In Reply to: Not really necessary posted by Dr.Bruin on July 29, 2026 at 12:53:13
I posted a little about Oregon in a post above. I think they're a good example of a team that may have been able to keep Jackson Shelstad if they had wanted to devote that much of their budget to one player. But Dana Altman may have decided that the money was better spent building a deeper, more balanced roster. He coached Shelstad last year and probably came away feeling that depth was one of Oregon's biggest weaknesses.
The same argument could probably be made for Louisville's other big addition, Flory Bidunga. Kansas certainly values him, but at some point every program has to decide what a player is worth within the context of the entire roster.
Your point is a good one. You need to have resources to compete, but I don't think you necessarily need the highest payroll. Team continuity, roster balance, and adding the right complementary pieces may ultimately prove to be the better formula. I also think continuity is going to be a huge advantage in this new era. Asking players to learn a new system, build chemistry with new teammates, and define new roles every single year is difficult. The teams that can retain a strong core while selectively adding impact players may end up having the most sustained success.