Changes to spring football offers programs chance to reinvent themselves
Oklahoma joined several name-brand programs in a trend that is as predictable as it is worrisome for many college football fans, choosing to cancel its spring game and opt for a more fan-friendly showcase.
While this venture represents a new direction for Oklahoma, it's also indicative of the growing reluctance of many programs investing tens of millions of dollars in asset management (read: players) that they'd like to protect from poachers and injury. So, Oklahoma will instead host a combine, known as the "Crimson Combine."
"This is a brand-new spring football tradition for our fans," Oklahoma athletics director Joe Castiglione said. "Crimson Combine will spotlight our players while also giving our fans the ability to get closer to the action and have the chance to engage directly with our team and coaching staff. We're planning some unique activities that will highlight our players and provide high entertainment value for everyone in attendance."
Sure, I'll watch your dad run a 40 against Deion Burks. But is that really what this is about? Nebraska, USC, Texas, Florida State and Oklahoma each have differing reasons for opting out of hosting a glorified practice for the public, but Huskers coach Matt Rhule was unafraid of saying why he has decided to do away with a tradition that he thinks can only hurt his program in the era of name, image and likeness.
"I think it's really, fundamentally — I hate to say it like this — it's really because last year we were one of the more televised spring games," Rhule said, "and I dealt with a lot of people offering our players a lot of opportunities after that.
"To go out and bring in a bunch of new players and showcase them for all the other schools to watch, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me."
Yes, Rhule is correct in that spring football has worked as a springboard for some players to earn recognition and interest from other programs. But that's hardly the case for most players. Many programs design their spring games to showcase as little of their talent and playbook as possible. Some coaches even believe if you can pick up anything other than the basic philosophy of their offense and defensive schemes that they've put too much of the playbook into the game. The scoring is often convoluted, pitting the offense against the defense for phony points and he-didn't-even-touch-him tackles.
Some spring games make flag football look like a contact sport. But that's never been what the spring game was about — not for many players and most fans.
Former Oklahoma great Gerald McCoy was the kind of player who might've spent a 2025 spring game in sweats on the sideline rather than have coaches risk him pulling a hamstring or worse in a practice that meant nothing with respect to his contribution come September. Yet, he still disagreed with Oklahoma's decision to cancel the spring game for a glorified fan appreciation event.
"So no spring game? Just a showcase?" McCoy tweeted. "No opportunity for young guys to perform in front of fans? Guys who have improved to do it in front of the fans. What about the guys who may never see the field in a real game getting an opportunity in the spring game to get reps in front of a crowd. Aight I guess. Love yall. Always a Sooner but count me out on this one. Guess I'm officially an old head now"
Yes, you are, Gerald. We both are. But I'm not so old that I'd rather watch a meaningless practice where a walk-on might pop-off for 100 yards rushing against the No. 3 defense than perhaps give a younger fan, one just getting to know his heroes, the opportunity to make a core memory.
I imagine there's a little boy, a little girl, who will get to meet John Mateer, and in return, he becomes their favorite player based on a handshake, a kind word or an autograph. I imagine there's a teenager who might find out that his upbringing looked a lot like that of Brent Venables — hard, rough, unrelenting — and believes he can become a head coach one day too.
Yes, the emotionless business of college football is at work here. There is no doubt that the money counters and coaches, a conservative risk-averse group by nature, are unwilling to let players hit each other in earnest in April. But there's also an opening here for programs to reinvent themselves in pursuit of the next crop of lifelong fans. And that is for the best.
RJ Young is a national college football writer and analyst for FOX Sports and the host of the podcast " The Number One College Football Show. " Follow him on Twitter at @RJ_Young and subscribe to "The RJ Young 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 in this topic
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander Could Join These 3 All-Time NBA Greats With Historic Season
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA - MAY 18: Shai Gilgeous-Alexander #2 of the Oklahoma City Thunder reacts ... More after scoring during the fourth quarter of a game against the Denver Nuggets in Game Seven of the Western Conference Second Round NBA Playoffs at Paycom Center on May 18, 2025 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement. (Photo by) Shai Gilgeous-Alexander walked off the Gainbridge Fieldhouse court Wednesday night in an unusual situation. The Oklahoma City Thunder point guard had a career playoffs-high six turnovers in his team's 116-107 loss to the Indiana Pacers in Game 3 of the NBA Finals. The Thunder, the heavy favorite entering the series, are now down two games to one heading into Friday's Game 4 in Indianapolis. It is just the fifth time all season they have lost two of three games. Still, one of those occasions occurred in the Western Conference semifinals when the Thunder lost to the Denver Nuggets in overtime in Game 3 before winning Game 4 on the road to even the series and clinching it with a Game 7 victory at home. As such, it is hard to count out the Thunder and Gilgeous-Alexander, the reigning Most Valuable Player who could have a historic season if the Thunder win the title. If Gilgeous-Alexander is named the Finals MVP, he will become only the fourth player in history to lead the league in scoring during the regular season, be part of a championship team and win the regular season and Finals MVP awards in the same season. The others? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1971), Michael Jordan (1991, 1992, 1996 and 1998) and Shaquille O'Neal (2000). Heady company, indeed. All three are Hall of Famers and all-time greats. Abdul-Jabbar was a six-time regular season MVP, six-time NBA champion and second with 38,387 career points. Jordan was a five-time regular season and six-time NBA Finals MVP and champion and first with 30.1 points per game during his career. And O'Neal was a four-time NBA champion and three-time Finals MVP who averaged 23.7 points and 10.9 rebounds per game in his 19-year career. Gilgeous-Alexander, who turns 27 next month, would be the second-youngest of the four to achieve the feat of regular season and Finals MVP, NBA champion and scoring title in the same season. Abdul-Jabbar was 24 and in his second season, while Jordan was 28 and in his seventh season when he accomplished it the first time and O'Neal was 28 and in his eighth season. Gilgeous-Alexander, meanwhile, is in his seventh season and much less heralded than the men he's trying to join. Abdul-Jabbar had led UCLA to three consecutive national titles and was a three-time national college of the player and third in the MVP voting as a rookie before having his breakout in the 1970-71 season. Jordan had already won an MVP and had four consecutive scoring titles before breaking through in 1991. And O'Neal was a perennial MVP candidate and one-time scoring champion before the 1999-2000 season. After averaging 10.8 points per game as a rookie with the Los Angeles Clippers, Gilgeous-Alexander was traded to the Thunder as part of the deal that sent Paul George to the Clippers. At the time, Gilgeous-Alexander was seen as a promising guard but not someone who could win an MVP someday. Still, he has continued to improve each season, finishing fifth in the MVP voting in 2023 and second last year before winning the award this season. During the regular season, Gilgeous-Alexander led the league with 32.7 points per game and helped the Thunder finish with a 68-14 record, 16 more wins than any other Western Conference team. The Thunder outscored teams by an average of 12.9 points per game during the regular season, breaking a record that had stood since the 1971-72 season when the Los Angeles Lakers had a 12.3 points per game scoring differential. Oklahoma City entered the postseason as the title favorite and has looked the part for much of the playoffs. The Thunder swept the Memphis Grizzlies in the first round, dominated the Nuggets by 32 points in Game 7 of the second round and knocked off the Minnesota Timberwolves in the conference finals. Still, the Thunder blew a 15-point fourth quarter lead in Game 1 against the Pacers and lost again on Wednesday night, putting themselves in a hole. As has been the case all season, the Thunder on Friday will turn to Gilgeous-Alexander, who is averaging 30.1 points, 6.6 assists and 5.7 rebounds per game in the playoffs. If he can come through and deliver OKC a championship, Gilgeous-Alexander will start to hear his name mentioned with the all-time greats.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Thunder struck with a midrange shooting slump at the wrong time in NBA Finals
INDIANAPOLIS — How do the Oklahoma City Thunder surprisingly find themselves down 2-1 to the Indiana Pacers in the NBA Finals? I can give you two versions of the story, both of which are equally valid. On one hand, there is the sheer fact of a more energetic Indiana side repeatedly outhustling, outscrapping, outrunning and ultimately outlasting Oklahoma City in Game 3. Call it 'energy' or 'playing with force' or whatever euphemism you want to use, but the tape doesn't lie. Rewatching the game on Thursday, the Thunder looked like a team on the last game of a four-games-in-five-nights trip. They played with little pace, were beaten to nearly every loose ball and completely ran out of gas at the end. Advertisement Of particular note was that the Thunder's best player was guilty on many of these fronts. Perhaps it's not surprising that Shai Gilgeous-Alexander was worn out by the end after a 42-minute stint where he was repeatedly attacked on defense while the Pacers picked him up full court on offense. What's a bit more shocking is how out of sorts the MVP looked even at the beginning. Eight seconds into the game, he picked up a frustration foul shoving away Andrew Nembhard. Minutes later, he already seemed exhausted. Check out this play, where he lets another player bring the ball up, jogs in a circle for a bit, then completely taps out of the play and grabs his shorts. This wasn't in the fourth quarter; it was in the fourth minute. Indiana's plan was to deny Gilgeous-Alexander from catching the ball anywhere, even 90 feet from the basket. After making baskets, Nembhard routinely raced in to deny an inbound pass before Gilgeous-Alexander could have a free catch. It was a nice adjustment by Indiana. What was amazing, however, was how meekly the Thunder acquiesced to this arrangement. On play after play, Gilgeous-Alexander either made no move at all to get open or pointed to a different player for the inbounder to pass to. One wonders if Gilgeous-Alexander was dealing with something physically, because he seemed to be conserving energy almost from the opening tip. Or maybe he just had a bad night; it happens. Gilgeous-Alexander was awesome in Games 1 and 2, and I expect the Thunder to give a much more valiant effort in Game 4. But underlying everything that happened in the first three games is another explanation, a bigger-picture question that's gnawing at me: Why can't the Thunder make 2s? Advertisement Oklahoma City has only made 47.4 percent of its 2-point shots this series, a ghastly figure that would have ranked last by a mile in the regular season. The league average was 54.5 percent; the worst team in the league (Charlotte) shot 49.9 percent. The poor shooting inside the arc is a key reason the Thunder offense is only posting a 113.6 offensive rating for the series after rolling to a 119.2 mark in the regular season (good for third in the league) and posting a 118.6 mark against a fearsome Minnesota Timberwolves defense in the Western Conference finals. Usually, a struggle like that could be explained by 3-point variance, but not here: Oklahoma City has made 39.8 percent from downtown in the three games. The Thunder are also drawing fouls at a high rate, making their freebies (83.6 percent) and doing solid work on the offensive glass. Even turnovers — Game 3 aside — have been a plus, with a very respectable 11.9 percent rate for the series. But the one area their offense figured to have a massive advantage has instead been a total zero. The Thunder ranked seventh in the league in 2-point shooting at 55.9 percent, while the Pacers were 23rd in 2-point defense at 55.4 percent — the worst mark of any playoff team. Additionally, 2-point shooting is usually more stable than 3-point shooting, and there should be less variance after three games because nearly twice as many shots are 2s. If you're wondering, the postseason's first three rounds didn't provide any indication that this dramatic shift would happen. The Thunder made 54 percent of their 2s against the Denver Nuggets and 55.7 percent against the Wolves. Indiana allowed the New York Knicks to shoot 56.1 percent in the conference finals and, before that, the injury-addled Cleveland Cavaliers made 52.8 percent against them. Based on the regular-season results, we'd expect the Thunder to be shooting 57 percent on 2s in this series, and instead, they're shooting a full 10 points worse. For three games, that's a difference of about 28 points (allowing for the fact that some of the extra misses were offensive rebounded), more than enough to swing the outcomes of Games 1 and 3. Advertisement Digging deeper on the 2-point woes, the main culprits are the Thunder's best players. Of the top fix Oklahoma City players in finals minutes, only Chet Holmgren has made more than half his 2s, and he's barely eeking past at 13-of-25 (52 percent). Jalen Williams has only made 42.5 percent of his 2s, and Gilgeous-Alexander just 50 percent, which is a problem since those two account for more than half the team's attempts. Personnel choices have likely been a factor, too. Isaiah Hartenstein and Aaron Wiggins were the team's two most accurate 2-point shooters in the regular season, combining for 13.2 attempts per game; they have only taken 16 the entire finals as the role of each has shriveled. Limiting fast-break points has been a factor: Oklahoma City averaged a whopping 17.2 fast-break points per game in the previous two rounds against Denver and Minnesota, but the Thunder have averaged a piddling 8.4 thus far in the finals. Subtracting some of those easy run-outs definitely impacts 2-point percentage; the Thunder shot 64.6 percent inside 5 feet in the regular season and 63.7 percent in the last two playoff rounds (even after I eliminated the four-game stampede over Memphis) but just 55.3 percent in these finals. The shooting stats also reveal a more mundane issue: The Thunder's two best players have missed a ton of makable middies. On 2s beyond 10 feet, Oklahoma City shot 46.4 percent in the regular season, 49.1 percent in the last two playoff rounds … and 36.1 percent in the finals. Williams lamented after Game 1 that many of his misses were on shots in his wheelhouse, 'shots that I rep,' as he put it. He missed all four of his long 2s while Gilgeous-Alexander went 2 of 8, hugely consequential misses in a one-point loss. Even in an otherwise strong performance in Game 3, Williams was 2 of 7 on 2s beyond 10 feet while Gilgeous-Alexander was 3 of 8. Most of them were clean looks, too. Even in the Thunder's breakout Game 2 win, the duo combined to shoot 7 of 13 on these shots; solid, but hardly a hailstorm. For the series, that makes them 14 of 40 on the midrange shots that have been a huge bulwark of the Thunder's half-court offense all season. For Williams, the pull-ups going left have abandoned him suddenly. This one from Game 3 is a practice shot for him, and it's not even close: Late in the third quarter, he had another example of a frustrating miss when he was isolated against the lumbering Thomas Bryant and easily got to a pull-up, only to have it hit three parts of the rim and bounce out. Similarly, Gilgeous-Alexander had some tough shots against good contests from the Pacers but also has to feel like he left some money on the table. He shoots about 99 percent when he turns baseline from the left block, but this shot over a lukewarm contest from Ben Sheppard didn't find the mark: He bonked another shot from the same spot in the second half, albeit under a bit more duress from Nembhard. So, what do we make of this? It's too reductive to say that the Thunder are just going to automatically make more long 2s next game; that's not how this works. And of course, this isn't the only element of shooting variance at work here; at some point, Lu Dort might cool off from 3, for instance, and I don't think the Thunder can count on their 'free-throw defense' to save them quite as many points in the upcoming games. Needless to say, if I were the Thunder, I'd be much more concerned about the effort and exhaustion piece of the puzzle, and particularly about how to manage Gilgeous-Alexander through games so he has some juice left to take over at the end. Advertisement Nonetheless, the Thunder probably need to solve both problems to win three of the next four and claim the franchise's first title in Oklahoma. Most expected that a Pacers' victory template would include their full-court pace and pressure gassing the mighty Thunder, but Oklahoma City's wayward 2-point shooting is an unforeseen complication. Sure, the law of averages might eventually tilt back the Thunder's way on these shots, but we don't have 82 games to wait. Their margin of error is gone. The effort needs to ramp up, and the middies have to start falling. (Top photo of Jalen Williams and Bennedict Mathurin: Maddie Meyer / Getty Images)
Indianapolis Star
3 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Pacers can't get comfortable with 2-1 NBA Finals lead: 'We're still a long way away'
INDIANAPOLIS – A reporter started to ask Rick Carlisle a question about the Pacers being 3-0 in these playoffs in Game 4s when they've taken 2-1 leads in the first three games. The Pacers coach cut it off before he was completely done with the premise, but in a sense it served as the best answer he could give. "Yeah, listen, before you even ask the question, we're not getting into answering questions about the future or anything like that," Carlisle said. "I mean, you look at what Oklahoma (City) did the beginning of (Game 3), 16-7, boom, just like that. We have a lead at the end of the third quarter. Boom, all of a sudden, we're down five going into the fourth. There's no looking forward. We study some of the things that have happened leading up to this. Beyond that, I'm not talking about anything having to do with series standings or any of that kind of stuff. It would be foolish." Carlisle's response gives a pretty good sense of the Pacers' mindset going into Game 4 of the NBA Finals on Friday at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in what will be the second Finals game in Indianapolis in 25 years after Wednesday's was the first. They are trying to maintain the edge they had going into Game 4 in each of the three series en route to their Eastern Conference championship by trying not to remind themselves they won those games. On one hand they're in the same situation they were going into each of those games in that they're up 2-1 with a chance to take a commanding 3-1 lead. On the other hand, in Game 4 in each of the previous three series, they were coming off a humbling Game 3 loss. Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle. In this series, wins and losses have alternated for the two teams so far with the Pacers having won Game 1 and Game 3 with the Thunder taking Game 2 in between. Also, the Thunder are the best team they've played so far by almost every measure having entered the playoffs with the No. 1 overall seed with a record of 68-14, which ranks as fifth-highest regular season win total all-time. When the Pacers lost to the Thunder in the regular season on March 29, Carlisle called the Thunder "the best team on the planet right now" and even though the Pacers still have a lead in this series, he's maintaining the same level of reverence for them. "That's the challenge before us right now, is to maintain," Carlisle said. "It's got to be a killer edge to beat these guys. We're going to be an underdog in every game in this series. It was 10 and a half in the first two games, five and a half last night, then tomorrow. It's a daunting challenge. Anything less than a total grit mindset, we just don't have a chance." The Pacers have never been this close to an NBA title before. In their only other Finals appearance they fell behind 2-0 and then 3-1 to the Lakers and though they won Game 5 to get within two wins of the title, they had to go back to Los Angeles for Games 6 and 7 because the format was 2-3-2 at the time rather than 2-2-1-1-1. So part of the challenge is keeping that reality where it serves them best. Acknowledging they can't guarantee for themselves they'll ever be in this position again, but also keeping in mind how much work there is to do and not getting ahead of themselves. "I think it starts from coach Carlisle, just keeping our attention on the main thing, taking it a day at a time, focusing on what's in front of us," All-Star point guard Tyrese Haliburton said. "I think that just trickles down. I think our jobs — me, Pascal (Siakam), Myles (Turner), James (Johnson Jr.), as leaders is to continue to share the same message that coach has. There's nothing to get excited about right now. We're still a long way away. ...There's no need to get super giddy or excited. There's still a lot of work to be done." And they know they're in for a punch from the Thunder, who have been every bit as good at adjusting after losses as the Pacers have. The Thunder have not only not lost consecutive games at any point in these playoffs, they lost consecutive games just twice in the regular season — once in November and once in April after they had clinched homecourt advantage throughout the Western Conference playoffs. They tend to be good at making adjustments and correcting mistakes and they see a lot they believe they can fix. They committed 19 turnovers in their Game 3 loss, for instance, and that's not typical for them at all. "Part of their pressure is affecting some of the way we're making reads," OKC reserve wing Aaron Wiggins said. "But that's more so in our control. We have to play at our pace, play the way we want to play and play our brand of basketball which is sharing the basketball and finding guys and creating opportunities. ... (We saw) a lot of controllable things. Turnovers. Our defensive lapses when we weren't making the right rotations and coverages after that. Offensively, just execution wise, making it easy for each other to find open shots and get looks." The Pacers scored 50 points in the paint after scoring just 34 in each of the first two games. Indiana clearly made adjustments to create more driving opportunities, but the Thunder still saw things they could adjust to. "A lot of it was us and things we could control," Wiggins said. "I think we just allowed them to be too comfortable. Their comfortability allowed them to play at their pace and find their rhythm and play the way they want to play." And generally, teams of the Thunder's caliber become more dangerous in the playoffs when they figure out what they can fix, which is why Carlisle wants to make sure the Pacers keep their edge. "We need everybody," Carlisle said. "We need everybody to put everything they have into it. That's how we've gotten to the Finals."
