What Happens at the Bargaining Table?

This is Part II of a two-part series on collective bargaining in college athletics. Read Part I here.

Players’ unions and athletic administrators can first negotiate a wage “floor” with minimum pay scales providing basic income for all athletes. They might also add a bonus plan for teams that win conference championships or post-season competitions. They can agree on year-to-year longevity increases to blunt the chaotic transfer portal and create more attachment by athletes to their schools and their fellow students. At the same time, they can mimic professional sports by allowing individual star athletes to negotiate for name, image, and likeness compensation over and above salary scales in the basic union contract. They can also create a union role to ensure due process and other safeguards for players’ NIL pay arrangements.

Salary scales, pay progression and NIL deals are big subjects, but they are just starters. Other classic bargaining issues would also be on the table. They include hours of work, given the time demands on athletes; health and safety, especially in hard-contact sports with long-term health implications; medical insurance, not only while playing but also when former players live with permanent injuries; compensation and treatment of temporarily injured players; and more.

Non-discrimination is also a bedrock bargaining subject. Unions and universities would be negotiating in light of Title IX, Title VII, and state-level anti-discrimination laws, but also in light of moves by the federal and some state governments to undermine these protections. They could simply incorporate legal requirements into their collective bargaining agreement and sort things out through arbitrations and lawsuits. But we hope that players’ unions would seek contractual provisions to uphold equality between men’s and women’s teams and men and women players.

Institutional interests on each side are also important subjects of bargaining. Athletic directors will certainly insist on traditional decision-making powers such as who makes the team and who gets cut, who starts and who subs, who plays which positions, the game plan and play calling, and so on. Management will doubtless seek no-strike guarantees while the contract is in effect, and players would likely agree – they are athletes who want to play, after all – typically combined with binding arbitration for unresolved grievances.

For their part, unions will seek rights and protections for players elected to union leadership positions to carry out their union functions, and union representatives’ access to facilities to meet with players. Also important are union security clauses providing for dues payments from union members and agency fee payments from players who choose not to be members (under U.S. law, no one can be forced to join a union, but to address the “free-rider” problem, a collective bargaining agreement in the private sector can require agency fees from represented non-members). 

Further complications arise involving distinctions between private and public universities, sometimes in the same athletic conference, and whether they are located in “agency shop” states that allow mandatory agency fee payments by non-union members or in “right-to-work” states that prohibit agency fee clauses. Also relevant is the Supreme Court’s Janusdecision, which allows individual public employees in any state to opt out of agency fee obligations. These intricacies are too plentiful to address further here, but they are not insuperable problems. Unions and universities have long dealt with them for their already established campus bargaining units for blue collar workers, clerical and technical workers, graduate student workers, and others. 

Continuity will be an important institutional challenge on the union side, as athletes come and go over time spans as short as a basketball player’s “one and done” year and up to six years with under extended eligibility rules. Unions should work to include freshmen and sophomores in leadership and in bargaining, who can pass the baton later. Full-time external union representatives, as with staffers of professional sports unions, can stay with the union for sustained periods to provide stability and institutional knowledge.

The Ivy League might be the best test for collective bargaining. All are private sector entities subject to NLRA and NLRB jurisdiction and located in Northeast states that do not block agency fee contract clauses. Their athletic departments are similar in size and budgets, and they compete on a level playing field across multiple sports. Moreover, collective dialogue already happens in Ivy sports. Late last year, athletic directors and administrations accepted a proposal from the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, made up of 17 athletes in 12 sports from all 8 institutions, to allow their league football winner to play in the post-season FCS championship. The agreement ended a 70-year prohibition on post-season football play.

A league-wide basic bargaining agreement could protect competitive balance, while coaches and players at individual schools might set other priorities in supplemental agreements. And agreements can let the occasional Ivy League superstar – more likely in gymnastics, hockey, lacrosse or wrestling than in football or basketball – negotiate individually for NIL compensation.

We think university administrations should get ahead of the curve and embrace collective bargaining as the right framework for college sports. They could voluntarily recognize unions where players show majority support, or forego anti-union campaigning and let an NLRB election decide majority status. This way, they can avoid reliving the years of turmoil that accompanied resistance to union organizing among now established and accepted campus bargaining groups. They can also avoid being put on a yo-yo by alternating Democratic and Republican majorities at the National Labor Relations Board and their shifting decisions on employment status and coverage under the NLRA. And as noted at the outset, universities can avoid the potentially devastating consequences of ongoing and future antitrust lawsuits, since collective bargaining gives them their long-sought exemption from antitrust law.

Some points in closing. First, we know our argument can be seen as just a pie-in-the-sky thought experiment, subject to pooh-poohing by hard-headed realists who can always say “what about this?” and “what about that?” We don’t pretend to have all the answers. Nor should we – it’s for the athletes and administrators and coaches to find their answers. We would only note that there was a historical point in every workplace and industry when unions and collective bargaining were seen as pie-in-the-sky, never-gonna-happen fantasies. And then they happened.

Second, we know it is asking a lot of university administrations and athletic department managers to move to a collective bargaining system. For many of them accustomed to controlling players in an unequal power relationship, it will take a profound philosophical shift to sit across a bargaining table from players as equals. But this is the history of labor relations in professional sports. The parties have learned to work together, the value of franchises has multiplied exponentially, and owners, managers, and coaches still make key operational decisions. Neither side gets everything it wants, but the compromise resulting from good-faith bargaining is a better outcome than either side getting everything it wants. 

Finally, we believe in an even deeper justification for the collective bargaining solution: it’s a fundamental human right. All workers are entitled to a say in the terms and conditions of their work. College athletes, too, are entitled to a genuine voice at work, found in the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing under U.S. law and international human rights standards.

U of L finally gets to be part of the festivities again for the first time since 2019.

OMAHA, NE. — Standing inside Rocco’s Pizza & Cantina, where foil seals from thousands of Jell-O shots adorn the concrete floor like stickers, feels a bit strange. Almost surreal. 

OMAHA, NE ― Don’t tell the teams in the 2025 College World Series that paying transfer portal prospects top dollar in NIL money is necessary to be here.

Cat Flood recounted the DM she got from the Pennsylvania Beef Council around two years ago that started her down the road of cashing in on college volleyball stardom. The nonprofit wanted her to promote its mission of “building beef and veal demand with consumers of all ages.”

She recorded a series of videos for her Instagram, one of which got over a million views. In the post, she invited followers along a day in her life — notably, eating jerky for her first snack, steak for lunch and later on, more jerky. The council paid her $1,000.

Deals like this are commonplace in today’s college athletics landscape, where for four years, athletes have been profiting from use of their name, image and likeness [NIL].

“NIL made us all influencers,” Flood said.

As one of the University of Pittsburgh’s most popular athletes, Flood — who recently graduated — benefited from NIL deals, averaging one or two a month, and saw how their introduction changed the nature of college sports.

And more change is on the horizon with the June 6 approval of a landmark NCAA settlement letting colleges pay their athletes that takes effect July 1. Universities in the former Power Five conferences (recently reduced to four), including Pitt and Penn State, will each have to split $20.5 million annually between players for a decade. The yearly amount will increase incrementally.

While the settlement ushers in more money for athletes, it’s unlikely to be spread evenly, and certain NIL deals will be scrutinized for the first time. Uncertainty about how the millions will be distributed and exactly how the settlement terms will be enforced has rattled college athletes and spurred state lawmakers alike.

PublicSource spoke to several athletes, state representatives and NIL experts about their thoughts on the second big change in compensation in just this decade. Here’s what they had to say.

Antonio Epps, Duquesne University

School division: Division I, outside of Power 4 conferences

Year: Senior

Sport: Football

Recent NIL deal: None

Dream NIL deal: Pizza Hut

Before NIL came into play, Epps said, “there was always talk about how being a college athlete was very similar to working a 9-5, in a sense.”

He was a sophomore when the NCAA allowed athletes to have NIL deals and became a part of Duquesne’s Red and Blue NIL collective. Through this, he’s able to make money from merch and generally feels NIL has been a good thing.

“It can help out a lot of people who didn’t have as much money coming into college,” he said.

Duquesne is one of the schools that can choose to opt into sharing a portion of their athletics department revenue with athletes, but isn’t required to do so.

A university spokesperson confirmed that Duquesne is opting in. 

Epps said that although the conversation has been about athletes, they’re being left in the dark when it comes to understanding what impact this will have on them.

“A lot of the conversations that happen, happen around us, but a lot of us are not told the [parameters] of what is being said.”

When the NIL policy first went into effect in 2021, it was expected that money would largely come from endorsement rights opportunities — think brand deals like Flood’s Pennsylvania Beef Council posts. Then collectives emerged, said University of Illinois labor and law professor Michael LeRoy.

Collectives are groups that pool donations to pay athletes for use of their NIL, while facilitating deals for them. While these are usually school-specific, they’re operated independently, though there’s often some level of collaboration with the college.

Once athletes sign contracts with collectives, there’s an expectation that they’ll get paid, but which players are paid and how much is up to the discretion of the collective’s head. Last fall, the founder of Pitt’s collective, Alliance 412, along with the university’s football coach, stopped paying all members of the team, instead compensating only some to incentivize better performance.

The NCAA settlement retains a longstanding ban on compensation solely related to athletic performance or participation. Nonetheless, the NIL system has been called “pay for play,” because it seemingly rewards performance in many cases.

“There’s so much pent-up demand among supporters and the businesses … neither the laws nor the rules have caught up with the market supply of NIL money for athletes,” LeRoy said.

A majority of NIL funds come from collectives, not endorsements, sponsorships or appearances, according to Philadelphia-based NIL agent and attorney Stephen Vanyo. When he’s looking at contracts with collectives for clients, he said a player’s NIL value is being assessed based on what they will bring to a team. This is subjective, but factors include stats and social media following.

None of the athletes PublicSource interviewed disclosed their NIL values. Some of them did not have the figures.

LeRoy, who has researched NIL earnings, said that men outearn women 10:1 in deals, with the most money going to men’s football and basketball players. The settlement is expected to do little to remedy this, opening the doors for lawsuits against schools under Title IX, which requires schools to provide equal financial assistance opportunities to men and women athletes.

With no stipulations on how colleges have to divvy up the $20.5 million, experts have predicted that as much as 70-90% will go to men’s football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball, in that order.

Cat Flood, University of Pittsburgh

School division: Division I, ACC

Year: Graduated in 2025

Sport: Volleyball

Recent NIL deal: Saxbys

Dream NIL deal: World Wildlife Fund or Free People

Last year, Pitt’s volleyball team was ranked third in the country by the NCAA, finishing the 2024-2025 season 33-2.

Flood joined the team in 2020 after one visit to a university volleyball clinic. “I fell in love with it on the spot,” she said.

Recruiting, to her, was all about considering, “Where am I going to have the best four years?” not where she could get the most money in NIL deals. She never joined Alliance 412.

“I didn’t love the idea of NIL, I had seen what it had done to a lot of players,” she said. “They were playing for the money, they were transferring for the money.” She preferred to use NIL to promote local businesses in mutually beneficial, ethical arrangements.

However, after the volleyball team’s continued success, she began to regret not taking NIL more seriously. She saw NIL funds flowing to men’s football and men’s basketball, which she believed was fair due to viewership. But she noted that despite her squad being “the best team at the university … the women’s side was getting nothing.”

With players now getting paid a portion of the revenue that college athletics departments receive, she wants to see women’s volleyball benefit.

“I hope that we bark up some NIL trees.”

In the year it’s taken for the settlement terms to be negotiated and finalized, schools have prepared to start paying athletes. One way was by presenting recruits with NIL contracts that would only become effective after the settlement’s approval.

Alex Guminiski, a Pittsburgh-based NIL agent and attorney, has seen over 20 of these so far — some for Pitt recruits — but due to confidentiality clauses, couldn’t give more details. He stressed, though, that “it’s not pay for play,” but rather “licensing deals.”

“The school is asking the player to grant the school the license to use their NIL in all sorts of media,” Guminiski said.

LeRoy, the professor who obtained similar contracts from schools in the Big Ten and SEC conferences, said players are being asked to give away “an irrevocable right” to their collegiate NIL. These terms aren’t negotiable, he added.

“They are going to be paid for this, and in many cases, paid well. But again, people likely don’t know what they’re signing.”

LeRoy worries about the exploitation of athletes, especially those without an agent. He sees these contracts as a way to sidestep the perennial question of whether college athletes are employees of the schools they play for — another area many experts believe will play out in the courts.

Vanyo called the settlement “another half measure” because of the legal challenges it is likely to ignite. He said the only sustainable solution for stabilizing the industry is to allow athletes to unionize and collectively bargain, as players in professional leagues do. Then, there’d be what he described as a “semblance of fairness.”

“It’s the only thing we’ve seen work in the American sports model,” he said.

Ryan Prather Jr., Robert Morris University

School division: Division I, outside of Power 4 conferences

Year: Junior

Sport: Basketball

Recent NIL deal: C4 Energy

Dream NIL deal: Nike

Ryan Prather Jr. has had a long journey to Pittsburgh. After playing at the University of Akron through his first two years of college, he decided to transfer and commit to RMU in 2024.

“I wanted somewhere I could go and showcase what I could do,” he said.

He changed schools in part to be closer to home and family, but also due to the opportunities he could envision. After transferring, he joined RomoRise, an NIL collective specifically for RMU students, and has taken advantage of the deals presented to him.

As the settlement is sure to prompt changes to deals, Prather said, “It definitely has an effect on anyone who’s trying to play in college … they come in with a certain amount in their head.”

Prather said he understood the benefit of college athletes getting paid to do what they love. “The money helps you out in the long run because if you use up your money and save it up and invest, you can start early rather than waiting until after college for your career to get started.”

The downside: “It’s kind of hard at the same time because no team is going to stick with each other.” With teams changing every year due to players leaving, it can be difficult to produce a cohesive team environment.

“More money doesn’t always mean a better situation.”

The NCAA has been trying to wrangle what it views as an out-of-control stream of money going to athletes via NIL deals over the past few years, in part because athletes are transferring schools at record numbers, which some believe is due to money offered by collectives.

Under the settlement’s rules, third-party NIL deals valued at or above $600 will be reported to a clearinghouse run by consulting firm Deloitte. The goal, LeRoy said, is to regulate the market.

The clearinghouse will determine if deals fall under “pay for play” and evaluate their fair market values. Deals have to be approved before an athlete can receive the funds.

Little is known about the specific criteria needed for compliance, but experts told PublicSource that there isn’t a set fair market value for any NIL deal, and trying to determine one is next to impossible.

Vanyo said fair market value in the industry is simply “what somebody’s willing to pay.”

“In no other industry do we have … a clearinghouse that then says, ‘OK, this is a fair salary,’” he continued.

Some experts describe the clearinghouse as a way to scale back how much some athletes are earning.

“While nobody knows for sure how this is going to come out, the clear implication is that most of the NIL deals, particularly in men’s revenue sports — football and men’s basketball — will not be accepted as fair market value,” LeRoy said. A new College Sports Commission, separate from the NCAA, could then reject such deals.

It’s been reported that Deloitte officials said 70% of past deals from collectives would be rejected under the clearinghouse. 

Unsurprisingly, legal challenges by those with rejected deals are expected to follow.

Aurielle Brunner, Chatham University

School division: Division III, Presidents’ Athletic Conference

Year: Graduated in 2025

Sport: Track and field, Soccer, Basketball

Recent NIL deal: P3R, a local event management organization

Dream NIL deal: Nike

Brunner believes college athletes are valued professionals and views the settlement as a “huge step for sports.”

She holds 10 All-American awards for her track and field success. As Chatham University’s most decorated athlete of all time, she quickly stood out in the local college sports scene and became one of the school’s first players to secure an NIL deal.

She’s part of an NIL Athlete program with the Pittsburgh-based sports event planners P3R, which spotlights players in underrepresented sports to advance the company’s mission to “keep Pittsburgh moving.”

Brunner said NIL opportunities are “a great way to get college athletes out there and into the world.”

Her role involves filming a monthly video sharing workouts, answering fan questions and talking about her accomplishments. For this, she receives $500 a year.

“Any amount was great for a college athlete playing three sports,” said Brunner.

She’s very aware of the disparity between athletes’ earnings and isn’t a fan of the clearinghouse and tighter NIL deal regulations introduced by the settlement. While Division III schools aren’t included, she’s confident that some of the funding changes will trickle down.

Several state legislatures have passed bills aimed at making it easier for athletes and schools to navigate the new revenue-sharing model.

Days before the settlement was finalized, three Pennsylvania House representatives introduced legislation targeting NIL earnings. Rep. Aerion Andrew Abney, whose district includes Pitt’s Oakland campus, said his bill would put the state on par with others that have prohibited the NCAA’s compensation limits on money from NIL collectives.

He said the bill would allow schools in the state “to have the same type of, if not more, of a competitive edge” than those in neighboring states by protecting student athletes against exploitation. As a trustee on Pitt’s board, he sent the legislation to the university for review.

Across the aisle, House Republican Leader Rep. Jesse Topper, of Bedford and Fulton counties, and Rep. Perry Stambaugh, R-Juniata and Perry counties, issued a memo highlighting their forthcoming legislation that aims to develop long-term financial security for college athletes. Their bill would require schools to provide financial literacy courses to players and offer them the opportunity to put NIL earnings in trust accounts.

“We do need to bring a little order,” said Topper, to what he called the “Wild, Wild West” of NIL.

“We see what’s going on with the courts. The more that we can as public policymakers set rules and guidelines through policy, the less uncertainty that’s out there,” he said.

When interviewed by PublicSource, neither Topper nor Abney had seen the other’s legislation. Abney said he shared his bill with the Republicans and was positive that there would be something to glean from both, as the legislature also tries to finalize a budget.

“At the end of the day, there’s got to be something in … their legislation and my legislation that we can, during this budget negotiation, find a solution to this topic.”

Maddy Franklin reports on higher ed for PublicSource, in partnership with Open Campus, and can be reached at madison@publicsource.org.

Ayla Saeed is an editorial intern at PublicSource and can be reached at ayla@publicsource.org.

This story was fact-checked by Jake Vasilias.

OMAHA, Neb. — The college baseball world has made its annual pilgrimage to Charles Schwab Field for the 75th College World Series. It’s a diverse field with six different conferences (plus one independent) represented — a refreshing change after last year’s CWS included four teams from both the ACC and SEC.

I asked some people who cover the sport for their thoughts on the state of the game, the best players they have ever seen, the best rivalry in the sport and the best game they have witnessed.

The panel:

• Chris Burke, ESPN
• Mike Ferrin, ESPN/Sirius XM
• Aaron Fitt, D1 Baseball
• Kyle Peterson, ESPN
• Mike Rooney, ESPN

Best position player you have seen in college baseball?

Burke: I’m going to say Wyatt Langford. I thought the two years (2022-23) he put together at Florida, … he was almost flawless in the outfield. He ran the bases as hard as anybody I ever covered, especially for a superstar. And you felt like he was going to hit an extra-base hit every at-bat. So I’ll just go in the era that I’ve been covering the sport.

(Vanderbilt’s) Dansby (Swanson) was fantastic. The game wasn’t quite as offensive when he played. There’s a little recency bias there (with picking Langford). Alex Bregman (LSU) was more spectacular to me on defense than he was on offense. Now he’s become a Hall of Fame hitter.

And then from my playing career, I would say probably Mark Teixeira (Georgia Tech). Mark Teixeira was probably the most gifted college player I was ever on a field with.

Wyatt Langford had a career 1.217 OPS at Florida. (Steven Branscombe / Imagn Images)

Ferrin: You know who was great? It was Trea Turner at NC State. There’s a good story here. They lost to UCLA (in Omaha) the year UCLA won the national championship (2013), and one of the things that (Turner) did postgame was explain exactly how Nick Vander Tuig, who was the Saturday starter for UCLA, was able to get guys out, because he was able to use his fastball at the top of the zone. He had one of those fastballs that had ride on it before we had the data to back it up, even though it was 92 mph.

Somebody relayed that to John Savage, the UCLA coach, in the press conference, and Savage’s jaw hit the table, and he was like, “Man, I thought that guy was good. I didn’t realize he had that kind of baseball IQ. That guy’s unbelievable.”

And Savage went on for, like, 45 seconds talking about how unique a player Trea Turner was, because in addition to having all of these incredible skills, he had this innate ability to understand the game. So that’s one that really stands out to me, even though he probably isn’t, like, the best of this era. But man, he had it at that moment. As a sophomore.

Fitt: I was living in Southern California for three years during the same three years that Kris Bryant was at San Diego, and just the fact that the guy hit more home runs as a junior (31 in 2013) than about two-thirds of the college baseball teams hit — he was a monster among boys or whatever you want to say. It felt like Babe Ruth, where he’s hitting more home runs than a bunch of teams hit. And he could do a lot of stuff. You could move him around a little bit. He was never known as a defensive whiz, but he played solid enough third baseman, right field, wherever, and he could run better than you thought. The power was just special. He got better and better year over year. Great personality, magnetic. And I think just because of the era that he dominated in and the degree to which he dominated, that would have to be my answer.

Peterson: Mark Kotsay (Fullerton State). I played against him (while at Stanford), so maybe that’s part of it. … We played him Game 1 of the College World Series (in 1995). Well, first of all, the first college game I ever played in was at Fullerton. And I knew who he was, but I didn’t know a lot about him. And about three pitches later, he had a line drive right off my quad that I could feel the entire year.

And then they beat us in Game 1 of the College World Series that year, and Kotsay had a couple hits and then trotted in from center field to close the game in the ninth inning. He was, for me, like the ultimate college baseball player. And obviously he had a great big-league career, and now he’s managing the big leagues. But that’s the best one for me.

Rooney: I want to say Dustin Pedroia, but I coached him (at Arizona State, 2002-04) and I saw him every day for three years. He was the national defensive player of the year and the only MVP of Arizona State baseball for three consecutive years. Not even Barry Bonds did that.

I want to give you two, since I coached Pedroia. I’m going to do this: I’m going to say Chris Burke (at Tennessee). He almost hit .500, 50 stolen bases, 20-plus home runs (.435, 49 stolen bases, 20 home runs in 2001) and ran their defense from the middle of the field. Like, just a do-everything player.

Who’s the best college pitcher you have ever seen?

Burke: Paul Skenes, end of statement. He had the aura of nobody else. The only pitcher I’ve ever been around that had his aura was Roger Clemens. And I was fortunate to play with him for parts of three seasons (in the major leagues). But there was just something very unique when you were around Paul Skenes. And then the pitchability, combined with just the pure stuff, was a combination that to me was like nothing I’d ever seen in a college game.

Ferrin: It’s either Skenes or (Stephen) Strasburg. Strasburg was incredible, too, but what Skenes was able to do … he didn’t have the best slider, he didn’t have the best fastball — (LSU teammate) Ty Floyd’s fastball, metrically, was better — it was just the fact that he knew how to pitch, his competitiveness, the way he continually improved, and the way that he carried himself. That guy was unreal. That’s one of the great college seasons of our time.

Fitt: So I would have said Stephen Strasburg for a long time until Skenes. But everyone’s gonna say Skenes, so I’m gonna give you Strasburg. He was insane. Even the first time I ever saw him, it was his freshman year (2007), and it was on a random day, it’s like a Tuesday game, I think. And people were kind of whispering, “You gotta see this kid. He is so big, he blocks out the sun.” It’s just a ridiculous, explosive fastball coming at you. Didn’t hear a lot about this kid coming out of high school. He was overweight and didn’t really work hard enough, and then he got to San Diego State and something clicked for him. The coaching staff, Tony Gwynn and (pitching coach) Rusty Filter, deserve a lot of credit, but so does Steven, of course.

By the time he was a junior, he was just a monster. It’s 96 to 100 with command in an era where you didn’t even see that kind of velocity very much. Ridiculous breaking ball with command. Plus-change up with command. And the ability to miss bats and throw quality stuff that was just so much better than everybody else’s stuff at that time. The stuff he did was absurd.

Peterson: Skenes. Before that, I probably would have said (Stephen) Strasburg, because I saw Strasburg in college when he was at San Diego State. But Skenes was as good as stuff as you would ever want to see, but then the control of Jamie Moyer or (Greg) Maddux or somebody like that. And I’ve never, in the college game, I’ve never seen the combination of as good a stuff as anybody in the country and as good a control as anybody in the country. And Skenes had that, and obviously, it continues to work out fairly well for him.

Rooney: Best one I coached against was Mark Prior (at USC). Best one I’ve seen is Paul Skenes. With Prior, it was Greg Maddux command with the best fastball in college baseball at the time. And Skenes, just like a ferocious competitor, generational arm talent.

Name a player who ended up being a much better pro than you thought

Burke: This is way back from my first year, second year broadcasting. It was Kyle Farmer, shortstop at Georgia (2010-13). Ended up being a really good major league shortstop for the Reds. I think he was an (eighth-rounder). I think he was a senior sign, and you look up, and he’s had a really nice career.

Ferrin: Pete Alonso (Florida, 2014-16). I thought he was sort of an Ivan Melendez (Texas) type, a big power guy, then he was going to get to pro ball and he was going to really struggle. What I didn’t understand was the guy really knew how to hit. I think even now, he still doesn’t get appreciated for how good of a hitter he is. He knows how to use the middle of the field. He knows the situations that call for him to drive in a run. That wasn’t readily apparent to me when he was at Florida.

He also wasn’t the biggest star on those teams. He was a little bit further down on the list. And he wasn’t the most dynamic presence. I had no idea he was going to be the player he is now. Testament to his work ethic and his intelligence. And he’s also got way better as a defender.

Fitt: I’ll just go back to my first year at Baseball America. Justin Turner was a nice kind of rugrat grinder from Cal State Fullerton (2003-06). “Red” Turner. He was a seventh-round pick or something, a senior sign. Never really hit for power. He was a great college player. I loved him as a college player. He would take a lot of walks. But I didn’t ever think that guy was gonna go be a plus-home run hitter in the major leagues and go to a bunch of All-Star games and be a vital part of championship teams. Especially after he got released. Who was it, the Mets, who released him? That’s a cool story. That guy just never struck me as anyone who would hit for power and be an impact big leaguer.

Peterson: Brandon Woodruff (Mississippi State, 2012-14) would be on that list. He’s had a hell of a run from a mound standpoint.

I played with a dude named Eric Bruntlett (Stanford, 1997-2000) that played in the big leagues for seven or eight years and won a ring or two, and I don’t know that he would have been the guy off our team that we would have picked to play the longest. But he played longer than anybody.

I can tell you this: I saw Aaron Judge (Fresno State, 2011-13) in the home run derby here, the college home run derby, and nobody would have thought … you thought the guy’s physical and talented and everything else, but he could go down as one of the greatest hitters ever by the time he gets done. So Judge is probably on that list. Not to say that people didn’t think he’d be good, but I don’t think anybody could have thought he’d be this good.

Rooney: Steven Kwan. He was on that 2018 Oregon State that won it all. Oregon State had four first-round picks. They had Cadyn Grenier, they had Nick Madrigal, they had Adley Rutschman, and they had Trevor Larnach, but they also had Steven Kwan (who was drafted in the fifth round). And I bet you Steven Kwan’s WAR this year, I’d have to look up Rutschman’s, but I bet you Steven Kwan’s WAR is better than any of those guys. (Note: Kwan’s WAR is 2.8. Rutschman’s is 1.1.)

What is the best rivalry in college baseball right now?

Burke: I would say probably Tennessee and LSU. Past two defending national champions, two coaching staffs, two athletic departments, two fan bases that are all in it. I think Arkansas, with that group, would be right there in it. Texas A&M is pretty good, too. I know I gave you a lot, but it feels like it’s hard to (pick one). Tennessee-Vanderbilt is pretty good, too. It feels like there’s a lot of budding SEC rivalries just because of the all-in nature. There are way more teams that are all-in.

Ferrin: The SEC versus the SEC. I think any time that you have those power conference teams — I hate to cop out with SEC versus SEC — but I think those are all pretty good. I think Texas A&M versus Texas right now is a little bit spicier because of (Jim Schlossnagle) leaving (Texas A&M for Texas) last year, so I think that’s a good one. You know, I think those are ones that really stand out to me, in that conference, just because the places are all packed and most of them are a little bit bigger than the other places. It just creates more energy that you expect out of a rivalry.

Fitt: I think you have to say Tennessee-Arkansas at the moment. It’s kind of the one that feels like it’s got the most juice. LSU-Arkansas also has a lot of juice. Those SEC deals, they just feel a little bit different. Traditionally, I still think Clemson-South Carolina, when those (teams) are both good, it’s awesome. But obviously, those programs are not where they were in 2010, when they were both in Omaha. That was something special. But at this particular stage, I think it’s shifted toward those SEC rivalries.

Peterson: Ole Miss-Mississippi State is always going to be there, just because of being within the state. The whole Florida component between Florida, Florida State, Miami is interesting, but they do it differently. (Florida) plays Miami on the weekend every year and they play Florida State in three midweek games, so that’s a little bit different. Tennessee-Arkansas has turned into a really good rivalry. I don’t know that there’s one.

Rooney: I would say Tennessee and Vanderbilt.

What is the college game you’ve ever seen?

Burke: I would say the Skenes vs. Lowder (LSU vs. Wake Forest in the 2023 CWS). Ends in a walk-off home run by superstar player Tommy White. Two major league All-Stars on the mound. And it was a night game. I think we had Roger Clemens on the broadcast, like, early in the broadcast. It was just a night you’ll never forget.

And there were a couple of legendary plays — Tre Morgan threw somebody off the plate on just an incredible defensive play. You know, there are just so many flash points within the game. But more than anything, you’re like, “We’re watching two major league All-Stars pitching in college.” And I know Lowder hasn’t made an All-Star team yet, but he sure feels like he’s going to. And Skenes is on his way to No. 2.

Ferrin: Skenes-Lowder, without a doubt. It’s so rare to see a pitching matchup that actually lives up to the expectations like that. And that game had everything. And then the coolest moment … so when Tommy White hits the walk-off homer and celebrates with his team, and Cam Minacci, who’s the pitcher for Wake, and Bennett Lee, who’s the catcher for Wake, were friends of his growing up. And what did he do? He went over to console them afterwards. That’s like one of the great moments of sportsmanship in NCAA history, and I hope everybody always remembers that. Because in the end, these guys love competing against each other, but because they’ve all grown up playing together, they all know each other, and a lot of times they’re friends, and those relationships matter more than the wins and losses. I thought that was really cool.

Fitt: There are only two answers here. It’s the Skenes-Lowder game or the last game of Rosenblatt (in 2010). It was awesome. The fact that the last game of that ballpark ended on a walk-off in the 10th inning, two great teams, it was the start of that South Carolina dynasty. You got Whit Merrifield and Scott Wingo in the middle of it. You got Trevor Bauer out of the bullpen warming up (for UCLA). Incredible game and just the whole feeling there. It was so bittersweet. All of us were heartbroken about leaving that ballpark, and it was just awesome that they could send it out with a thriller like that.

Peterson: The Wake Forest-LSU game a couple years ago was as good as I’ve ever seen here. I’ll never forget the last game at Rosenblatt when it was South Carolina-UCLA and (Whit) Merrifield got the hit down the right-field line. I think some of that was just because it was the last game at Rosenblatt, maybe. But yeah, the LSU-Wake, really that entire tournament. There were some games that year that were as good as we’ve ever seen here.

Rooney: I think everyone’s going to give you Skenes vs. Lowder. So I’m going to give you a different one. I got to call Kumar Rocker’s 19-strikeout no-hitter in 2019. People forget this, but Duke had already won Game 1 of that Super Regional. That Vandy team was one loss from their season ending, and Kumar Rocker, a true freshman, steps up and throws a historic game to completely flip the momentum of that Super Regional.

What is the best part of college baseball in 2025?

Burke: I think the exposure. The spotlight is much brighter than it’s ever been. Both with the digital networks, the conference network and then ESPN’s commitment to the sport. Combine that with a social media presence that all these teams do a really good job of, I just feel like these players are on a much bigger stage than they’ve ever been on.

Ferrin: I think it’s the atmosphere. To me, it’s these 3-, 4-, 6,000-seat stadiums that are on campuses in places that they really care about college baseball — which is growing too — and that you’re filling them with fans who have the same energy that you have for college basketball. Even in places like Manhattan, Kansas, like where they sell out. Being able to create those environments is really rewarding for the sport because you can’t not want to be a part of that if you get to experience it.

Fitt: I like the product, personally, better than Major League Baseball because of, and it’s gonna sound cliche, but it’s just the energy. It’s the energy of it. Especially the postseason, the on-campus sites. I don’t think there’s anything like it when you’ve got the home Regionals on-site and the Super Regionals. It’s just electrifying, and I think the drama, that part of the product, really holds up. I love the format of college baseball, all the way through the weekend series structure. I like the fact that it’s not 162 games. I think the season makes a lot of sense. It’s drawing in a lot more fans than it used to for a good reason. It’s not as polished a product as Major League Baseball on the field, obviously. That’s part of the fun of it. It leads to some unpredictability, and I think it’s just compelling theater.

Peterson: I love it because of the fan bases, and it’s college (athletics). When you go to some of these environments, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Florida State, whatever — you can name a bunch of them, it’s like college athletics fans. And I just think there’s something really cool about that. From a player standpoint, I just think it would be really cool to play in those environments. So, for me, it’s the environments that these kids are surrounded by.

The level of play and everything else continues to get better, and we’ve seen that based on the draft. The draft is more college-based now than it’s ever been because Major League Baseball realizes that this is a really good way to develop players. So I’d say both of those. I love going to college baseball stadiums, environments, towns. That’s my happy place.

Rooney: I would say this (pointing to the field). We have an Omaha field that represents seven different conferences or non-conferences, depending on how we want to describe Oregon State. We knew we didn’t really have a super team like we’ve had the last four years, but this year, for this to play out the way it did, to go from a year where you only had two leagues in Omaha, to have seven different affiliations represented, is super cool and very encouraging.

What is the sport’s biggest issue?

Burke: Probably the roster uncertainty. How many spots are going to be available? How is that going to limit opportunities? I think it’s interesting. A decade ago, we were all clamoring for more scholarships, and now with NIL, the scholarship delta has kind of been fixed. In one regard, you want to be thankful that kids are, for the most part, going to have a lot more aid, if not full aid. But if it goes from 40 to 34 (roster spots), you’re talking about six players per 310 teams. That’s a lot of players that aren’t going to get opportunities to play Division I baseball. So I think figuring out what that is and what the new normal is going to be is probably what I would consider to be the biggest issue.

Ferrin: I want there to be more consistent parameters from the committee before the season starts on what’s gonna constitute the decisive factors (to get into the NCAA Tournament). So, like every year, we see a little bit of variation, but we never find out until after the fact that this was the year that nonconference strength of schedule mattered, or this was this, this was that. So I think that there’s something that can be done to try and better codify or balance out, or give coaches at least an idea of what’s gonna matter, especially since they’re having to schedule a couple of years out. I think that’s one that really stands out to me as being important, is that you wanna make sure that everybody is on even footing, at least in terms of what they understand.

Fitt: I think it’s just the issues facing college sports writ large. Where are we headed with NIL, the revenue-sharing stuff? Are we going to have too much of a gap between the haves and have-nots, when you’ve got schools funding 34 full scholarships and others are still down there at 11.7 or whatever? I think it’s going to be challenging to navigate.

There’s obviously a lot of upside potential for the sport, considering how long we were stuck at 11.7 and all we wanted was a few more scholarships, right? And now, all of a sudden, it’s just this whole new world right in front of us, and there are gonna be a lot of programs left behind. And I think the depth of college baseball is an important part of the sport. It’s nice that guys can have the experience of playing college baseball at 300-and-something schools.

You talk to the coaches at Central Connecticut State, and they go down to a big venue for a Regional at Georgia or Arkansas or whatever and just to see those guys soak in that experience, it’s magic. It’s part of what makes this sport special, and if we wind up in a situation where it’s just two big mega conferences and everybody else is just left behind, I think we’ll really lose an important part of the soul of college baseball.

Peterson: I would just say money in general. I don’t think anybody knows yet what this House settlement is going to be, and, ultimately, if that’s detrimental to the game at all. So I think the biggest challenge or potential issue right now is … the first thing is everybody’s got to know the rules. They don’t know them yet. So if the rules are what it sounds like they will be, they’ll continue to be a pretty significant financial gap. But that’s also the reality of the world.

So that would be my biggest concern, is whether or not that financial gap between those that can afford it and those that can’t creates way too many haves and way too many have-nots. But I think the field this year would indicate that that may not be the case.

Rooney: I would say our biggest issue is rosters. We have an unlimited fall roster, but then we’ll have this 34-man roster on Dec. 1 as part of the (House) settlement. And I think that both concepts are flawed, and somewhere in the middle would be a much better answer. So I’d say roster management is the biggest issue.

(Photos of Paul Skenes, Mark Kotsay: Scott Clause / USA Today Network via Imagn Images, Andy Lyons / Getty Images)