ROI REPORT: Did NC State get a good ‘return on investment’ from Tre Holloman?

Over the next few days, we’ll be focusing in on the transfers that NC State brought in via NIL to see what the ‘Return on Investment’ was during the REGULAR SEASON. To do this, we will look at their stats from last year and compare them to this year, while overlaying perceived expectations and role adjustments.

Let’s look at Tre Holloman
Holloman came from Michigan State, fresh off an Elite Eight run where he was an important bench piece (23 mpg) for Tom Izzo’s Spartans. He was likely available in the portal because of this. Holloman had one more season and wanted a chance to shine in a more prominent role.

Expectations:
It seemed like when Tre signed with NC State, he was signing on as the sure-fire starting PG. He was a guy whose metrics looked good in his reserve role, and the thought was likely that he had another jump in him with increased playing time and extended responsibilities. NC State was likely hoping to see Holloman jump to a 28 minutes, 12ppg, 4 assists per game guy who could hit 38-40% from beyond the arc.

If you look at Holloman’s stats during his time at Michigan State, all of that would seem plausible. As a sophomore, he was a pretty elite 3pt shooter (42.5%) but shot at a pretty low volume. Those percentages dropped as a junior. He was given a larger role, and he increased his volume, which dropped him to 33%. At the same time, however, his assist rate popped. Holloman was averaging 3.7 assists per game with just 1.6 turnovers. His 6 points per game jumped to 9.

This is a much larger and more nuanced story, but Will Wade’s job to fill an entire ACC roster, coming from McNeese St. where he was recruiting much lower-tier players, and suddenly having to assemble a staff, secure NIL money, and get commitments from kids who had no prior relationship with him, within an 30-day window, with decent but not crazy NIL money hasn’t been talked about enough and was a lot tougher than most realized.

All of that said, Holloman signed with NC State just 4 days before the portal closed, and he checked a lot of boxes. He played for a winner that preached toughness; there were areas in his stat line that popped (some as a junior and some as a sophomore). He played a position you had yet to fill and is notably the hardest to fill year over year (PG) and it seemed there was a lot of ceiling here with a larger role.

Year-Over-Year Stats

Minutes Per Game
Last year at Michigan St: 23
This year at NC State: 25 🟢

Points Per Game
Last year at Michigan St: 9.1
This year at NC State: 9.1 

Assists Per Game
Last year at Michigan St: 3.7
This year at NC State: 2.1 🔴

Rebounds Per Game
Last year at Michigan St: 1.9
This year at NC State: 1.8

Steals Per Game
Last year at Michigan St: 0.8
This year at NC State: 0.9

Field Goal %
Last year at Michigan St: 37%
This year at NC State: 41% 🟢

3pt Field Goal % 
Last year at Michigan St: 33%
This year at NC State: 39.5% 🟢

Usage 
Last year at Michigan St: 23%
This year at NC State: 18%
(Not rated better or worse – subjective stat)

Outcome:

Again, we don’t have the numbers on what these guys were paid. That’s not public. But the goal here is to look at the stats, look at how the roster was constructed, and then examine the expectations vs. the outcome.

With that in mind, I’d say that Tre Holloman probably wasn’t the exact player NC State was expecting him to be, but I also don’t think they used him in the way they were expecting him to be used. Honestly, I think the emergence of Quadir Copeland threw a wrench in how this team was envisioned to fit together. I don’t say that as a bad thing. Copeland has been amazing, and I think there will always be a question of whether, without Copeland, the season would have been a disaster, or if Copeland’s emergence created a situation where they had to shift guys into roles they weren’t expecting.

Maybe a little of both?

Either way, Holloman’s stats are almost identical to his stats from last year. With Copeland slotting in as PG, Tre became more of a 2-guard spot shooter. That’s definitely not what they brought him in to be, but that’s how the season worked out. His 3pt percentage was back up, his FG% was up, his steals and rebounds were identical, as were his points per game (on the nose). His assists were down, and I think this is simply because of his role change.

The Holloman ROI answer is complicated. Who knows what they paid for him, but for Holloman, he was as advertised if you look at the stats. NC State may have been banking on something else, and may have gotten it if he had slotted into the role they envisioned, but we’ll never know. You simply could not bench Q with the season he’s been having, and that clouds the conversation about Holloman’s ROI.

What do you think?