The Kevin Sheehan Show - Lattimore Speaks

Episode Date: June 11, 2025

Kevin opened with reaction to a few things Marshon Lattimore said after mini-camp practice today. Kevin talked NBA Finals Game 2 as well. Spotrac Founder Michael Ginetti joined Kevin to talk about what a Terry McLaurin contract might look like and a lot more including a look-ahead to a Jayden Daniels deal in 2027. Jesse Dougherty/Washington Post jumped on to talk about the approval to move college sports to an official "pay-for-play/salary cap" era. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

You don't want it. You don't need it, but you're going to get it anyway. The Kevin Cheyenne Show. Here's Kevin. Marchand, did you ever feel like yourself at the evening when you were playing last year? Not really. Not really. I feel a little timid just not like physically, like, you know, not mentally like timid,

but I could tell in my game when I watch film, I could tell how I'm stepping. I look timid, you know, in my game. And I, you know, just being out there for these past two days, I feel way better. He feels way better. That was Marshawn Latimore earlier this afternoon after the second day of mandatory minicamp. The show's presenting sponsors, always Window Nation, 86690 Nation, Windonation.com if you're looking for new windows. Two guests on the show today. Really excited to have Mike Genetti on.

Mike is the founder and editor of SpotRack. We reference SpotRack a lot. that is the salary cap website, you know, keeping track of the NFL. Mike will jump on with us in the next segment to talk about not just Terry McClure, but what it looks like for Washington in the future, including essentially two years from now, probably less than two years, early 2027, and what a Jaden Daniels contract might look like. after Mike, Jesse Docherty from the Washington Post will be on with us to talk about the very changing landscape of college sports.

A lot happened over this past weekend, including a district judge who approved the pay-for-play salary cap model, which will go into effect this coming football season. All right, so today at mini-camp, a couple of things real quickly in terms of, you know, overall news. Nothing new on the Terry front. Noah Brown got injured. We don't know how serious the injury is,

but he was carted off the field following making a catch and then falling to the ground. He walked slowly to the sideline and then got carted off to the building. Remember, Noah Brown had the kidney injury against Tennessee in December and didn't play again, but recovered. fully from that injury and was a favorite of Jaden Daniels last year and should be a big part of what they're going to do this coming season. Also, Quinn spoke today and really not a lot of news, not a lot said, but he did say something about Brian Robinson Jr. He said that B. Rob,

quote, looks really healthy and has had a really good offseason. Closed quote. Maybe that's why they didn't pursue a running back higher in the draft. Maybe that's why, as far as we know, they didn't pursue Nick Chubb or J.K. Dobbins. By the way, Dobbins signed a one-year, $2.75 million deal in Denver. When I was guessing, you know, the size of the deal required for either a Chubb or a Dobbins, I was suggesting that it would be very low and incentive-based. I didn't think it would be that low. Now, Chubb probably got more because he's an older veteran. But Dobbins got $2.75 million for one year with up to $5 million in incentives.

Washington needs some running back production. I don't think there's any doubt about it. And I've seen all of the conversation about Jacori Kroski Merritt and the optimism. But, you know, it's June. 10th, June 11th, I'm just not going to put much stock into it until they start playing real games. More news from minicamp, and this was not on the field but off the field, Washington signed Jeremy Reeves to a one-year contract extension.

So Jeremy Reeves, an excellent special teamer for this franchise, is now under contract through the year 20, 26. All right, I've got two more sound bites from Marshawn Latimore from earlier today that I'm going to play for you in this opening segment. But I'm going to veer off the road here for just a few minutes to talk about the NBA finals, game three tonight in Indianapolis. But before that, an email about the NBA finals from my guy Avine. Avine writes, Kevin, your point on needing an arguable top five player to win an NBA championship is, valid. But you've said that the last team to win it without one were the 04 Pistons, but that isn't correct. Yes, I've been saying for years that basically you've got to go back to the

04 Pistons to find an NBA championship team that didn't have a player on their roster that was debatably a top five player. Avine continues, the 2014 Spurs did not. not have a player finish top 10 in MVP voting. Their leading score was Tony Parker at 16.7 points per game. Kauai wasn't Kauai yet. He only averaged 12.8 points per game. I'll just add parenthetically, he did win the MVP of those NBA finals. Their three core players of Parker, Duncan, Genoblee were all a bit past their prime.

They were a team that got through playing beautiful team basketball, probably one of the most aesthetically pleasing teams of the past two to three decades. The Celtics last year felt pretty similar of not having a truly dominant player. Tatum was arguably top five and finished sixth in MVP voting last year, but never felt that way to me. The 08 Celtics also didn't have anybody average 20 plus points per game, although Garnett did win. defensive player of the year. So a couple of things real quickly. In 08, Kevin Garnett was a first team all-NBA player. So by definition, arguably top five. Your point about the Celtics last year, it's interesting because as we got into those

NBA finals, I was really trying to stretch because I didn't feel like it was obvious that Jason Tatum was, you know, a superstar quite yet. But again, he did make the NBA first team last year. So debatably top five. Now, your point about the 2014 Spurs, you're right. That team had an aging Tim Duncan. I think as I've gone back through those years going back to 04, I've just kind of done the default when it comes to Spurs titles and just said,

Tim Duncan, you know, one of the greatest to ever play. But Duncan missed some games that year. He finished averaging 15.1 points per game, 9.7 rebounds per game. Look, he was an excellent player. There's no doubt about it. Tim Duncan was still an excellent player, but he was past his prime. There is no doubt about that. Now, if you want to look at Tony Parker,

in 2013, 2014. Tony Parker did make the second team all NBA, but was not an arguable top five player that year. I mean, LeBron, Kevin Durant, Chris Paul, Steph Curry, you know, we were at the beginning of really the Steph Curry run. Yeah, let me just go back and look at that. So the first team in 2014 was Durant, LeBron, Jokam, Noah, James Harden, Chris Paul,

second team, Blake Griffin, Kevin, loved Dwight Howard, Steph Curry, and Tony Parker. It's a decent point. I mean, they had an all-time player playing for them, certainly in Tim Duncan. And by the way, Duncan would play another two years. The 2013-2014 season was his age 37. season.

And he was still a massive factor, especially when we got to the playoffs in 2014. Kauai was the MVP of those playoffs. But Duncan was certainly a major factor in those playoffs, having a couple of key games along the way. I mean, he had an 18.15 rebound game. in game two against the heat. It started off game one, 21 and 10. So he was still, you know, a major factor and had a good postseason run in 2014, an excellent postseason run in 2014.

But yes, I guess you could say that particular team, and I agree with you, aesthetically pleasing what an overall kind of team basketball, five-man basketball, well-coached high IQ team, that team was for sure. But your points are a good one. The 2014 Spurs, you'd really have to stretch to say that Duncan was still a top five player in 2014, and I think it would be too far of a leap to suggest that. Tonight, I like Oklahoma City. They're laying five and a half.

I think there's still a chance Oklahoma City runs the table here. I think what we saw in game two was them not doing what they did in game one, which is give up a bunch of decent looks as Indy went wild, hitting threes down the stretch. And their conversion rate offensively was just much higher. I just have a feeling Oklahoma City is going to prove all of us right that have believed that we are watching, an all-time great defensive team. And a team that if they win this NBA finals in five games or even six is going to go down as an all-time great team because of the number of wins they'll have.

They had 68 in the regular season to win the title. You've got to win 16. That would be 84 wins. Look, we talked a lot about the Celtics in their postseason run last year. They went 16 and 3 in the postseason after going 64 and 18. in the regular season. Looking forward to the game tonight. I like games that matter.

That's not what we're getting at minicamp. But what we are getting at minicamp or what we got at minicamp today was a little bit of Marshawn Latimore who finally showed up because this was mandatory. So you heard what he said coming in about sort of how he felt last year. He said timid, you know, that it wasn't really him.

He never was right physically, even when he was on the field. He was asked whether or not it was frustrating to play under that sort of situation after the trade last year. Here's what he said. Frustrated for you to be in a new spot and not feel like yourself? You feel like you're impressed? Yeah, because I just want to prove that, you know, they made the right decision, obviously. So I just wanted to get out there and sold I can do.

But, you know, I was hurt. But I don't want to make excuses. I was out there, so I was out there. If I was good enough to play, you know, I can be evaluated on that. So, you know, it is what it is. I just want to get out there this year, and so what I can do.

Last year's over. He wasn't right physically, clearly. We all saw that, especially if you had spent any time watching Marchion Lattimore in New Orleans. That was not the same player that suited up for Washington last year. But, man, they could use Pro Bowl-level

Marshawn Latimore this year. because their corners on paper are so much better than they were this time last year. You know, guys like Mike Davis and Benjamin St. Juice and an unknown in rookie Mikey Sanristil. If you end up with Pro Bowl-level Marshawn Latimore, emerging really good, maybe even future star corner, Mikey Sanristil, to go with a veteran like Jonathan Jones, don't forget, Noah Igben O'Genni was brought back, and he can certainly play in the slot and was effective doing that last year. And the guy they drafted in the second round, Trey Amos. It's just a much better situation on the side of the football that we have to see improvement with.

By the way, speaking of Trey Amos, this was Latimore talking about what he's seen so far in the young rookie. He got technique. His technique is there. From right now, what I see as far as the technique, he looks complete. You know, he's a rookie and it's early, but, you know, throughout the season, I just feel like he's going to keep that up and get better as a season go. And I'm excited to see, you know, how he turned out. I'm looking forward to seeing what Trey Amos can do as a rookie,

but my expectations are dialed back, not because of the player, but because of the position. You know, the position just tends to be a position. position that needs time, needs experience, needs reps. You know, the sauce gardeners, the Patrick Sertans of the world are the exceptions at that position. Mikey Santer still had a hell of a year as a rookie exception to the rule. The rule is corners need time.

And I think Amos is a talent. I think he absolutely could have gone a lot earlier in the draft than he did. And I'm looking forward to seeing him and what he's got. I'm sort of hoping that they don't need him, because if they need him, more than likely that means that Latimore didn't deliver. But they are still overall on paper, you know, we'll see what is to come in better shape at corner than they were a year ago. All right, up next, I think you're going to enjoy Mike Genetti from SpotRack.

We'll talk Terry McLaurin contract. We'll talk what Washington is probably. probably looking ahead to right now, and that is the 2027 off season and what they'll have to pay their quarterback. We'll get to that more after these words from a few of our sponsors. So guys, if you're starting to notice your hair thinning when you look in the mirror, join the club, you're not alone. Life gets busier and busier and you don't have much time to think about it or do something about it. That's why I'm going to help. I'm going to suggest hymns. Hymns is a hair loss solution product. You can avoid jumping through a bunch of frustrating hoops and get

access to treatment without even leaving your home. Hems makes treating hair loss simple with doctor-trusted options and clinically proven ingredients. You can choose from personalized chewable, oral, spray and serum treatments to find what works best for you. The process is simple. It's 100% online and there are no uncomfortable doctor visits. You just answer a few questions and a medical provider will determine if treatment is right for you. If prescribed, your treatment is sent directly to you for free. No insurance needed and one low price covers everything from treatments to ongoing care.

Start your free online visit today at hymns.com slash sheen. That's hims.com slash sheen for your personalized hair loss treatment options. Hymns.com slash sheen. Results vary based on studies of topical and oral monocidil and phenosterite. Prescription products require an online consultation with a health care provider who will determine if a prescription is appropriate. Restrictions apply. See website for full details and important safety information. This segment of the show is brought to you by MyBooky.

If you want to bet on sports, don't go anywhere else. Go to MyBooky.ag. Use my promo code, Kevin D.C. They'll give you a cash bonus when you sign up so you'll have free money in your account to wager with. You don't have to fool around with expensive pricing on losses or numbers that you're not sure of. My bookie's numbers are fair across the board. Pricing fair across the board. And they've got everything you want to bet on.

Tonight's NBA game three of the finals, Oklahoma City is a five and a half point favorite. totals 228. All of the golf for the U.S. Open at Oakmont. Right now, Scotty Sheffler, plus 255 at My Bookie, followed by Bryson Deschambeau at plus 630, John Rom at plus 1,000, and Rory McElroy at plus 1,100. Those are your top four, but man, Sheffler plus 255. A heavy, heavy favorite for a golf tournament. MyBooky's got everything including an online casino. Go to mybooky.com. Use my promo code, Kevin, D.C. All right, joining me right now is Michael Genetti from SpotRack. I talk about and reference SpotRack all the time, including a lot on yesterday's show and looking at sort of what Washington has moving forward beyond what would be the biggest signing of the Josh Harris era, which would be a Terry McLaurin contract extension.

but Michael spends a lot of his time thinking about this as the co-founder and editor at SpotRack. So where do you think Washington is with Terry McLaurin right now, and what do you think happens and what a deal eventually looks like if it gets done? I think it's pretty positive. We're in the dog days here of the offseason where, you know, for some teams, things are lulled, for some teams, you know, things are ramping up. And for Washington, this is clearly the takeaway in camp. You know, the financially speaking, certainly every off-season for the past three or four,

this wide receiver position has ramped up financially speaking. And the D.K.M.ECF contract in Pittsburgh, I think it's the one that we're all kind of pointing to here and looking at and saying that's the one that McCorm, and his camp have really kind of hung their hat on heading into this negotiation table with Washington. And so, you know, he's your younger, D.K., there's, you know, some similarities in terms of usage. But around the ballpark of the 30 to 33 million a year, at least for the next couple of seasons, seems to make sense for this conversation. It's the guarantee stuff, as you probably know, where most of these discussions get caught up. And with Terry headed towards age 30 with the Jaden, Daniels contract, not super far away, right?

March 2027. Right. There's at least some concern for pause to just how far down the line can this organization take a near 30-wide receiver when they're going to have to backfill, certainly at this position for the next couple of off-season just to continue to ramp up. So 30-33 a year, you know, does that mean 60 to 70 guaranteed at least at signing? That's probably the initial number, but the McCormick camp is likely looking for all of those numbers to be higher and greater. Yeah, you know, the D.K. Metcalf deal has been referenced before. He's also 27. Terry's entering his early 30s with this new deal. Is that what you believe is playing into, you know, something that even Dan Quinn yesterday described as, you know, contentious? Is it his age and maybe even to, you know, to look at it beyond age? Where, Tim. kind of ranks among the really good receivers in the NFL? There's no question, yeah.

You know, there's no discussion here, at least in our camp, of McCorn resetting this market by any degree, and there wasn't the first time around when his rookie extension was being discussed. So he's certainly in a tier or two below, you know, the Justin Jefferson's, the March cases of the world. That's pretty obvious. But where did he fall in the mix, I think, is what makes this such a difficult conversation. and it's why somebody like Metcalf can at least be comparative

in terms of these negotiations, because I don't think anybody felt that way about Metcalf in his time in Seattle. There's always been a need for a Tyler Lockett, and then for the draft pick of an in Jimba Smith and things like that. And I feel like that's exactly where we're headed with this Washington-wide receiver arsenal, which has already happened, right? They've acquired Debo Samuel. There's been draft picks each of the last couple of off-season.

That's not going to stop over the next two or three. So it's just how can we complement a McLaurin contract with all the other necessities, financially speaking, we're going to have to do over the next three off-season. You know, you mentioned something, and I've talked a lot about it the last couple of off-season when you get into those dog days and you're doing things like lists and rankings of different position groups. And I love Terry, and I think Terry's a number one wide receiver, no doubt. But you mentioned it. He's nowhere near in the class, in my opinion, of Chase. in Jefferson, and then you get into whatever your tier two and tier three are. I'm curious as to

how you see it after Chase and Jefferson, because I think there's, you know, maybe AJ Brown is next in line, and then there are like eight, nine, ten guys. I described it yesterday. You throw them all into a hat, and you'd be happy with any name you pulled out. How do you see it sort of after that true elite tier? That's about right. And that's why I I think this is extremely complicated for both parties. Yeah. It's a bit of Wild Wild West for 12 or 13 names, and if you look at, you know, the longer list of wide receiver contracts that we have, you know, available right now, it is sort of all over the place a little bit here. There is a bit of a drop off, you know, after the CD-LAM Tyree Kill conversation.

And Brandi Ann Ayuk, I think, is a name that's going to fall into the top of this category. He's nearly $25 million a year. You know, the guarantees are strong. wrong. They're in the 70 million mark. He's certainly younger and has a little bit more to him in terms of production, but that's probably the going

top number for where things are going to live here in terms of some of these bigger tier two, tier three wide receivers over the course of the next couple of off seasons that are trying to stay well below, speaking from the team standpoint, well below the Jamar Chase

and the CD Lambs of the world. But yeah, there's a lot to be said here for where this market has gone and where the market will continue to go now for the next couple of off seasons. It's such a loaded position. I don't think we talked about this position the way we have the last few years 10, 15 years ago. I'm curious, who do you think if I told you within five years somebody, you know, went to the top of the list by a lot, like Chase did, in the most recent deal. Tell me who that would be. Great question. You know what, Kevin, you know what we struggle with over here quite a bit is we're waiting for this position to burst, the bubble to

burst on this money, because it's such a combative catch-22. You've got number one wide receivers that you absolutely feel like you can't live without, and you're going to pay them 40 million a year. And at the same time, you need six of these guys, right? You need at least six wide receivers to go around. So it's financially, it's sort of beaten itself up a little bit to have one or two great wide receivers and then need four or five more to carry throughout the season. So, So to get your question, we don't have a great young wide receiver right now that is a shoe in to do this. So, you know, are we looking at Marvin Harrison Jr. this year and if he takes this step forward, that's probably, you know, number one. But, look, Garrett Wilson, Drake, London, these guys who are in conversations right now, they're not going anywhere near the top of this market.

So I think we're in for a bit of a dial back. Is there a veteran that can maybe go ahead and do this? you know, at any point in time, the Philadelphia Eagles can redo A.J. Brown, right? I mean, we've seen that every two years at this point in time. So he's probably the easy answer that we'll go to the top of this list over the course the next 18 to 24 months. But I do expect that we'll have a bit of a downslide here with the way some of these first-round picks have somewhat floundered over the past couple of draft.

It's a really good point. I mean, you know, left tackles different from center, different from guard. So even though it's O-line and there are a lot of players, there. The wide receiver position, typically you have six, sometimes seven of them in the wide receiver room. I don't know what their quarterback situation would look like, but Malik neighbors, talent-wise, to me, looks like a Jefferson Chase, you know, in terms of what his potential could be. I don't disagree. And, you know, the Giants are going to try everything they can to figure out how they can execute him and make him at least a breakout candidate in 2025.

And maybe it's that easy. Maybe we just have to look at which wide receiver came from LSU and we'll just tag. Yeah, exactly. A big $40 million wide receiver going forward, yeah. Sticking with Washington, well, do me a favor. Just net out. Let's just say it happens in the next 30 days. What does the final deal look like with Terry? Your hunch? I think the compromise is going to be term. So if there's one year left, we're going to add three to it.

So it'll be a four-year total deal. So three years, let's just say it gets to that $95 million mark in terms of the new money extension, so well over 30. And I'm going to say the compromises that Washington is going to give close to $70 million guaranteed over the next two seasons. So it's going to be front-loaded. It's going to be big money. It's going to be nice to ask for him this next season. But the practicality of the contract will end essentially.

after 2026 and there'll be an option going up going forward from there when they're going to have to start thinking about 70 million a year for Chath and Daniels. Yeah, well, that's what I was going to get to next because I talked about this yesterday that, you know, part of what's going on here is there's a lot of things potentially going on. They paid $6 billion for the team and needed 20 plus limited partners to do it less than two years ago. They've put $75 to $100 million into the existing stadium. They have an RFK site with a lot of expenditures, you know, towards that over the coming years. And then we have this contract that could get signed as early as early 2027.

It's the first time they can extend Jaden, which I've said the last, you know, couple of weeks, you know, the odds favor that that will be the largest deal ever done in the history of the game when we get there. So tell me what, tell me, A, if you agree, B, what you think it'll look like when we do get there. I'll go one step further. I'm going to agree with the timing. It has to be done immediately, in my opinion. That's just how you get in front of these things before something else big comes behind it

or even right next to it. So March 2027 is when we start talking about this thing for real, maybe even sooner, in terms of the month. But look, we're headed towards a Lamar Jackson contract, maybe within the next couple of weeks here, which I think is going to break every top milestone with, for the quarterback position. It feels like that's where we're headed with that contract.

So the current standard will be a new standard soon. And then we talk to C.J. Stroud next year, I expect. And he kind of bounce back from him means he resets this quarterback market again at the top of the board in 2026. The number of setting up for 2027, which not only is it going to be Jayden Daniels, Kevin, but we're going to have a Patrick Mahomes conversation in 2027 because that little, that little pop sweetener that Kansas City did over the next, you know, three years or so, we'll be coming due,

and he will no longer be a $55 million cash quarterback and we'll need basically a tear-up brand-new contract. So we're going to have Jaden and Patrick Mahomes negotiating essentially simultaneously for the next big quarterback contract, and that's bad news for Washington, in my opinion, because things could really get ugly if you've got those competing balances happening at the same time. And you're not even mentioning the other five quarterbacks

that were taken before in the top 12 of the 2024 drafts. and how, you know, maybe one or two of those guys developed. You know, the other thing that I was talking about recently was just, you know, this is going to be the biggest player, you know, contract. This new ownership is done, Terry's extension. And then what's next? Before we get to 2027, I would imagine, and I'm curious if you agree, they're going to have to give Tunsell an extension next offseason.

He'll have one year left on his deal. you know, a guy like Louvo would have one year left on his deal. He might emerge into a big-time player. He was great last year. But I don't know how closely you've looked at their roster, but there's a lot coming in 2026, don't you think? Yeah, I know, by the way, if Debo works out, he's going to be another wide receiver contract we talked about

because there's something to be said about not letting this contract void next March and just kicking out a year or two with an extension as well. So, yeah, there's names. I wouldn't say that it's a dire situation. We certainly are following teams they're going to have a lot more to deal with over the course the next 18 months. But, yeah, you know, needing to sign a left tackle, needing to lock in a couple of wide receivers,

and we'll see what happens with Louva. That's generally position that teams weigh down a little bit. Yep, for sure there's mouths of feed and timing-wise, as we're discussing here. You want to get this stuff done before you have to do. deal with the quarterback, and you want to be able to jump ahead of that. So I would expect they'd continue to have the gas pedal down as long as the finances from the top down allow for it at this point. All right. I'll finish up with this, a position that's obviously gotten a lot of attention in this offseason. You know, it started with the, well, the Crosby deal and the Miles Garrett deal

and the Hendrickson situation in Cincinnati, T.J. Watt holding out Parsons in Dallas. How do you think the whole edge rusher market shakes out when all of the deals are done, let's just say, in the next month? It's funny because they're all kind of competing against each other, but they're not really competing. They're all super unique in terms of where things land with their team, with the player respectively aid-wise. If we just separate the Parsons situation, you know, he's being a good soldier about

this because he knows exactly how this is going to play out, right? He has watched this happen with Dak Prescott twice and with CD-Lam, in the course of the past 18 months. He just has to sit on his hands, let his agent do great work, and wait out Jerry Jones, because Jerry Jones just likes to wait until the last minute, maybe until that Netflix documentary drops about Dallas, but August 19th. And then he's going to announce the biggest defensive deal on the history of football,

which you know he loves to do. I don't understand the philosophy, but, you know, if he can afford to do stuff like that, God bless him, because Michael Parsons is about to be, you know, a 42 million per year, 140 million guaranteed edge rate. rusher and really break the entire model in terms of defensive contract. So that seems to be isolated for those reasons. You start talking T.J. Watt, it's not about the player.

It's not about the production. It's just about where that team is headed over the next three years. There's so many question marks. And they're renting, not buying right now for most of that roster. So, you know, he's a $35 million head rusher, even at his age. It's just, you know, do the two sides really want to do that to themselves right now and then have things maybe go south for the first time, really, you know, in decades in Pittsburgh. Similar but different conversation with Trey Hendrickson,

which is just an adie of the front office just, you know, sort of competes against themselves too much. So they're in a very similar conversation contractually as Washington is with McCloran, right? There's an age conversation. There's a financial conversation, but at the end of the day, it's really going to take two for 70, right? two for 70 over the next two seasons to get Trey Henderson to stick around to be happy

and do his thing for Cincinnati. I expect that one to get done. And then we'll see what happens elsewhere with the position because really this has been a value position in the middle class. You're seeing a lot of teams punt on these contracts. Let players go to free agency. Go back

to the draft and get a couple of players every off season versus going this route. So similar to maybe the wide receiver, you've got a really nice 1% at the top where it continued to push things. And a lot of teams that are saying, we're not going to go 20 million a year on an edge rush or when we can go back and get four for 20 on a rookie contract.

If I told you that sometime between now and the season opener, Washington added an edge, you know, a Judon, a Zedarius Smith, a Clownie, a Vaughn Miller, who would you guess would be the guy, and what would it require? You know, Clownie's been a really good fit for a lot of these teams. looking to at the last second, adds somebody that they know is going to be consistent. And he's required about one for eight with some incentives to get himself to about 10 or 12 million cash every year here.

So if you bring in all those names across the board, that's probably the going rate. You know, it's kind of that conversation where you know what you're paying for. You're going to get yourself six to eight tax, and if it's more great, and if it's not, you haven't really broken your bank. But this position, you know, that's part of the devaluation. I was just talking about.

These are still able-bodied starting edge rushers in the league right now. And if you wait it out until near camp, when they're really looking for work, you can get something really incentivized, put in some big sack incentives, and let them go do their thing, you know, after all, the dust is settled a little bit at what could be less than $10 million-based value. I actually have one more because you're excellent. So the running back position is so interesting. I actually really advocated for Washington to at least, you know,

medically look at Chubb and Dobbins, they both sign for basically nothing, or at least the Dobbins deal has been announced at one for $2.75 million. But if I said to you that in the next like two to three years, there's a running back that ends up setting a new market exceeding Saquan Barkley, who would that running back be? Yeah, this is one we're following because we've had a little bit of a renaissance, you know, and it's just, you know, are we actually building something back up here, or did we just have a really nice little bubble burst here? I'm watching Bejan Robinson a lot. I'm watching Jamar Gibbs a lot. Those are two names that I think have a real chance to get some something done here. But outside of that, we're seeing a lot of

kind of falling back into the world of, you know, McCaffrey stuff was an anomaly. Seek-on-Barkley appears to be an anomaly. That's why he was drafted as such, where he was drafted. And for the most part, we're still seeing guys in that 10 to 12 mark, you know what I mean, that are really, really capable of carrying an offense but aren't going to be paid accordingly over the next couple of years. So, you know, those are the two names I'm watching extremely closely. We certainly had some great draft picks this year with a huge draft for it.

So maybe the answer is we just have to wait four years and see where this current class gets us because I'm not sure we have somebody that's going to, you know, push much past the $20 million per year that Berkeley just locked in. Ashton Genty maybe somewhere down the road. Michael, excellent stuff. Really appreciate it. So insightful. We'll do it again with you soon, hopefully.

My pleasure. Anytime. Mike Genetti, everybody, at SpotRack on X on Twitter. Up next, we will talk college athletics and something that happened a few days ago. Pay for Play for Play is now a reality. That, after these words from a few. of our sponsors. This segment of the show is brought to you by Window Nation.

If you need new windows, call Window Nation. 86690 Nation or head to WindowNation.com. Buy for, get for free is the deal right now with no payments until 2027. No down payment, no payments, and no interest charged for two full years. You'll get a free exterior door if you buy a house full of windows. You can trust Windonation. We've got over 45,000 five-star reviews. Call them today at 86690 Nation or head towindonation.com for your free in-home estimate.

Joining me right now is Jesse Doherty from the Washington Post. It's been a while since we've had Jesse on the show. He used to cover the Nats, and now he is writing about things like the state of college sports as it relates to getting outright paid to play with an associated salary cap and, you know, what's happening with NIL, etc. Jesse wrote over the weekend, he just wrote again today, and he joins me right now. So look, I know that this is an ever-changing, very dynamic situation, but I just want you to start, Jesse, with the basics. You know, we've had this wild, wild west era of NIL for the last. last few years, it's led to, you know, something akin to annual unrestricted free agency for college

athletes. What happened over the weekend with that district judge approving, you know, a major change to college athletics? Where are we right now as we head into, you know, a fall of college football and then another, you know, big college basketball season? Yeah, I appreciate the way. introduce my coverage area too because when people ask me what I cover, I usually just say, it confusing you in college sports. I'm probably writing about it. So that's kind of my unofficial coverage area. So last Friday, a judge in Northern California approved what sort of quocally known as the House settlement for college sports. And what that's going to do is it's a consolidation of three major major cases that basically challenged NCAA restrictions

on athletes getting paid or athlete compensation. So in the backward side, it's going to pay athletes out and their lawyers, $2.8 billion. I mean, that's a big class of athletes. So some will make big checks. A lot of people will make like $2, right? This is for past athletes. That's for past athletes and some current ones that are in a certain window.

Okay. But more importantly, for the current landscape, the settlement is basically going to set the new economic model for college sports. which means that for the first time ever, schools will be able to pay athletes directly, not just through boosters and booster groups that we call collective. And then on top of that, the NCA and the power conferences are attempting to use the settlement and the rules it established

to actually curb a lot of that booster spending, to make it so NIL deals are more about marketing and they're in line with something closer to what they're deeming fair market value. Now, there's a lot of thorny legal questions with that, free market principal versus enforcement. But that's basically the gist. We're on the sort of tip of the spear now of this new era that will start officially July 1st when schools can start paying athletes directly for the first time.

Okay, so let's try to explain the new economic model and paying, you know, athletes directly rather than the way they've been paid for the last few years and probably were paid even before the era of NIL. So how will it work? I mean, maybe we just use the Big Ten as an example. example in a school like Maryland, which I'm an alum of and many people who are listening are familiar with. Yeah, so the payment model is being referred to as revenue sharing.

Basically, the idea is that athletes will finally share in the revenue they generate instead of, as you mentioned, the schools relying on outside third parties, boosters, et cetera, to pay them, which has been legal, quote, unquote, for the past three years. And as you pointed out, what's been going on for decades before that, it just happened to McDonald's bags and what have you. So the revenue share payments to athletes, each school will start out with a salary cap of around $20.5 million. Now that's cap can arise each year for the next 10 years, what this legal supplement covers.

But basically they have that money now to pay athletes. And what a lot of schools are going to do, what I imagine actually most power for schools will do is give a lot of that money to football players and men's basketball players and then give a little bit of that money to women's basketball players and then give an even smaller portion of that money to everybody else. And the reason why they believe they have legal cover to do that, and I believe it can actually just invite a lot more lawsuits and whatnot. But the reason why they believe they do is because that's the formula that was also used

to divvy up that $2.8 billion I just mentioned on the back damages. I know we're getting a little in the weeds here, but basically the back damage has decided that because football and basketball players had generated a lot of that revenue they weren't able to get in the past, that most of it should go to those former athletes in those sports. And now schools are going to use that justification to say, well, now that we're sharing revenue with athletes in 2025 and 2025 and 26, we believe that because those sports make the most money, those athletes should also make the most money.

So you're going to start to see schools publicize their plans. University of Georgia is one. If you're interested in this, Google it, because they've put out their exact formula of which sports will get which shares of that $20.5 million. And I think their system is very indicative of how schools like Maryland, Michigan, Big 10 peers, big 12 peers, ACC peers will also handle this. So just tell me real quickly, what's Georgia's plan? Georgia's plan is basically to give a really, really big share to football.

I don't know the exact number. I think it's in the 12 to 13 range, a really big share to men's basketball. and then I believe around 1,900,000 to women's basketball, and then around a million 900,000 to every other sport. Right. But if you think about it as a pie chart, football's going to take up about three quarters. Now, I'm terrible in that. But around three quarters or whatever may be.

Yeah. Yeah, and then basketball will fill up some of that. I mean, obviously a much smaller roster. Although men's basketball players in this era have made a lot of money because as we see in the NBA, one guy can actually affect the score a lot differently, unless it's a quarterback than football players, right? Yeah. guards and centers and powerful words are really valuable in this era, too, in college sports,

and then the other sports kind of get put in this bucket where they're getting a really small share. So let's just say, like let's call it $20 million, $15 million goes to football. What happens then? How do they pay that $15 million out to roughly 100 players that are on the team? Yeah, I mean, that's going to be really interesting. I don't think it's going to be, you know, everyone gets to pay them out. because that's just not how the world works. I mean, I.L. are too, like, boosters don't pay every athlete to think. There are some schools who get programs, like every offensive line or every softball player.

But in football and quarterbacks, running backs, like, these are all to be part of negotiated contracts. I mean, personnel directors and NIL directors at schools deal a lot with agents, some of whom are from the big companies we know, CAA, WME, the Rosenhouse Group, and some of whom are players barbers or uncles or friends from the chemistry class. I mean, it's been, you know, when you say wild, I think a lot of people might use that to say it's crazy that athletes are getting paid. I don't think that's your point either. I think that people say that.

A lack of regulation has just created a crazy world, but so many people are sort of clawing for bikes of the apple. So when we think about how those money is going to get divvied up, it's going to be all negotiated, and you're going to have a salary cap and a budget and a payroll, just like pro sports. We've seen a lot of college teams hire, former GM, personnel directors in the NFL, the NBA,

scouts, people who know this, because it's the provincialization of college sports, but really, I think while a lot of that's transferable, it's also so many different dynamics, too. It's just been a really crazy world. On, let's just call it, you know, the $20.5 million salary cap for the power for schools. It's up to $20.5 million, right? It doesn't mean that they have, they're not going to be required to spend $20.5 million, in part because,

Some schools won't have it to spend, right? No, for sure, yes. And you would ask about sort of big 10 peers like Maryland. I expect a lot of those schools to get either at that number or really close. But, like, for example, Morgan State in Maryland school came out and said they want to participate in this settlement. It's optional for any non-P4 school, whether they want to pay their athletes and then be subject to other rules like new roster limits and things of that sort. But Morgan State is going to pay. like, you know, less than $500,000 a year to its athletes.

And I believe they're going to only really do it in basketball, maybe some football, and their angle is we want to really be competitive in our conference. We want to win recruiting battles against the school next door. We're not trying to be Duke, obviously. But they see an advantage where if they can cobble together the money from donors or from the couch cushions in their department, the department budget, to do that, they think it's an advantage. And I think there's a perception, too.

Look at us. We're a small school. but we can participate in this new world. We can join the professionalization of college sports in a way that, you know, state you down the road, who you might be considering too as a Morgan State recruit, they're not doing it. So I think it's a great point.

Something I should make sure to mention is that not every school is going to participate and not every school is going to spend to the limit. But there's going to be a lot of interesting ones, like even some schools maybe launch into trying to monetize it for specific sports, soccer programs, volleyball, can we stand out in softball, even if we don't have a football program. There's going to be a lot of that going on. And I think a lot of schools also might wait a little bit, see it for a year,

and then often later to see how does this play out, and how can we fit into the landscape. All right, sticking with the salary cap and the power for schools, will players be forced to sign a contract? A lot of them will, yeah. And I think players want them, too, in some cases, too. They want the school to have liability that they'll honor the commitments. And obviously, that's a negotiation.

the more sporian lawyers will leverage that, or agents rather, will leverage that. I think a lot of athletes would be going to be fairly blind, and schools will say things like, well, every athlete sign the same contract. All right, cool, let me tell you like that nature, and you might be buying it something you didn't really want to do. And later you think, man, now I'm trying to transfer, and I need to pay back half that money or, or they're saying I'd be able for three years or else I'd pay financial penalty.

Like, there's a lot of intricacies in this world, and I think without players unions, without like an NFLPA-type group or NBAPA, like there's big questions and how this stuff all gets worked out. There's a lot less oversight on both sides for the players, for the schools. So it's, there's going to be a year, two year, three-year period here where I think there's more questions

and answers on things like that, but we're going to see it sort of attack and handled in probably a thousand different ways because there's just so many more programs and schools and coaches and agents and there are in pro sports. So there's creativity, but it's also converting the system.

It's also taking advantage of people and bad actor. So there's a lot going on. I guess I'm wondering if this creates an environment where the transfer portal slows down, where it becomes much less than what it's been. Because in my opinion, Jesse, in many ways, it's been the player that comes in for one year and then bids it out for the next year, unrestricted free agency, something professional athletes haven't even had. That's been more often. putting than the money itself.

And I'm wondering if this salary cap associated contracts with players will limit or at least slow down the transfer portal. Yeah, I think it could to a degree. And I think that's definitely a big focus for the NCAA. I think they want to limit booster spending, because booster spending has largely fueled that mass transfer. I mean, it's like you said, it's annual free agency, but it's also annual for agency without budgets. It's also annual for agency where tampering rules are really, really hard to enforce.

And I think on one hand, you say, well, athletes are really tied into situations for a long time. They've sort of been waiting for this freedom. But then there's the question of how much freedom is too much. And it doesn't hurt the product. They're going to have these athletes in cases, too. So, I mean, I think on one hand, it's probably good that players can at least get closer to making the decisions coaches do. the public doesn't generally fault someone from going from Murray State to Kentucky after a great season for obvious reasons.

But I think your point is spot on. Like, it's really hard to get behind these teams when you can't see the same group grow together or you can't see the three-year arc of a player. And that used to be in the allure of college sports versus sort of player movement in professional sports. It's actually reverted back. I mean, what we see guys in baseball sign 12-year contracts. And that's big about that time versus, you know, sometimes at college career could be 12 weeks.

So I think there's a lot of introspection going on there because I think there's a recognition that the player movement as such is probably not sustainable. And there's going to be real effort to curve that for sure. By the way, as it relates to this $20.5 million, the new economic model will get to NIL in a moment. Would a contract that gets signed be a contract that would be a 1099 independent contractor or would it be a W-2 employee kind of structure?

Yeah, that's really a question. So the employee, they're not going to be employees. So there will be no employment contract, at least not right now. A lot of some efforts to unionize or to have athletes recognize employees have died on by and there's still a federal lawsuit that's going on that that could make that happen. But the NCA is staunchly opposed after employment for a really long time. And the reasons for that are pretty dynamic, but I mean, one of them is being afraid of paying minimum wage-to-a-a-taughts, another one is being afraid of paying out workers' comp. It's, you know, it's a financial thing, but I think one thing that others would argue, and to some of your questions earlier, is that the reason why there's so much perceived

structure in professional sports is because of the collective bargaining agreements, and collective bargaining agreements can only happen that there's an employee-employee-employee relationship to bargain with. So there's a lot of people who've called repeatedly for collective bargaining in college sports, and they're well-meaning. The piece they don't know the answer is, okay, great, but what about the employment status? So one sort of has to come with the other. There's been calls for a congressional carve-out to collectively bargain without employee status. I think that's a real long shot. But, yeah, so there isn't employment, and that's a whole other podcast episode, I think, or if you want to have me on, but it's a really complex question that continues to be deliberated.

Okay, so we have something that begins July 1st, which is the power four conferences, the big conferences with football and men's basketball and all of these other sports. There's going to be a salary cap where they're going to be able to pay the players directly and look for, you know, 75% to go to football, you know, 15% to go to men's basketball, maybe a couple of percentage points to women's basketball, and then the rest to the other 20 whatever sports. That's separate, though, correct, from NIL. So what's going on with NIL moving forward?

Yeah, it's a good question. Because if you think about it, what has been the motivation for boosters forever? And that's get ahead. And if everyone's sort of spending with a similar formula, they're always going to be people who want to help their team, their favorite college, their coach that invites them to the Rotary Club, all those things, there's always going to be that person,

or many of those people who want to still help the team get ahead. And in the last four years, since NIL was approved in July of 2021, what that meant is just giving an unchecked amount of money to these NIL collectives. A lot of times it was deductible to your taxes, and there's enough you go. We saw reports over the story last year about Ohio State $20 million football

roster. That's where that comes from. Oregon, you know, a lot more money. Nike money from Phil Knight and other donors. All these things. Now the NCA, as I said earlier, is trying to limit that spending. They're trying to rein a game. They want NIL to mean a deal from State Farm at your Caitlin Clark or a deal from the local car dealership in College Park, if you're a smaller time, Maryland athlete.

They do not want NIL to mean a booster gave $500,000 to help pay the quarterback, who now is going to make that money for sending out three social media posts. promoting a t-shirt. Right. That's what these deals have done. They've built in some sort of action or service, a charity event, an autograph session, three social media posts,

an appearance at a dinner. And they've attached that to money that, you know, I think the free market would say that booster can decide that social media posts is worth that much money. But if you're in a casual observer, you're like, how much money for what? And the NDA is really trying to weed that out. So what happens now,

is, does it go back onto the table? Are there workarounds where that regulation doesn't work? Are there lawsuits that challenge that regulation? Does Congress pass a bill that allows them to regulate the way they want to? So the question of what happens with sort of the booster economy of NIL is a fascinating one. It's really hard to answer right now because we're so soon after the settlement, but it's the biggest question. Because there's no world in which every single FCC football program is spending the same amount of money on the roster.

That's just not how this has ever worked, ever. And there's a reason for that because they're egos and there's donors and there's seats to get out and there's, you know, and there's golf outings to go to with the A.D. and the coach. And I just don't see a world in which we're all actually spending to the same salary cap. I don't think that's just possible in this economy. And maybe I'm totally wrong, but that's where I see it. What haven't I asked you that is important for people to know? I think I just alluded to it.

And I'm in front of mind for me right now because there's a lot going on this week. But the push for a federal bill on this has been going on for a while. And if you've read about it or heard about it and you roll your eyes, I might mention to that. That's extremely fair because many efforts to achieve that goal have just fallen limp or on death of, you know, just have not gone that far. I think that the effort is both going to accelerate and get at least a bit more legitimate. now that the House settlement is approved. I'm not saying there will be a bill necessarily,

or I don't know how it will look, but we're already seeing some traction among House Republicans in this case. There's a lot of people in the Senate who've been interested in this issue for a while. They're trying to sort of accelerate this for the NCAA and the agencies they like and the commissioners. They're trying to maybe do some quote of midterms because the political makeup of Washington could get shifted then. So that's something to watch for. If you're interested in it. I'll be writing about it at the Washington Post. I also write a newsletters in my social media bios. I'll have a lot of tidbits from, but that's sort of the next front case. A lot to solve on the college side, and that will be interesting too. I think the

courts will remain important for a lot of reasons, but the political jockelling is about to pick up in a really big way, and I think that's important here. Jesse, thanks. Really interesting stuff, and I would imagine moving forward there will be more changes and many more lawsuits to come, But as of now, we have heading into the 2025 football season and then the eventual basketball season. We actually have a system that pays players with a salary cap. Yes, we do. And if you are ever interested in having your brain, we've got your ear on these topics. I am around.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Hope all as well. Awesome. Jesse Dockertie from the Washington Post, everybody. things in college sports. That's for sure. All right, back tomorrow with Tommy.