Myson Johnson-Cook

Kenny Van Doren said:

@SteveWiltfong has updated his prediction in favor of Miami for the East St. Louis (Ill.) four-star running back: https://www.on3.com/rivals/news/inside-miamis-pursuit-of-elite-2027-rb-latest-intel-auburn-competition/

MIZ...SEC said:

If it’s Miami, then it’s because Mizzou can’t compete with Miami in the NIL world. That also tells me that NIL is likely still the Wild, Wild West and any perceived regulation is a complete joke.

pwc said:

Don't disagree in regard to NIL appearing to be the wild, wild west. It is interesting though as I saw a quote from the Alabama AD that said conferences were going to have to start enforcing the rules themselves and those that violate them need to not be allowed to compete--so there is some tension, but reforms clearly don't appear to be holding at all--if those reforms don't hold Mizzou is screwed in both sports in my opinion.

MIZ...SEC said:

Yes, I agree with all of that. The idea of conferences enforcing rules themselves might be effective for a competitive balance within the conference, but the conferences enforcing rules would fall behind the conferences refusing to enforce rules. There’s really no solution other than NIL deals being effectively enforced. As I’ve always suspected would be the case, that’s simply not going to happen. I question if D&T truly understands what they’ve stepped into trying to regulate NIL. D&T has a next to zero chance of being the answer to the NIL mess.

Kenny Van Doren said:

Even when the initial prediction was placed in favor of Missouri, a Tigers source said the team knew it was going to be a tough battle for Johnson-Cook as well as sticking around for four-star Landen Williams-Callis -- who was tabbed as the other top choice as "RB1" of the class. A few others close to Johnson-Cook's recruitment saw the past few months a little early for a prediction, but it's a prediction. It's not always the case for what will happen, especially for a prospect who doesn't do many interviews. Missouri was pretty excited to have Johnson-Cook on campus this past month, though. Two staff members contacted MizzouToday separately about the trip, even after the running back publicly announced it on his Instagram.

pwc said:

I disagree with your point on D&T. I think they can effectively regulate NIL if all the deals are actually being reported to them. Technology is really good for this type of data--not very hard at all to find the issues, the question is will the schools actually abide by the decisions? Will the courts support it? There is no solution other than legislation that provides for an anti-trust exemption so that every single decision isn't litigated. This how everything always goes--intentions are good (kids should be paid, why not let them transfer every year), but without some notable reform and enforcement in the next 3 to 5 years, I think you are going to have about 25 to 30 really good football programs and a lot of places contemplating if it even makes sense to have one. I realize everyone will laugh at that, but the reality is our football program, despite selling out most home games, making bowl games and getting an SEC revenue share now loses money if you factor in a reasonable estimate of what the player payroll is. Will get a much better look at that when the next round of NCAA financial reporting comes out, but for the year-ended June 30, 2025 it only made $9 million before whatever the player costs are factored in--obviously no idea, but we have to have at least a $15 to $20 million payroll and that would be mediocre if you believe some of the reporting out there. However, there is a huge chunck of donations that likely aren't made if you don't have a footbal team (i.e north endzone project), so the economics are hard to determine with any real precision, but you can directly figure out that we are quickly moving down the totem pole imo.

MIZ...SEC said:

Was NIL at Mizzou compared to Miami a key factor? No player will ever come out and say they’re going to a certain school only for the money, but I think that’s the reality with this recruit and most recruits.

Kenny Van Doren said:

I haven't heard anything on that front.

MIZ...SEC said:

To my point, you probably won’t hear anything on that front. However, it sure seems likely that NIL was a big factor and likely the deciding factor.

doya said:

no they will not regulate anything… impossible

MIZ...SEC said:

To my point, you probably won’t hear anything on that front. However, it sure seems likely that NIL was a big factor and likely the deciding factor.

pwc said:

Just not true--it is absolutely possible to be regulated. The schools may choose not to be regulated, but it can be done. Agree to the rules, use D&T or any independent third party to help and sign the CSC participation agreements where you give the investigators who are real all the access they need and if you don't, you don't get to compete. It can absolutely be done, many are choosing for it not to happen.

Kenny Van Doren said:

The only times I hear Missouri sources talk money is when someone thinks some other school is overpaying. The Tigers know other schools have better funding -- Eli Drinkwitz has outwardly spoken about it -- but the team also knows the value of branding and competing against logos.

doya said:

it cant because of your exact paragraph..schools gotta agree..we know there is zero chance that happens. Even if they agree outwardly all it takes is one $$$ guy..same as always…and if bama thinks ohio st and miami are cheatin then they will cheat…and no matter what espn isnt going to allow those big ratings schools to sit a year or two..do you really believe investigators will be given full access?

doya said:

it cant because of your exact paragraph..schools gotta agree..we know there is zero chance that happens. Even if they agree outwardly all it takes is one $$$ guy..same as always…and if bama thinks ohio st and miami are cheatin then they will cheat…and no matter what espn isnt going to allow those big ratings schools to sit a year or two..

LoutotheZou said:

Miami offered Jeremiah Smith $10,000,000 to leave Ohio st. No chance we can compete with Miami's deep pockets. Miami will just double whatever we offer.

pwc said:

Last response, not because I don't appreciate your opinion, I just don't agree that "its not possible"--just an opinion. You just have to agree to the participation agreement and agree to real enforcement--its never been done but it easily can. The ratings will be just fine no matter who is playing. Follow the rules or pay the price. Easy to do if schools really want to do it. I agree they likely won't for all kinds of reasons.

pwc said:

Don't disagree in regard to NIL appearing to be the wild, wild west. It is interesting though as I saw a quote from the Alabama AD that said conferences were going to have to start considering how to deal with schools that don't follow the house settlement and consider not allowing them to compete in the conference. So there is some tension, but reforms clearly don't appear to be holding at all--if those reforms don't hold Mizzou is screwed in both sports in my opinion. https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/alabama-ad-anticipates-crossroads-whether-164730325.html

pwc said:

I disagree with your point on D&T. I think they can effectively regulate NIL if all the deals are actually being reported to them. Technology is really good for this type of data--not very hard at all to find the issues, the question is will the schools actually abide by the decisions? Will the courts support it? There is no solution other than legislation that provides for an anti-trust exemption so that every single decision isn't litigated. This how everything always goes--intentions are good (kids should be paid, why not let them transfer every year), but without some notable reform and enforcement in the next 3 to 5 years, I think you are going to have about 25 to 30 really good football programs and a lot of places contemplating if it even makes sense to have one. I realize everyone will laugh at that, but the reality is our football program, despite selling out most home games, making bowl games and getting an SEC revenue share now loses money if you factor in a reasonable estimate of what the player payroll is. Will get a much better look at that when the next round of NCAA financial reporting comes out, but for the year-ended June 30, 2025 it only made $9 million before whatever the player costs are factored in--obviously no idea, but we have to have at least a $15 to $20 million payroll and that would be mediocre if you believe some of the reporting out there. However, there is a huge chunck of donations that likely aren't made if you don't have a footbal team (i.e north endzone project), so the economics are hard to determine with any real precision, but you can directly figure out that we are quickly moving down the totem pole imo.

MelWest said:

You said in 3 to 5 years…it may not be worth it. I agree. I would not be opposed to Missouri doing it now. I am weak and can’t kick the habit. They could do it for me. I really am happy that young people are Making money and many ti es life altering money. I would never not wish that for them….but if you want to play high school or college sports that is not currently an option. What would be wrong with that. Take away tv contracts. I like it better live and on radio like it is 1950. Of course it could happen if greed wasn’t one of the deadly sins. But since it is…it won’t. Blow this thing up.

pwc said:

I don't want to go that far back, but I appreciate your sentiment a lot. I just think the solutions are simple, easy and fair. Revenue sharing is a totally fair concept--ties the athletes share to how their industry (college sports) is performing and gives the schools some cost certainty. In exchange for getting paid (like every other professional sport) you as an athlete agree to some reasonable rules (i.e. one free transfer and then after you sit unless your coach leaves, you report all NIL deals so they can be evaluated--the technology can do it easily imo--especially over time and you agree to provide whatever information is requested to ensure enforcement has teeth and 5 years to play 5). In addition, the colleges all sign the participation rights agreements which essentially guarantee they provide all information required to support an enforcement arm with teeth. Put these simple rules in place and the games could survive as everyone knows the rules and they are enforced--the fact that they all look for ways not to do it and the fact that many won't get on their soap box to demand it is interesting to me and will ultimately be their down fall. I just say 3 to 5 years because this has all mushroomed quickly so some time is needed to figure it out, but I do truly believe the ending is going to be something totally different then what we have today if something doesn't happen reasonably soon. Mizzou's finances tell the story--our revenue has grown from $140 million to $180 million in just 3 years, but we still lose $9 million with a $25 million amount of institutional support--just 3 years ago the support amount was only $12 million. I get the view from the other side in regard to the impact of sports on marketing for the University in general (which obviously what Mun and Curators believe or they wouldn't fund at the level they do and "loan" money to fund the deficits), but the point is we can't compete near the top where we are today and we are in great shape compared to many--hence the downfall.