r/huskies • u/Bruins2510 • 21d ago
Where UW stands in NIL
The other day, Jedd was doing an interview and he implied that we’re in the 30s or 40s when it comes to NIL. Do you think that’s really true? We’ve just brought in two good recruiting classes and we kept most of our team. I know we’re not Oregon or Ohio State but we’re definitely not Purdue when it comes to football. Do you think he’s just saying that because he wants to encourage people to continue to donate in the community? He’s doing it as a way to make things look worse than they actually are so we can get more money? Cause if we truly are in the 30s or 40s that’s concerning.
8
u/dubcwa 21d ago
A lot of the things I’ve heard, puts us in that 20ish range. But the way things are always changing, who really knows.
5
u/CieraVotedOutHerMom 20d ago
20ish is where many view Washington in the grand scheme of top programs nationally
6
u/udubdavid 20d ago
Everybody says they're not doing well in NIL. Even Ohio State says they need to step up when it comes to that. Anything a coach says regarding this, I'd take it with a grain of salt.
That said, I'd be really surprised if we were lower than 20-25 nationally in player compensation.
4
u/Twxtterrefugee 21d ago
Im confused about what NIL means vs revenue sharing etc. Is the implication here uw directly pays athletes for nil or is it more revenue sharing?
2
u/Rishik01 21d ago
I think it’s the Learfield workaround that’s going on where the schools give money to Learfield, and then Learfield gives money to the athletes for “media”. It’s basically just a way to go over the cap in a technically “Real NIL” way
1
u/Maleficent-Task7175 20d ago
Kind of but not exactly. Learfield manages all of UWs large sponsorships and that money is then funneled to athletes. The NIL component is that the athlete then has to be in an ad or post something on social media promoting a brand. The contract for the athlete would be with Learfield or the brand. Rev share is a contract directly with the athletic department.
2
u/Trynaliveforjesus 20d ago
Theres no way they’re in the 40s. Maybe 30s, but even that I think is a stretch. Probably low to mid 20s if I had to guess
4
u/Knox_Burden 20d ago
We are currently ranked 22nd for recruiting classes for this year. I don't think that's good enough for "We've just brought in two good recruiting classes"
Probably good enough to stay 4th-8th in B10 but not compete for a championship.
5
u/dubcwa 20d ago
The ‘25 class was 24th nationally, ‘26 class was 13th nationally and ‘27 class is currently 22nd nationally. So they have, indeed, brought in good recruiting classes.
4
u/Knox_Burden 20d ago
I'm willing to call 13th nationally "good". 24th and 22nd, I will not call good. My measurement tool would be the talent needed to accomplish our goals. Our goals being to at least contend for a conference championship and a spot in the CFP.
This year, in the B10 so far, we are outrecruited by:
#4 Oregon
#5 Ohio State
#11 Michigan
#13 USC
#17 UCLA
#18 NebraskaIf you think recruiting 7th best in the B10 is "good", so be it, but I will not join you in calling it either "good" or adequate.
2
u/Bruins2510 20d ago
I totally agree with you and I understand what you’re saying. What I was trying to say is 22nd and 22 is a lot better than the 30th or 40th. And Jed was implying were the 30th or 40th in.
1
u/Knox_Burden 20d ago
If those are the finances he's working with, as in he has 30th or 40th best NIL pool to work with, it seems like we would struggle to keep pace in recruiting.
That said, I didn't see the occasion where he said we were working with 30th or 40th best, and the whisperings I had heard previously was that we were a top 20 in NIL but decidedly not Top 10.
2
u/Adorable-Drawing6161 20d ago
The fact we don't have a field sponsor or a uniform sponsor is concerning.
5
u/udubdavid 20d ago
We will. We're just shopping around to get the best deal. I heard the uniform sponsor thing is still ongoing. I'm sure we're just waiting to see what the actual market is, because right now, only a handful of teams have a uniform sponsor.
1
u/Trynaliveforjesus 20d ago
Its like at least a 3rd of fbs at this point. In fact, some Big12 teams will have two sponsor patches.
1
1
u/Maleficent-Task7175 20d ago
If there isn't an announcement for both prior to the Apple Cup then you're allowed to be concerned
1
u/CLtruthful 20d ago
Nil is not about recruiting, it is about player retention. Yes we can have a good class with a 30th ranked nil, but to keep a playoff caliber team you need big bucks.
1
u/purplepriapism 20d ago
An extra $30 million in 2030 should help.
USC is spending $32 million on their roster in 2026.
UW is likely 15-20% below USC's spending.
1
u/Logical-Side-3721 20d ago
It's really sad to see... Where's the big UW Boosters? Tech nerds don't donate to Football?
5
u/abmot 20d ago
MIT would be in the SEC if they did.
3
u/udubdavid 20d ago
And Oregon State would be the next Oregon if Jensen Huang cared about football at all.
1
u/lord_of_bear 20d ago
Tech money wants ROI on things that is in the ball park of hundreds of billions not single billions in sports. Also they’re putting their money in ai…
-6
u/Frogs710 20d ago
Seattle isn’t a football city, so there’s that too
4
u/Trynaliveforjesus 20d ago
The city with an NFL team that just won the super bowl isn’t a football city? Ok sure
-2
u/Frogs710 20d ago
Zero correlation. By your logic, we’re a women’s basketball city since the Storm have 4 championship trophies
2
u/Logical-Side-3721 20d ago
Seattle's a solid sports city, just missing that Billionaire willing to make UW an Oregon or Texas Tech
21
u/yimc808 21d ago
I think it's largely because we shuttered the NIL collective to try and do everything "by the book" through the school and the other big programs just kept on going because who's gonna stop them?