We develop players. We find talent, identify them and grow them.
In the span of just a few years, college athletics has shed its amateur pretense and become an open marketplace, leaving smaller-market programs like Washington State University to reckon with a structural disadvantage they did not choose and cannot easily escape. Where scholarships once sufficed, multimillion-dollar NIL contracts now determine where the most coveted athletes play, and the schools with the deepest donor pools hold the most cards. WSU's story is not unique — it is the story of every program that built its identity on development and loyalty, now watching that model strain against the logic of a free market. The question the Cougars must answer is whether ingenuity and a quarter-million alumni can substitute for the wealth they do not have.
- The departure of quarterbacks Cameron Ward and John Mateer — lured away by NIL offers of $2 million and $3 million respectively — has made viscerally clear that WSU cannot simply outbid wealthier programs for talent it has already developed.
- The House v. NCAA settlement permits schools to distribute up to $20.5 million annually to athletes, but WSU's donor-funded pool sits at roughly $4.5 million, exposing a financial gap that goodwill alone cannot close.
- The NIL ecosystem itself is riddled with opacity and exploitation — deals rejected for being below market, agents skimming commissions from family members, and a compliance process so subjective that even well-intentioned offers can be turned away.
- WSU's Cougar Collective is pushing a cultural shift, urging an alumni base of 250,000 — the largest in the reconstituted Pac-12 — to redirect giving habits from academics toward athletics before the competitive window narrows further.
- The emerging strategy pivots away from portal bidding wars and toward identifying undervalued talent, developing it aggressively, and accepting that some of those players will eventually be poached — treating departure itself as proof the model works.
Washington State University is navigating a college sports landscape that has transformed almost beyond recognition. What was once a system of scholarships and institutional loyalty has become a free-market arena where athletes negotiate multimillion-dollar contracts, move freely between schools, and operate as professional free agents in all but name. For those who coached in earlier eras, the shift is genuinely disorienting — a world, as former assistant Mike Kramer put it, that someone stepping out of a time capsule from 1979 would struggle to comprehend.
The change was driven by antitrust litigation that exposed a fundamental contradiction: schools and the NCAA generated billions while athletes received comparatively little. The legal remedy — NIL rights and an open transfer portal — corrected that imbalance but also rewired the competitive dynamics of every program in the country. WSU felt this acutely when quarterback Cameron Ward, developed from a zero-star recruit, departed for Miami's $2 million offer and went on to become the first overall pick in the 2025 NFL draft. His successor, John Mateer, then turned down a $1 million WSU offer to sign with Oklahoma for roughly three times that amount.
The structural challenge runs deeper than any single departure. The House v. NCAA settlement allows schools to distribute up to $20.5 million annually to athletes — but only through donor funding, not university budgets. WSU's Cougar Collective, founded by alumnus and lawyer Tim Brandle, had raised approximately $4.5 million as of last fall, leaving a significant gap between what the rules permit and what the Cougars can realistically spend. The NIL process itself adds further friction: deals are reviewed through a subcontracted compliance system that Brandle describes as subjective and sometimes counterproductive, with legitimate offers occasionally rejected and bad actors exploiting athletes through informal arrangements.
Yet Brandle and others see a viable path forward. WSU claims the largest alumni base in the reconstituted Pac-12 — some 250,000 living graduates — and the argument is that mobilizing even a fraction of that network could meaningfully change the school's competitive position. The cultural obstacle is real: WSU alumni have historically directed their philanthropy toward academics, not athletics. Changing that habit quickly enough to matter is the central challenge.
Former coach Mike Price, who guided WSU to two Rose Bowls and watched players like Drew Bledsoe and Ryan Leaf stay put in an era before free agency, accepts the new reality even if he doesn't love it. His suggested pitch to recruits captures the revised logic: come here, get developed, and leave as a more valuable player. It is a strategy born of constraint, but it may also be the most honest and sustainable model available to a program that cannot win a bidding war — and knows it.
Washington State University is learning to live in a college sports world that barely resembles the one that existed just a few years ago. The transformation has been swift and disorienting—a shift from a system where athletes received scholarships and room-and-board to one where they can negotiate multimillion-dollar contracts, transfer freely between schools, and essentially become free agents in their own sport.
Mike Kramer, who coached at Eastern Washington and later served as an assistant at WSU, describes what this looks like to someone stepping out of a time capsule from 1979. "They'd be like, 'What am I looking at?'" he said. The answer is a multibillion-dollar industry operating without meaningful guardrails. "Without some sort of regulation, this is going to continue to be the most unsavory, exciting, unfathomable experience that the collegiate experience has ever gone through," Kramer said. The shift happened because of successful antitrust lawsuits arguing that schools and the NCAA profited enormously while players received nothing. The result: athletes can now enter the transfer portal to announce their availability, move between schools without sitting out a year, and negotiate name, image, and likeness deals—NIL contracts—that can pay them hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars annually.
WSU's experience illustrates the new pecking order. The university recruited quarterback Cameron Ward in 2022 as a zero-star prospect from Incarnate Word. He developed into a star, then left after two years when Miami offered him roughly $2 million in NIL money for his final year of eligibility. Ward's senior season at Miami was successful enough to make him the first overall pick in the 2025 NFL draft. More recently, quarterback John Mateer turned down a $1 million WSU offer to sign with Oklahoma for approximately $3 million. These departures are not anomalies—they are the new normal for schools without the financial firepower of larger conferences.
The House v. NCAA settlement, finalized last year, allows universities to distribute up to $20.5 million annually among their athletes, but with a critical caveat: the money must come from donors, not university budgets. This is where WSU faces a structural disadvantage. Tim Brandle, a WSU graduate and lawyer who founded the Cougar Collective—the organization that channels donor money into NIL contracts—acknowledged that as of September, the school's Cougar Athletic Fund had raised about $4.5 million. That gap between what schools can theoretically spend and what WSU can actually raise puts the Cougars at a significant disadvantage against programs in wealthier conferences that have already mobilized their donor bases.
Brandle sees opportunity despite the challenge. WSU has approximately 250,000 living alumni—more than any other school in the newly reconstituted Pac-12, which includes Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Utah State, Texas State, and Oregon State. "Look, we are the muscle of the new Pac-12. We just have to flex it," Brandle said. He pointed to schools like James Madison, North Texas, and Tulane, which have leveraged aggressive recruiting strategies to elevate their programs. "If James Madison is in the playoff, there is nothing to keep WSU from being in the playoff," he said. But that requires alumni to open their wallets in ways they historically have not. "At WSU, it was never part of the culture," Brandle said. "We've always given to academics. We've just never given to athletics."
The mechanics of NIL deals are complex and sometimes opaque. Brandle described a system where donors provide information and amounts they wish to give, which he then coordinates with WSU's athletic department to create contracts reviewed by the College Sports Commission—which subcontracts the work to Deloitte. The process is subjective. Brandle recalled proposing an NIL deal for an offensive lineman worth $15,000 that was rejected as below market value, even though the player's actual market worth was estimated at $300,000 to $500,000. The system has also created opportunities for exploitation. "The NIL world is full of people who don't know what they are doing," Brandle said. "There are uncles who are making 10% off their nephews' contracts."
Former WSU coach Mike Price, who led the Cougars to two Rose Bowls between 1989 and 2002, sees the current situation as both frustrating and inevitable. "Do I like paying players more than professors on campus to play sports? It doesn't matter what I think," Price said, now 79 and recently relocated to Walla Walla. He acknowledged the sting of watching developed talent leave for better contracts—something that did not happen during his era when quarterbacks like Drew Bledsoe and Ryan Leaf stayed put. But he also sees a path forward. "If you come here, I'll make you a lot better and send you off and you can make $2 million as a junior. That sounds good to me. You'll have to sell that," Price said.
Brandle and other WSU leaders believe the university's future lies not in bidding for established portal players but in identifying overlooked talent and developing it into something valuable. Nevada coach Jeff Choate, facing similar constraints, frames it this way: "You know what happens when you come to Nevada? You get $1.4 million to go to Oregon if you're developed the right way." It is a strategy born of necessity, but it may also be WSU's best path forward in a system that has fundamentally rewired how college sports operate. The question now is whether the Cougars' alumni base will mobilize quickly enough to compete.
Notable Quotes
Without some sort of regulation, this is going to continue to be the most unsavory, exciting, unfathomable experience that the collegiate experience has ever gone through on every level.— Mike Kramer, former Eastern Washington and WSU assistant coach
Look, we are the muscle of the new Pac-12. We just have to flex it.— Tim Brandle, WSU graduate and founder of the Cougar Collective
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
When you say the system is a "free-for-all," what does that actually mean for a school like WSU trying to build a roster?
It means you're competing against schools with much deeper pockets, and you can't win that auction. So you have to stop trying to win it. You develop players nobody else wants yet, prove they're valuable, and hope they stay long enough to help you win before they leave for more money.
But doesn't that feel like you're always losing your best players?
Yes. That's the frustration. You build Cameron Ward from a zero-star recruit into an NFL first-overall pick, and Miami pays him $2 million to finish his career there. You offer John Mateer $1 million and Oklahoma offers $3 million. You lose. That's the new reality.
So what's the actual advantage WSU has, if any?
Alumni. WSU has 250,000 living alumni—more than any other school in the new Pac-12. If those alumni actually donate to athletics the way they donate to academics, WSU could compete. But historically, they haven't. That culture has to change.
Is there any scenario where a school like WSU actually wins a national championship in this system?
Yes, but not by outbidding Oregon or Ohio State. You win by finding talent early, developing it better than anyone else, and selling players on the idea that you'll make them rich in the NFL. James Madison did it. North Texas did it. It's possible. It just requires a completely different playbook.