Jim Harbaugh on NIL: "We can double that..."
Let’s goooo
You know what else is almost double?
42-27
Then what's the fucking issue??
That they can double it once players are here but they aren’t going to use it to sign players to come here. Michigan will always follow closer to the legal definition of things than other programs will.
So we're going to pay 4 and 3 star players double what Ohio State pays 5 and 4 star players? If a legal definition is open to broad interpretation with no possibility of recourse, why would we chose the stricter interpretation?
No one would pay that much for lesser touted recruits, especially when they’re not going to see the field in 3-4 years.
If we are actually paying guys double at Michigan, it won't be long before the 5 stars figure it out.
5 stars won't need to be promised during the recruiting pitch, they'll already know. They'll see 3 stars making money they could be making and start coming here.
Remember, we offer 5 stars now. It's not like we prefer 3 stars. They'll start clamoring for that money if it starts flowing. Water finds its level.
That's the "Michigan Difference" -- for better or worse.
I swear we keep saying this and yet people keep thinking that UM not breaking the law is atypical. If fans don't like the current MI law then you're free to push for it to be changed via their representatives.
How's "we will pay you after you get here" working out?
They're just waiting on your check.
Starting.... Now?
I’m a little late to the discussion, but have been noodling on a thought. Maybe Michigan is doing a lot on the NIL front but not being vocal about it.
If they're not being vocal about it, then they're doing it wrong
If the stories of aTm raising ~$25+ million of NIL money for their last recruiting class has any semblance of truth, then every other of program is just playing catch up.
Maybe it was a one-time thing, but can’t help to think that all that oil money among the aTm and Texas boosters + their immediate willingness to give it up to both schools is a dangerous mix.
It will be difficult and a little crazy, but try to see the positives. In the short term a shuffle of players to the Texas schools will hurt other SEC schools. OSU, too, maybe a little bit. Power will be redistributed.
Guarantee aTm spent well in excess of 25mm at the end of the day. We only know about that 25.
The Geek, in today's world, what if anything is the benefit of under the table payouts anymore? I would argue that aTm is publicizing the amount of money given, probably even over claiming if anything.
Dangerous? If that's the market price, great. Capitalism is a wonderful thing.
I haven't delved into these debates on the board at all, so forgive me if this has been brought up.
There has been a lot of hand-wringing about "transformational, not transactional" and Michigan's unwillingness to explicitly pay-for-play.
To me, this does not seem like a problem for more than 1 year. If Michigan can pay in the top few percentile, don't we just tell recruits, e.g. "JJ McCarthy made more NIL than any other player in the country this year. Our o-line is the top compensated o-line. Our total NIL turned out to be #xx in the country. Our average compensation for 2nd string is $xxx." ?
This kind of thing seems totally in-line with Harbaugh's usual recruiting strategy "come here and compete, earned not given, etc..." Then we show 'those who stay' get $Texas and that $Texas (at Michigan) > $Texas (at Texas).
Now, if we don't pay players more than most schools, then obviously I am wrong. But I don't see why we shouldn't be very competitive because that approach is completely within the rules as they are written right now. I get that this year we don't have the shiny data to parade around and that we might be losing an edge on A&M or whoever is like "$xx to come here right now." But I see that as a one year problem, not a programmatic long-term problem.
A bird in the hand...
Exactly. It's the same as NFL players preferring guaranteed money deals over ones that are incentive laden.
Even then, if I am a 17 year old deciding between a bunch of offers and 5 schools tell me that I will get $1M and the other one tells me that once in the school people like me earn $1M, I prefer the first offers.... Yes, I know in the end it might end up being the same, but the sales pitch is stronger for the first. It just gives a sense of more certainty whether that is true or not.
Plus you are asking kids to make financial decisions that can be confusing, might as well go in the direction of what everyone else is doing.
Even then, if I am a 17 year old deciding between a bunch of offers and 5 schools tell me that I will get $1M and the other one tells me that once in the school people like me earn $1M, I prefer the first offers.
Yes, that is definitely true, but Harbaugh is suggesting this scenario:
If I am a 17 year old deciding between a bunch of offers and 5 schools tell me that I will get $1M and the other one tells me that once in the school people like me earn $2M"
I feel like you go with the latter in that case. And the team doing that can even do it on the same budget probably, because that school that has guaranteed the $1M has committed significant money to guys that won't pan out. So by not burning that money you can pay your stars more with the same budget.
It will be interesting to see how retention ends up playing out.
The mindset of a great player (not just athlete) is one that always bets on himself.
Go for the guaranteed money. So many factors not in your control. Dylan McCafferey, Joe Milton, Aubrey Solomon, Derrick Green, etc. would all get a million dollars going elsewhere and not much at Michigan. There are so many factors not in your control. I get this strategy, but it is a stupid strategy. If you end up a super-star you're going to get paid anyway and you're going to leave Michigan. The NIL money is meaningless to the super-star players if it isn't upfront.
Even if it is smart for Michigan long-term, prime the pump the first year. Show your track record on years two and three. Can't believe we don't have a behavioral economist somewhere in the University. So so stupid.
Actually, it's not a stupid strategy. None of the players you listed were worth anywhere near a million dollars. And all these schools buying recruits...only 1 National Champion a year. Meaning a lot of dissapointed boosters. Serves them right
None of them were worth that in retrospect. But we never would have got them in the first place to find out under this policy. Nor would we have gotten Ryan Mallet, Tom Brady, Drew Henson or any of the players who did work out. It’s like venture capital you have to make lots of small bets because you don’t know who is going to live up to the hype and who isn’t.
If you end up a super-star you're going to get paid anyway and you're going to leave Michigan.
Why? Michigan is saying they could have an overall payroll double what OSU does and if they're not paying busts, they can pay their stars even more. No one transferred out of Michigan this year. For all the consternation about a down recruiting year, I don't think that fact can be overlooked in the portal era. If we're really doubling other teams payrolls, none of our good players will leave.
Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Most normal people would choose the guarantee of $1M over the possibility of $2M. Only 19% of four-stars get drafted. That means the vast majority of four-stars don't get to that "star" level.
But betting on oneself and the fact that most 4-5 star kids believe they will end up playing in the pros means what Michigan is saying is in line. Go there and get stuck with $1m or come here and if you are worth it, make 2x or more. If I'm an arrogant athlete and think Michigan will develop me, a low 4* into a superstar, I would take that bet. Also it is filtering out players that probably don't vibe with the teams past success. This might actually be our niche. Pay higher for players that are actually worth it, and don't base it on mainstream recruiting sites alone.
Question: Michigan is not in the pay-for-play game, BUT would that stop any of our current players telling recruits what they are currently making in NIL deals?
"I've only been on campus for a few months, and already I'm getting $5K a month in NIL!"
you mean other than the fact that that just sounds like an infomercial?
No one in the athletic department is opposed to that. They’re just not going to offer “signing bonuses” to guys in recruiting.
You don’t believe the coaches wouldn’t be telling them that many months before they every met the first player? If not, the coach needs to be fired.
No it doesn't stop them and this 100% happens. I'm sure the school can and does tell them how much guys are making. There's nothing wrong with that.
I think Michigan just thinks that making promises to guys in HS is paying for a commitment which doesn't fall under paying for name, image and likeness. And that interpretation is correct even if no one else cares about the intention of the rule.
So Michigan doesn't want to offer guaranteed signing bonuses.
I think the promises are going to be made regardless of what “Michigan” thinks. What I am hearing is Michigan doesn’t want to publicly support pay to play, which is the rule, with what their recruiters and all other schools actually do and are negligent if they don’t do it. Guarantee is not a differentiator, if it’s not guaranteed officially or unofficially, it doesn’t exist. Just my option, and thanks for yours.
I really hope the promises will start being made. I'm hearing and reading that Michigan, the AD is actively discouraging donors from making promises before guys get here, but agree that donors aren't going to listen if more guys like Dante Moore go elsewhere when it could have been prevented.
They'll go "rogue" as Seth termed it on the Roundtable a couple weeks ago. I say, please do go rouge if the AD is going stay out of it.
"Rogue."
-- That Guy
Normally I'd be annoyed at the message board grammar police but I appreciate this one. In my head I knew it was wrong, and was like roozh? That's not right. Yes, it's rogue!
in your defense, Seth used both spellings in his writeup of Denegal, but the wrong one first, so that I was very intrigued by his reports of a "rouge league" as though it were happening somewhere downriver
That's more like it!
Boy this,"won't" get that many posters relies, today! Lol
*replies
darn smart phone
A skeptic may say that a 36th ranked recruiting class has lent some flexibility to the word transactional. The difference between “come here and sign a $1MM NIL deal” and “whoever comes here is going to get a $1MM NIL deal is a small hair to split.
Duplicate deleted
Promising. But there’s a lot of talking and little to show. I want to see the current roster/stars are making so Harbz can back up the statement.
I believe that zero significant contributors transferred out which seems like a big accomplishment in the portal era although admittedly, I don't know what has happened with other "big" teams.
So the money for existing players is probably pretty good.
EDIT: although it does seem like we should have been able to pay Hinton to stick around another year. I heard that Corum is making $1M/yr which is way overpriced for a RB. The thing about NIL is that paying "popular" players, let's call them fantasy football players, is often not at all how you'd value a player in relation to team success.
Hopefully someone is directing the collectives to pay the linemen even though they're not the household names.
Thanks for the insight. I have not heard that about Corum. That would be nice if true. You say that’s overpriced, but is the going rate for a RB? That doesn’t seem that high comparing a Henderson or a Bijan (sp) Robinson.
in any case, you’re right about no one leaving. At the same token, Hunter coming out saying they need to do better on NIL was/is a cause of concern for me.
I actually agree in principle with the notion that paying for recruits to sign is unsustainable as it currently exists. The position the program has that was parroted by Acker (iirc), Wangler and Butt.
However, you also can't sit by and do nothing. You can't hope the day comes when signing inducements are heavily regulated and/or the early market falls off, paying nothing for signatures. If you do that you won't have a team worth paying once they are signed. In that model you'd be doubling the $13M for a bunch of scrubs that aren't worth the $13M to begin with.
So I hope UM can reach some middle-ground here where they aren't going full-on TA&M but also aren't sticking to not paying a dime until you're in the program. Maybe a smaller up-front offer with a proven and set rate once you're here, down to team performance bonuses (maybe even individual). "If we win the B1G Championship you're all guaranteed X-amount through a booster organization with the funds already marked for payment...for...signing an autograph or whatever. Pick something.
Just get creative on the back end if you won't match the up-front offers. Something.