NIL, Big 10 Expansion, and General Musings Q&A
Figured with all that is going on in college sports, I could stop by to help answer any board questions. For the folks who do not know me-- I have been around the board for a little while popping up when I have knowledge on specific subjects, or other general knowledge. I'm not an insider, and I don't claim to have inside info about the team. My knowledge comes from a long time working in the industry and is from people all over: agents, coaches, current/former players, and support staff. So it is mostly an amalgamation of all of that info and not just one specific thing that I am hearing.
- My knowledge of the team is more on a few specific players. So I don't know who's been getting reps, nor do I know any super secret breakout players.
- I imagine I will be getting the most questions on NIL, but I've posted extensively on this in the past, so I may refer to go back to some of my answers from last summer to avoid putting the same thing out there.
- One big takeaway from all things NIL is that the current system is untenable. What is happening right now will not be the way it operates going forward. I can promise you that-- the structure is going to change.
- NIL in general is great in getting kids money that deserve it, but there's a negative trickle down effect and without any regulations it has made teenagers ripe for exploitation.
- Big 10 and other college expansion is one big game of telephone. A few people know and those people certainly aren't telling anyone. USC and UCLA both didn't even know the other was applying to the Big 10 until a few weeks ago. So this idea that people have intimate knowledge of the landscape is whimsical. That being said there are people who know a few things about a few programs. Just be leery of someone who claims to know what the Big10 is thinking.
I'm happy to do my best to answer any questions throughout the day today. Feel free to leave them below and I will get to them when I have some breaks.
Dude, c'mon. If the AD needs help with legal or "business" issues they're going to hire someone. They're not going to "get some students" to do the work or direct faculty activities.
You seem to get the idea in the next paragraph.
I think that getting the law and business schools involved also enhances the reputations of those schools (not that they really need it as it stands now). It's kind of a win-win for athletics and academics.
Why would a busy law school or business school professor dabble in the circus? If they do it would be strictly charity and mostly off-the-record as far as their careers are concerned.
If you look closely at Michigan sporting events you may see a UM orthopedic surgeon and maybe a couple of residents. Do you think their reputation in orthopedic surgery is boosted by that activity? No. They're not going to get tenure based on a few minutes of sports medicine. It'll be based on getting grants, etc.
I assumed the idea was more along the lines of how the tutoring program is set up for athletes. But agreed a faculty approach would probably provide the most robust support
Doesn't need to be either/or. As somebody who was part of a Michigan Law Clinic, the professor was experienced and closely involved with our work. Michigan has no interest in hurting its brand by having their graduate students "learn from their mistakes."
Yep, someone with a bit more academic experience can probably correct me here, but Michigan isn't big at just throwing money at a problem. The best way to get things like this done is through cross-collaboration with the University and AD. So the idea is using University resources as a way for a real-world experience for students. And I took a bunch of classes from professors (way back in the day so things could have changed) that would love to be involved with something like this. The B-School itself would have dozens who would love to be involved.
And for anyone who says that the University won't get involved, just look at the Athlete Advisory Council. They love committees!
It's a little different when financial liability is involved. The last thing the University will want is multiple lawsuits because some agents convinced kids the contract they had "approved" by the university inhibited them from earning more money.
Would not happen...a non sequitur.
Yeah, this makes a lot of sense to me; I don't know if strictly saying "here's a pile of cash" does the trick, and we can be more clever than that. That being said, I agree with the above poster that we might have to put up a bit of money upfront, as a lot of people might be very inclined to take money upfront than future benefits and we need to nod to that a bit.
18 year old kids are not always the most forward-thinking people. Immediate gratification carries the day.
"Eat your vegetables, you will be better in the long run" is great, but we better be prepared to serve up some dessert early in the meal.
OP, here's my only question: Why should I take your post seriously? It seems like a semi-random and somewhat long-winded distillation of what's in the air. It might help if you at least provided a clue about your occupation.
One big takeaway from all things NIL is that the current system is untenable. What is happening right now will not be the way it operates going forward. I can promise you that-- the structure is going to change. ... NIL in general is great in getting kids money that deserve it, but there's a negative trickle down effect and without any regulations it has made teenagers ripe for exploitation.
Really? You think so?
Elsewhere:
Big 10 and other college expansion is one big game of telephone. A few people know and those people certainly aren't telling anyone.
People talk all the time. How do you suppose the San Jose Merc guy got his information? It's a matter of degrees. There are insiders, semi-insiders, etc. Sources, you might call them.
You are free to decide what you want to take from my post. I'm not dropping any Adam Schefter breaking news in here. I'm not doing this to be seen as an insider. I feel like my specific occupation here is irrelevant, there's a reason I'm posting anonymously on a board instead of writing a blog post with my name on it. I enjoy writing, I enjoy hearing what this board thinks about certain subjects, and I enjoy interacting when I have the time.
What if I were to tell you that behind the scenes some of the more powerful people in the sport are already discussing rule changes? And I've heard that from some people that change is coming soon. Just look at what Lord Saban said last month and look at his track record on when he speaks on something to the media and then a rule change happens.
And in regards to expansion my point is that too many people all of a sudden have info out of nowhere? It has been quiet since last summer and all of a sudden a guy has a list of the top 4 schools the Big 10 is targeting? My point is to not take all of that as seriously. You don't think it behooves Oregon to start leaking out to everyone and their brother that they're in talks with the Big 10? What if the talks with the Big 10 were them saying thanks but no thanks? They are up the creek without a paddle they need to do whatever is possible to stay afloat.
Thanks for your time UMGB11. You didn't have to do this. I appreciate your dedication. And as always, GO BLUE.
Thanks for responding. I wouldn't expect to get your full name or details on what you do, but a high-level view would help "situate" your remarks.
What if I were to tell you that behind the scenes some of the more powerful people in the sport are already discussing rule changes?
Ever find yourself next to a halfwit sales guy on an airplane who begins an unsolicited pitch with "What if I told you everything you knew about XYZ was wrong?" (In case anyone's curious, I'd tell him he's probably not clairvoyant.)
If you're close to interesting information (a possibility, for sure, as I recall someone significant vouching for you) I'd suggest a handful of deeper dives and less generalizing. Take some tips from Ghost of Jermaine Gonzalez (whose info I've admittedly never scored). I think that would boost your credibility.
My point is to not take all of that as seriously.
I don't have the sense that most of the people here are taking the spitballers seriously.
I would refer to this line in my post: "My knowledge comes from a long time working in the industry and is from people all over: agents, coaches, current/former players, and support staff."
And the person that vetted me is Seth, so no need for me to go into my qualifications.
Btw, I'm trying to make this a Q&A and to answer questions on a quiet week after the 4th of July. I don't have time to go into full detail in every area. If you have a specific question, I am happy to answer it with the full breadth of my knowledge. Healthy skepticism is good, don't just take my word for it!
How does providing a very general description of what you mean by "working in the industry" compromise your privacy?
Yeah, but what industry? :) Maybe it's too focused for you to comment? If so, no problem.
I'll put this another way and probably stop posting: Most of what you presented in the original post is high-level and non-committal (and difficult to fact-check). I'm not an insider and I can imagine writing it myself based on what's on sports sites. (That's not good.)
The "Ghost" poster makes very specific, fact-check-able statements (e.g., "AA is unexpectedly running with the 1s just prior to the opening game."). As before, I haven't bothered doing any fact checking, but I at least find the posts interesting.
Your main one didn't hold my interest. (I know, I'm just one person.) I haven't reviewed your other posts yet. Maybe they have some detail.
Why? Why do people do this? It's a poster on a sports blog. Read it. Don't read it. Believe it. Don't believe it. It feels ironic that you are questioning it all yet stating there is little evidence to give it merit.
People, man.
if you've seen one skeptical heron, you've seen 'em all....
Some people just have to be "That guy" Have to debate and be confrontational at every turn. He doesn't have to go out of his way to legitimize himself or the info he shares to you or any of us for that matter. I for one, simply am grateful for the time and effort you took to post and answer questions.
Take some tips from Ghost of Jermaine Gonzalez
Is that the guy who posted that shitty excel table he ripped off of some Michigan twitter account? If so, that guy is a complete fraud.
Date of joining tracks.
Why would anyone tell you their occupation. He already stated that he wasn't an insider. So it's up to you to garner what you will from it. Dang can't even have a general conversation anymore.
Anyone around high-caliber young athletes knows the "trusted" talker in some of these kid's ear. The person who "is only looking out for the kid." They are almost always attached at the hip of a kid who grew up with nothing. Then they start making their own deals for "access" and agreeing to things that are not always in the player's best interest.
At best, anyone who doesn't think that some of these teenagers are not or will not be exploited is delusional. But unfortunately, NIL is currently the wild west, and these teenagers are low-hanging fruit for those fast talkers and swindlers.
Just posting this article for posterity.
https://www.on3.com/nil/news/michael-caspino-nil-lawyer-orchestrating-deals-reshaping-recruiting/
The first year of NIL has been perhaps the most turbulent in the history of the NCAA. One of those in the eye of the NIL hurricane is attorney Michael W. Caspino with Forward Counsel in Newport Beach, Calif.
Caspino is well-known in the legal community for his work as a first-chair trial attorney in hundreds of cases across the country. His trials often involve high-stakes litigation in business and employment law. Caspino also has represented Catholic Church organizations in a wide array of cases.
But Caspino became a household name in college sports when it was revealed he represented a five-star recruit who signed a NIL deal with a collective worth an estimated $8 million. The money is contingent on the student-athlete making public appearances, taking part in social media promotions and other NIL activities on behalf of the collective or a third party.
You say the structure of the NIL will change. Who will force the change? The NCAA? The new super-conferences? A new version of the NCAA?
I don't see any world where the NCAA is involved. I think it's way more likely you see the new conferences coming together and making their own rules. It will be a little tricky as there are anti-trust components that they have to be careful about. They can't come in and cap numbers, as that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. But I think they'd tighten up significantly the pay-to-play.
But on the whole, I think you'd see a more codified rulebook around NIL in the next 18 - 24 months.
I think it will be much, much harder for anyone (schools, conferences, etc.) To pur any kind of cap and/or restrictions on this and expect it to hold up to legal challenges. Essentially, they are trying to restrict the private financial dealings of individual students. They can try to say it is a condition if voluntarily participating in the sport activity, but this was the exact same argument that the ncaa used to try and restrict the outside money in the firstplace - and lost. Even if the players end up signing contracts (which then raises further antitrust and student rights issues, not to mention looking bad in the eyes of the "normal" student body) - this will be a policy nightmare.
Many people clamored for this - now they'll have to live with the consequences.
One big takeaway from all things NIL is that the current system is untenable. What is happening right now will not be the way it operates going forward. I can promise you that-- the structure is going to change.
I agree that it's untenable, at least in the pay-for-play way it is being done now. I just don't see how programs can continue to keep paying for top classes year after year. Even the ones with the biggest money would find it difficult to keep raising the money needed to reload every 1-2 years. And then add on top of it the fact that some highly paid recruits just simply aren't going to work out. Are people going to continue throwing money at an uncertain prospect?
But I guess I'm wondering who you see spearheading this change?
- More principled coaches like Harbaugh that just don't believe in paying players to come to their school but have no problem with them earning money once they are on campus.
- People like Saban who probably benefitted more from the old system of bagmen than they do the current system.
- Possibly someone even like Jimbo who will get tired of wealthy donors interfering with his program and threatening to pull their money if the guys they invested millions in don't get more playing time.
If it comes from the latter two, then I could just see only minor changes. The open deals that top recruits are getting now are just replaced by the old fashioned bag until they sign and get on campus.
I think it will come from the top coaches (Harbaugh, Saban, Dabo, Kirby, Day, etc). I just don't see any world where Saban is going to take directive from any booster. That has been his whole MO at Bama. The control freak coaches are not just going to let a group of boosters decide the rules of the game. Saban is losing his mind because his old system doesn't work with the new rules. And the absolute last thing he wants to do is to have his boosters involved in recruiting. So you'll see one of two things: the coaches demands are followed, or you're going to see a mass defection of the best coaches to the NFL. It's not always the money with these top coaches, it's the control. If you give any of those guys listed above complete personnel control in the NFL, I think they're gone tomorrow.
Someone who I trust made a point that no one is talking about. What happens if Collective decides that the kid they spent money on, to not pay the kid? Who gets involved? What if the booster decides he wants to see the JJ out on the field right away and tells the coach to bench a Cade or else he's cutting off his money. There's just so much that goes behind the scenes that has a potential to completely blow up the sport.
Ok, here's a leading question for the group. What do Miami, UT, Oregon, and MSU all have in-common and why are they seemingly performing at the same level recruiting wise as Alabama/Georgia right now?
And why do we think Nick Saban is so mad at A&M?
All of their coaches have worked for Saban at one point in their careers
Nike?
"What do Miami, UT, Oregon, and MSU all have in-common..."
I puke a little into my mouth when you make me read their names.
I'll answer my own question now. They all have worked under Saban (aka have been trained in the ways) and they all have one mega donor that can front this very quickly and easily. UT= Haslems, Oregon=Knight, MSU=Gilbert and Ishiba, and Miami= John Ruiz.
Saban hates that he's beaten by his own game. As one of my characters on my favorite show said: The price of brick just went up.
So now we are in an era of a handful of football oligarchs funding (essentially) private teams. This NIL rule just keeps getting better...
But these Oligarchs don't have endless money, except maybe Phil Knight. They will want to see some ROI on this. Plus Ishiba's net worth has been halved from the company's stock price. So you're going to see some crazy twists and turns from some of these programs. Just look Google Netwallet and John Ruiz, Miami is in for a wild ride with him calling the shots.
Ultimately, I believe it will revert back to the mean. It looks bad now, but I think when things settle Michigan will still be in a good spot.
Don't forget Notre Dame. The new HC there is killing it on the recruiting trail.
Thanks for doing this!
What are the goals for the football and bball programs for the coaches and Warde? I'm not asking to be snarky. What I mean is are they trying to compete for conference championships and/or national championships? Are they trying to do so perennially or every other year, every recruiting cycle (i.e. 4-5 years)?
I don't doubt that Michigan is trying to do things their way, which in my mind means 0.5 the "right" way (e.g. never getting obvious with the bag money in the old system; no inducements for recruits in the NIL world, etc.), and 0.5 the win-at-all costs way (i.e. Michigan still competes at a national level and certainly invests accordingly, and likely skirted rules along the way albeit to a lesser degree than others). No shame in this, but I think it's important for us as fans to have a reasonable understanding of the realistic goals.
That's a great question. I've been in a room where Dave Brandon would answer a question like this and say the goal is to spread the Michigan brand across the globe. The Leaders and the Best! I actually think if he was around in the era of NIL, we would be looking a lot different than we are today. That being said, he was too corporate and couldn't connect with fans.
I think Warde is big on winning, but not compromising the Michigan morals. We win, but we win on our terms. I think given the choice, Warde would take winning the Big 10 every couple years over winning a National Championship. Does that make sense? Warde is from the Bo era, and that shapes almost every decision that he makes.
UMgoBlue11, here's a question about eh offense. The lack of a QB run game has been discussed here quite a bit. In particular the fact that we run zone read where much of the time the QB is NOT a threat to run it. The defenses at times cheat this known fact and it makes our offense one dimensional. When JJ is in there he did tend to run it more. And at times yes they have capitalized on this tendency of defenses to gamble. Shea's key runs against Wisconsin and MSU come to mind. However I still think this is part of what keeps this offense from going next level.
What is your take on how much of that was having Cade on the field instead of JJ? How much will this change without Gattis? And, what if any key differences do you expect to see offensively after Gattis? Was the move back to power running the last couple years JH taking some of the offense over?
On defense what do you know of the actually quite long list of guys from which we hope a couple of DL/DEs emerge?:
Guy, Bennett, Mcgregor, Newburg, Rooks, Harell, Welschoff?
So the lack of QB running is from Harbaugh. He saw how it got his guys clobbered, and decided it wasn't worth the risk. He will run them when he absolutely needs them to-- in the big games. I would argue that the way college football is played now, I would much rather my QB scramble for big plays than to design 10-12 runs for him every game.
Listen on the QB front, I'm all on team JJ, but I think you have to respect what Cade did last year. My guess is you see a little bit of what Clemson did with Trevor. Cade is going to start the season, but I don't think he'll end it as a starter.
Gattis knew he had 3 stud RB's. I think that was more of him realizing why worry about how stylish you can win a game, when you can demolish a team while leaning on your OL and RB.
I expect a big year from Mike Morris and Junior Colson. I think Colson is going to get unleashed a bit like Devin Bush.
So major football teams all around the country run their QBs as a matter of routine and are very successful, but Harbaugh is too chicken to do so? Ohio State ate our lunch year after year after year by running their QB. Meyer won a national title with Tebow by doing so. But we’re just going continue to play with one hand behind our back because we’re scared the QB might take a big hit? In a game designed around taking big hits?
Sorry but this is just insanely frustrating to hear :(
There was a lot of talk/speculation (to be fair) on WTKA this morning about ND and Stanford joining the Big Ten (16 and growing). The last shoe has not dropped. It looks like the July doldrums will be anything but boring. The MGOBLOG round table will get it's shot tomorrow.
The B1G's final offer to ND should be that if they do not join, they will put an embargo on any B1G team playing at Notre Dame for 50 years. There goes their annual rivalry with USC. There goes Purdue; Michigan; Michigan State; Stanford (probably).
Either you join now, or have fun playing Boston College and the service academies.
In that scenario, they'd pinch their noses and take whatever offer the SEC gives them. The SEC will eventually kill the ACC. It's just a matter of time.
Let them, No skin off our back.
It's funny you say that, because that's what someone on the West Coast said about ND. ND cares more about USC more than any other rival. If the Big 10 tells USC to not schedule ND again, I think you force ND. ND is all about playing a national schedule. I think the Big 10 is all about the carrot with ND, but what would be more Big 10 then using the stick on ND?
Listen, the two biggest people in the Big 10 are ND grads with Kevin Warren and Gene Smith. They can get this deal done with ND, and I think for their legacies that they will.
With Michigan taking a seemingly half-hearted approach to NIL compared to many other schools out there, what do you believe are the main driving reasons behind it? Do they foresee that its going to cause a lot of problems down the road that they'd rather avoid (locker room issues, freshmen making more than the coaches they're playing for, etc.), is this playing some kind of long game with NIL to let the dust settle and let it get regulated so they avoid any legal/financial problems, or is this just a "We're Michigan/We're better than this/It's not what Bo would've wanted" kind of scenario? Or is it none of these?
Also, do you believe Michigan can still realistically compete for the Big Ten and CFP appearances with its current approach to NIL? Sure, changes and regulations to NIL might come, but we don't know when those will happen or what they will look like, so if Michigan is trying to play some sort of long game with waiting for this all to level out, they have no idea how long they might be waiting. And what the state of their program might look like when that change does finally come. Depending on how long they have to wait, could they end up just turning into a slightly more talented version of Northwestern where the permanent damage has already been done?
I don't know this for a fact, but I'm fairly certain this is Harbaugh's decision. I think if Warde told him tomorrow he could splash around $15 MM, he wouldn't give a cent to anyone who hadn't earned it. Just my opinion, but he's been in an NFL lockerroom and he knows the arguments that come up around it. He's been at the forefront of player empowerment, I don't think he's saying not pay the guys. He's saying you have to earn it.
I think if Harbaugh had it his way, he would recruit a QB and say not only are you going to get prepared for the NFL, we're going to develop you as a man, a student, and you're going to have the opportunity to make a lot of money here. If you want that up-front money go elsewhere. He's not obtuse to it, he's not saying you don't deserve money, but he's not going to hand a kid a bag based on his HS tape and 7 on 7 camps.
Let's play the hypothetical game here. A 5-star QB from Alaska comes in and is handed $5 million per year. The first thing that the other QB's who have performed are going to do is ask where's my money? So are you going to pay every highly rated QB on your roster $5 MM? What about the LT that blocked for that QB, etc, etc. You can't fault that kid from taking the $5MM, but what if that kid knows that if I start as the QB at Michigan I know I am going to make $5MM. That's a whole different game. Just be patient on this, it will even out. When new rules are in place, you will be glad that we're playing it the way we are.