millett basement.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,663
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 9/29/2025 10:42 AM
settings_applications edit_note
shabamon wrote:expand_more
If I'm not mistaken, EMU's practice facility is within its arena, same for BG. Not sure about Toledo but would guess SAvage has both under one roof. Akron and Kent practice facilities are essentially in adjoining rec buildings. Not sure about the rest of the MAC.
Miami's is in the Millett basement.
Isn't Millett Hall being replaced?
shabamon
General User
Member Since: 11/17/2006
Location: Cincinnati
Post Count: 7,298
mail
shabamon
mail
Posted: 9/29/2025 11:42 AM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
If I'm not mistaken, EMU's practice facility is within its arena, same for BG. Not sure about Toledo but would guess SAvage has both under one roof. Akron and Kent practice facilities are essentially in adjoining rec buildings. Not sure about the rest of the MAC.
Miami's is in the Millett basement.
Isn't Millett Hall being replaced?
Maybe. I don't know if it's all system go yet. I just know Millett Hall has a practice gym in the basement. Ira Newble blocked my shot down there at basketball camp when I was 10.
TWT
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,445
mail
TWT
mail
Posted: 9/29/2025 6:24 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
"Player acquisition" budgets:

1. Akron
2. Kent
3. BGSU
4. Buffalo
5. WMU


MAC schools without a practice facility:

Ohio


I'm not sure I buy these budgets, other than Akron's. Kent has cried for years about lack of funds. No way do I think WMU is Top 5, either. I've always suspected (under Oats and Hurley) the Buffalo had a much bigger budget that it appears to have now.

BG might be about right. They have had some talent, just haven't done much with it. I would hope Ball State and Miami would both be in the top tier, not to mention Umass.

Would love to know where this list originated, and what was the guidelines for making it.
Western received a $100 million gift for athletics. They paid $90k for a big man who was headed to Athens a couple of years ago.
How does it stay fair to bring in an upperclassmen for 90k when the NIL value for a freshman is 50k? That I see as a limiting factor in terms of how much Ohio could/should pay. One way to bridge the gap is to use some of that revenue sharing money as performance bonuses if a player doesn't enter the portal.
Well, what are s our “revenue sharing” model? How much do we have?
I thought you were the one saying the athletic department was planning to spend 1 million overall. That sounds in line with what the MAC is spending. Texas Tech is spending 55 million (20.5 for rev share + 35 million from NIL clubs). It appears to be having a positive effect on its football season.

https://collegefootballnetwork.com/texas-tech-stuns-cfb-w... /

Meanwhile at Oklahoma State they only paid 2.7 million in NIL last year and it ultimately led to his firing. 25 programs paid out more than 15 million in NIL according to this article.

https://247sports.com/college/oklahoma-state/article/okla... /

To compete in the P4 likely it requires maxing out the revenue share of 20.5 million + another 10 million in third party collective money. This is not to lead the P4 but to be within a standrd deviation of the top schools and hanging in there with creativity.

At the G5 level there is a push to dissolve the NIL collective and have the NIL deals combine with any institutional revenue sharing. The numbers out of the G5 tend to combine both revenue sharing + NIL third party deals in one lump.

https://g5football.com/articles/top-nil-budgets
Showing Messages: 1 - 22 of 22
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)