This week, I asked for some combo college football-March Madness questions, and you guys delivered. I opened with a few of them before pivoting.
Note: Submitted questions have been lightly edited for length and clarity.
What does the NCAA basketball tournament committee get right that the College Football Playoff committee doesn’t? (And vice versa.) — Martin D., Detroit
This may not be the best year to heap praise on the basketball committee, but broadly speaking, its process is much more scientific than football’s. The committee publicizes which metrics it uses and makes it known which criteria matter most (Quad 1 wins, road wins, nonconference strength of schedule, etc.). Back when I did bracketology (2014-18), I found that both the seedings and the last few at-large berths were fairly predictable if you understood the process. (Though there was usually one bubble team that didn’t fit the mold at all — and UNC this year is a particularly extreme example.)
The other thing basketball does right is making the final bracket the only bracket. The football committee undermines its credibility and boxes itself into indefensible positions for the sake of ESPN’s weekly Tuesday night show. Last year’s was particularly egregious when Warde Manuel said after the last Tuesday night show that all the teams that did not make their conference championship games would not be further evaluated. So much for starting with a blank page each week.
I cannot think of a single vice-versa point in football’s favor.
I know the BCS took a lot of flak for using computer rankings, but that thing dated to 1998. Times have changed. The public is far more accepting of stats and analytics. If I were the CFP, I would adapt or invent a football version of the NET rankings that then becomes the backbone of its process. Then, when people ask why Team X got the last at-large berth, instead of the chairman offering up empty platitudes like, “They’re a great team, blah, blah, blah,” the CFP could justify it with actual data like: “6-2 against Quad 1.”
We’d still argue about it, of course, but at least from an informed perspective.
From Florida Gulf Coast’s Dunk City to Steph Curry’s Davidson to UMBC to Sister Jean, there have been a few incredibly fun teams and players in March Madness over the years that we all loved to watch. Who are some equally fun football teams and/or big personality players and coaches who could’ve made a splash in an expanded Playoff over the years? — Brian S., Buford, Ga.
My mind immediately goes to 2006 Boise State, which captivated fans across the country just from one bowl game against Oklahoma. Can you imagine if the Broncos were in a win-and-advance tournament and Ian Johnson and his girlfriend (now wife) got a two- or three-week moment in the sun? They’d be America’s Team.
• Remember Jordan Lynch? The remarkable dual-threat quarterback who took NIU to the Orange Bowl in 2012 didn’t get nearly as much attention as he would have in a 12-team Playoff.
• I don’t know whether P.J. Fleck’s 2016 Western Michigan team could have won a game, but Fleck would have been the annual Mid-Major Coach That Blows Up and Immediately Gets a High-Major Job.
• The 2017 UCF team with McKenzie Milton and Shaquem Griffin could have made some noise, and we’d know definitely whether the Knights earned a national championship game.
• I’d like to say the 2018 Mike Leach-Gardner Minshew Washington State team, which had thousands of people wearing fake mustaches in the stands, but the Cougars finished 13th in the rankings that year and would not have made the CFP. Were that this year, though, maybe they’d make The Crown.
• By the way, had Cam Skattebo and Arizona State finished off Texas in the quarterfinals last year I have no doubt they would have become America’s darlings heading into the semis. I realize the Sun Devils are not a mid-major, but given the 30 years of ASU football prior to last season, it may have felt like just as much a Cinderella story.
We finally got a 16-seed beating a 1-seed in March Madness. If the Playoff goes to 16, how long will it take to get a 16 over 1? — Reggie C., San Diego
The only way I could see that happening is an even more extreme example of 2024 Ohio State. Imagine if the Buckeyes had sustained a third loss in the regular season, snuck in at 9-3 with the last at-large spot but behind all of the five highest-ranked champs, then caught fire exactly the way they did last year. In that scenario, certainly, No. 16 could beat No. 1.
But my guess is that spot would go more often than not to an ACC, Big 12 or Group of 5* champion.
* I have seen people start to use the phrase “Group of 6,” presumably encompassing the reconstituted Pac-12. Personally, I’m considering retiring the phrase altogether. Its intended meaning in the old system was to refer to the five conferences that did not have a contracted berth in one of the New Year’s Six bowls. Obviously, that’s irrelevant now. Any team from any conference can earn an automatic CFP berth, whatever its label. So shouldn’t we just retire the label?
Depending on your feeling about UConn in the AAC, the last mid-major to win the men’s NCAA Tournament was UNLV in 1990. What will we see first, another mid-major hoops champ or a non-SEC/Big Ten CFP champ? — Dan K., Minneapolis
You know, it’s funny: I was 14 in 1990 and I do not remember anyone calling UNLV a mid-major. It was a juggernaut that happened to play in a bad conference. But I get your point.
I’ve got to say football, simply because of programs like Florida State, Clemson and Miami that have already proven capable of winning a national championship. Also, unfortunately, the window for another 2010/11 Butler-type run in hoops may have closed with NIL. That sport definitely flattened for a while, when mid-majors that could keep their teams together for three or four years benefitted from the top programs losing their key players to the NBA so quickly.
Now you look at some of this year’s No. 1 and 2 seeds and it’s all juniors and seniors. And several of them transferred up from mid-majors that can’t pay them.
But I sincerely hope I’m wrong about this and that Akron cuts down the nets in April.
Which traditional “basketball school” has the best chance to win the football national title in the next five years: Michigan State? North Carolina? Kansas? Kentucky? Louisville? UCLA? — Mike, Mountain City, Tenn.
I can’t see any of them winning a national title in the next five years. But you know who could? Villanova. Yes, it’s been 16 years since the last one, but Mark Ferrante’s program has finished in or just outside the FCS top 10 three of the past four seasons and reached the playoffs four of the past six.
I’m also holding out hope for UConn.
A lot of attention, rightfully so, is going to the Texas-Ohio State matchup in Week 1, but how important is the Oklahoma-Michigan game in Week 2? It appears to me it is a huge game for both teams, especially Oklahoma. More optimism in Norman right now than I expected. What is the ceiling for this team? — Shannon E., Moore, Okla.
It’s definitely a much bigger game for Oklahoma than the other one is for either Texas or Ohio State. Win or lose, both those teams should remain in the Playoff hunt, and the Buckeyes are only at the start of their post-national championship grace period. Arguably Michigan’s has not yet worn off.
But this could be an “if not now, when” moment for fourth-year Sooners coach Brent Venables. I thought he was done after getting blown out 35-9 at home by South Carolina last October, but the late-season upset of Alabama bought him some time. And both he and the program have made big moves this offseason, from landing Washington State offensive coordinator Ben Arbuckle and his star QB John Mateer to the arrival of Senior Bowl general manager Jim Nagy as GM.
Oklahoma could be much improved from last year’s 6-7 squad, but it really needs to beat Michigan, because its SEC schedule is rough: Texas, South Carolina, Tennessee and Alabama all away, plus LSU at home. Two of the Sooners’ other home foes, Ole Miss and Missouri, finished ranked last season. Michigan did not, but obviously it finished the season strong with upsets of Ohio State and Alabama, and its quarterback play should be better either with veteran Fresno State transfer Mikey Keene or touted true freshman Bryce Underwood.
I could see Oklahoma getting to 8-4 or even 9-3 if some of those SEC foes prove disappointing. But anything less than that might spell the end for Venables, even with four years left on his contract. You can’t hover around .500 for multiple seasons at Oklahoma.
What is the average NIL pay for a Power 4 team in 2025, and what will it be after the House settlement? — Robert T.
Most schools/collectives don’t reveal what they’re spending, so this is an educated guess based on what we do know. These may be too low since the market for transfers went up considerably in the most recent cycle.
- High end: $20-$25 million
- Other national title aspirants: $15-$20 million
- Most other Top 25 programs: $10-$15 million
- Mid-to-low Power 4: $5-$10 million
When it comes to how much of the $20.5 million cap schools will be able to share with their athletes if House is approved, the number we’re hearing a lot for football is $13.5 million (Georgia and LSU have shared this publicly). Which mirrors how the NIL backpay portion of the House settlement was allocated among athletes.
I know many administrators are hoping the House settlement diminishes the impact of collectives, but I just don’t buy it. If the big donors at school X have been kicking in $10 million a year to this point, why would they stop? They want to win. Coaching salaries have only gone up and up and up for decades. Why would it be any different for players?
So to answer your question, I think the total spend will be the numbers I ballparked earlier: $13.5 million.
Will schools making players pay back NIL or put it into contract really work? Who will enforce it since the NCAA barely does anything anymore? — Jeff H.
Great question! Ralph Russo and I explored it in detail last week.
The short answer is that this is not an NCAA issue. These are contracts between two parties, the school and the athlete, and it’s up to them to enforce them. In this case, if the contract says the athlete owes a buyout if he transfers before the end of the term and he doesn’t pay it, the school would have to take the athlete to court.
Would a school have the appetite to sue a current athlete? If so, does that immediately get used against it in recruiting? And if not, does that make those buyout clauses mostly an empty threat? All of the revenue-sharing contracts we saw state explicitly that the athletes are not employees. They’re being paid for their NIL rights, not to play for the university’s football team. And yet, in the same breath, these contracts state you have to pay back the school its money if you leave the university’s football team.
Inevitably, a judge will weigh in on whether those two ideas can coexist.
How much weight do you give to very close wins and losses by a team when you evaluate their season? Lincoln Riley is this offseason’s punching bag, but when you look at last season, all of USC’s losses were close. The Trojans were leading in the fourth quarter in five of six games. Whereas Illinois is getting all the love and could have very easily had three more losses to Nebraska, Purdue and Rutgers. — Ryan K., Lexington, Ky.
It’s a legit point. Many statisticians would tell you that a team’s record in close games mostly comes down to luck. USC finished 7-6 last season yet finished in the Top 25 in most power ratings, whereas Illinois went 10-3 but finished in the 30s and 40s. That may indeed indicate that the Trojans are being overlooked going into this season while the Illini are being overrated (which I contributed to by ranking them No. 12 in January).
Personally, I just don’t have confidence in Riley to turn it around, and that has little to do with his end-of-game coaching decisions. He just does not exude confidence anymore. He’s made a lot of poor evaluation decisions. He doesn’t have an elite quarterback for the first time in his head-coaching career and it shows. And throughout last season’s struggles, he seemed in complete denial about the state of his roster, which is not exactly swimming with NFL players.
I could see USC starting 4-0 this season, but then it visits Illinois, with subsequent trips to Notre Dame and Oregon. And I wouldn’t take a road game at Nebraska lightly given the Trojans lost at Minnesota and at Maryland last season. Probably the best-case scenario is 9-3, and Riley would earn back some respect if he pulls that off. I just don’t see it happening. The most hyped Illinois team in decades going 7-5 seems like a safer bet.
Is it madness to think that the NCAA basketball tourney should be moved to April so as not to interfere with spring football? — Brad T.
At the rate schools are canceling their spring games, I wouldn’t worry about it. I do, however, wonder who in Major League Baseball thought it was a good idea to move Opening Day into the first week of March Madness. Smartest scheduling move since the CFP came up with New Year’s Eve semifinals.
(Photo: Mitchell Leff / Getty Images)
