In Reply to: Good points and I pretty much have the same opinions posted by traprh on May 01, 2026 at 09:35:15
What do you think about standing pat for the rest of this year and saving resources for a bigger push next cycle?
As I’ve mentioned before, I think this roster can be competitive, but not quite at the level of contending for a conference or national title. If Cronin can’t land a true difference-maker, I’m not sure it makes sense to spend just to spend. I’d rather see that money saved and used to position the program among the top NIL players next year.
If he’s able to retain most of the roster, the only seniors would be Dailey and Booker—and with the new 5-for-5 rule potentially in play, even that could shift. Either way, you’re likely bringing back a strong core that’s had a full year in the system. At that point, adding two or three high-impact players could realistically put them in the championship conversation.
Of course, plans like that are never guaranteed. A couple of transfers and suddenly you’re retooling again. It’s tough to map things out two years at a time in the current landscape.
That said, there don’t seem to be many true game-changers left available right now, and the few who are will likely come at a premium with multiple programs still looking for that final piece. Take Kentucky, they’ve missed on several targets and probably still have significant resources to spend. On top of that, we’d be getting a late start with most remaining options.
Unless Cronin uncovers an experienced, under-the-radar European big, I don’t see a particularly strong path to significantly upgrading the roster this year. So for me, it’s less about appeasing critics and more about being strategic with resources. But I’m curious as to what others think of this way of thinking.