Dual-Threat Rigby

26 minutes ago, Tiger720 said:

I would take a chance with Dior. I'm sure the staff did their research and gave their expectations if he was to come to Auburn. He's very talented player and I think he's looking for someone to give him a chance to prove himself. He was a former 5 star player and was the #1 pg in his class. I think he has matured since that incident. 

What research? You can do the same research about the case right now with Google as they could 

36 minutes ago, CameronCrazy said:

What are your thoughts DTR? Kid definitely has baggage - type that I definitely do NOT approve of. But where do you draw the line on 2nd chances? 

Dudes hated me for saying it but I don’t know if Freeze was really hireable for anyone other than us. No one seemed interested and we seemed to bid against ourselves there. All that being said, that was probably a 7-8 in terms of the “this move feels really nasty” scale 

I think Dior would be about a 10? He got plea bargained down from a felony, which is probably the only reason he can even be playing this sport right now. Dudes can say what they want about how bad the Miller thing was and how shameful it was he didn’t sit, but they at least recruited a guy who was initially completely spotless. We’d be taking this dude in…knowing EXACTLY what he did 

Dior Johnson…wow

47 minutes ago, Mikey said:

My bad. The current collective is OTV.

Because how much money they generate has nothing to do with an NIL collective. Again, a collective is not part of a school's athletic program.

Because it would be fair to the partial scholarship athletes and since the collective is entirely separate from the school, economic principles do not apply.

That’s if you’re living in an illusion, then yes the collective operates completely independent of any school-sponsored parties and yes, “fairness” (your definition of fairness still doesn’t make sense by the principles of capitalism or a free market economy) exists. 
 

Im sure the donors that intend on supporting the money making programs would find it very fair that they’re donating to others unrelated to their interests…

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

 It shouldn't be about the revenue and I'm not sure it is. Remember the NTY collective is not part of Auburn University. The decisions are made by an independent board. Disproportionate funding should be given to those unfortunate athletes who are on partial scholarships. Those players who are already getting the full ride are being well cared for before they get the first dime of NIL money. I know it's not a perfect world but giving millions to one football or basketball player comes close to being criminal use of the donor's money. I think the speculation about who is getting how much is vastly overblown and not just at AU, but across the nation.

Why would more money go to athletes who generate less? Those players from our team that deserve more will find it at a program that can pay it (or they’ll realize they are below free market value and will learn to ask for less). Broome is the face of the most successful sport Auburn has; even if basketball wasn’t two of Auburn’s money sports (which would of course receive more funding than others), why would he not receive more money if he’s worth more to the fans, university, anything in between?
 

I don’t want to throw the S-word out, as I’m sure it’s taboo on here, but US of America hasn’t abided by the economic principles you’re suggesting in any other industry, so I’m confused why it suddenly would for NIL

44 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I doubt the figures that are being thrown around. Also, last year baseball coach Butch Thompson was openly panhandling for $350,000 to keep his team together. I hope the board of directors of the NTY collective aren't giving one basketball player three times more than the entire baseball program gets.

Yeah but you don’t approach NIL from a logical basis, you look at it more from a personal feelings manner. 
 

Basketball generated 19.2m in revenue and 4.2 in profit. From what I could tell looking at the preview for Opelika-Auburn’s operating budget article, baseball generated 1.8 in revenue. Again, it’s facts vs feelings - Auburn has a top of the line baseball and basketball program and one is generating many, many multitudes more in revenue than the other. This is just personal opinion, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Broome generated almost as much revenue as their entire team. 

10 hours ago, Mikey said:

Probably not for free. Also probably not for some of these atrocious amounts being tossed around. Nobody knows what these kids are or are not getting. One thing is certain, they are not getting 1st round pro money because they aren't first round pro material.

Keep in mind that million dollar figure has been thrown around for a TON of basketball players of that caliber, at bare minimum. If you look into this whatsoever, you’ll find a ton of other figures who’d back Matt Norlander’s price point. Auburn didn’t get Johni Broome to return for less than market value, and market value for a center of his caliber has been a million bare minimum. 

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

What makes you believe that?

Reasoning? You think he came back for free? 

7 hours ago, AUSCalum87 said:

First, can I say I am loving this discussion and I am going I am not coming across as argumentative towards you? If I do, I apologize. 

Ok, in saying that, this is where I think people do not do a deep dive into how both coaches’ systems work and taking each player at face value. This is what I mean.
Let’s first go to your opinion about the high school recruits comparison. Yes, I agree, on the surface they have 4 recruits who highly rated and rated a little above then Jakhi. After watching a lot of basketball and playing it myself along with understanding the nuances of high school recruiting rankings, unless you are in the top 10, for me anyways, there’s very little difference to me between the 15th ranked best player and the 40th ranked best player. It becomes really subjective in rankings after the top 10. I mean, look at Okoro. He was rated between 50-75 but became a lottery pick. That’s what I mean, there’s really negligible difference in these high school players unless they are like a Jabari Smith, Brandon Miller, Cade Cunningham, etc. Those players were sure fire lottery picks and it was obvious they were going to the NBA no matter where they played. However, as I told you earlier, there are 0 UAT players in the mock drafts for next year that I have seen. Auburn has had 2, with shockingly Pettiford being projected as a first rounder and Broome a second rounder. So getting back to the high school comparisons, all 5 stars are not the same. And this goes into the bench production between the two teams and how the coaches are different.

Their coach for most of his career has only played between 7-8 players, especially down the stretch of the season where he keeps it to 7. I’m not seeing where these highly rated recruits are going to be able to compete at a consistently high level when you are only getting 5-10 minutes, if that, a game. You know that it takes time to gel on the court and it’s a rhythm game. So yes, they have the 4 freshmen plus Aden coming off the bench but in reality only 2, maybe 3 of those guys will get more than double digit minutes. Now if their coach had a system like Auburn where the subs play at least 15 minutes a game, then I would say you have valid point, but that’s not his style. I mean, they had JD Davidson coming off the bench and he was a sure fire NBA pick and for the most part he had little impact in the game because of the lack of playing time. And that’s my point with their roster. Not all 5 of their backups are going to play double digit minutes, in reality maybe 2 will. 

And that brings me to Auburn. Yes, our bench needs to be shored up and hopefully we can get these last players to commit to make it a formidable bench. But even then, Pettiford and Howard have a higher probability in making an impact on the game and having significant minutes than UAT’s bench because of Bruce’s system. That’s my point. I know that their bench is more talented, but it’s the systems of the coaches that allow our bench to have more impact on the game than their coach. All of this in saying that I believe Cardwell would still be able to hold his own against a true freshman. I believe Pettiford and their freshmen guards are a wash. It depends on who we get as backup guard, but CMO will be able to handle a freshman as well. And if we get Achor Achor I have confidence that Chaney would be able to handle another freshman. Experience matters in college basketball more than most people think. Auburn will be probably the most experienced team in the SEC with only two freshmen and the rest seniors.

 

I can understand and appreciate the point about systems mattering here. But it also matters to have optionality and styles. Bama may not end up going 12 deep as they could (not many teams would). But they can go 7-9 and still have other options. They're less susceptible to deal with injury issues and in theory, they won't have to rely on guys who aren't participating because of optionality. 

I also think the same could be flipped; Pearl has shown to want to play 10 guys, but he may not get to 10 capable players. What then? We saw in the Samford game when his rotations were thrown off, they never really had a great feel for making up the Chad minutes. They couldn't run that full court defense nearly as well. Guys looked multiple steps slower in the back half than they have for most of the season. I also think to something like 2019 where they didn't have quality guard depth, and that was a very rough SEC grind at times, with them still trying to throw Tyrell Jones and even Cook (a former walk on) to man the point. Pearl was GOING to try to manifest another PG body that just wasn't there. If Pettiford starts out slow or never really lives up to his potential, then what? That's what optionality does for you. If I factor in systems, Pearl: A. needs to have great guards to go anywhere in March and B. needs a really quality backup guard to go anywhere in March. He has one backup guard option and it's a true freshman. That guy HAS to be ready to go day 1 or Auburn has to land a guy of that caliber before the season starts. Would that not be a point docked? 

I also would generally trust Oats to get more out of guards and wings than I would from Pearl, especially freshmen. More so because Auburn's lack of success there than anything. I don't think you mentioned that - Aden was disappointing, Tre was up and down his first year, and Tyrell Jones stunk overall (no offense to him). He missed on the Westry evaluation. That's one HS PG recruit (Cooper, for about 10 games) that played on a truly rotation level in the last 5 years. I'm fine if people want to trust that Pettiford is the one that breaks the trend, but I'd like to actually see it first. 

5 hours ago, AUSCalum87 said:

I agree that Mark Sears would be number one because he plays the most important position and yes, without him, they would be really mediocre. However, after him, of the starting 5, I would take Denver, Broome and CBM off of production from last year. Again, I think you are looking too much at hypotheticals instead of known facts right now and those players have produced more than UAT’s other players. And I ask you this: why is it that UAT players can make a big jump next year and play better than they did last year and their high schoolers will live up to their potential but Auburn’s can’t? That’s another thing that rubs me the wrong way. You are assuming UAT players will play lights out and gel automatically and Auburn players will be the same as they were last year even though we have more core players coming back from a team that won the SEC tournament and beat that UAT team by 20. I mean, is it possible that Denver, CBM, Broome and Chaney play even better than last year and that Pegues plays at least close to what he did at Furman and Pettiford lives up to his hype? Or is that just reserved for UAT players? That’s what my issue is. Again; not saying they don’t have more talented players. I’m saying that they are replacing a lot of production from their team and you and others and the media are automatically assuming the players coming in will get and they will be unstoppable. Also, I think your perception is skewed because of their final 4 run. If they made it to the Sweet 16, I can guarantee you most media wouldn’t even have them in the top 10, but because they won 2 more games it’s time to tout UAT.

Well I explain the jump part with the Chad vs Grant example in the previous post. You got one guy who played much, much higher than expectations and in just looking at the stats, the type of shots he generated, there's not much space for him to take a big jump. For him to take a big jump from there, he'd effectively be the best wing player offensively in the league lol. Grant didn't play up to the potential they expected and certainly not what he showed to close the season out for the majority of the season. That was the frustrations Bama had with him. Simply put, CBM played closer to what a reasonable ceiling would be for him, very often. Grant didn't. But what he did show during the closing stretch of the season, that would be the best player between either guy. 

I also don't know what jump those other guys you listed are supposed to take. Broome took the jump this past year. He shot like 35% from 3, was an All American, metrically graded out as a NPOY contender, etc. No offense, but I don't think you're considering floor vs ceiling here. Auburn ended up with a lot of high floor guys by the end of the season. Dudes who were primarily safe in their role and usually pretty consistent. They failed because they had a gaping hole in the point guard spot. But realistically, many of their guys shouldn't get much better. Again you didn't ask the question which I would if I were debating myself, but Mark Sears - I don't have him getting much better if at all. Because he played up to his ceiling. 

Denver would have to show me something more to believe in. The dude sucks at finishing at the rim and it pisses me off lol. I don't know how a 3rd year player that averaged 20 points is just bad at semi-uncontested layups, but he is. What more can Denver be if he can't lay the ball up? He gave you a great 3 ball, great defense, a good feel for getting to his spots and that's a great complementary player. That type of guy rarely becomes more than a complementary player in his 4th year of CBB. What big jump do you see him having? If we go down the roster of returnees, who's taking the leap? Is 45 year old Dylan Cardwell doing that, or C-Mo, or Addarin? The value of Auburn's core is that they have a high floor and a bunch of guys that have already largely achieved their potential; as you mentioned that's a pro, but you can't acknowledge it and then also get rubbed the wrong way when I suggest Bama, who you've also acknowledged has a ton of potential, would have more room to make a leap. 

I also don't expect they'll gel automatically, but when you have the offensive pedigree Oats does, plus you have two of your guards returning (Sears + Wrightsell) and your possible breakout player (Grant), they already have a solid foundation to build off of. You're making it seem like they are building from zero. Not to mention, a large part of the offense revolved around Sears and his gravity. That also greatly reduces the adjustments needed. 

The thing with the Georgia logic is that was the worst Georgia team in 3 years. I actually think that was Ladd McConkey's first game of the entire season. Auburn obv has much more space to improve, but that wasn't the dynastic version of UGA 21-22. And I don't give grace to the Bulldogs if I can help it lol. Once you factor that, the usual way things go in Athens and Kirby likely being more pissed about that game than any other one (other than the Bama L), I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to snuff us out. 

That being said, if Thorne can actually throw on an elite defense, it's prob hard to see where an ass kicking of that magnitude occurs. There's ZERO chance Kirby allows that running gameplan from last year to fly again, so he's gonna have to air the ball out. 

Per the CBS CBB pod, Ark has Jonas Aidoo, Johnell Davis and Adou Thierro receiving a million plus in NIL. Two of those dudes are complementary bigs. Broome definitely has to be eating good. 

That post is 4 paragraphs long and it was still hard to get to everything presented in the post I quoted lol

Like I said, our starting 5 is probably better than theirs if you go position by position, but I think it's also fair to mention that there's some positions that should be weighed differently than others. Again, in the modern game of basketball, the most important position is the PG one. They had a guy who was prob the best at that in the nation as the season ended (either him or Kolek IMO). The 5 position matters alot more to us than it does to them. Even if Cliff is just a defensive guy, he's an acclaimed defensive guy that would be matching up against the greatest strength Auburn has. Broome is also a guy that had a noticeable dip in production once he got to playing guys with a physique advantage (that weren't just slow plodding fat guys). They don't need Cliff to be Broome level offensively, the same way they were doing fine in the NCAA with Pringle just being a high energy, lob threat. 

For me, they have the best guy between either teams because an elite PG is better than a non-Edey level elite center. If you aren't of the Luka Garza, Keegan Murray, Edey level where you're a big that's an entire offensive hub, a PG brings more value (esp one with the ability to steady a ship in tight moments like Sears did). There's at least 2 losses that Bama would've had in the NCAAT if they had a guy even marginally worse as a floor general than him, and Broome, as with most centers on the college level, can't do that. Past that, the guy that I would think that'd be predicted to be the 3rd best player between either team would be Grant. Their offense was basically unstoppable in the tourney when he got going offensively, and that was with teams getting to sag off. The reason why you'd put him this high is because all he really needs to do is be what he showed at the end of the year more often. Not even thinking about it from a potential perspective where if he becomes a 34% 3 point shooter instead of a 27% guy, he's basically unguardable for 99% of bigs. CBM would be fourth to me bc while he may have been better last year as a whole, the version of Grant we saw at the end would be a better player and from what I saw out of Chad, I just think he's closer to what his absolute best case scenario would be. He was a 42% from 3 guy, 88% from the stripe, was asking to play point forward for a few months, made a ton of ridiculously hard shots, etc. I don't think there's much more room to grow for him (which Auburn should be fine with what they get out of him if he was just who he was as a full time starter). 

50 minutes ago, AUSCalum87 said:

I also want to add this . You keep bringing up UAT’s freshmen’s potential but disregard Pettiford’s and Jakhi’s potential. As I said before, both are rated in the top 50 and Pettiford is considered the best pro prospect out of both team’s frehsmen. But again, those freshmen for UAT haven’t played a minute yet in college but you apparently think they will dominate ours will just be ok when in reality our freshmen are really talented players themselves. I see that as a wash right now until we get proof that one is better than the other. Oh and talking about bench players, you really want to discuss how Aden played last year? So then we have to go to the starters who have actually played and produce. Yes, Mark Sears would make them better, but outside of that, from returning production, Auburn actually has better returning players. Broome was more productive than Nelson and the Rutgers guy, that’s a fact. Chaney Johnson is the weak link, I’ll give you that. We upgraded at guard with Pegues. Denver Jones was shooting lights out the last few games. Why can’t you give him the benefit of the doubt like you do with Nelson? And CBM is still better than any of their small forwards, production wise. Again, that’s all we can go on. I don’t like to guess potential when players haven’t played a minute. I agree that UAT has way more talented players than Auburn, I’m not going to argue with that. What I’m saying is Auburn has about the same if not more production than UAT coming back. We have the core group of guys who beat them by almost 20 and they have a couple of guys who received that whooping along with other guys who had similar production of the players who left. I guess that’s why I don’t see this as some huge difference between Auburn and UAT. It sounds you are solely looking at potential while I’m looking at production and facts of the players who have played so far, since that’s all you can go by for now.

Alright so I'll just break this down to different points you're presenting

1. Point: I'm giving an unfair POV about potential for Alabama's HS guys as compared to Auburn's 

- Response:  Here's a piece from the post you quoted: "unless you think Pettiford and Howard are so talented that they essentially can make up for Bama doubling up on quality backups". We have two HS guys. They have 4, not incl Aden. They have the highest rated HS recruit out of the 4 and all 4 are higher than Howard (per On3). So not only do they have the numbers game, you would think they'd produce more contributors right away with their guys being better (than at least Howard). The earlier post of mine is saying that unless you think Howard and Pettiford can be at least as impactful as two of their incoming guys combined, there's no real way that Auburn's HS guys can be better. Numbers wise, it's virtually impossible as we'd need both of our guys to hit and they'd need at least 2 of their guys to not. 

2. Proven production with the bench 

- Response: We don't have a bench yet. Like the buck could honestly stop there if we were being honest. But Addarin Scott, Chris Moore and Dylan Cardwell is a not very good bench. Your proven production is a Juco center, Chris Moore who couldn't get minutes over Lior Berman, and Dylan who's effectively been the same player 3 straight years. Let's say Wrightsell remains on the bench for whatever reason (him and Rylan switched spots with each other iirc, so he'd logically start but just doing a mental exercise here). That guy may be able to get pretty close to approximating our returning bench production. How many non-Auburn fans would take those three over Wrightsell and Aden? Or if it's Youngblood and Aden instead? This Mallette kid they got who we haven't mentioned is also a career 37.5% 3 point shooter and shot 42% from 3 last season. As of this moment, our bench doesn't win the potential or proven production argument 

3. Last season. So I think you and I just look at the way a schedule goes somewhat differently. For you, if they lose a game they lost a game. The context of the loss doesn't seem to aid a team's projection (from what I can tell, I could be wrong). For me, losing to Clemson in a competitive game, losing to Purdue in Canada in a competitive game, losing to Creighton on the road by 3, that is a positive to me. You haven't asked it, but I would say that the Baylor loss did more for Auburn than beating down the rest of their pretty middling (at best) OOC in my eyes. I can't give them a pass for intending on scheduling hard teams but the hard teams ended up being bad. Auburn was metrically about equal while playing 4-5 less hard games, which probably would've been losses for us with how we played on the road and in neutral-sites against elite teams. That stuff just matters to me when doing projections. I honestly don't care much about the way the SEC went, just because that's the most comfortable a team is going to be. You're going to have opponents that have tape on you and know your tendencies, but the same works in the reverse. There are conferences that looked god awful in the regular season that excelled in single-elim moments, and that just says more to me about the quality of their in-game coaching and how quickly they can adjust. I think we're also at a point where some teams and even conferences are gaming the NET by beating the hell out of bad teams, so when they go up and play each other, it looks like you're 8-12 deep with metrically incredible teams. Wins mean more and losses mean less in that structure. 

In closing, I'd like to also mention that while we are comparing Auburn to Alabama, my original intention was to look at why Alabama would be considered a #1 for a neutral voter/fan, not necessarily why they'd be better than Auburn. That's one reason why us winning the season series against them last year hasn't really factored into any talking point of mine. It didn't mean much when they finished as a better team than us overall (which is the opinion I've seen from neutral rankings/voters) 

By the way, I don’t want anyone looking at these posts thinking I’m down on Auburn. They DEFINITELY need to get the bench figured out to come close to last year, but the starting 5 is there to be amongst the top 2-5 in conference 

1 hour ago, augolf1716 said:

UCF was so so this past year. I thought they did a decent job for their first year in the Big 12 7-11 league play record. Johnny is a good coach and gets a lot out of his players but has a lot of guys go into the portal every year I think his two guards are coming back and that's it. Little to no NIL for BB.

I think it was one of his first couple years with that Tacko Fall team. Think they really got screwed out of a decent Cinderella run that year 

2 hours ago, AUSCalum87 said:

There are some points I agree with. Now, if you are counting on Sears coming back, then yes, they have the advantage at PG. But as of now, as the lineups are, I think we have the advantage there. Also, Auburn and UAT were basically the same teams. Teams that trounced average to below average teams and couldn’t beat the top teams in conference. Literally in the regular season Auburn’s and UAT’s best wins were against each other. And yes, they did play a strong nonconference schedule, but still lost all of those games. They got hot for 4 games, that’s it. They didn’t anything more special than Auburn during the regular season other than play a great nonconference schedule and losing to every single one of those big teams. 
 

As for the lineups, it seems like you are really focused on their potential. As I stated before, Pettiford has shown up in mock draft being taken in the first round. None of UAT’s players are on any of the drafts as of now. Jakhi and Pettiford are ranked around top 75 while theirs are around top 20. It’s not that big of a difference to me. Then Aden who couldn’t hit anything. I mean, you can’t get any worse than what he played last year, so yea, he’ll improve but I’m not even sure if he’ll get significant minutes. Again, I think Broome is way better than Nelson and it’s not close to me. Cardwell and their big guy is a wash. CBM is better. Denver Jones is more experienced and was coming on the last two months. I just don’t see it being that big of difference. Most of their players have similar stats as Auburn’s players. Now, if we don’t fill these last two spots with quality players then I will agree that they would be head and shoulders above us.

I guess I am just of the mindset that you are a better team in March if you play those games. Like we played two hard games from November to SEC play, and one was a neutral site. I have to think that contributed to our lack of real road success and esp our unfamiliarity in the NCAAT structure, which is most like an OOC neutral/road. They played I believe 5, and one of them was against the team they played in the NCAAT, coincidentally. They also looked really good in the Purdue, Clemson and Creighton games, off of the top of my head. Those close losses matter when comparing your resume to other similar teams and their close losses (for example, ours was against App St lol). While I don’t think there was much of a difference between the teams last year, I do think Alabama had more to build off, by nature of their process that made them battle-tested for March. We REALLY need to up our OOC. 
 

Okay so Pegues/(someone)

Denver/Pettiford

CBM/Howard

Chaney/someone 

Broome/Cardwell

and CMO somewhere in the ether 

they have 

I don’t see how it’s close - unless you think Pettiford and Howard are so talented that they essentially can make up for Bama doubling up on quality backups (that are also highly touted recruits or players that have already played ball), there’s not really a way I can think of for making it close. Cardwell is solid, CMo is okay, Pettiford and Howard haven’t played games. That’s a bench that could be a lot of things, just like Bama, but Bama has way more viable options.  

21 minutes ago, AUSCalum87 said:

See, this is where basketball becomes tricky and in the “eye of the beholder” to say. People are forgetting that UAT struggled mightily down the stretch and were consistently getting blown out by much better teams. Nelson had a few good games here and there but for the most part he was dominated by much better post players, including Broome. Yes, their incoming high school recruits have the POTENTIAL to be great, but none of them are NBA caliber players yet. Look at any of the mock drafts for 2025 and not one of their players are listed. Heck, Auburn has two with Broome and saw Pettiford in one that has him going the first round.

I will also say if you compare the two lineups, I don’t see much difference. We have the better front court. Pegues is as good as their guard from USF. Denver is better than Aden until proven otherwise. CBM is as good if not better than Wrightsell or however you spell his name. The only spot they have a clear andv over Auburn is PF with us having Chaney. However, if we get Achor Achor, then we will certainly have the better lineup. I’ll ask a different way. Say UAT flamed out like Auburn did in the first round, don’t think anyone would be hyping them up? Not at all. I don’t see where they made huge improvements in their roster. The guys that left were actually really productive offensively. They lost offense with the Rutgers guy coming again but gained defense. So, it’s a wash there. I don’t see how they are considered a national title contender. The Final Four run they made has really distorted the media’s and fans’ perception of their team. If they don’t make the FF, they would be where Auburn is ranked right now.

I think there’s some great points. Like I mentioned in a diff post, they had some rough stretches, but they played one of the hardest schedules in the whole nation and the SOR (which did a lot of heavy lifting for them early) is important in evaluating them. We were supposed to be a 3 seed, and they had the same record we did. Tenn was supposed to be a #1 if a ball bounced a bit differently and they were one win away from tying them in conference record. It was a year where most great but not elite teams got their butts kicked on the road against other teams; I can’t hold that against them specifically. I also don’t think that stretch should hold more weight than them playing great-elite teams to the wire in the OOC part of the year or them looking like a really good team in the tournament play. They got much better stretches of good than bad. Nelson looked stellar in tourney play where it mattered, and that’s the last thing he showed us. Typically, people get the benefit of the doubt and get expectations based around the last thing they showed us, so I’m giving him that. Btw Broome won the matchup, but at least in their home game, Nelson had our centers switched out on the perimeter and took advantage of that matchup to close out the game repeatedly. That’s even more relevant because apparently, Auburn intends on running those two centers together and one of them are going to have to defend him on the perimeter even more. 
 

I’d take their lineup just because it’s more proven. They have the best player between either lineup in Sears. That’s nothing to do with Bama-Auburn, but if you have a guy who’s arguably the best PG in CBB as he looked like in tourney play, that’s going to be more valuable than basically any caliber of center other than an Edey type guy. The game of basketball is just a perimeter oriented one at this point. So you have their proven PG against our guy that still has to show it on the “Power 6” level. The same applies to Denver and Youngblood in the reverse. CBM should be better than their 3 options atm. Grant is much, much better than our 4s. And Broome is better than Cliff. Their bench should blow ours completely out the water, which is the big difference imo. I don’t even think those two units should be in the same realm tbh. I’d be happy to be wrong but they look to be what, 6 deep with high level guys? Their 12th man is what, Aden? 

54 minutes ago, AUSCalum87 said:

Yea, I know that, and those are factors as well. But let’s be really honest. Auburn should be able get a player like this if it’s between these three schools. He doesn’t pick Auburn will have to come down to playing time and NIL. However, public perception will be annoying since people will see that we just lost a player to Wake or UCF. It would be like Texas losing a recruit to Mississippi State in football. Shouldn’t happen.

True - I just wanted to mention that both programs had things going for them. It's not like we'd be losing the guy to total zeroes, yknow 

55 minutes ago, AUSCalum87 said:

Definitely disagree with these rankings. I would put Kansas, Houston, UCONN and Duke above UAT. Also, as our roster currently stands, we are not a top 10 team. I think we are way too high compared to other teams based on talent. We should be around 15-20 right now. However, if we get Achor Achor and Ivy-Curry, definitely could see us in the top 5.

Im guessing Sears returned? I’d have them #1 in that case, but it’s pretty much neck and neck with KU. I’m basically rewarding the F4 exp, Grant possibly taking another step, and the POTENTIAL of the class they brought in. If those guys play to their potential, they can have one of the best benches the SEC has seen recently. 
 

KU’s returning value almost doesn’t even matter to me with how underwhelming those dudes performed last year, but Harris, Adams and Dickinson were the strengths so I’ll give them that. I like their class more than Bama’s. It’s more proven production. Probably a lower potential ceiling. Those two would be my #1 contenders 

2 hours ago, AUSCalum87 said:

 

Is it possible we can get his commitment? Really really trying not to get my hopes up with him. He’s a hell of a baller. UCF and Wake Forest are his other two? I mean, this has to be a lock for us right? 

Wake Forest developed Hunter Sallis into a NBA guy this past season iirc. UCF was also pretty solid from what I recall 

No new input on the players themselves but appreciate the effort in making these threads bro 

The funny part about the consistency point is that Auburn finished tied with Bama last year in the SEC record. Bama flames out immediately in the SECT, Auburn does the same in the NCAAT. They had a rough patch with how many stellar teams they played in OOC and we couldn’t buy a road win in conference for the most part 

Those teams were both about as similar as you could really get lol. They also happened to be right by each other for most of the season metrically. They were both pretty consistent with each other 

3 hours ago, CCTAU said:

Nah. But we have enough mealy mouth fans that they need to be called out when proven to be nothing but a blow hard. 
 

Anyone who cares to still argue the point 3 years after the guy transferred is a blowhard. You got one side who doesn't want to concede the guy improved after he left or was better here than he may've been perceived, and then you got another who just wants to prove they were right after he transferred out (which would be their real motivation, if we're being honest). 

There's no good actor here