Buff&BlueBandit wrote:

This means we had the 6th highest ranked class in the A10. Dayton came in #1 at 75. Interesting because early in the year we had the 2nd and 3rd ranked class in the A10. Not sure if others signed more guys or the ones we signed saw their ratings drop.

I can’t imagine there is much of a qualitative difference between 75 and 90.  What it does say is we can recruit with anyone in the conference, which means if we can maintain this level of recruiting, it’s only a matter of time before we are competing at the top.  And again, our rankings seem to be based upon only the original 3 frosh. X

Thank you for posting this.  I am intrigued by the NIL numbers which presumably are the reported amounts being allocated to incoming freshman only.  Some interesting findings:

1) You would expect programs like Kentucky ($497K) and Duke ($449K) to spend big on freshmen since the notion of recruiting the best high school players in the nation, even if they are to be one-and-dones, has been an essential part of their recruiting strategies.  Not quite in this category but getting there by the day is Gonzaga who is paying out $159K to its incoming freshmen despite playing in a far less lucrative conference.

2) There are two egregious outliers worth following:  USC (Southern Cal) who spent $1.7 million on their freshmen, and Memphis who wrote checks worth $847K.  It will be interesting to see how these two programs fare this upcoming season, as well as future seasons should they retain these players.

3) The University of Miami, CC's old stomping grounds, is always worth following on NIL matters.  John Ruiz has more than generously donated in the past but based on this year's average of $8.2K (less than GW), it appears that Miami will allow players to earn their NIL on the court, as collegians.  Last year, a hefty sum was paid to Nijel Pack in exchange for his transfer from Kansas State, only to agitate Isaiah Wong who performed heroically in the preceding NCAA's but now found himself trailing Pack in NIL money.  (That was later rectified.)

4) It appears that many programs are likely opting to offer more to established players rather than incoming freshmen.  Some schools of note:  Maryland ($28K), UCLA ($16K), UVA ($15.6K), Tenn. ($11.8K), Purdue ($9.8K), Oklahoma ($9K), Houston ($8.9K), and Georgetown ($7.7K).

5) A number of A10 schools either did not report NIL figures or were not part of these rankings.  Of those who did report:

UMASS ($22K)
Dayton ($20K)
SJU ($8.9K)
GWU ($8.4K)
Fordham ($8.4K)

No surprise to see Dayton up there but UMASS continues to be a riddle.  Are they some kind of sleeping giant or are they a practically perpetual disappointment? 
 

Gwmayhem wrote:

5) A number of A10 schools either did not report NIL figures or were not part of these rankings.  Of those who did report:

UMASS ($22K)
Dayton ($20K)
SJU ($8.9K)
GWU ($8.4K)
Fordham ($8.4K)

No surprise to see Dayton up there but UMASS continues to be a riddle.  Are they some kind of sleeping giant or are they a practically perpetual disappointment? 
 

Are those umASS numbers what actually gets to basketball players or just part of the "creative accounting" they employ to hide from taxpayers how much money is going to the unregulated financiers backing their money pit of a football team?

Last edited by GW Alum Abroad (7/25/2023 9:43 am)

GW0509 wrote:

GW Alum Abroad wrote:

Are those umASS numbers what actually gets to basketball players or just part of the "creative accounting" they employ to hide from taxpayers how much money is going to the unregulated financiers backing their money pit of a football team?

LOL.  I will say that watching UMass's alumni team blow a 19-point lead to a random team in the TBT last night was a treat.

Also, those NIL figures are definitely just some On3 algorithm and not based on hard dollar figures.  Outside of John Ruiz tweeting out Nijel Pack's $800k deal with Life Wallet, a lot of NIL $ is kept quiet and usually lower than what is being reported.  Even Livvy Dunne, the LSU gymnast and #2 NIL recipient per On3, has been very coy about disclosing the financial figures of her deals.

Am not sure I am fully buying into this.  Lots of schools did not report NIL; a model could easily have filled in those estimated figures.  Plus, the player average per team was provided, not anyone's individual take, which I agree is closely guarded for the most part.  It's certainly possible that these supplied figures could have been "exaggerated" in either direction; I don't doubt this.  But, I don't see these as being totally bogus numbers that an algorithm spit out.
 

On3 utilizes its own valuation algorithm.  These numbers may be based on how it evaluated potential high school recruits.  While they may not be entirely accurate in absolute numeric terms, I'd guess they can reasonably assess relative NIL dollars spent by one school versus another.