stu said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Even if the best player you can get is not an NBA level player (say a Jerome Randle or Matt Bradley), the same principle applies: rather than spreading the NIL around equally, focus your NIL on landing a star or a few stars. That is just basketball. David Robinson + 4 midshipmen = Final Four

---

But David Robinson was a high NBA level player.

---

Yes, but the Final Four is not a reasonable immediate goal. Maybe a .500 record, then try making the Tournament first?

The point is spending your limited NIL on guys who are not going to play, or who will play limited minutes is inefficient. You want to maximize the quality of the guy who gets the most usage or touches. You also want to create a marketable star (which then creates demand for them to do local endorsementsimagine if NIL was legal when Kidd, Marshawn, Muncie, Rodgers, Powe, etc were around?).

Imagine if Cal was Davidson and lucky enough to recruit an undersized, underrated Steph Curry? You would want to spend nearly all your NIL to keep him and make him the focus of the team, right?

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

barsad said:

---

OooooK, but remind us why this NBA-worthy player, who has 7 other offers from tournament-lock teams at the same or higher $$ levels, is choosing Cal?
The reason we are not likely to see an NBA player in the next decade is not a flattening of NIL handouts into 10 similar slices of pie, it's that Cal is not a place seen by players as a good launching point into the NBA draft. If we're being honest we got lucky with Jaylon, he was underrated by the entire NCAA scouting establishment.

---

Even if the best player you can get is not an NBA level player (say a Jerome Randle or Matt Bradley), the same principle applies: rather than spreading the NIL around equally, focus your NIL on landing a star or a few stars. That is just basketball. David Robinson + 4 midshipmen = Final Four

---

I have no idea, but maybe Madsen tried this already. Maybe he focused his limited $$ on Aimaq, Askew, and Jaylon and that except for Jaylon, looking back at their impact on team success, he overpaid. Maybe he felt the same way about Wilkinson or Stojakovic. Or maybe he thinks paying big chunks to a couple of guys destroys team chemistry.

I'm not arguing for or against the "10 equal slice" approach. I'm just stating I suspect that better players expect a premium offer to compensate for joining a basketball program with Cal's currently lousy reputation. If those 10 slices were big enough, then sure, top players would sign up. But that gets back to my question; how big is Cal's pie to distribute vs UNC, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, or on the West Coast, Stanford and other former Pac12 schools?

---

Askew was a Fox holdover who had played terribly, but yes, it appears that team could have been one where NIL was focused on bringing in Tyson and Aimaq. For the sake of argument let's assume it was. I would say it was a relatively successful strategy. Getting Tyson to the NBA gives Madsen the cred to tell other recruits that playing for him at Cal is a pathway to the NBA. It is good to have another Cal player at the next level.

I thought last year's team was a disappointing follow-up. It appears this year's team is following the same strategy but with deeper talent. We will see how it goes. I agree that chemistry is important but the value of chemistry is measured in wins. Losing is bad for chemistry. Madsen does not impress me as a great Xs and Os system guy like his old coach at Stanford. His selling point is he runs an "NBA system." That is star based. If we want a system guy, we got the wrong coach.

My hope is some clear stars emerge quickly, they get the most PT and usage and then they get whatever NIL we need to keep them next year.

calumnus said:

---

... I agree that chemistry is important but the value of chemistry is measured in wins ...

---

Look at the Valkyries!

stu said:

---

calumnus said:

---

... I agree that chemistry is important but the value of chemistry is measured in wins ...

---

Look at the Valkyries!

---

That is amazing since womens basketball doesn't usually draw, at least in college.

oskidunker said:

---

stu said:

---

calumnus said:

---

... I agree that chemistry is important but the value of chemistry is measured in wins ...

---

Look at the Valkyries!

---

That is amazing since womens basketball doesn't usually draw, at least in college.

---

Is part of it that Warriors tickets are so hard to come by? What are the lessons for marketing Cal men's and women's basketball?