Kevin Willard Makes Telling Comments About his Adjustments per the Transfer Portal

[dconifer]

Kevin Willard recently talked about adjustments he's making to how he runs his basketball program, in order to adapt to life with the transfer portal. I'm sure he's only giving voice to concerns that most other coaches have.

He said that he will never take any more than three freshmen a year anymore. His reasoning was that freshmen have to be paid for, just like everybody else, even though they've never shown that they will contribute. And if they do contribute, they're likely to move on for a bigger paycheck anyway. In his view, the best bet nowadays is to comb the portal list for proven value.

There was a lot more to it than that, but that was the part that really stuck with me.

"We won't take any more than three freshmen a year. And everyone says, 'Well, why?' I tell them, you have to pay freshmen. They haven't scored a bucket for you. They're unproven, as good as they are and I think I have one of the best freshmen in the country. [But] they still haven't scored for you. So you're going to go out there and you're going to have to commit money to them and then at the end of the year, really, they're all going to transfer because it's the only way for them to find out what their true value is, is to go in the portal," he said.
.
.
.
" I thought I was going to build Maryland with three or four freshman classes. And get those guys better. And then that's just not the way it is anymore. "

https://247sports.com/college/maryl...g-strong-label-for-transfer-portal-237568050/

 

[Mr Magoo]

Kevin Willard recently talked about adjustments he's making to how he runs his basketball program, in order to adjust to life with the transfer portal. I'm sure he's only giving voice to concerns that other coaches have.

He said that he will never take any more than three freshmen a year anymore. His reasoning was that freshmen have to be paid for, just like everybody else, even though they've never shown that they will contribute. And if they do contribute, they're likely to move on for a bigger paycheck anyway. In his view, the best bet nowadays is to comb the portal list for proven value.

There was a lot more to it than that, but that was the part that really stuck with me.

"We won't take any more than three freshmen a year. And everyone says, 'Well, why?' I tell them, you have to pay freshmen. They haven't scored a bucket for you. They're unproven, as good as they are and I think I have one of the best freshmen in the country. [But] they still haven't scored for you. So you're going to go out there and you're going to have to commit money to them and then at the end of the year, really, they're all going to transfer because it's the only way for them to find out what their true value is, is to go in the portal," he said.

https://247sports.com/college/maryl...g-strong-label-for-transfer-portal-237568050/

Makes perfect sense. I would think to limit 3-star freshman as well for the same reason and the fact that time/effort spent developing them may very well be wasted time/effort. 3-star freshman with 4 and 5 star teammates may often be exceptions.

I think you will see a higher percentage than ever of freshman across the board going to mid-majors to prove themselves and get a payday the following year

 

[chase_NJ]

This is such a disaster. NIL is not supposed to be pay for play, but that's exactly what it's turned into.

 

[needmorecowbell]

This is such a disaster. NIL is not supposed to be pay for play, but that's exactly what it's turned into.

This is a portal change. Not NIL. Players were always getting paid. Now they can move freely.

 

[dconifer]

This is a portal change. Not NIL. Players were always getting paid. Now they can move freely.

I think it's the combination of NIL and the portal...

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

This is a portal change. Not NIL. Players were always getting paid. Now they can move freely.

It is both. Waiting for schools and lawyers to figure it out to have 4 year contracts.

Think 4 year deal for $6,000,000 where the contract is
250K
750k
2 mil
3 mil

Player year 1 gets a $2,000,000 forgiveable loan

 

[dconifer]

Makes perfect sense. I would think to limit 3-star freshman as well for the same reason and the fact that time/effort spent developing them may very well be wasted time/effort. 3-star freshman with 4 and 5 star teammates may often be exceptions.

I think you will see a higher percentage than ever of freshman across the board going to mid-majors to prove themselves and get a payday the following year

Yeah, I wonder what the player's rights advocates will call for when only elite high school seniors can get directly into D1 ball, where they can get paid decent money...

 

[needmorecowbell]

It is both. Waiting for schools and lawyers to figure it out to have 4 year contracts.

Think 4 year deal for $6,000,000 where the contract is
250K
750k
2 mil
3 mil

Player year 1 gets a $2,000,000 forgiveable loan

Either you pay a freshman or pay a senior. It’s good business to pay a senior if you can get one. Before you couldn’t get the senior because of too many transfer restrictions. Now anyone can move.

 

[gigantor1024]

This is a portal change. Not NIL. Players were always getting paid. Now they can move freely.

CERTAIN players were getting paid. Players weren’t getting paid.

 

[High Quality H2O]

This is such a disaster. NIL is not supposed to be pay for play, but that's exactly what it's turned into.

I remember exactly where I was standing when I heard the ruling that it was illegal to
ban NIL.

First thought: “makes sense…awesome these kids should get their cut” . 2.5 seconds later: “Oh no, we’re in trouble. This is going to make the rich richer”.

 

[chase_NJ]

This is a portal change. Not NIL. Players were always getting paid. Now they can move freely.

Wrong. It's 99% NIL driven. The portal was open for three years before NIL took effect and we didn't see this phenomenon.

 

[High Quality H2O]

It is both. Waiting for schools and lawyers to figure it out to have 4 year contracts.

Think 4 year deal for $6,000,000 where the contract is
250K
750k
2 mil
3 mil

Player year 1 gets a $2,000,000 forgiveable loan

Contracts could be a way to go.

Limiting the transfers a program is allowed to take and still be eligible for the tournament/cfp is the other. Demand would plummet.

 

[High Quality H2O]

Wrong. It's 99% NIL driven. The portal was open for three years before NIL took effect and we didn't see this phenomenon.

If we had the 1 year sit out rule we wouldn’t have this phenomenon either. They work together.

It’s the portal that is most annoying not what they are able to afford because of their skills.

 

[RutgHoops]

If we had the 1 year sit out rule we wouldn’t have this phenomenon either. They work together.

It’s the portal that is most annoying not what they are able to afford because of their skills.

Would coaches under contract who leave a program (De Boer, Jedd Fisch, Pikiell when he left Stony Brook, etc.) have to sit a year as well or just the players?

 

[Eagleton96]

Kevin Willard recently talked about adjustments he's making to how he runs his basketball program, in order to adapt to life with the transfer portal. I'm sure he's only giving voice to concerns that most other coaches have.

He said that he will never take any more than three freshmen a year anymore. His reasoning was that freshmen have to be paid for, just like everybody else, even though they've never shown that they will contribute. And if they do contribute, they're likely to move on for a bigger paycheck anyway. In his view, the best bet nowadays is to comb the portal list for proven value.

There was a lot more to it than that, but that was the part that really stuck with me.

"We won't take any more than three freshmen a year. And everyone says, 'Well, why?' I tell them, you have to pay freshmen. They haven't scored a bucket for you. They're unproven, as good as they are and I think I have one of the best freshmen in the country. [But] they still haven't scored for you. So you're going to go out there and you're going to have to commit money to them and then at the end of the year, really, they're all going to transfer because it's the only way for them to find out what their true value is, is to go in the portal," he said.
.
.
.
" I thought I was going to build Maryland with three or four freshman classes. And get those guys better. And then that's just not the way it is anymore. "

https://247sports.com/college/maryl...g-strong-label-for-transfer-portal-237568050/

Schiano made a clear decision that he was going to run a developmental program that focused on HS recruiting, developing players, and retention. Given the resources we have, I think that's a sound strategy and so far so good. I think it's cheaper to retain a player that is happy than to recruit a stranger of similar ability. And building teamwork matters as well.

Having said that, Willard is still taking 3 freshmen a year. That's not nothing.

 

[dconifer]

Schiano made a clear decision that he was going to run a developmental program that focused on HS recruiting, developing players, and retention. Given the resources we have, I think that's a sound strategy and so far so good. I think it's cheaper to retain a player that is happy than to recruit a stranger of similar ability. And building teamwork matters as well.

Having said that, Willard is still taking 3 freshmen a year. That's not nothing.

Good points, but I think football and baseball are entirely different in this respect. In football, it seems that most non-blue blood programs are "developmental", whether they declare it or not.

Also, I think Willard is saying that he doubts he will take even as many as three, unless he can get elite high school players. For instance, he really likes the two guys he has in the class of '25, who are pretty high level, but said that he probably won't even look for anymore in that class. I get the impression that he would have no problem with taking in zero freshmen.

Just stuff to think about. So many drastic changes in a short period of time, and as it appears to me, not thought out very well...

 

[Eagleton96]

Good points, but I think football and baseball are entirely different in this respect. In football, it seems that most non-blue blood programs are "developmental", whether they declare it or not.

Also, I think Willard is saying that he doubts he will take even as many as three, unless he can get elite high school players. For instance, he really likes the two guys he has in the class of '25, who are pretty high level, but said that he probably won't even look for anymore in that class. I get the impression that he would have no problem with taking in zero freshmen.

Just stuff to think about. So many drastic changes in a short period of time, and as it appears to me, not thought out very well...

It's a spectrum. All schools on hoops and football recruit freshmen, and all shop the portal. If you have a lot of NIL then you have the option to lean more on the portal.

I don't know what will be typical for high major hoops programs, but I am guessing that in most years Pike will lean toward the developmental side of the spectrum. And I'm fine with that (unless it doesn't work... then it sucks).

 

[NickRU714]

Forget NIL or transfer portal or anything else.

We have potentially 5-6 open roster spots next year.
Do we really want them filled with HS Freshman who likely provide minimal immediate impact?
Have a "rebuilding year" and hope to compete for a tournament berth ahain in 2-3 years?

Or would we rather bring in veteran transfers who could provide an immediate impact and put us back in the tourney again (assuming we make it this year)?

 

[NickRU714]

This has nothing to do with NIL or Transfer Portal.
It's about elevated expectations (from fans).

And head coaches are unhappy they may have to compete and try to actually win every year if they want to be elite.

Duke, Kansas and Kentucky have been doing this for years.
Some coaches want the money and accolades but not the responsibility and expectations to back it up.

 

[High Quality H2O]

Would coaches under contract who leave a program (De Boer, Jedd Fisch, Pikiell when he left Stony Brook, etc.) have to sit a year as well or just the players?

Sounds like you want to evaluate “fairness”. I’m talking about root cause of the chaos.

 

[RU82]

It’s been obvious from the very beginning of NIL that HS players would be the biggest casualties.

Kevin’s right. Why pay for a unproven player when you can get a player who has shown their worth at the college level?

 

[RutgHoops]

It is both. Waiting for schools and lawyers to figure it out to have 4 year contracts.

Think 4 year deal for $6,000,000 where the contract is
250K
750k
2 mil
3 mil

Player year 1 gets a $2,000,000 forgiveable loan

So, the Jalen Miller's and Antonio Chol's are guaranteed four year contracts at Rutgers? Can't force them out to make room? I understand this concept makes everyone feel better about the Cam Spencer's and Paul Mulcahy's, but there is another side to the coin.

I do like the idea of contracts and ending the every year everyone is a free agent reality that NIL has fostered, but there is a downside to contracts. Especially if a school makes a coaching change and new HC is forced to keep all the kids "under contract".

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

So, the Jalen Miller's and Antonio Chol's are guaranteed four year contracts at Rutgers? Can't force them out to make room? I understand this concept makes everyone feel better about the Cam Spencer's and Paul Mulcahy's, but there is another side to the coin.

I do like the idea of contracts and ending the every year everyone is a free agent reality that NIL has fostered, but there is a downside to contracts. Especially if a school makes a coaching change and new HC is forced to keep all the kids "under contract".

you would still owe them money, but i suppose they could be forced out.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Forget NIL or transfer portal or anything else.

We have potentially 5-6 open roster spots next year.
Do we really want them filled with HS Freshman who likely provide minimal immediate impact?
Have a "rebuilding year" and hope to compete for a tournament berth ahain in 2-3 years?

Or would we rather bring in veteran transfers who could provide an immediate impact and put us back in the tourney again (assuming we make it this year)?

We may get to the point where those freshman could be the answer because the price tag is much lower and you may be able to get value.

What if Ace Bailey has the same price tag as Omoruyi? Or is a little cheaper?

 

[NickRU714]

We may get to the point where those freshman could be the answer because the price tag is much lower and you may be able to get value.

What if Ace Bailey has the same price tag as Omoruyi? Or is a little cheaper?

Wrong comparison.
Ace IS a potentially instant impact freshman.

Next year we have this Lino Mark PG recruit coming in.
He appears to be a developmental player who will need multiple years before making an impact.

Or would you rather have a transfer like JWill (veteran player who can step in immediately and not sit out a year)?
Odds of making the NCAA tournament would be much higher.

Would you take the freshman or the transfer if they were the same cost?


That's the point.
Fans (and coaches) are becoming less satisfied with: "We are taking a step back to develop and rebuild. We'll finish 14th in the conference but in a couple years we'll be back in contention for a NCAA berth."

We're no longer that program to be satisfied with being on the bubble 1 every 3-4 years.

 

[RUfan1977]

Wrong comparison.
Ace IS a potentially instant impact freshman.

Next year we have this Lino Mark PG recruit coming in.
He appears to be a developmental player who will need multiple years before making an impact.

Or would you rather have a transfer like JWill (veteran player who can step in immediately and not sit out a year)?
Odds of making the NCAA tournament would be much higher.

Would you take the freshman or the transfer if they were the same cost?


That's the point.
Fans (and coaches) are becoming less satisfied with: "We are taking a step back to develop and rebuild. We'll finish 14th in the conference but in a couple years we'll be back in contention for a NCAA berth."

We're no longer that program to be satisfied with being on the bubble 1 every 3-4 years.

The problem with being a developmental program is that every player who develops into a quality player can go to another program that can offer more NIL money. As Pikiell has noted, teams have to be built one year at a time. You can no longer count on players staying multiple years.

 

[NickRU714]

The problem with being a developmental program is that every player who develops into a quality player can go to another program that can offer more NIL money. As Pikiell has noted, teams have to be built one year at a time. You can no longer count on players staying multiple years.

The problem with being a developmental program is that you aren't competing while developing.
Again, if we are now a program expected to compete for a NCAA berth every year then when are we developing players for future years?

We could have developed Jalen Miller.
Or we could have replaced him with JWill for an immediate improvement.

It seems fans of many teams have trouble realizing the improved annual expectactions for their program.
Williard can't say "well it takes 4 years to turnover the roster or wait for players to graduate. We can't rebound immediately from a down year."

You can push out Jalen Miller and bring in JWill immediately.
Or maybe I'm wrong and we shouldn't expect to be an upper tier Big Ten team annually at this point.
Let others develop them and then we bring in the players (see Derkack, Acuff, Hayes, Martini).

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Wrong comparison.
Ace IS a potentially instant impact freshman.

Next year we have this Lino Mark PG recruit coming in.
He appears to be a developmental player who will need multiple years before making an impact.

Or would you rather have a transfer like JWill (veteran player who can step in immediately and not sit out a year)?
Odds of making the NCAA tournament would be much higher.

Would you take the freshman or the transfer if they were the same cost?


That's the point.
Fans (and coaches) are becoming less satisfied with: "We are taking a step back to develop and rebuild. We'll finish 14th in the conference but in a couple years we'll be back in contention for a NCAA berth."

We're no longer that program to be satisfied with being on the bubble 1 every 3-4 years.

I think it is a great comaprison.

If RU had X amount left to pay for a player and both Ace and Cliff cost X. Which would you take for Rutgers 2024-25?

Most teams would probably take Cliff. I know I would take Cliff. Ace has tremendous upside, but he is a freshman. Id think they would have similar value in a true open market.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Your example is also a good one. My point is freshman’s values are really going to fall. They may fall to the point where getting freshman for some programs could be the way to go.

You will be able to get more “talent” for your dollar.

 

[seansherm]

I think it is a great comaprison.

If RU had X amount left to pay for a player and both Ace and Cliff cost X. Which would you take for Rutgers 2024-25?

Most teams would probably take Cliff. I know I would take Cliff. Ace has tremendous upside, but he is a freshman. Id think they would have similar value in a true open market.

As much as I wish this team had Cliff, I think you take an "Ace" because of the marketing you get that comes with it. Any old top 30 freshman, I agree, take Cliff. Top 3, thought of top 2 in the NBA draft, take the kid for the attention.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

As much as I wish this team had Cliff, I think you take an "Ace" because of the marketing you get that comes with it. Any old top 30 freshman, I agree, take Cliff. Top 3, thought of top 2 in the NBA draft, take the kid for the attention.

It is about winning right now. I would take on 10/9/2024 Cliff for this team over Ace without hesitation. I realize 100% that i could end up being really wrong about this.

 

[RutgHoops]

It is about winning right now. I would take on 10/9/2024 Cliff for this team over Ace without hesitation. I realize 100% that i could end up being really wrong about this.

Time will tell, but I think you are wrong on this. I'd take Ace over Cliff. By a margin. I think Ace has 1st team All-B1G potential. Not sure Cliff does.

 

[seansherm]

It is about winning right now. I would take on 10/9/2024 Cliff for this team over Ace without hesitation. I realize 100% that i could end up being really wrong about this.

I get the point, and I have my own hesitancy on what we'll get out of Ace as a freshman vs his total potential, but I think EO can come closer to replicating Cliff than replacement player X can to what Ace could bring.

 

[High Quality H2O]

Your example is also a good one. My point is freshman’s values are really going to fall. They may fall to the point where getting freshman for some programs could be the way to go.

You will be able to get more “talent” for your dollar.

Per Daniel Poneman, who seems to be a pretty active NIL agent.
This is from May this year.

“The NIL value ladder
1) HM to HM transfer
2) MM to HM transfer
3) 5 star HS/international
4) LM to HM transfer
5) 4 star HS/International
6) Juco/D2 to HM transfer
7) 3 star HS/international

Outside of 5 star or elite 4 star guys, it’s rare that an incoming HS recruit can command 6 figures.”

 

[silkcitypirate]

It’s been obvious from the very beginning of NIL that HS players would be the biggest casualties.

Kevin’s right. Why pay for a unproven player when you can get a player who has shown their worth at the college level?

What about Harper ?

 

[ru66]

Let's take former NBA players that don't have their degrees-- this whole thing sucks.

 

[RU82]

Let's take former NBA players that don't have their degrees-- this whole thing sucks.

Great idea. There are plenty of 20 and 30 something pros who could dominate at the college level and get paid more than they’ll get overseas. Let’s be an innovator.

 

[NickRU714]

It’s been obvious from the very beginning of NIL that HS players would be the biggest casualties.

Kevin’s right. Why pay for a unproven player when you can get a player who has shown their worth at the college level?

What's the casualty?
Did there become less scholarships in CBB?
Instead of going to Rutgers they have to "slum" it at Eastern Michigan for a year or two and prove themselves before transferring to a high major like Rutgers?
Quite the injustice.......

We have potentially 5-6 open scholarships for 2025.
Nothing is stopping HC Pike from loading up on HS freshman. Take all the freshman.
How would that team work out?
How would fans react to a rebuilding team of freshman that potentially misses the NCAA tournament?