SEATTLE — Please, please, please, someone ask an NIL question.
Given the genie is out of the bottle and we are in a pay-for-recruits era, how long do you think it will take the AD’s office to adjust its view on NIL and start playing the same game as everyone else? Also do you have an understanding whether there is any “friction” between the coaches and AD given they are recruiting with one hand tied behind their back? — Mark K.
With Montlake Futures taking a different approach than other collectives (at least on the surface) what do you see as the pros and cons to investing more in current players vs recruits? — Conner S.
First, I’d caution against assuming that anybody’s stance on anything related to NIL is ever definitive or final. The landscape is changing daily. Conversations with folks at UW and Montlake Futures last month, for example, revealed little interest in playing the inducement game, but public statements made since then suggest that, actually, the donor collective would direct money from a donor to a recruit, if approached to do so.
Advertisem*nt
In late April, Emmy Armintrout, executive director of Montlake Futures, told Dave “Softy” Mahler and Dick Fain on KJR 93.3 FM that no, the collective does not want to offer direct recruiting inducements, but also: “Things are changing so quickly. Boundaries are getting pushed. We’re monitoring what the bar is. I would definitely want people to be comforted by the fact we’re trying to play at an elite level. We’re in this to win championships, not get fourth place, as Chris Petersen would say.”
That was before the NCAA’s recently announced guidelines intended to prevent boosters and donor collectives from influencing recruits with NIL deals (things are changing quickly, indeed). There seems to be little belief the NCAA actually will be able to enforce those guidelines, but the organization at least has taken a definitive public stance against the practice. No conference is a monolith, but the Pac-12 generally seems on board: Coaches present at the league’s recent meetings in Scottsdale, Ariz., told The Athletic’s Bruce Feldman that Colorado athletic director Rick George went so far as to suggest searches of coaches’ phone records for any impermissible interaction with boosters. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff joined SEC commissioner Greg Sankey last week in meeting with U.S. senators to discuss potential federal legislation to govern NIL inducements and pay-for-play.
It could well be that if the most aggressive donor collectives greet these developments with a shrug and continue doing what they’ve been doing, the NCAA will lack the juice necessary to do anything about it. But the clarified guidelines nevertheless render this a fraught time to enter the inducement game for schools and collectives that weren’t necessarily operating that way all along. More to the point, it could have a cooling effect on donors already hesitant about directing their dollars toward a high schooler. Surely, some of UW’s donors are willing to send their money wherever it needs to go in order to field a competitive team. But on the whole, Washington’s has not been a donor base lining up to induce recruits — remember, there is a difference between true NIL and pay-for-play — and the NCAA’s new guidance certainly isn’t going to help convince them otherwise.
If there were any questions as to where UW’s athletic department stands on the matter, Cohen made it abundantly clear during her annual budget presentation to the school’s board of regents Wednesday night. Dave Zeeck, the board’s vice chair, broached the subject tangentially. “I am concerned about NIL and the lack of consistency nationwide,” he said. “Some of these deals, it’s like, come on. It is pay for play.”
Advertisem*nt
Cohen replied, in part: “There’s two issues at Washington that are concerning. One is that people are so breaking the rules with inducement. They’re taking kids away from schools. Until the NCAA starts to enforce it — and I think they will make an example of a couple schools. I think they have to. There’s a lot of pressure to do that. But we’re not going to be in that lane. You don’t want us to be in that lane. But we are in the lane of trying to find every student-athlete at Washington who wants an NIL deal, an NIL deal.”
Her second concern — and Cohen has detailed this before — is that in the absence of state or federal NIL legislation, UW is bound by state ethics laws that prohibit the athletic department from helping arrange deals on behalf of its athletes.
More than 50 UW football players have some kind of NIL deal, Cohen told the board, as did every member of the men’s basketball team. She also said at least one athlete in every sport has benefited from NIL in some capacity.
“So our program is great, and it’s growing,” she said. “It’s just that the headlines focus on the kid that’s getting $1.2 million or $8 million, which is absolutely pay-for-play.”
She welcomes the day, whenever it might come, when UW athletics employees can provide direct guidance and assistance in securing NIL deals. Cohen cited a Pac-12 peer as an example. There is no state NIL legislation in Utah, either, she said, but the Utes’ athletic director can drive the starting quarterback to meet with a donor about a deal. Washington has invested in NIL education and support for athletes, but at present, any meeting with a donor or collective must occur without department assistance.
“The problem with the model now, it’s not protecting students,” Cohen told the board. “There are other third parties getting involved, and you (as an athletic department) don’t get to get involved. And it’s really our responsibility to give them the best opportunity to negotiate great deals, but also make sure they’re protected, and when we’re not involved in that, I’m concerned about it.”
Advertisem*nt
(For what it’s worth, I don’t believe that to be a reference to Montlake Futures, with which Cohen and the department have a healthy relationship.)
As far as the coaches are concerned, I don’t get the sense Kalen DeBoer is clamoring for pay-for-play, only to be overruled by his athletic director or donor base. He’s made clear NIL has to be a priority for players on the current roster. He absolutely wants to be able to point to certain deals and effectively tell recruits, “See what’s possible here?”
But when DeBoer answers questions about NIL, you don’t get the impression he’s eager to jump into the practice of inducing prospects with the kind of contracts you’re hearing about at other schools (or, more accurately, from other schools’ affiliated-but-unaffiliated donor collectives).
“Just like building a football team, this is something new,” DeBoer said during a recent interview on KJR. “We’re improving it every single day. I know what fans are asking and wondering, and I can confidently say here at Washington, we’re in the NIL game. I feel good about the support and the resources we have here. I know Jen (Cohen) and all our administration continue to really support and pour more into it. They’re committed to NIL. We’ve made investments and resources that have improved where we’re at. I think the community, as well, is committed to it, which is really important when it comes down to the opportunities our student-athletes can get. Our football program already has benefited from what’s happened and will continue to grow.
“We all want it all right now, and I think the whole key is we’ve just got to continue to make sure we build it the right way — something that is sustainable, as opposed to maybe what some other people are doing, which I think at some point runs its course.”
It’s not hard to read between the lines on that last clause. Washington isn’t doing “what some other people are doing,” and DeBoer is perfectly fine with that. DeBoer talks a lot about sustainability and NIL’s intended purpose. For example, he said in mid-April: “I think hopefully, we can get back to where our current team, our current roster is the one that I think the intent was for, where they can take advantage of it. I’m all for that happening.”
And it is happening. You’ve probably seen on Twitter that several players — including Sam Huard and Carson Bruener — are hosting camps presented by Montlake Futures, and the collective has facilitated paid meet-and-greets for several others. More partnerships are forthcoming, and more money will change hands. You might not hear about it, but you can bet those within and close to UW’s program will make sure recruits do. The hope is that as those types of deals become more and more frequent, that will lead to more and more donors putting more and more money behind them. It’s worth keeping in mind, too, that Montlake Futures is not the sole proprietor of NIL opportunities at the University of Washington. It’s not as if this collective alone is responsible for fulfilling the football program’s every NIL need. Deals can come from just about anywhere, and new collectives could form at any time. Some schools already have more than one.
Advertisem*nt
Right this second, I still don’t believe UW’s donor base, generally speaking, is inclined to fund inducements for recruits. But if it becomes apparent that it will be necessary to compete for championships — and it becomes equally apparent the NCAA is as ineffectual on the matter as most everyone believes — we certainly could see perspectives evolve and priorities change.
I’m already seeing the stupid preseason rankings and projected standings for the 2022 season. I think the consensus so far is that we’ll be in the 7-5 or 8-4 range, and not a threat to win the Pac-12 North. If that’s the case, what do you feel would be the root causes of us losing 4-5 games this season? — David C.
Maybe this wouldn’t be *the* reason why Washington doesn’t win more than seven or eight games, but I do think there are more questions defensively than there ever were under Chris Petersen or Jimmy Lake. That’s not to suggest the Huskies can’t or won’t be good on that side of the ball, but standards are high enough for what a Washington defense should be that folks probably don’t look at the Huskies as currently assembled and think, “Oh, they’re reloading again.”
They lost two elite cornerbacks, they lack experienced depth at linebacker and it hasn’t been a great past two years for the defensive line — and they were last seen allowing 40 points in a loss to Washington State. None of that precludes improvement in 2022, but it just feels a little different with a new coaching staff and fewer surefire NFL Draft picks entering the season.
Getting Zion Tupuola-Fetui healthy for a full season will help, and there was a lot to like this spring about the pass rush in general. Mishael Powell and Jordan Perryman could pick up the slack at corner just fine. Maybe Asa Turner really has turned the corner at safety, Bralen Trice is the real deal at edge, and Tuli Letuligasenoa is poised for a breakout as a fifth-year defensive tackle. But there are fewer established difference-makers on this defense than any season in recent memory, and I think that could be driving some doubts.
There also are questions at quarterback, obviously. Michael Penix Jr. seems the leader in the clubhouse, but can he stay healthy? Is Dylan Morris the first guy off the bench if they need him? How close is Huard to contributing meaningfully? The running back room is dicey, too, with three transfers added since DeBoer’s arrival and three backs out this spring with injuries. It needs to be a bounceback year for the offensive line.
Honestly, right now, I’d say 8-4 would constitute solid progress for DeBoer in Year 1, considering how last year played out. Nobody aspires to go 8-4, of course, but that kind of season at least would put Washington back on the right course and, presumably, contain several opportunities to show recruits what they can expect from a schematic and style perspective.
(The biggest one-year turnaround in school history, by the way, was in 1959 when the Huskies finished 10-1 and defeated Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl one year after finishing 3-7.)
Advertisem*nt
What schematic changes on both sides of the ball are you personally most excited for? — Jordan N.
I don’t get excited about schematic changes, Jordan. I get excited on Monday afternoons when I remember there’s a new episode of “Better Call Saul” airing that night. I get excited when my daughter’s daycare posts a photo to the Brightwheel app of her playing with toy dinosaurs. I get excited when Waze tells me it’s only 51 minutes from my house to UW instead of an hour and a half.
Instead, I’ll tell you what I think *you* should be excited about.
It’s obvious at this point, but offensively, you’re going to see the ball in the air a lot more, and you’re going to see more intentional effort to put it in the hands of the team’s top playmakers. The running game will rely more on the strengths of the offensive line (athleticism and length) rather than trying to force the ball between the tackles. You’re going to see more man coverage defensively, safeties playing closer to the line of scrimmage and a more aggressive, attacking style overall (though I still think it’s worth noting the previous staffs set a pretty high bar, defensively, which renders any excessive criticism of their flaws a bit silly).
Which position groups look demonstrably better (or worse) than last year coming out of spring? — Michael H.
With the caveat that we only got to watch about 40 percent of each practice — and very little actual 11-on-11 work, which is always the most telling — I’d say every offensive position looks better except running back, which would receive an “incomplete” grade at present due to the roster and injury upheaval there, and perhaps tight end, where Cade Otton leaves a big void. The staff is excited, though, about Devin Culp and Jack Westover, and I thought Culp had a nice spring.
Defensively, I think the edge rushers look better, and Turner and Alex Cook appear to have each taken a step at safety, with Dom Hampton seemingly coming into his own at the “husky” position. It would be difficult to say the Huskies have gotten better at cornerback, since Trent McDuffie and Kyler Gordon were just selected in the top 39 picks of the NFL Draft, but that’s no knock on Powell or Perryman. Inside linebacker remains iffy. The addition of Cam Bright makes them better, and I think we all know Bruener is capable of playing at a high level, and Alphonzo Tuputala seems to have taken a step forward. But Edefuan Ulofoshio’s injury dents the group’s potential. I’ll reserve judgment on the defensive interior until we see them go live a bit more in August. Tough to judge that group’s impact based on what we were able to watch in spring.
One thing I’d note: I’m comparing these position groups to what they looked like at the end of last season. A year ago at this time, I’d have said the entire team looked pretty darn good, and I’d have said the same thing coming out of preseason camp. Just something to think about.
(Photo of Asa Turner: Dustin Bradford / Getty Images)
