Latest news with #RalphRusso
New York Times
25-05-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
Big Ten, SEC plans for College Football Playoff are only getting more nonsensical
You've probably been busy the past three months going to work, paying bills, living your life. You probably haven't been following every incremental development in the ongoing negotiations over the future format of the College Football Playoff beginning in 2026. So, allow me to catch you up. In February, the leaders of the Big Ten and SEC held a joint meeting in New Orleans where they earnestly discussed what could be described as a coup. They would flex their muscle to expand the CFP to 14 teams and guarantee themselves four berths each, regardless of where their teams are ranked. The ACC and Big 12 would each get two, the Group of 5 conferences one. Advertisement Word got out, and the news was met with intense backlash from a public accustomed to postseason tournaments being based on the results of the season in question. Folks across the sport figured they'd eventually back down. Well, three months later, that has not happened. The format currently being discussed is somehow more nonsensical than that one. As The Athletic's Ralph Russo reported Wednesday, the commissioners have now skipped past 14 teams to 16, still with those slanted automatic berths. And not even a clean, simple bracket where No. 1 plays No. 16, No. 2 plays No. 15, etc. 'More likely, the CFP would look to start a week earlier, on what has traditionally been Army-Navy weekend,' writes Russo, 'with the four lowest seeds (13 through 16) playing their way into the second weekend's six-game bracket.' Only in college football, where conference commissioners who serve at the behest of their league's members also get to craft the postseason for the entire sport, could people muck up a perfectly good product this badly. It took a full season for the public to figure out how the first 12-team CFP worked. The format will change again in Year 2 with this week's (smart) move to a straight seeding model this fall rather than reserving the top four seeds for conference champions. And now they're talking about changing it even more drastically, a year after that. No one asked for a First Four of college football. Will the games be played in Dayton? Those matchups last season (under the straight seeding model adopted Thursday) would have been No. 13 seed Miami (10-2) vs. No. 16 seed Clemson (10-3) and No. 14 seed Ole Miss (9-3) vs. No. 15 seed South Carolina (9-3). Games like this used to be known as the Outback Bowl. And to shoehorn two play-in games into an ostensibly symmetrical 16-team field, the No. 1 and No. 2 seeds would get a double-bye into the quarterfinals. Imagine if the Detroit Lions and Kansas City Chiefs didn't play their first postseason game until the third weekend of the NFL playoffs. This would be that, but their hiatus would be even longer because the gap between Army-Navy and New Year's can be as long as three weeks. Advertisement And then there's those guaranteed berths — the so-called 4-4-2-2-1 model, automatically giving the Big Ten and SEC the most bids. No major U.S. sport holds a postseason where certain divisions or conferences are guaranteed more berths than the others. The hubris of the Big Ten and SEC to even propose this, much less go forward with it, is astonishing even by Big Ten and SEC standards. Those conferences will justify their rationale by citing historical data that says their current members would have averaged even more than four bids annually. They're not wrong about that. Which is why putting it in writing is unnecessary. And yet, they have not backed down from this nonsense. There's a reason for that. Nearly everyone The Athletic has spoken to about this subject over the past few months says this entire cockamamie scheme is the brainchild of Tony Pettiti, the third-year Big Ten commissioner who used to be a television executive. He needs those four automatic berths for the Big Ten so he can fulfill his dream of creating his league's NBA Play-In Tournament on conference championship weekend — No. 3 versus No. 6, No. 4 versus No. 5, with the winners going to the CFP. His No. 6 seed last year would have been Iowa (8-4). But he must have reason to believe Fox, CBS, NBC or perhaps one of umpteen streaming services will pay good money for the rights to these showdowns. As with every other decision in college athletics, it's always about the money. And schools are particularly thirsty for money these days because they might soon have to share some of it with their athletes. They are turning over every couch cushion and shining a flashlight looking for any loose change, lest they have to stop giving their coaches unsolicited raises and contract extensions. That's the case among SEC members, too. While commissioner Greg Sankey has not been the one driving the 4-4-2-2-1 push, he has not stepped in to stop it. It's no secret he and his members are not the world's biggest fans of the selection committee, and one of the selling points of automatic berths is that conference standings, not ADs and retired coaches, would determine the teams. Advertisement Which sounds good in theory, but then, why play nonconference games? Wouldn't this year's Texas-Ohio State Week 1 mega-showdown become essentially a preseason game? If you're Steve Sarkisian, how many series before you sit Arch Manning and get a look at your backups? Perhaps Petitti, Sankey and their members haven't stopped to consider these sorts of ramifications. More likely they have, but an extra couple of million dollars per school has a way of making everything else seem irrelevant. I can't emphasize enough how much damage a predetermined, nonsensical bracket will cause for not just the CFP's credibility, but college football's popularity. It will not bring in new fans and it will turn off many current ones. Not to mention, it will likely incur scrutiny from politicians and antitrust lawyers alarmed to see two conferences colluding to rig a national tournament in their favor. Anyone who lived through the BCS (1998-2013) has seen this movie before. The system for choosing the national championship participants was complicated to begin with, employing a set of manipulated computer rankings and organizers tweaked the rules seemingly every year in response to whatever controversy arose in the previous one. It was confusing, it was maddening and eventually it crumbled under the weight of congressional hearings and a book titled 'Death to the BCS.' The best way to avoid that fate is for the commissioners to declare they're moving to a 16-team playoff, and it will be comprised of … wait for it … the top 16 teams. But that would require the Big Ten and SEC putting the good of the sport above their self-interests. Don't bother holding your breath.
New York Times
05-03-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Mandel's mailbag: Will Florida State, Clemson stay in ACC? What's Ohio State's outlook?
I've got to say, I was surprised I wasn't flooded with ACC-Florida State/Clemson lawsuit settlement questions this week. Either you guys are losing interest in realignment, or you're losing interest in the ACC. (Or both.) (Note: Submitted questions have been lightly edited for length and clarity.) I think Florida State and Clemson leaving the ACC would begin a Pac-12 type of evaporation so I hope they stay. Is the new revenue formula and game selection enough to hold them in the conference? — John D. Advertisement FSU and Clemson made out well in the settlements. For all the FSU bluster about bolting the ACC, this whole saga began because it wanted a bigger slice of the league's revenue, and now it has that. Those two programs, along with Miami when it's good, are always going to be the league leaders in TV ratings, which will now determine 60 percent of the conference's media rights pot. ACC schools received an average of around $45 million from conference revenue in 2022-23. My colleagues Ralph Russo and Matt Baker reported that schools can now earn an extra $15 million to $35 million between this and the postseason performance pool instituted last year. If so, they'll be on par with the SEC/Big Ten. Which is what they wanted all along. But of course, that won't temper speculation those two might still leave. If anything, the settlement sets a target date of 2030-31, when the league's exit fee will drop to $75 million, AND a departing member retains its media rights, which effectively renders the Grant of Rights moot. But while it's now more feasible for FSU/Clemson to leave, they still need someone to invite them to leave. There has been no indication during the past 18 months that either the Big Ten or SEC are pining to add those or any other ACC members. The SEC already has schools in those states and more than enough big TV brands to keep ESPN happy. And the Big Ten is finding out how hard it is to keep 18 members spread across the country happy, especially in scheduling. GO DEEPER The ACC-FSU-Clemson legal battle is ending. How long will realignment peace reign? But 2030-31 is a long way away and both college sports and sports TV will presumably change quite a bit between now and then. Under the Big Ten's and SEC's current media rights deals, there are barely enough TV windows to fit the schools they have. But what if everything moves to streaming by then, and Netflix or Amazon says give us an abundance of games? Advertisement I believe the traditional conference model in football will crumble by the early 2030s. It's already too unwieldy, and the revenue-sharing era will expose the chasms within conferences between schools that can afford to compete at the highest level and those that can't. Len Perna, ringleader of the group spearheading a proposed FBS Super League, told me late last year they were targeting 2032. It might not be that exact model, but it will be something that generates even more money and makes more sense geographically. What's the outlook for Ohio State this season? I think Julian Sayin has the potential to be the first pick in the NFL Draft. Can they reload and win another natty? I'm worried about their pass rush. What say you, premier college football writer? — Joshua F. First pick of the NFL Draft? Two years from now? Bold prediction for a guy who's attempted 12 college passes. But yes, he's supposed to be good. And Ohio State could be really good, but to do so the Buckeyes will need to go against recent college football history. The past two national champions (2023 Michigan and 2024 Ohio State) were senior-led teams with a ton of returning experience. The past nine, going back to 2016 Clemson with Deshaun Watson, had quarterbacks with previous starting experience (albeit in a couple of cases, only a few games). The 2025 Buckeyes will be low on returning starters not just at quarterback but across the board, save for the notable exceptions of receiver Jeremiah Smith and safety Caleb Downs. But times have changed, and Ryan Day did very well in the portal this offseason, especially on offense. I've long been impressed with West Virginia running back CJ Donaldson as a guy who shares carries. Rice's Ethan Onianwa doesn't just fill a void at offensive tackle, he could be one of the top guys in the country. And Purdue tight end Max Klare has garnered quite a bit of buzz. And then there's this: The stat 'returning starters' could become increasingly deceiving with these longer seasons. Technically, Ohio State will have just six. But guys like defensive ends Kenyatta Jackson and Caden Curry, receiver Brandon Inniss, DB Lorenzo Styles Jr., linebackers C.J. Hicks and Arvell Reese, and cornerback Jermaine Matthews Jr. played as many snaps as someone who started three to five games. And they're all very good. Advertisement Realistically, Ohio State is not going to repeat as national champion, but perhaps the Buckeyes have as good or better a regular season as the team that went 10-2 last year. With teams seeming to do away with spring games, or at least heading in that direction, why couldn't they do closed-door spring games? I get coaches don't want to lose players to the portal but wouldn't it still benefit the players and staff to get a live game in? — Jasper Schmidt, Crosby, Minn. Most teams hold scrimmages during the spring that the public never sees, and coaches will tell you they're far more useful than the spring game. The spring game is primarily for the fans. Which is why I HATE that coaches are falling all over themselves to cancel them this year. Nebraska, Ohio State, Texas, USC and right on down the line. Why do they have to be the most paranoid people on the planet? I'm not unsympathetic to the concerns about other schools going roster poaching, but as Dabo Swinney — who is keeping Clemson's spring game — said last week, 'Whether you have a spring game or not, (there's) going to be tampering.' But sure, let's take away this tradition that 40,000-60,000 fans of a school enjoy annually because someone might watch them on Big Ten Network and poach their second-string linebacker. I have a particular bone to pick with Matt Rhule, whose 12-13 record in his first two seasons at Nebraska apparently has turned him into the arbiter of all things college football. First, he touched off the spring game revolt, and then, after Nebraska canceled its upcoming home-and-home with Tennessee, went on Urban Meyer's podcast and said, 'Why would you ever play one of those games?' I'll tell you why: The fans like them! Much more so than watching their team play Akron and Houston Christian, Nebraska's two nonconference home opponents this season. Even if it means the Huskers might win seven games instead of eight. Sorry to go on my soapbox, but I feel like college football finds new reasons every year to alienate its fans, from realignment to watered-down schedules to the price of hot dogs. It makes you want to shake a guy like Rhule and say, 'Do you realize how you're able to make $9 million a year to coach football? Because of those people!' Advertisement But I digress. So, the NFL is retiring the chain gang next season and using the Hawk-Eye virtual measurement system to decide if somebody got a first down. If the system works well next season in the NFL, how long until FBS adopts it? — John H., State College, Pa. First of all: Long overdue. If it goes well, hopefully college adopts it the following year. But it took nearly 30 years from when the NFL debuted helmet communication to adopt it in college, so, perhaps in 2055. Are there any coaches who've started as poorly as Luke Fickell has at Wisconsin and turned their failures into successes? Will Fickell ultimately succeed? — Gary K. Sure, I can think of a few recent examples. Florida State's Mike Norvell was 8-13 his first two seasons before going 23-4 over the next two. (Let's not discuss last season.) Missouri's Eli Drinkwitz began with three straight .500 regular seasons before improving to 11-2 and 10-3 the past two seasons. And Florida's Billy Napier was squarely on the hot seat deep into his third season after going 6-7, 5-7 and starting 4-5 last season before winning four straight to finish 8-5 and restore some confidence. Compared with those, Fickell's 13-13 mark over his first two seasons seems fairly unalarming on the surface. But there are two big differences. For one, Fickell followed a coach, Paul Chryst, who was not considered disastrous by any means. Most of us were stunned when AD Chris McIntosh fired him five games into the 2022 season given he'd just gone 9-4 the year before and 67-26 overall. So Fickell started with a higher bar than most coaches taking over for a coach who got canned. Perhaps more importantly, though, Fickell walked into a program that had a lot of success doing things a certain way for 30 years and tried to reinvent the wheel. Arguably the biggest thing working against him is that the unofficial mayor of Madison, Barry Alvarez, has been publicly critical of him on several occasions. Gary Danielson mentioned on the air during a game against USC that Alvarez did not like Wisconsin lining up in the shotgun on a fourth down play earlier in the game. Heaven help Kalen DeBoer if Nick Saban starts questioning his play-calling on 'College GameDay.' Advertisement I don't see a lot of hope for Fickell, whose big offseason moves involved hiring an offensive coordinator, Jeff Grimes, whose fans of his previous school, Kansas, would have packed his bags for him, and landing a transfer QB, Maryland's Billy Edwards Jr., who was the Big Ten's ninth-rated passer last season. But I felt the same way about those earlier guys at this same point in their tenures, so maybe both myself and Alvarez will soon be eating crow. What can fans do before consequential decisions are made to halt the 4-4-2-2-1 model for a 14-team College Football Playoff to prevent it from happening in the same way soccer fans stopped the Super League? Would coordinated protests at the conference basketball tournaments, including SEC and Big Ten tournaments, be enough? — Andrew W., New York That's a great idea. Try to get on camera waving a sign that says, 'CFP Auto Qualifiers are for Losers, not Champions.' Probably more effective, though, would be sit-ins outside the presidents' mansions at Big Ten and SEC universities. 'No At-Larges, No Justice!' Just whatever you do, keep it civil. Not like an SEC football game. After reading your article on the Pop-Tarts Bowl, it got me thinking: Could bowl games make a move toward smaller stadiums since in-person attendance has been declining? — Patrick, Aiken, S.C. Thanks for reading that story. It's so easy in the offseason to get bogged down by Playoff formats and revenue sharing and whatnot, it was fun to write about a much lighter topic. We've seen a little bit of that already. The Holiday Bowl, whose longtime home Jack Murphy Stadium (that's how I remember it) got demolished in 2021, is now played at San Diego State's 35,000-seat Snapdragon Stadium, which seems about right given that it pits a (former) Pac-12 school against an ACC school unlikely to travel. The game now known as the Rate Bowl downsized from Sun Devil Stadium to Chase Field a decade ago. But not all cities have a mid-sized stadium like that, so you're more likely to see games in a football stadium where the upper deck is not used. GO DEEPER 'To the victor goes the pastry': How the Pop-Tarts Bowl became CFB's most absurd moment But let's be honest: There was a recognition many years ago that these bowls were now less a tourism event and more a TV show, hence why we have games in Detroit, Boston, Birmingham, etc. And why so many of the G5-level bowls feel completely disconnected from their locations. Does anyone know where the 68 Ventures Bowl is played? Or the difference between the First Responders Bowl and the Frisco Bowl? Advertisement To me, the lesson of the Pop-Tarts Bowl is that it's perfectly OK to embrace the fact that most bowl games are just for fun. And to lean into that fun. Most people like to have fun. Could an athlete drop his scholarship at his current school during the season and walk on to another school to take bigger NIL money, more playing time, or to play in the College Football Playoff? — Eric L. Not as of now, because there's an NCAA rule that says you can't play for two schools in the same academic year. But like all things NCAA, it's currently facing a legal challenge from a golfer, Holly McLean, who is seeking a preliminary injunction to compete for USF this spring after competing in one event for Oklahoma last fall. She says she was informed later in the fall that her scholarship was not being renewed and thus entered the transfer portal but has been deemed ineligible to compete in the spring season due to that fall event. I think we can all agree the facts of that particular situation are unique. But, like Diego Pavia and others, if she wins, it could set a precedent allowing lots and lots of others, perhaps even in other sports, to follow suit. Another lawsuit has been filed against the NCAA challenging one of its eligibility rules. This one challenges the rule that you can't play for two schools in the same academic year. Plaintiff is a former Oklahoma🏌️♀️who was cut this fall because of House settlement roster limits. — Mit Winter (@WinterSportsLaw) February 21, 2025 Before last season started, Indiana, Iowa State and Vanderbilt were the last remaining Power 4 teams to never win 10 or more games in a season. Now Vanderbilt is the only team remaining. How long do you think it will take for Vanderbilt to get to 10 wins in a season? Five years? Ten years? Twenty-five years? Would it require the season to be extended, or for the entire SEC to get guaranteed berths in the Playoff? — Andre S., Galena, Ill. What an amazing factoid, albeit a depressing one for Vandy fans. But I think they have a chance. The portal helps them, as we saw last season. And the mega-sized SEC with no divisions allows for more randomness in schedules, where in any given year the Commodores could luck into a schedule like Indiana's last season. Maybe a decent nonconference program happens to have a down year when Vandy faces it. The Commodores don't have to make the Playoff, they just need to get to 9-3 and win a bowl game. I'll take the 10-year timeline, though perhaps I'm being pessimistic. Perhaps I should predict it to happen this season. Vandy ranks No. 8 nationally in returning production, per Bill Connelly. Pavia is back for one more season, as is his favorite target, tight end Eli Stowers. As are four of the Commodores' top five tacklers. Advertisement One problem: Vandy did not luck into an easy schedule this season, what with trips to Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina and Virginia Tech, plus LSU and Missouri at home. It will happen sometime in the next decade, though. The Big Ten and SEC were 1-5 against Notre Dame last year. Super conferences? LOL. You can't even beat a team that has no conference. — Kevin H. Very true. Though if 'performance against Notre Dame in 2024' is the new measuring stick in this sport then we should all be bowing down to the MAC.
New York Times
13-02-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
Would SEC football bring back divisions? When will schedule format be set? Mailbag
Football season is officially over, and it's hard not to laugh at the dichotomy. When the NFL season ends, the attention turns to roster building: the draft, free agency, basically what will rosters look like. You know, normal stuff. When the college season ends, on the other hand, the attention turns to, essentially: What will the future of the sport look like? Advertisement As we sit here now, we don't know what the format for the College Football Playoff will be this year. It's very much up in the air beyond that. The SEC doesn't have a set schedule format beyond this year. And next week comes an SEC-Big Ten summit where maybe they will divide the world … or just eat a bunch of jambalaya and agree to meet again later. So with that, let's get to a few questions: Note: Submitted questions have been lightly edited for length and clarity. Is there any chance the SEC will return to divisions? Does not having divisions increase the odds of the SEC Championship Game going away as debating College Football Playoff eligibility increasingly sucks all the air out of the room? — Bo H. When SEC athletic directors meet next week in New Orleans and then meet with their Big Ten counterparts, there may be a lot of out-of-the-box thinking. I've heard several of those ideas, but going back to divisions hasn't been one of them. This past season saw a lot of great games, and a variety of matchups, that were happening on a much lesser scale when there were divisions. Divisions were a constraint on scheduling, especially as conferences got bigger, and that resulted in a lot of stale annual 'rivalries.' Yes, getting rid of divisions created unequal scheduling, but some of that already existed in division play, where teams had different cross-division opponents. And yes, no divisions meant tiebreaker headaches, but that's a small price to pay for better matchups, and there's a way to mitigate the tiebreaker issue. Championship games aren't going anywhere, at least in the SEC, given how lucrative they are for the television networks and the conferences. This past year's SEC championship was the most-watched college football game to that point of the season. But there is a fun idea out there that could solve a few problems at once. My colleagues Ralph Russo and Stewart Mandel floated it last month, and it could get more discussion in New Orleans: Rivalry weekend is moved up a week, and championship weekend becomes Thanksgiving weekend. Generally, television networks don't want this because they love having college football inventory for Thursday through Saturday of a holiday weekend. So a way to satisfy the demand would be to create more games: The championship games are still held between the top two seeds, but then the conferences hold additional CFP play-in games: third in the standings versus sixth for one spot, fourth versus fifth for another. Advertisement This, of course, would be if the SEC and Big Ten end up having four permanent spots in the CFP. The question is how much the two conferences want to push for that; the Big Ten is more eager while the SEC has reservations. Television may still resist because it would ultimately be less inventory. Moving up the games is a fun idea, and it allows CFP games to be moved up. The underwhelming ratings for this year's semifinals and championship surely had something to do with the season going too far into January when the NFL playoffs take so much attention. Of course, the 2027 national championship, to follow the 2026 season, the first in the format-to-be-decided, already has been announced as Jan. 25. That can always move, but my guess is a drastic change in the regular-season calendar will take a while. Speaking of taking a while … When will the SEC decide on a permanent scheduling format? It obviously will be only eight games. — Gene W. That's not obvious, especially if the SEC gets into a scheduling agreement with the Big Ten, which plays nine conference games. This almost certainly will be a discussion point in New Orleans, although I'm not sure there will be anything definitive on a scheduling agreement coming from next week. But it wouldn't be surprising if we get something on the SEC format. Nothing is set for 2026, so the conference needs to resolve that. My sense has been it will do another two-year, eight-game format, continuing to punt until it gets more money from ESPN. But if things with the Big Ten move quickly enough, who knows, maybe the nine-game schedule will come sooner than we thought. Or maybe the Big Ten contracts to an eight-game schedule. If you could build a program around one of the following QBs, which would it be and why: DJ Lagway, LaNorris Sellers, Arch Manning, Nico Iamaleava, Gunner Stockton? — Chuck G. Well, these days you don't build a program around a quarterback; you only can build one season around them and hope they stick around more than one, which all of the above are doing. I'd be curious why you picked those five, rather than including Garrett Nussmeier, Diego Pavia, Marcel Reed and Taylen Green, who are also returning SEC quarterbacks. But those are the five you listed so I'll play along. Advertisement Manning looks like the most sure thing, as boring an answer as that may be, mainly based on pedigree and a couple of starts. But I would be tempted to take Sellers, who is as dynamic as any returning quarterback in the country. Lagway and Iamaleava have pedigree too, and nobody would be shocked if one of them ends up being named to the All-SEC first team. Stockton is the outlier. I'm not down on him: If he can combine the way he ran in the SEC championship with the way he passed in the Sugar Bowl and improve his pocket awareness, he can be very good. You're talking about someone who was a five-star recruit before settling in as a solid four-star prospect. But Stockton isn't guaranteed to start and will get a push from Ryan Puglisi. Let me return to the original question and have some fun with it. If every SEC quarterback was made a free agent tomorrow, here's the order in which the Emerson Collective would throw name, image and likeness money at them based just on what they could do for Emerson University this year: Will Josh Heupel prove he can win on the road in the SEC and revive his passing game this year? Will Iamaleava flourish or flounder? — Bradford B., UT fan in Arlington, Va. This ultimately is one of the questions about Heupel: Does his offense have a ceiling? It did its first job, which was to get Tennessee back to relevance, and that can't be dismissed. Remember how many years Tennessee spent in the wilderness, then Heupel got it to a No. 1 ranking during his second year, then the CFP in his fourth year. (And yes the defense deserves most of the credit, as the offense was only eighth in the SEC in yards per play, although Tennessee was second in scoring offense, so it was doing something right.) It should also be remembered that Tennessee exceeded expectations last season, picked seventh in the SEC preseason media poll, then getting conference's the third CFP bid. So consider that disclaimer when I say Tennessee will again be picked in the fifth-to-eighth area. The Vols lose their best players on both sides of the ball, and while Iamaleava taking a big step forward would help, he loses his top three receivers. The good news is the schedule. If 10-2 is what it will take to get back to the CFP, it will be a matter of getting three wins out of these games: Syracuse (in Charlotte), at Alabama, at Florida and home against Georgia and Oklahoma. (And avoiding upsets at Kentucky or Mississippi State and home against Arkansas and Vanderbilt.) The schedule may have helped the Vols get to last year's CFP and could help them get back. How many games does Hugh Freeze have to win to keep his job? — Davis S. There's a wide disparity of possibilities. Auburn has some cause for optimism next year, especially if Arnold flourishes in Freeze's system. The schedule is helpful, with Alabama and Georgia traveling to Jordan-Hare Stadium. There's a world where Auburn contends for a Playoff spot, and if it happens while Kalen DeBoer has a rough second season at Alabama, the feelings along the Plains will be very high. Advertisement But this program lost at home to Cal, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Vanderbilt and went 5-7 in Freeze's second year, which is supposed to be the big leap for coaches. So how optimistic should Auburn fans be for Year 3? While going 7-5 would be a reason for Freeze to point at improvement, it won't feel very strong, unless that 7-5 includes wins over Georgia or Alabama. Billy Napier pulled off the late-season goodwill credit/momentum. But the Gators have a daunting 2025 schedule facing four ranked Top-25 teams in the first six weeks. If Napier has a carbon copy 2024 season start, could he survive? — Moe J. This could be very off, but it feels like by riding it out last year, Napier has some runway, unless a new school president comes in antsy to make a change. After two home guarantee games to open the season, Florida goes to LSU and Miami, then after the bye hosts Texas and goes to Texas A&M. Can Napier lose all four? It depends on how competitive those four games are. Remember that Florida athletic director Scott Stricklin announced last year that Napier was returning after the Georgia game when the Gators kept it close, just as they did a few weeks before at Tennessee. If the Gators are again competitive early this season, you would think the administration will want to give the team a chance in the second half of the season, when it faces Georgia, goes to Ole Miss and hosts Tennessee. Then you make a call, potentially in November if the wheels start to come off. Then again, what's happening elsewhere will dictate a lot of this. It could be a busy year in the SEC hiring cycle, and schools may want to jump in early, especially with the transfer portal looming. At this point next year, which SEC team(s) do you think will have a new coach? — Joe B. I'm not going to outright predict firings and changes because that could be aggregated by some AI-generated website. I will say that this gave me an idea for a story to come, hopefully later this month. And if I had to put an over-under on changes, I'd put it at 3.5. And probably would bet the over.
New York Times
04-02-2025
- Business
- New York Times
What are next steps in NCAA's $2.8 billion settlement becoming reality?
By Ralph Russo, Lindsay Schnell and Justin Williams The deadline to formally object to a landmark settlement of antitrust cases facing the NCAA passed late last week with more than 35 filings to the court. Numerous challenges have been made to how $2.8 billion in damages is expected to be divvied up among claimants, proposed roster restrictions some say unfairly limits opportunities for college athletes and whether the deal violates Title IX. Advertisement A hearing is scheduled for April 7 in Northern California, the day of the NCAA men's basketball championship game, and federal Judge Claudia Wilken is expected to issue a ruling this spring. The settlement also includes a revenue-sharing plan that will allow schools to start directly paying players next school year, with each school distributing as much as $20.5 million to its athletes. The NCAA and college conferences named in the lawsuits believe Wilken has already addressed most of the issues raised in objections, and are confident she will approve the settlement. 'We don't think there's anything in the objections that hasn't been known about the settlement,' Rakesh Kilaru, the NCAA's lead counsel who negotiated the settlement, said recently. 'We don't think there's going to be anything that should give the judge reason to change her mind. The preliminary approval order, while preliminary, says she's likely to finally approve the settlement. That was after folks came in and raised concerns about Title IX, roster limits, general antitrust concerns.' Schools and conferences are moving on plans to implement revenue sharing, with some starting to sign athletes to revenue-sharing agreements. They are also deep into preparation and budgeting for life post-settlement. Some athletic departments have been frank in their financial assessment: Indiana University, for example, is planning to cut 25 athletic department positions and funnel that money to athletes. There are potential roadblocks though. In addition to the objections and comment letters filed by last Friday, recent Department of Education guidance stated name, image and likeness (NIL) payments made by schools could violate Title IX gender equity laws if the vast majority of the money goes to football and men's basketball players, as some have planned. The DOE's Office for Civil Rights handed down a memo last month while still under the Biden administration. Advertisement The Department of Justice also weighed in under the previous administration, questioning whether the proposed cap on revenue-sharing payments to athletes violates antitrust law and encouraging Wilken to reject the settlement or remove the caps. Since then, a new lawsuit against the NCAA and power conferences has been filed by more than 70 athletes who have opted out of the House settlement. Meanwhile, plaintiffs' attorneys say they have about 40,000 eligible claims to collect damages from former athletes who have already opted in. Kilaru acknowledged the settlement isn't expected to be a cure-all for college sports. 'It's going to involve sharing at or close to 50 percent of (athletic department) revenues with student-athletes, and it's going to bring a lot more stability to college sports,' he said. Steve Berman, one of the lead plaintiffs' attorneys who negotiated the settlement, said that based on the number of formal opt-outs, more than 99 percent of the class represented by the settlement supports the deal. 'This settlement is going to lead to an increase in spending on college athletes and should increase overall participation in college sports,' Berman said. 'Although we appreciate all of the views expressed by the objectors, and have considered them, we believe the settlement is more than fair.' Others aren't so sure. Arthur Bryant, a prominent Title IX attorney from the Bay Area who filed his own objections, is adamant that the settlement be reworked and skeptical Wilken will approve it. Bryant said in an interview with The Athletic that the recent DOE guidance makes it clear schools have a responsibility to ensure all payments — either from third parties or the schools themselves — are proportional to male and female athlete participation rate. 'The basic principle is that schools can't discriminate against women to make money,' Bryant said, 'and this settlement proves they're trying to do that again.' Advertisement Various third parties believe Wilken is likely to rubber stamp the settlement this spring, though the terms are ripe for subsequent litigation even after approval. 'My strong sense is that when it gets to this level, way more matters are closed, in the sense of they go forward as opposed to they blow up,' said Irwin Kishner, co-chair of the Sports Law Group with the Herrick Feinstein law firm. 'It's not unheard of, but I think if you're looking at the percentages, it seems to me there's a real desire in the political situation to sort of make this happen.' Cal Stein, a litigation partner at Troutman Pepper Locke who has advised a number of colleges and collectives on NIL issues, believes it's more likely than not the settlement gets approved, but acknowledged he's less confident in that outcome than he was in October when Wilken granted preliminary approval. He also agreed more lawsuits are on the way. 'The House settlement started with the goal of the NCAA putting an end to the losses it has taken in these litigations all over the country,' said Stein, 'but the great irony is that it's really just going to lead to more lawsuits.' The solution, according to nearly everyone involved, is clear: Congress must intervene with a federal law and antitrust exemption. But that route presents its own hurdles. 'I'm a little bit skeptical, or maybe a lot skeptical, that we're anywhere near that happening,' said Stein. 'I don't know that it's a priority for Congress.' The final approval hearing on April 7 looms large. Wilken will weigh the objections before approving the settlement as-is or sending it back to address her concerns. Either way, it won't be the end, with legal battle(s) expected to roll on for months and even years. But it is the next significant step in this ongoing effort to reshape college sports. — The Athletic's Scott Dochterman contributed reporting
