
College football Luck Index 2025: Who needs luck on their side next season?
More Videos
Published
5 days agoon
By
admin-
Bill ConnellyMay 2, 2025, 08:00 AM ET
Close- Bill Connelly is a writer for ESPN. He covers college football, soccer and tennis. He has been at ESPN since 2019.
Almost no word in the English language makes a college football fan more defensive than the L-word: luck.
We weren’t lucky to have a great turnover margin — our coaches are just really good at emphasizing ball security! We’re tougher than everyone else — that’s why we recovered all those fumbles!
We weren’t lucky to win all those close games — we’re clutch! Our coaches know how to press all the right buttons! Our quarterback is a cool customer!
We weren’t lucky to have fewer injuries than everyone else — our strength-and-conditioning coach is the best in America! And again: We’re just tougher!
As loath as we may be to admit it, a large percentage of a given college football season — with its small overall sample of games — is determined by the bounce of a pointy ball, the bend of a ligament and the whims of fate. Certain teams will end up with an unsustainably good turnover margin that turns on them the next year. Certain teams (often the same ones) will enjoy a great run of close-game fortune based on some combination of great coaching, sturdy quarterback play, timely special teams contributions … and massive amounts of unsustainable randomness. Certain teams will keep their starting lineups mostly intact for 12 or more games while another is watching its depth chart change dramatically on a week-to-week basis.
As we prepare for the 2025 college football season, it’s worth stepping back and looking at who did, and didn’t, get the bounces in 2024. Just because Lady Luck was (or wasn’t) on your side one year, doesn’t automatically mean your fortunes will flip the next, but that’s often how these things go. Be it turnovers, close-game fortune or injuries, let’s talk about the teams that were dealt the best and worst hands last fall.
Jump to a section:
Turnover luck | Close games luck
Injuries and general shuffling | Turnaround candidates
Turnover luck
In last year’s ACC championship game, Clemson bolted to a 24-7 halftime lead, then white-knuckled it to the finish. SMU came back to tie the score at 31 with only 16 seconds left, but Nolan Hauser‘s 56-yard field goal at the buzzer gave the Tigers a 34-31 victory and a spot in 2024’s College Football Playoff at Alabama’s expense.
In the first series of the game, Clemson’s T.J. Parker pulled a perfect sack-and-strip of SMU QB Kevin Jennings, forcing and falling on a loose ball at the SMU 33-yard line. Clemson scored two plays later to take a 7-0 lead. Late in the first quarter, Khalil Barnes picked off a Jennings pass near midfield, ending what could have become a scoring threat with one more first down. A few minutes later, Clemson’s Cade Klubnik fumbled at the end of a 14-yard gain, but tight end Jake Briningstool recovered it at midfield, preventing another potential scoring threat from developing. (Klubnik fumbled seven times in the 2024 season but lost only one of them.)
Early in the third quarter, after SMU cut Clemson’s lead to 24-14, David Eziomume fumbled the ensuing kickoff at the Clemson 6, but teammate Keith Adams Jr. recovered it right before two SMU players pounced.
Over 60 minutes, both teams fumbled twice, and Clemson defended (intercepted or broke up) eight passes to SMU’s seven. On average, 50% of fumbles are lost and about 21% of passes defended become INTs, so Clemson’s expected turnover margin in this game was plus-0.2 (because of the extra pass defended). The Tigers’ actual turnover margin was plus-2, a difference of 1.8 turnovers in a game they barely won.
Clemson was obviously a solid team in 2024, but the Tigers probably wouldn’t have reached the CFP without turnovers luck. For the season, they fumbled 16 times but lost only three, and comparing their expected (based on the averages above) and actual turnover margins, almost no one benefited more from the randomness of a bouncing ball.
It probably isn’t a surprise to see that, of last year’s 12 playoff teams, eight benefited from positive turnovers luck, and six were at plus-3.3 or higher. You’ve got to be lucky and good to win, right?
You aren’t often lucky for two straight years, though. It might be noteworthy to point out that, of the teams in Mark Schlabach’s Way-Too-Early 2025 rankings, five were in the top 20 in terms of turnovers luck: No. 5 Georgia, No. 7 Clemson, No. 9 BYU, No. 11 Iowa State and No. 17 Indiana (plus two others from his Teams Also Considered list: Army and Baylor).
It’s also noteworthy to point out that three teams on Schlabach’s list — No. 6 Oregon, No. 8 LSU and No. 15 SMU — ranked in the triple-digits in terms of turnovers luck. Oregon started the season 13-0 without the benefit of bounces. For that matter, Auburn, a team on the Also Considered list, ranked 125th in turnovers luck in a season that saw the Tigers go just 1-3 in one-score finishes. There might not have been a more what-could-have-been team in the country than Hugh Freeze’s Tigers.
Close games
One of my favorite tools in my statistical toolbox is what I call postgame win expectancy. The idea is to take all of a game’s key, predictive stats — all the things that end up feeding into my SP+ rankings — and basically toss them into the air and say, “With these stats, you could have expected to win this game X% of the time.”
Alabama‘s 40-35 loss to Vanderbilt on Oct. 5 was one of the most impactful results of the CFP race. It was also one of the least likely results of the season in terms of postgame win expectancy. Bama averaged 8.8 yards per play to Vandy’s 5.6, generated a 56% success rate* to Vandy’s 43% and scored touchdowns on all four of its trips into the red zone. It’s really hard to lose when you do all of that — in fact, the Crimson Tide’s postgame win expectancy was a whopping 98.5%. (You can see all postgame win expectancy data here)
(* Success rate: how frequently an offense is gaining at least 50% of necessary yardage on first down, 70% on second and 100% on third and fourth. It is one of the more reliable and predictive stats you’ll find, and it’s a big part of SP+.)
Vandy managed to overcome these stats in part because of two of the most perfect bounces you’ll ever see. In the first, Jalen Milroe had a pass batted at the line, and it deflected high into the air and, eventually, into the arms of Randon Fontenette, who caught it on the run and raced 29 yards for a touchdown and an early 13-0 lead.
In the second half, with Bama driving to potentially take the lead, Miles Capers sacked Milroe and forced a fumble; the ball sat on the ground for what felt like an eternity before Yilanan Ouattara outwrestled a Bama lineman for it. Instead of trailing, Vandy took over near midfield and scored seven plays later. It took turnovers luck and unlikely key-play execution — despite a 43% success rate, Diego Pavia and the Commodores went 12-for-18 on third down and 1-for-1 on fourth — for Vandy to turn a 1.5% postgame win expectancy into a victory. It also wasn’t Alabama’s only incredibly unlikely loss: The Tide were at 87.8% to beat Michigan in the ReliaQuest Bowl but fell 19-13.
(Ole Miss can feel the Tide’s pain: The Rebels were at 76.0% postgame win expectancy against Kentucky and 73.7% against Florida. There was only a 6% chance that they would lose both games, and even going 1-1 would have likely landed them a CFP bid. They lost both.)
Adding up each game’s postgame win expectancy is a nice way of seeing how many games a team should have won on average. I call this a team’s second-order win total. Alabama was at 10.7 second-order wins but went 9-4. That was one of the biggest differences of the season. Somehow, however, Iron Bowl rival Auburn was even more unfortunate.
Based solely on stats, Arkansas State should have won about four games, and Auburn should have won about eight. Instead, the Red Wolves went 8-5 and the Tigers went 5-7.
Comparing win totals to these second-order wins is one of the surest ways of identifying potential turnaround stories for the following season. In 2023, 15 teams had second-order win totals at least one game higher than their actual win totals — meaning they suffered from poor close-game fortune. Ten of those 15 teams saw their win totals increase by at least two games in 2024, including East Carolina (from 2-10 to 8-5), TCU (5-7 to 9-4), Pitt (3-9 to 7-6), Boise State (8-6 to 12-2) and Louisiana (6-7 to 10-4). On average, these 15 teams improved by 1.9 wins.
On the flip side, 19 teams overachieved their second-order win totals by at least 1.0 wins in 2023. This list includes both of 2023’s national title game participants, Washington and Michigan. The Huskies and Wolverines sank from a combined 29-1 in 2023 to 14-12 in 2024, and it could have been even worse. Michigan overachieved again, going 8-5 despite a second-order win total of 6.0. Other 2023 overachievers weren’t so lucky. Oklahoma State (from 10-4 to 3-9), Wyoming (from 9-4 to 3-9), Northwestern (from 8-5 to 4-8) and NC State (from 9-4 to 6-7) all won more games than the stats expected in 2023, and all of them crumpled to some degree in 2024. On average, the 19 overachieving teams regressed by 1.9 wins last fall.
It’s worth keeping in mind that several teams in Schlabach’s Way-Too-Early Top 25 — including No. 6 Oregon, No. 8 LSU, No. 11 Iowa State, No. 13 Illinois and, yes, No. 21 Michigan — all exceeded statistical expectations in wins last season, as did Also Considered teams like Army, Duke, Missouri and Texas Tech. The fact that Oregon and LSU overachieved while suffering from poor turnovers luck is (admittedly) rather unlikely and paints a conflicting picture.
Meanwhile, one should note that three Way-Too-Early teams — No. 12 Alabama, No. 23 Miami and No. 25 Ole Miss (plus Washington and, of course, Auburn from the Also Considered list) — all lost more games than expected last season. With just a little bit of good fortune, they could prove to be awfully underrated.
Injuries and general shuffling
Injuries are hard to define in college football — coaches are frequently canny in the information they do and do not provide, and with so many teams in FBS, it’s impossible to derive accurate data regarding how many games were missed due to injury.
We can glean quite a bit from starting lineups, however. Teams with lineups that barely changed throughout the season were probably pretty happy with their overall results, while teams with ever-changing lineups likely succumbed to lots of losses. Below, I’ve ranked teams using a simple ratio: I compared (a) the number of players who either started every game or started all but one for a given team to (b) the number of players who started only one or two games, likely as a stopgap. If you had far more of the former, your team likely avoided major injury issues and, with a couple of major exceptions, thrived. If you had more of the latter, the negative effects were probably pretty obvious.
Despite the presence of 1-11 Purdue and 2-10 Kennesaw State near the top of the list — Purdue fielded one of the worst power conference teams in recent memory and barely could blame injury for its issues — you can still see a decent correlation between a positive ratio and positive results. The six teams with a ratio of at least 2.8 or above went a combined 62-22 in 2024, while the teams with a 0.5 ratio or worse went 31-56.
Seven of nine conference champions had a ratio of at least 1.3, and 11 of the 12 CFP teams were at 1.44 or higher (five were at 2.6 or higher). Indiana, the most shocking of CFP teams, was second on the list above; epic disappointments like Oklahoma and, especially, Florida State were near the bottom. (The fact that Georgia won the SEC and reached the CFP despite a pretty terrible injury ratio speaks volumes about the depth Kirby Smart has built in Athens. Of course, the Dawgs also enjoyed solid turnovers luck.)
Major turnaround candidates
It’s fair to use this information as a reason for skepticism about teams like Indiana (turnovers luck and injuries luck), Clemson (turnovers luck), Iowa State (close-games luck), Penn State (injuries luck) or Sam Houston (all of the above, plus a coaching change), but let’s end on an optimistic note instead. Here are five teams that could pretty easily enjoy a big turnaround if Lady Luck is a little kinder.
Auburn Tigers: Auburn enjoyed a better success rate than its opponents (44.7% to 38.5%) and made more big plays as well (8.9% of plays gained 20-plus yards versus 5.7% for opponents). That makes it awfully hard to lose! But the Tigers made exactly the mistake they couldn’t make and managed to lose games with 94%, 76% and 61% postgame win expectancy. There’s nothing saying this was all bad luck, but even with a modest turnaround in fortune, the Tigers will have a very high ceiling in 2025.
Florida Gators: The Gators improved from 41st to 20th in SP+ and from 5-7 to 8-5 overall despite starting three quarterbacks and 12 different DBs and ranking 132nd on the list above. That says pretty spectacular things about their overall upside, especially considering their improved experience levels on the O-line, in the secondary and the general optimism about sophomore quarterback DJ Lagway.
Florida Atlantic Owls: Only one team ranked 111th or worse in all three of the tables above — turnovers luck (111th), second-order win difference (121st) and injury ratio (131st). You could use this information to make the case that the Owls shouldn’t have fired head coach Tom Herman, or you could simply say that new head coach Zach Kittley is pretty well-positioned to get some bounces and hit the ground running.
Florida State Seminoles: There was evidently plenty of poor fortune to go around in the Sunshine State last season, and while Mike Norvell’s Seminoles suffered an epic hangover on the field, they also didn’t get a single bounce: They were 129th in turnovers luck, 99th in second-order win difference and 110th in injury ratio. Norvell has brought in new coordinators and plenty of new players, and the Noles are almost guaranteed to jump up from 2-10. With a little luck, that jump could be a pretty big one.
Utah Utes: Along with UCF, Utah was one of only two teams to start four different quarterbacks in 2024. The Utes were also among only four teams to start at least 11 different receivers or tight ends and among five teams to start at least nine defensive linemen. If you’re looking for an easy explanation for how they fell from 65th to 96th in offensive SP+ and from 8-5 to 5-7 overall, that’s pretty succinct and telling.
You may like

-
Associated Press
May 6, 2025, 04:46 PM ET
Scott Frost received a five-year, $22.1 million contract upon his return to UCF as head coach and will have it automatically extended a year if the Knights appear in a bowl this season.
An executive summary of Frost’s contract was obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday through an open records request.
UCF rehired Frost in December after Gus Malzahn left after four seasons to become offensive coordinator at Florida State. Frost had his first head coaching job at UCF in 2016, and the Knights went 6-7. A year later, UCF went 13-0 with a conference championship, a bowl victory over Auburn and final ranking of No. 6.
Frost took over at Nebraska in 2018 and went 16-31 at his alma mater. He was fired three games into the 2022 season. He was out of coaching in 2023 and on the Los Angeles Rams’ staff in 2024.
Frost’s starting salary will be $3.9 million, just under the $4 million he earned in his last year at Nebraska, and will receive annual increases topping out at $5 million in 2029-30.
He can earn bonuses of $75,000 for reaching a conference championship game, $50,000 for winning a conference title, $100,000 for appearing in a College Football Playoff game and an additional $100,000 for winning one, with a first-round bye deemed a win.
He also will receive bonuses for his team ranking in the top 20 nationally in any of eight designated statistical categories.
Sports
When it comes to GMs, college football is ‘catching up like Usain Bolt on the fourth leg of a relay’
Published
14 mins agoon
May 7, 2025By
admin
-
Jake Trotter
CloseJake Trotter
ESPN Senior Writer
- Jake Trotter is a senior writer at ESPN. Trotter covers college football. He also writes about other college sports, including men’s and women’s basketball. Trotter resides in the Cleveland area with his wife and three kids and is a fan of his hometown Oklahoma City Thunder. He covered the Cleveland Browns and NFL for ESPN for five years, moving back to college football in 2024. Previously, Trotter worked for the Middletown (Ohio) Journal, Austin American-Statesman and Oklahoman newspapers before joining ESPN in 2011. He’s a 2004 graduate of Washington and Lee University. You can reach out to Trotter at jake.trotter@espn.com and follow him on X at @Jake_Trotter.
-
Max Olson
CloseMax Olson
ESPN Staff Writer
- Covers the Big 12
- Joined ESPN in 2012
- Graduate of the University of Nebraska
May 7, 2025, 07:00 AM ET
INDIANAPOLIS — College football’s biggest game changers aren’t wearing headsets anymore — and that transformation was in full force at the NFL scouting combine. As NFL general managers analyzed 40-yard dashes and on-field drills inside Lucas Oil Stadium in February, a different kind of front office summit quietly unfolded down the street.
More than 300 attendees — including 15 general managers, along with player personnel directors and recruiting staffers from 34 college football programs — crowded into a corner room on the second floor of the Indianapolis Convention Center.
There, they unpacked the forces driving college football’s newest arms race: the rise of the general manager and expanding front offices.
“It’s the fastest growing industry in college football,” Texas Tech GM James Blanchard told ESPN. “We’re hitting the golden age of the personnel world, as far as college football goes.”
Blanchard spearheaded the first of the two panels at the “Inside the League” combine symposium, which covered everything from soaring GM salaries and the rapid expansion of support staffs to negotiating with agents and the budding trend of NFL scouts moving to the college ranks.
Blanchard, who will make $1.58 million over the next three years, is part of a growing community of college GMs that now includes former Indianapolis Colts star quarterback Andrew Luck (Stanford), two-time NFL Coach of the Year Ron Rivera (Cal) and ex-Cleveland Browns GM Mike Lombardi — Bill Belichick’s first hire after he stunningly accepted the North Carolina head coaching job in December.
Unlike in the NFL, coaches still run the vast majority of college programs. But that could be changing. At Stanford, the head coach reports to Luck. Though the roles differ, Blanchard believes many of the recent GM hires could outlast their head coaches, mirroring the NFL. In the coming years, he expects college GMs to match coordinator salaries — and face similar pressure.
“That’s the way it’s trending,” Blanchard, a former pro scout, said. “The NFL has been doing business at a high level for a long time. … But now, college is catching up — and it’s catching up like Usain Bolt on the fourth leg of a relay.”
Going forward, college front offices will shoulder more responsibility than ever before. They’re overseeing 105-man rosters, scouring the transfer portal, negotiating with agents and persuading recruits to join their programs.
Soon, they’ll have to help manage a salary cap, too.
Assuming the House v. NCAA settlement goes into effect this summer, schools will have roughly $20.5 million (with increases annually) to spend on their athletes, shifting college sports to a revenue sharing model. Football is sure to receive the largest share at most programs, ushering in an NFL-style approach to roster building.
Once merely a behind-the-scenes support role, college GMs are quickly becoming the difference between winning and losing — as much as any coordinator or even head coach.
“They’re doing more than just putting together a team — they’re wearing a lot of different caps … like a head coach because they’re in charge of the roster, the [salary] cap, incoming freshmen and portal players,” said CJ Cavazos, a former Nebraska director of football relations who is now a consultant and agent and co-moderated the combine symposium alongside Inside the League founder Neil Stratton. “Half of college football general managers will be making close to a million dollars. That’s where the market is taking them.”
And that has the NFL’s attention.
AFTER FAILING TO swipe Blanchard away from Texas Tech, Notre Dame turned to the pros to fill its GM vacancy. Chad Bowden, the son of former Cincinnati Reds GM Jim Bowden, had left the Fighting Irish for USC. So coach Marcus Freeman hired Detroit Lions director of scouting advancement Mike Martin in February.
This offseason alone, several major programs hired GMs with deep NFL roots, including Nebraska’s Pat Stewart (New England Patriots), Florida’s Nick Polk (Atlanta Falcons) and Oklahoma’s Jim Nagy (Senior Bowl).
The flurry of GM hires with NFL backgrounds came with much fanfare and big paychecks, with Lombardi leading the way at an unprecedented $1.5 million per year. But it has also been met with skepticism from the GMs and player personnel directors who came up through the college ranks. To them, experience in the NFL doesn’t translate to the recruiting trail.
“[Stewart] is going to walk into Nebraska and be like, ‘Wait, I’ve got to do what now? I have to talk to this kid because his teammate is a 2028 [recruit] that we want?’ All of those things are just learned, you know,” said a fellow Big Ten GM, who questioned whether NFL executives fully understand the relationship-driven nature of recruiting. “I don’t know that Lombardi is giving Belichick 15 phone calls to make at night so that at the end of the deal, ‘Johnny Smith’ doesn’t say, ‘Well, I talked to [NC State coach] Dave Doeren once a week and I haven’t heard from Bill Belichick.'”
Several college GMs noted that NFL executives bring useful expertise, especially in scouting and evaluating players. But they also suggested the learning curve is steep, notably in forging relationships with recruits and those around them.
“You can come down and scout all you want,” a Big 12 director of player personnel said. “But the kid still has to select your school. Recruiting is involved. Regional ties are involved. … I think they’re biting off more than they can chew. It’s totally, completely different.”
But an eight-year NFL executive who recently interviewed for a college GM job called that thinking anachronistic, now that the looming House settlement is set to reshape the financial structure of college football with the introduction of a de facto salary cap.
“I’d say that just focusing on recruiting does not pay the respect to the gravity of what revenue sharing and the House case are going to have,” the executive said. “It’s going to change all of college football. Investing in something that worked previously, I’m just skeptical that’s going to matter as much in this new environment.”
He pointed to the high-profile case of Nico Iamaleava, whose camp reportedly sought a more than $1 million raise from $2.4 million after quarterbacking the Volunteers to the playoff last season. Sources close to the quarterback deny they were seeking $4 million.
When Iamaleava skipped a spring practice without permission, Tennessee coach Josh Heupel announced the team was moving on without him. Iamaleava joined UCLA in late April, prompting UCLA quarterback Joey Aguilar to transfer to Tennessee in return.
“In the pre-House world, being a great recruiter was everything,” the executive said. “Now, you have to think like the NFL: long-term decision-making, targeted resource spending, strategic investment by position — all to stay close to optimal.”
Stewart, a longtime Patriots staffer, acknowledges that evaluating the potential of teenagers and building out a high school recruiting board is a new type of challenge, but nothing has surprised him as he enters this rapidly evolving world of college athletics.
“I don’t have a lot of experience in college football right now,” he said, “but I could’ve been in the business for 15 years and I’d probably be on the same plane that everybody else is, right? Because everything’s changing and everything’s adjusting.”
One SEC director of player personnel conceded that he understands why college athletic directors and coaches would want GMs with NFL backgrounds. But he would still advise them to hire GMs with experience in adapting to the constantly changing dynamics of college football.
“That’s the thing that pisses me off,” another Big 12 director of player personnel said. “A bunch of people talk about all these GMs [from the NFL] and I want to yell from the mountaintops: You know there’s a GM in college football at Ohio State who’s the best in the game, right? He has been for the last decade. I would take notes from Mark Pantoni and start there.”
Other college veterans pointed to Pantoni as the gold standard of the modern college GM.
Pantoni, who has been with the Buckeyes since 2011 and recently inked a new multiyear deal extension, has long embodied the old guard of college front office personnel — running Ohio State’s operation long before “GM” became a formal title.
Alongside coach Ryan Day, Pantoni helped assemble one of the most talented rosters in recent memory last offseason. The Buckeyes retained key players such as receiver Emeka Egbuka and pass rusher Jack Sawyer, keeping them from declaring early for the NFL draft. They landed quarterback Will Howard, running back Quinshon Judkins and safety Caleb Downs via the transfer portal. And they won a fierce battle for five-star freshman wideout Jeremiah Smith.
Those players propelled Ohio State to its first national championship in a decade. Then the Buckeyes had the most players taken in last month’s NFL draft with 14.
“There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the NFL and there’s a lot of great expertise in the NFL,” another Big Ten GM said. “But as the guy who’s been in college recruiting for a long time, I think there’s just as many and probably more lessons from the college side that are beneficial in what we’re going through right now. … I’m not forecasting that the NFL guys aren’t going to be successful. I just don’t think they have the advantage that I think people might think they have.”
Either way, the NFL-to-college pipeline isn’t likely to slow anytime soon. Multiple NFL executives said during the combine that many in their front offices have privately expressed an interest in moving to college.
“We went to the combine and our head coach was like, ‘I know you guys are going up there to get into the NFL,'” a Big Ten GM said. “I’m like, ‘Coach, all of these NFL guys are leaving to come here!’ And these NFL guys are going to keep coming down because the money is better.”
Blanchard doesn’t mind their arrival one bit.
“I love it, from a competitive aspect. … From a financial standpoint because it’s driving the market up,” he said. “I remember when I was in the NFL, guys used to make fun of the college guys who were calling themselves GMs. … And now, all these guys are calling — ‘Hey man, how can I get in college?'”
As college front offices expand, they’re not only evaluating players, but they’re also keeping coaches in college football.
ON HIS WAY to last year’s Senior Bowl, a prominent Power 4 assistant couldn’t get off the phone. After landing in Mobile, Alabama, he was back on his phone, even while grabbing his rental car.
“We’re getting burned out,” he admitted between calls, speaking for many of his colleagues.
While pro executives and scouts are being drawn to lucrative college front office jobs, college assistants in this transfer portal and name, image and likeness era see the NFL as a path to a better work-life balance, where they can focus on what they do best: coaching on the field and in meeting rooms.
“With how much college football is changing, you have to take some of the load off of the coaches,” said Blanchard, who operates one of the country’s most autonomous front offices under Texas Tech coach Joey McGuire. “He shouldn’t have to be on the phone negotiating a hundred contract deals. … He shouldn’t have to go out and evaluate every portal and high school kid. That’s what me and my staff are for.”
Other programs, such as Oklahoma, are following Texas Tech’s lead in emulating the NFL model, where front offices oversee the roster.
“It’s a totally different landscape. … The coach-driven model, that’s a thing of the past,” said Nagy, who interviewed for the New York Jets GM job before joining the Sooners. “The workload management for a coaching staff, it’s just impossible to do the job. … I’m here to help them find players, take some stuff off their plate.”
If college recruiting departments are going to resemble NFL front offices, that won’t just require greater investment in the GM. These leaders are rethinking how they build their scouting staffs, their processes for evaluating players and even how they utilize analytics to keep up.
“The schools making playoff runs, they’re not building a whole bunch of new buildings,” said Oklahoma State director of football business Kenyatta Wright, who helped lead the second panel at the combine symposium. “Identifying talent, that’s where the next big investment is.”
As these staffs learn to manage eight-figure roster budgets for 2025 and beyond, they also recognize this heightened level of spending across the sport will bring on a new level of accountability.
As an ACC GM put it, “It’s not always going to be based on what I saw on film or gut feel. ADs want to go to their donors and say, ‘We’re spending money efficiently, look at the return on investment we’ve had. Look at the better players we’ve got. We’ve been right more.'”
Maryland recently hired former Terps great Geroy Simon to be the GM of its entire athletic department. Simon said in his role he can make sure the salary cap is “being spent wisely” across all sports.
“Nobody knows exactly what the right [model] is,” Blanchard said. “Whatever the blueprint, schools across the country are racing to invest in their front offices.”
Cavazos said in the next five years, he could even see most college front offices having double-digit staffers working under a GM “just scouting and recruiting daily.”
In turn, he predicts next year’s combine symposium turnout will be even larger.
“Everybody’s learning right now from the unknown, and everybody’s trying to figure out what’s going to be best for their staff and their team,” he said. “But the schools that get in front of it are the ones that will be successful.”

The Big 12’s board of directors has voted to give commissioner Brett Yormark a three-year contract extension, the conference announced Tuesday.
Yormark’s extension will run through 2030. He had originally agreed in 2022 to a five-year deal through 2027.
The Big 12 presidents are rewarding Yormark’s work stabilizing and modernizing the Big 12 in the wake of the Oklahoma and Texas announcing their departures in 2021.
“We have made great progress over the last three years, and our best days are ahead,” Yormark said in a statement. “I am thrilled to continue to work alongside our member schools as we grow and strengthen the Big 12 into a Conference that is innovative and prepared for what the future may hold.”
Yormark took over for Bob Bowlsby in 2022, and he led two signature moves for the league — a new television deal and a four-school expansion. His early declaration of the Big 12 being “open for business” has served as a fitting mantra for a tenure that has been highlighted by his constant pursuit of dealmaking.
Yormark has done considerable work in upgrading the experience and feel of both the Big 12 football and basketball championships, helping elevate those events. The Big 12 also added a conference-wide football pro day under Yormark, the first of its kind in college sports.
The aggressive pursuit and consummation of a new television deal is Yormark’s biggest moment as commissioner. Early on in his tenure in the summer of 2022, he prioritized and achieved early negotiations with Fox and ESPN more than a year before the exclusive negotiating window. A few months later, the Big 12 agreed to a six-year, $2.28 billion deal.
By going to the table early, the Big 12 positioned itself ahead of the Pac-12, which proved an inflection point in the Pac-12’s spiral.
The Pac-12’s weakness and failure to land a television deal of significant heft led to the Big 12 luring Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah as members. Yormark led that charge in July and August of 2023.
Along with the addition of those four schools, he helped oversee the transition of four additional members that agreed to come aboard before his arrival — UCF, BYU, Cincinnati and Houston.
Yormark has also been aggressive in further expansion, although the league has been unreceptive to the additions of Connecticut in all sports and Gonzaga in basketball. (The talks with Gonzaga eventually faded, and that school joined the refurbished Pac-12. The discussions with UConn stalled in September.)
Yormark was relatively unknown in college sports when the league hired him in 2022. He came from the agency Roc Nation and prior to that worked as the president and CEO of Brooklyn Sports & Entertainment (BSE) Global, which manages and controls the Barclays Center and the Brooklyn Nets. He also worked for NASCAR.
Trending
-
Sports3 years ago
‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year ago
Story injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years ago
Game 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years ago
MLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years ago
Japan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years ago
Game-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years ago
Bank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway