Mandel's Mailbag: Buying stock in Oregon, ranking jobs by prestige, House settlement fallout (2024)

I’ve noticed the questions here are getting wonkier ever since The Athletic switched to using nytimes.com URLs. Could be a coincidence. Or could be that you need a law degree to follow the news in college sports right now.

But let’s start with a topic we can all understand, even with the Wall Street analogy.

Note: Submitted questions have been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Over the next decade, give us one team you’re buying stock in, one team you’re selling and one team you’re holding. — Dan M.

I’m buying stock in Oregon. Beyond being impressed with Dan Lanning, arguably no program has benefitted more from the sport’s biggest recent changes. The program for ages seemingly had a recruiting ceiling simply because of its modestly talented footprint.

But that was before you could pay the players. Though Oregon has had the Phil Knight/Nike spigot for some time, previously the Ducks could only use it for buildings and swag. The advent of name, image and likeness allows donors to fund high school and transfer recruiting directly, and you’ve seen the Ducks’ rankings jump accordingly. That should continue, even with Oregon forced to take half the Big Ten’s TV revenue share to start. Phil will cover the difference.

Holding Georgia. Kirby Smart is 48 years old, entrenched at his alma mater and afforded every possible mode of support to keep feeding the beast. And now he’s rid of his biggest thorn, Nick Saban.

Selling Penn State. What’s wild is James Franklin has already been there for 10 years, in which he’s very clearly demonstrated his ceiling. What possible reason do we have to believe the Nittany Lions will maybe/possibly/finally break through in his second decade at the helm? That’s not to say they won’t make the 12-team College Football Playoff from time to time, but this is a fan base that fashions itself a national title contender. That seems less and less realistic by the year.

What is the precise language of the House settlement? Are schools REQUIRED to pay their student-athletes 22 percent of their athletic department revenues up to $20 million? Or is the amount of payments to athletes OPTIONAL, with a $20 million maximum? Lastly, is the source of revenue TV rights only or do the sources include other athletic department revenues, such as ticket sales, etc.? — Paul G.

Keep in mind this settlement is a long way from being official. All we have so far is an agreement between the plaintiffs and defendants on the “structure” of the deal.

But as I understand it:

• No school would be required to share any revenue at all. But if it does, it can’t go above the agreed-upon $20 million-plus threshold.
• Note the figure they came up with is 22 percent of the average of Power 5 athletic departments’ revenue. It is not specific to the school.
• And specifically, it’s from the following buckets: media rights (TV), ticket sales and sponsorships. Donations are not part of the calculation.

I have a feeling this will not resolve itself as cleanly as the plaintiffs’ lawyers are making it sound. For one thing, I don’t understand how they can resolve an antitrust case that fought the NCAA’s limits on athletes’ compensation by instituting a new “salary cap,” albeit one a lot higher than $0. But that’s for Judge Wilken to decide.

Can you provide a thoughtful prediction of what college athletics looks like in 10 years? Provide a reason for hope and for concern. — Mike

First and foremost, all roads lead to major college football becoming its own separate entity. Every tectonic shift taking place right now — four time-zone conferences, NIL collectives, schools suing their own conferences and revenue sharing — is because of football, with everyone else dragged along for the ride. The logical endgame is the creation of a TV-driven Super League/Premier League that takes football out from under the NCAA’s rooftop. The details, most notably the number of teams, are anyone’s best guess.

Then the question becomes, would all the other sports still stick together, or would we perhaps see a more federated approach? Could there be a College Basketball Association? Not just for the men, either, as women’s hoops is becoming its own significant revenue driver that might itself need a different model from all other women’s sports.

And then I could see an entirely new model acknowledging that all the other sports — from swimming to tennis to track and field — still largely hold to the traditional college model. The universities don’t sponsor these sports to make money from them, and the athletes are under no delusion they’re going to get rich off them. I could see one unifying governing body, whether the NCAA, the USOC or something else, with the schools regrouped back into sensible geographic conferences.

Everything else is too complicated to prophesize.

My hope is we see some sanity and order prevail, as we no longer try to hopelessly shoehorn such disparate entities into a grossly outdated model. Through some form of collective bargaining, rules around transfers and recruiting become more normalized.

My concern is that only 25 or so college football teams will remain nationally relevant while everyone else becomes glorified FCS and the sport loses a whole lot of longtime fans because of it. ESPN, Fox, etc., will still get their ratings, because lots and lots of people will still watch Texas-Michigan, Alabama-Ohio State, etc., but in much of the rest of the country, previously rocking stadiums are half-full on Saturdays.

Note: It doesn’t have to end that way, but it might if university presidents continue to allow TV networks to run the sport for them.

Do you think this agreement will put any downward pressure on a coach’s or administrator’s salary? Are we approaching the end of the time when the highest-paid state employee is a college coach? — Kevin R.

I do, though probably not for head football coaches. There are only so many “great” head coaches, they will remain highly sought-after and the only way for schools to attract/retain one will be to throw money at them. Though perhaps they’ll finally rein in the wild buyouts.

But the schools now on the hook for $20 million-plus to athletes are going to have to cut costs somehow. And like at any business, they’ll start by trimming away the fat. Unfortunately, the first victims will likely be athletic department employees, followed by support staffers inside the football (and other sports’) buildings. Position coaches’ salaries might not drop, but they’ll flatten. And unfortunately, a lot of nonrevenue coaches might not see raises again anytime soon.

But it’s not just salaries they can afford to cut. Seth Emerson’s recent story about Georgia facing a possible budget reckoning was unintentionally hilarious. Here was his lede that day from Greensboro, Ga.:

“As they do every year at this time, members of the Georgia athletic board, including the school president and athletic director, met at the posh Ritz-Carlton. There was a golf outing. There were free meals.”

And then, just a few paragraphs later, we have Georgia AD Josh Brooks saying unironically, “We’ve got to be good stewards with our money, right? So we’ve got to find efficiencies and make sure we operate in the most efficient manner possible.”

I don’t mean to single out Georgia. Most major athletic departments have operated with the same lack of self-awareness for years because, well, they had to spend the money on something. But that Ritz-Carlton bill could have probably covered a few golf scholarships, and, last I checked, there’s both meeting space AND a golf course right on Georgia’s campus.

As Texas A&M AD Trev Alberts said this week, “We don’t have a revenue problem in college athletics, we have an expense problem.” Well said. Especially from someone who once paid Scott Frost $15 million to go away, rather than waiting three weeks for the bill to drop by half.

Should we even call this the “college football mailbag” anymore? Shouldn’t it be the “semi-pro” or “minor league football” mailbag? Effectively colleges have secured naming rights and helmet promotion deals with minor league football teams. — Brian S.

As long as Alabama still wears Alabama uniforms, Ohio State still plays Michigan and Bevo still comes to Texas games, we’re going to keep calling it college football.

Those interested in “minor league football” are welcome to turn on a Birmingham Stallions-San Antonio Brahmas UFL game.

In your opinion, which are the six most prestigious coaching jobs in college football and why? Please rank in order from 1 (highest) to 6. — Rob S.

One question first: Why six?

I like this because it’s a slightly different question from the one I’ve tackled a million times — ranking the “best” coaching jobs. Prestigious and best aren’t necessarily the same.

1. Alabama. Simply put, you’re holding the same job as Bear Bryant and Nick Saban, with their 13 combined national championships. Hard to top that.

2. Notre Dame. Though not quite as shiny a gig as it once was, it’s still uniquely fabled and dripping in history, going back to the days of Knute Rockne and Frank Leahy.

3. Michigan. Another job that’s synonymous with multiple icons, from Fielding Yost to H.O. “Fritz” Crisler to Bo. Schembechler to Jim Harbaugh.

4. USC. Being the head coach of USC puts you in much the same Hollywood limelight as the head coach of the Lakers.

5. Oklahoma. My goodness, some of the names who have held this job: Bud Wilkinson, Barry Switzer and Bob Stoops.

6. Ohio State. It’s hard to separate the prestige of the program from the prestige of the job — and it’s a big one.

Interestingly, the average tenure of the six coaches currently holding these prestigious jobs is just 2.7 years. Ryan Day is the old man at six seasons.

Hey, Stew, it seems like every time I hear someone talk about the inevitable collapse of the ACC, the discussion is always about FSU, Clemson and UNC, but rarely does anyone mention Miami. I find it hard to believe the Hurricanes, with five national championships and a million first-round picks, would want to stay behind with Wake Forest and BC. Wouldn’t adding FSU and Miami be a smart move for the Big Ten to have a foothold in Florida? — Erik W.

It’s mainly because, unlike FSU and Clemson, we haven’t heard a peep out of Miami to indicate it is angling to get out of the ACC. Perhaps because the program doesn’t have much to beat its chest out about these days. Here’s a wild one for you: Miami has not had one top-10 season since it joined the conference in 2004. FSU and Clemson have done so a combined 12 times over the same span.

But also, if you’re Miami, why waste the time/money/energy? Either FSU/Clemson find a way out of the Grant of Rights, at which point anyone can, or if they don’t, those schools spent all the billable hours to find out.

But in the event the ACC does implode, yes, Miami would be very attractive to the Big Ten. Starting with the fact it’s a top-75 university and recently anointed AAU member. It has a strong overall athletic department, regardless of where football currently sits. Even today, Miami football remains a decent TV brand. And every Big Ten school recruits in South Florida.

Note: Florida State is not an AAU member. I’m sure many will scoff at the notion that academics have anything to do with any of these decisions, but the Big Ten has 18 members, and every one of them was an AAU member at the time of its invite. (Nebraska later lost its spot.)

Do you think you will feel any differently watching what now are semi-pro leagues/teams comprising free agents than when, in theory at least, they were previously amateur leagues made up of “student-athletes”? I’m pro-NIL but admit to being wistful about college football as it was and what (in theory) it represented, its part-hypocrisy notwithstanding. — Tom B.

I will not feel differently because the athletes will be the same exact people they were before they started receiving bigger checks from their schools than they currently do with stipends.

And remember, they were only ever “amateurs” because the NCAA said they were. They’ve always been compensated. Now they will be compensated more.

Stars win Nattys, I’ll concede, but “money wins Nattys” hasn’t been proven. A&M, Miami, Florida, the list goes on of programs that spend big in NIL and only win six games. So, at the end of the day, convince us why it matters so much that the Northwesterns and Indianas of the world have more money compared to any team in the Big 12 or ACC when this salary cap is implemented. — Themanebro !

It’s the same as pro sports, right? The teams with the highest payrolls in a given year don’t necessarily win the championship. The upcoming NBA Finals will pit the Boston Celtics and the Dallas Mavs, which rank fifth and 11th, in team payrolls this season. The Indiana Pacers, which reached the conference finals, ranked 25th. However much you spend on the roster, there still needs to be the right players in the right system with the right coaching.

But, regardless, you still need to spend something to acquire the talent, which was not the case in college before 2021. And it’s now going to be even more important with revenue sharing.

For example, Florida State knows it will need to spend at least that $20 million or so maximum (on top of whatever its collective does) to attract the best players. But it must do so while competing in a conference that, according to recently released tax returns, distributed about $15 million per school less than the Big Ten in 2022-23 ($44.8 million to $60.5 million).

Note: That gap will soon grow wider, as 2022-23 was the last year of the Big Ten’s previous media rights deal, which was worth $440 million a year. The new one skyrocketed to nearly $1.2 billion, albeit with four new mouths to feed.

If TV was the only source of revenue for athletic departments, then yes, it would be disastrous for ACC and Big 12 schools. Fortunately for them, it is not. Florida State generated $161 million in 2022, of which its ACC cut represented about 25 percent. Only five Big Ten public schools made more. (Though one was in fact Indiana.)

Nevertheless, FSU (and Clemson) considers it a crisis, hence the lawsuits or, perhaps more pertinently, the open courting of possible equity partners. As much as people thumb their noses at that idea, it seems like only a matter of time before someone taps that lifeline.

I’m really wondering how you think AI is going to impact coaching, scouting, play calling, etc. Thoughts? — Randal E.

I can’t say I have any thoughts of my own on this subject … so I asked Gemini. Here’s a condensed version of what it said when I asked, “How do you think AI is going to impact coaching, scouting and play calling in football?”

Scouting:

• Prospect evaluation: AI can analyze vast amounts of player data to identify hidden gems and predict future success more accurately.
• Opponent analysis: AI can analyze tendencies of opposing teams based on past games.

Coaching:

• Play calling: AI can analyze real-time game data (down and distance, score, opponent formation) and suggest optimal plays.
• Situational coaching: AI can suggest adjustments based on on-field situations (injuries, penalties, timeouts remaining).

Play calling considerations:

• Though AI can be a powerful tool, coaches will still need to factor in intangibles like player fatigue, momentum swings and the ability to adjust to unexpected situations.
• The coach’s intuition and experience will likely remain crucial for success.

So it sounds like coaches’ jobs are safe for now. And, given it’s 2024 and many of them still consider “analytics” to be a dirty word, it might be 3024 before they embrace AI.

How is NIL income reported to the IRS? Is it earned or unearned income? Will revenue shared with student-athletes be earned or unearned income? — G M M.

Seriously?

I used to groan people would write in with a generic, “How do you think my team will do this season?” But man, I would kill for some of those now.

How good is Oregon going to be? — Tony F.

Thank you, Tony!

Quite good.

(Top photo: Joe Camporeale / USA Today)