WTKA Roundtable 7/7/2022: The Marquess of Queensberry
Things discussed:
- On early: Michigan's no pay for play approach is hurting them in recruiting, and they don't need to friggin' say it!
- Seth: Michigan is fundamentally wrong: It's not like these guys haven't been working on football their whole lives. They are valuable because they *make* themselves valuable.
- USC/UCLA expansion: There's no honor among these thieves.
- Further expansion? UNC/Duke? Washington-Oregon won't pull their weight, weirdly. ND is the obvious choice, and has always been.
- The power brokers are the networks. Fox and Disney are running the shows.
- Grant of Rights protects the ACC: If someone leaves they can't bring their value together.
- Realpolitik changes who's valuable. Weird that SEC doesn't seem to want Clemson or FSU or Miami as much as Duke/UNC.
- Baseball's new coach: Was good at IU, probably didn't play well with Baseball Parents. Michigan baseball players are kind of the opposite extreme of the kind of players you have to get at ASU. They'll lose the top of the recruiting class, but MLB is the bigger danger for a lot of those guys. What they need is a guy who can develop pitching, because nobody does that.
- Yo Yo! Youssef Khayat might get them that extra defense but probably can't be an impact guy right away. They need guards.
You can catch the entire episode on Michigan Insider's podcast stream. Craig and Seth were on early here.
Segment Two is here. You can watch the video here:
The Usual Links:
- Helpful iTunes subscribe link
- General podcast feed link
- Direct download link (right-click/save as)
- What's with the theme music?
This is like Michigan showing up in Mad Max: Fury Road in a Studebaker.
I didn't expect sam to come out and disagree with the program. I agree with his stance. I was looking for someone to clarify if it is allowed by Michigan's State law. I am not lawyer to understand what the law is saying. If it is not against the law, go for it. Forget the NCAA.
go for what, exactly?
Link boosters with players. Help them. Only if it is not against the law. Fuck NCAA as they have not put out a rule book on this
Thank you, Brian and Seth for stating plainly how obviously dumb Michigan's current NIL approach is. Please, please if you are able to talk to any upper level administration, boosters, or others in positions of influence, please relay these frustrations. We need to play by the same rules that others are.
I'm still confused. What exactly is Michigan (team, coach or AD) doing wrong? No athletic department is directly funneling cash directly to prospects. And as Brian said, Michigan can't prevent Stephen Ross from giving Dante Moore $5M today.
So how does the perceived lack of UM NIL come down to UM? I'm not saying it's doesn't, but the logic keeps going in circles and I'm struggling to figure out who we're mad at.
- If it's Harbaugh's talking points (it offends prospects) or Michigan's approach (they don't value 5*s as prospects despite years of training), so what? If a booster wants to give a 5* $, what does UM have to do with it? When TAMU says "the people in those suites are going to pay you if you come here" that's still not TAMU AD, and it still requires an NIL contract with a booster.
- Is UM not supporting NIL for existing players enough? I think we all agree they are doing NIL, right?
- Is UM is refusing to tell boosters & collectives which prospects to pursue? I find it hard to believe that the public doesn't know who UM's priorities are.
So if we miss out on Dante Moore due to $, who is promising him $? Phil Knight or UOregon? Can't our boosters do the same thing Phil Knight is doing? Is it simply that Harbaugh wouldn't bless that transaction? Is it that Michigan state law is more strict than Oregon state about the conditions that can be in such a contract?
I tried to ask the same thing above and yours is much better. I am confused about some of the statements in the video. If Michigan law does not allow it, none of the other arguments are not going to work because UM will not violate that. If coaches won't facilitate the conversation between boosters and recruits, can we blame them? Isn't that directly violating the State law, if it is in fact not be a party to pfp.
If prospects worked their whole life to be a football player and they deserve the money, which I agree that they deserve it, then change the law. Instead, everyone seems to want UM to break the law, if the law is clear. I was hoping the video will have substance on the law, but I didn't find my answer there.
Prospects worked their whole life?
Alot of these kids have only played 1 or 2 years of high school football.
Throwing 10M at a kid whose never stepped on a college field is pure madness.
Also, How's that gonna translate to the NFL when a kid has already made his money?
Is that kid gonna stay hungry?
Once again, greed will be the downfall of something that once was the best and purest sport around...
As I see it, the team does nothing to 'publicize' it's player/recruit desires and has no plan in place to provide guidelines for boosters in which to manage 'donations'. They are also doing nothing to facilitate connecting boosters/booster organizations with recruits until after they are enrolled. This is very different from other programs, who are facilitating agreements and pointing boosters towards the players they want.
Oregon's coach can call up Phil and say he needs a QB, and would prefer Dante Moore. From there, it's on Phil. Same with A&M - Jimbo has provided lists to his boosters of the players he is targeting. I'm sure St Nick has, also - even if he complains that others do the same thing. Miami (YTM) is also doing that, as indicated by their basketball transfer portal signings. I have no doubt that many other schools (to include MSU!) is doing the same, while Michigan harrumphs about transformational experiences...
I can't fault you for the way you see it, and I follow what you're saying, but I don't think anyone has verified that framework as being real, right?
If you're right, then yes, there's a gap between Jimbo sending an explicit email to the collective vs. UM boosters reading 247 or something, but I just can't get past the fact that if boosters are mad about losing Dante Moore, there is literally nothing that could stop them from paying him to endorse something for their business or collective, unless Michigan's state law is so restrictive. And if it's state law, we're having some very fruitless conversations around here that need to be redirected (and MSU needs to be investigated [by the state, not NCAA]).
And just so I understand, are we really talking about the difference between signing with a collective once you commit vs. signing with a collective once you're on the roster? Because in that scenario, the only difference is February vs. August, no? Prospects should still feel confident about getting paid as freshman by collectives once they're in A2.
As an aside, I want no part of what's going on with Miami's (YTM) NIL.
This is like Michigan showing up in Mad Max: Fury Road in a Studebaker.
Studebaker's HQ was in South Bend, but, well, yeah.
Can't listen for another couple of hours, but I'm looking forward to hearing the calls for more NIL freedom. Unfortunately, Warde Manual will not be swayed.
Personally, I don't feel Warde wants anything to do with even the sniff of going against the NCAA or state law, regardless of how weak the NCAA may be. And if he did, I don't believe he has the power/sway/cache within the University as a whole (with the President and/or Regents) to make the case positively. I also think Harbaugh's flirtation (well, okay, outright job hunting) in the offseason destroyed a lot of his credibility and swagger within the University. Couple those two, and the Ath Dept isn't going to be able to get its way like it once could.
The problem with the NCAA by-laws is that they don't really exist around NIL - that's a big reason we're in this boat with conflicting state laws. Now, yeah, Manuel is not going to advocate to violate state law in recruiting - UM is a state school and it's silly to think they would do so. Now, if you want to change that rule then talk to your state reps. I don't like seeing UM lose ground in the recruiting game but Michigan has never and will never break rules like other schools and that has been the case for decades now.
I highly doubt that the school cares much that Jim Harbaugh looked for another job unless you also believe that the rumors last year that Important People wanted Harbaugh fired and Manuel fought to keep him on that new deal somehow didn't also highlight a lack of credibility/swagger with the University.
Changing state law is as simple as UM and MSU banding together with the bill they want. State legislators on both sides would trip over themselves reaching for the 'Yay' vote to help make their favorite team more competitive.
I sure would think so. Change the damn law
Sure, though this law has been on the books for a while and hasn't been changed. And it's not like MSU wants to be behind the 8 ball either. So I have to assume there's some other factor going on.
Regardless, getting mad UM won't ignore a law on the books is a weird tact by this fanbase.
"Regardless, getting mad UM won't ignore a law on the books is a weird tact by this fanbase."
I don't disagree. But I do think some of the questions come from an ignorance of the law itself (not meaning that in a bad way), and that we/they see MSU doing a fair amount of what we wish Michigan would do. Couple in the fact that nobody cares what the NCAA says or does, except Michigan, and you're going to get the reaction we're seeing.
I'm not personally surprised that UM isn't breaking a state law, but I am chagrined that they're putting so much stock into what the NCAA says about NIL and (seemingly) are making no efforts to improve state law for competitive reasons. Instead, Manual seems content to wait it out until NIL settles into something we can understand, short term recruiting results be damned.
Is MSU really doing much on the NIL front that UM isn't? That's an honest question - I have seen people reference it but the details are mostly "they're recruiting pretty well now", which is true but might also be just timing. For example, MSU's last commit was on 6/14; UM has had 3 since then and could well get a couple more this week.
UM is slow when it comes to change; that's been their MO for a while. In the long run it probably works out a bit better than, say, what Miami is doing which is just trying to buy their way to relevance and likely going to have a team of pissed-off players making $3M a year while being 7-5/8-4. But yeah, feels like this year might just be one where they get pushed around early on and then figures out a system that works for them and return to being pretty good at recruiting.
I think Craig made a good point that Michigan's NIL program seems fine (if unremarkable) but their lack of PfP involvement is hurting them. It is funny how earlier the narrative about NIL (including on this podcast) was that UM wasn't doing much with their boosters and didn't have a plan in place, now it's that they do have booster involvement and have a decent NIL approach but they aren't in the PfP space. And before that it was Harbaugh's dalliance with the NFL hurting their recruiting despite, AFAIK, little evidence kids gave a shit about that and most of the rhetoric was from the usual suspects who are always going to knock UM however they can when recruiting.
So again, while there are real credible issues with UM's approach I do think there's a fair bit of wishcasting/blame gaming going around for the underwhelming start to recruiting that, if history is any guide, will likely improve as the season progresses (and some of these hot-start teams maybe cool off when the games are actually played) and they wind up in that 10-15 range they've historically been.
what specifically should UM be doing with PfP instead of what they're currently doing?
AFAIK they aren't doing PfP and people want them to, seemingly against the current reading of state law.
Maybe Harbaugh doesn't want to pfp, State law or not. He might be concerned with the effect on team chemistry. I think it's a legitimate concern. He definitely knows locker rooms better than any of us.
And before that it was Harbaugh's dalliance with the NFL hurting their recruiting despite, AFAIK, little evidence kids gave a shit about that
Aside from the fact that it was the primary reason Raylen Wilson decommitted from Michigan.
It's pretty simple.... UM is telling freshman to be that you haven't earned anything other than a scholarship yet (despite being some of the most coveted athletes in the country at the most popular sport in the country) and most every other university is either doing it or at least not actively preventing it from happening.
Maybe there are fantastic opportunities for upperclassmen but that's a hard sell for prospects to wait it out when they have the option to go to all these other great school where they know they're getting it up front.
And this whole... "they can just be like Beilein" thing is the dumbest rationalization I've heard yet....
how can UM actively prevent PFP from happening?
Not suggesting they prevent it. Suggesting they participate in it like everyone else.
If it is against the law, it is not happening at UM.
Do you know the possible effect on the team of having high paid incoming freshmen? Maybe Harbaugh doesn't, but it seems to be a concern for him. And it's not like it's your problem.
By not involving themselves is speaking with boosters about NIL deals until after the player enrolls. Unfortunately, the boosters have no idea where to throw their money. Can't pay Dante Moore unless you know for a fact that Harbaugh wants him to play this year or next (or whatever). I mean, maybe JH soured on Dante for whatever reason and no longer wants him in AA? It's possible...
I just find it incredibly hard to believe that any legit coach is going to say to a booster "This is the guy I want to start next year" as it implies a remarkable lack of competition (or maybe more likely, honesty about roster management). On the other hand, a coach would want every recruited player to play, so what's the difference about the coach's expectations for given prospect?
If what you're talking about is how teams recruit [50] prospects for [20] spots, how does TAMU deal with it? Do they recruit fewer prospects now, knowing that they have a better shot at each of them? Do NIL PfP deals negotiated during recruitment suddenly disappear if the prospect is no longer wanted?
Ultimately though, I'm still confused. Is the difference literally that TAMU will say "our boosters have told us that they can will you $500K a year and you can sign that contract on signing day" while UM says "we can't tell you how much, but we'll support you as much as we can once you're enrolled"?
Your last paragraph hits it. I don't have answers for the other questions you raise.
Maybe he soured on him because he wanted big, upfront NIL money?
UM is most likely not linking prospects to boosters and I bet they think it is against State law, which it seems like it. If other colleges are secretly doing it, then I don't blame UM here. This is a State law problem.
I can see them openly discouraging the link between prospects and boosters before they join school. I don't see Harbaugh as a turn the blind eye kind of guy. If this is the part that is preventing UM from getting recruit's, change the law or let the classes be where they stand.
I feel like Harbaugh should just come out and say it. I will do it if it is not against the law. Without that, everyone is piling on him to make him look like he is the bad guy. The guy went out of his way to give opportunities to more players with camps and people think he is preventing players from getting money. Hope Harbaugh realizes that and corrects the perception
I agree with this take. I don't believe it's Harbaugh that is preventing anything. I do believe, though, that he may be toeing the corporate line because he has to.
Jim MF'ing Harbaugh has - for his entire tenure at Michigan - done all that he can to support athletes, both in college and in high school. He's not overtly stopping anything that can improve his team.
The "its against the law folks" are living in a dream world. There is a gigantic, huge, obvious gap between the U. Doing PFP directly vs. Letting the collective handle that stuff and pretending that loophole doesn't exist is pure arrogance/pride/hubris.
Loop hole in the law? Dammit. I wish I would have gone to law school just for this conversation. LOL.
Do you really think they would do this out of arrogance? Loop hole is just that. Loop hole. Not the law. Shady business is not going to happen at UM. I don't know if I would call that arrogance. We are literally advocating for someone to use the loop hole. How many of us would actually do that in real life? I wouldn't unless my life depends on it.
What law is being broken if Stephen Ross were to offer a multi year marketing sponsorship to the best HS QB in the country to rep Equinox or SoulCylce gear or be in a commercial and that player decides to go to UM?
But that can happen, right now, today. My earlier comment wasn't asking you to describe how you would recommend UM prevent PfP, it was asking you to describe how UM even could do so if they wanted to.
So, if Ross or anyone else wants to give a 5* $ conditional on playing for UM, that's on the booster. It's not sanctioned by UM and it's not paid out by UM, but it doesn't have to be. I don't think that's what people are mad about, though. I think they're mad that UM isn't reaching out to Ross to tell him which 4*s and 5*s we want on roster.
Def could be... my sense, which obviously is mostly just a guess, is that UM either from the board level or a program level is actively trying to prevent that from happening.
This can happen now. The part that won't happen or not happening is Harbaugh being the link.
And pure unHarbaugh. He is black and white, right and wrong. He also knows team chemistry far better than both of us. Maybe defer to his relative expertise.
Weird that SEC doesn't seem to want Clemson or FSU or Miami as much as Duke/UNC.
If you don't understand this you don't understand anything about expansion. Why would the SEC want a second school in a state over a new school in a state they have no presence in?
I get it, Texas and A&M. But Texas is a national brand. Indeed, so is Duke and NC, even more reason to want them. Clemson and FSU (and Miami) like Oregon, have some national presence, but not enough to bring TV sets in numbers.
Thank you Brian for acknowledging that college football will suffer with all this movement, and the hypocrisy around it all.
Sad times....yes there will be a new day / look and feel to college football soon and it will level out for the select schools included in these super leagues ...but I bet A LOT of people will be forcefully driven away from the game they used to love. Its inevitable and it sucks.
Baseball parents are the worst?
If that's accurate, maybe it's because baseball almost seems as if anyone can play.
Contrast basketball or football. With those sports, it's easy to decide that a players excel because they're freakishly large.
But anybody who's played on a diamond might easily decide they're only a few steps from getting a college scholarship, from playing pro.
So baseball parents focus on their own kid and readily decide the coach isn't giving the kid full credit.
So the show is now starting off saying Michigan has to do more with less? Oh how the mighty have fallen
The "more with less" got us to the CFP last year. Because of leadership and team chemistry.
I disagree with Seth. No high school football player, even the 5-star kid, is worth millions of dollars before he even plays one snap. The fact that they're currently receiving money on that scale doesn't mean that it makes sense. I don't blame kids for taking the money - they'd be stupid not to - but that doesn't mean the current situation isn't insane. Pay them all;. pay some more than others based on performance. But paying a kid $3-5 million before he participates in his first team practice? Absurd! Ryan Mallett? Kevin Grady? Aubrey Solomon? Derrick Green? No return on investment in those cases. It's easy to spend other people's money.
If any team is to be dropped, it ought to be Nebraska: adds hardly anything in terms of recruiting area, TV market, or academically for that matter.
Still no guarantee that the B1G would be getting any more Nike money than it's already getting - and it would likely benefit Oregon more than the rest of the conference.
Comments