SEC coaches pressure rankings part I: DeBoer, Freeze & Kelly all feeling the heat
Dan Wetzel, Ross Dellenger and SI's Pat Forde present part I of their SEC coaches pressure index for the 2025 college football season. In a conference with the highest of expectations, are there any coaches who aren't feeling the pressure this upcoming season?
Kalen DeBoer must show improvement at Alabama as he continues the impossible task of living up to Nick Saban's success. How much longer will Auburn wait on Hugh Freeze to deliver wins? Brian Kelly has done well at LSU, but you might not know it from asking the Tiger fanbase. The trio reveal their pressure index for half of the SEC, with the rest to follow early next week.
Dan, Ross & Pat also speculate about the potential outcomes of the joint Big Ten-SEC meeting today in New Orleans and revisit a hot People's Court topic: is a boneless chicken wing really a wing at all?
(2:07) SEC, Big 10 joint meeting
(14:33) SEC coaches under pressure
(15: 37) Kalen DeBoer, Alabama
(20:43) Sam Pittman, Arkansas
(24:26) Hugh Freeze, Auburn
(28:05) Billy Napier, Florida
(32:41) Kirby Smart, Georgia
(35:35) Mark Stoops, Kentucky
(40:50) Brian Kelly, LSU
(44:53) Jeff Lebby, Mississippi State
(49:07) People's court: boneless chicken wings
Follow Dan @DanWetzel
Follow Pat @ByPatForde
Follow Ross @RossDellenger
🖥️
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
TruGolf to Paricipate in the '2025 Virtual Tech Conference: Discover the Innovations Reshaping Tomorrow' Conference Presented by Maxim Group LLC on Wednesday, June 4th at 3:00 PM EDT
Salt Lake City, Utah, June 03, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- TruGolf Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRUG), a leading golf technology company, announced today that Brenner Adams, TruGolf's Chief Growth Officer will present at the '2025 Virtual Tech Conference: Discover the Innovations Reshaping Tomorrow,' presented by Maxim Group LLC, tomorrow, June 4th at 3:00 PM EDT. The Conference will be live on M-Vest. To attend, follow this link to register for this virtual event. About TruGolf Holdings TruGolf is a golf technology company, committed to making golf, easy. From innovative uses for AI to build content and enhance its image and spatial analysis, to gamified golf improvement plans, TruGolf is an industry leader in the growing technological revolution in the sport of golf. Since its founding, TruGolf has redefined what is possible in golf through technology. TruGolf's suite of Hardware, Software, and Web Products make it easier to Play, Improve, and Enjoy the game of golf. Forward-Looking Statements Some of the statements in this release are forward-looking statements, which involve risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements include, without limitation, whether the Company's compliance plan will be accepted by Nasdaq and the Company's expected future cash needs. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable as of the date made, expectations may prove to have been materially different from the results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. The Company has attempted to identify forward-looking statements by terminology including ''believes,'' ''estimates,'' ''anticipates,'' ''expects,'' ''plans,'' ''projects,'' ''intends,'' ''potential,'' ''may,'' ''could,'' ''might,'' ''will,'' ''should,'' ''approximately'' or other words that convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes to identify these forward-looking statements. These statements are only predictions and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors. Any forward-looking statements contained in this release speak only as of its date. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements contained in this release to reflect events or circumstances occurring after its date or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. More detailed information about the risks and uncertainties affecting the Company is contained under the heading "Risk Factors" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K and subsequently filed Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K filed with the SEC, which are available on the SEC's website, For more information about our products and upcoming innovations, please visit Media Contacts: TruGolf: Michael Bacal: Phone: 917-886-9071; mbacal@ Web: LinkedIn: @TruGolfSign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ex-Alabama QB Issues Blunt Warning to Ryan Grubb Before 2025 Season
Ex-Alabama QB Issues Blunt Warning to Ryan Grubb Before 2025 Season originally appeared on Athlon Sports. After just one season as the Alabama Crimson Tide offensive coordinator in 2024, Nick Sheridan was demoted on paper to the team's co-offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach. In his place, Alabama brought in Ryan Grubb, who was the Seattle Seahawks' OC last year, but has a long-standing relationship with Bama head coach Kalen DeBoer. Advertisement Grubb was part of the coaching staff with DeBoer during their shared tenures at Washington, Fresno State, Eastern Michigan and Sioux Falls, which goes back to 2007. College football analysts believe Alabama's offense will take a step forward in 2025, and some might conclude that Grubb is a better coordinator than Sheridan. However, former Alabama quarterback AJ McCarron disagreed with such a stance while speaking with Chris Stewart and Trent Richardson on "The Dynasty." "Whenever you're the OC at Alabama," McCarron began. "You're going to catch hell, regardless. If you don't put up 35 to 50 points every game, it is what it is. ... I was with multiple OCs during my career at Alabama. It comes with the territory." Advertisement Last season, Alabama fell short of the program's high expectations in both its passing and rushing offense. The Crimson Tide ranked 56th in passing offense (236.4 yards per game) and 47th in rushing offense (173.8 ypg). Alabama scored 34.5 points per game, 21st in college football. While that's certainly a very good result, it's not quite good enough for a college football powerhouse that wants to be competing for national championships annually. Alabama head coach Kalen DeBoer (left), offensive coordinator Ryan Grubb (right)© Gary Cosby Jr.-Tuscaloosa News / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images "I think the comfort level between Kalen (DeBoer) and Ryan Grubb probably settles him down as the head coach of this team. Just knowing what Ryan Grubb likes in certain situations." Advertisement Retaining Sheridan wasn't a given after Grubb was brought in. It only came with a later announcement that Sheridan would stay with the coaching staff and focus on quarterbacks. Sheridan was linked with DeBoer during their stints at the University of Indiana in 2019 when the former was the tight ends coach and the latter was the Hoosiers' quarterbacks coach and offensive coordinator. McCarron makes it clear, even with all these relationships in play, results matter in Tuscaloosa. So, DeBoer, Grubb, Sheridan and the rest of the Crimson Tide staff must deliver offensively. In 2024, Alabama failed to qualify for the College Football Playoff and missing out on it again this season could put not just the coordinators on the heat seat, but DeBoer as well. Advertisement Related: Ryan Williams Reveals Conversation With Jeremiah Smith During College Football 26 Cover Shoot Related: Kirby Smart, Georgia Reportedly Made a Move To Steal 5-Star WR Away From Alabama This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 3, 2025, where it first appeared.
Fox Sports
an hour ago
- Fox Sports
Why the 5+11 CFP format fails to meet objectives fans should want
I'm starting to feel very pessimistic about what some of the leaders in college football want to do with the sport. My optimism surrounding the future of college football is waning because I'm not sensing from some of these groups that they understand what's going on, and they're not considering you — the fans. In case you missed it, the discussion surrounding the College Football Playoff expansion took another turn this week. There was some momentum behind the push for a 16-team CFP with a format that features the five-highest-ranked conference champions getting an automatic bid, while the 11 remaining spots would be at-large bids (5+11 model). Last week, I shared my thoughts on which direction the CFP should go with expansion. While I'd prefer a 14-team CFP over a 16-team one, it seems evident that it will be expanded to 16 teams. In that scenario, I'd like to see a format with the Big Ten and SEC each getting four automatic qualifying spots, the ACC and Big 12 both getting two automatic qualifying spots, an automatic bid for the highest-ranked Group of 5 champion and three at-large bids/Notre Dame. However, the recent push for the 5+11 model picked up steam at the Big 12 and SEC conference meetings last week. Frankly, it's awful for college football on so many different levels. I have a ton of respect for Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark, and I think he's a smart guy, but I also disagreed with him when he co-signed the 5+11 model while speaking with reporters last week. "In talking to our [athletic directors] and coaches … the 5+11 model might not be ideal for the conference, but it's good for college football and it's what's fair," Yormark said. "We don't want any gimmes. We want to earn it on the field. That was the direction of the key stakeholder group, the ADs and the coaches, and I feel very comfortable with that. I feel the same way, and I've been very outspoken about it." That doesn't make sense, quite frankly. How can you earn it on the field when the CFP committee determines nearly the entire field? The 5+11 certainly hurts the Big 12, which would in turn hurt the sport because we need more conferences to be relevant. If we opt to go with the 5+11 model, we'd get four things: One, the entire sport is going to be determined in the boardroom and be committee-driven (which fans want that?); Two, we're going to lose valuable non-conference games; Three, you'd lose out on the possibility of having a conference championship play-in weekend (more on that here); Four, you'd have a massive amount of politicking and propaganda being pushed. (In fact, that final point was already being put into practice by the SEC at its conference meetings in Florida this past week, as it distributed an analytics packet that touted how tough the regular-season conference schedule is at its conference meetings.) Is this what we're going to be as a sport going forward? We should take the sport out of the boardroom and define the criteria a little more clearly on what it should take to make the CFP. The 5+11 model fails on every single level to drive the sport forward. Here are the six objectives I think must be considered when the CFP determines what format and model to use for expansion. 1. Increase fan base engagement As I've mentioned with some of the previous models they've thrown out with the 16-team CFP, you'd increase fan base engagement by increasing the probability that your team is playing meaningful games late in the season. In the 5+11 model, we're going to have rankings every week, so we're going to minimize the number of teams that feel like they have a relevant and defined path toward getting in. That would be particularly true if you play in the "wrong conference" where your team can only lose once, while it's OK for teams from other conferences to lose four games. 2. Increase meaningful games If we had a play-in weekend within conferences, each of the power conferences could have multiple games with a CFP spot on the line on the same weekend. If we went with the 5+11 model, we'd miss out on the idea of the third-place and sixth-place teams or the fourth-place and fifth-place teams in the Big Ten or SEC battling for one of the conference's automatic qualifying spots because of the 11 at-large bids. 3. Increase valuable non-conference games If this sport is solely determined in a boardroom and the committee decides who gets into the CFP, we're going to have what's happened already: athletic directors and teams getting rid of valuable non-conference games. Tennessee and Nebraska just called off their series because of this. The future of USC and Notre Dame's rivalry is also in question because of this. When there's a committee involved, the idea is to have as many wins as possible. The best way to get as many wins as possible is to have as easy of a schedule as possible. The committee has never really shown a willingness to honor teams for challenging themselves in non-conference play. The 5+11 model would fail to protect teams from challenging themselves in the non-conference slate. 4. Minimize or eliminate the committee Nobody wants all this committee-driven drama late in the year, with teams politicking and sending out analytics packets to prove their case. When nearly three-quarters of the field is made up of at-large bids, you're only going to see more of that. Having as many automatic qualifiers as possible would tone down the committee's influence beyond seeding. 5. Define a clear path In the other 16-team models, there's a clear path for teams to reach the CFP. They know they either need to win their conference championship game, finish within a certain spot in the standings or win one of the conference championship weekend play-in games. With the 5+11 model, the only clear path to making the CFP is to be one of the five highest-ranked conference champions. If you're not one of those five teams, you're hoping the committee likes your résumé. 6. Keep more conferences relevant This is vital for the health of the sport. It's important that the ACC and Big 12 remain relevant. Yet, if you go with the 5+11 model, the Big Ten and SEC will get more participants into the CFP. That means those conferences will continue to generate more revenue and power, further creating a fork in the road between those conferences and the rest. Simply put, the 5+11 model fails every objective, and it falls short of the other models. Far be it from me to disagree with smart people, but I don't see how the 5+11 model is "good for college football" and "fair." If I were Yormark or ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, I'd take a 14-team format that guaranteed my conference two spots right now. If the Big Ten and SEC really press those two conferences to accept a 16-team format, the ACC and Big 12 should ask for five guaranteed spots between the two conferences. Ultimately, I want the sport to be better for you, the fans. If the CFP expansion meets these objectives, it would do that. I'm concerned, though, about the recent push for the 5+11 model, which certainly wouldn't. Joel Klatt is FOX Sports' lead college football game analyst and the host of the podcast " The Joel Klatt Show. " Follow him at @joelklatt and subscribe to the "Joel Klatt Show" on YouTube . Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily. recommended Get more from College Football Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more
