Looking at the Vegas preseason national title favorites, I have full confidence in the coaches at Ohio State (Ryan Day), Notre Dame (Marcus Freeman), Oregon (Dan Lanning), Georgia (Kirby Smart) and Indiana (Curt Cignetti<\/a>).<\/p>\n The only one in that upper tier that gives me pause is Texas under Steve Sarkisian.<\/p>\n Last year\u2019s preseason No. 1 went 10-3 but lost to a 4-8 Florida team and needed overtime to survive 5-7 Kentucky and 5-8 Mississippi State. I do believe this year\u2019s team is much more formidable on paper. Arch Manning has a full year as a starter under his belt (though I still think expectations are too high), and Sark upgraded his supporting cast in a big way with The Athletic\u2019s No. 3 portal class<\/a>. But the Horns are not without questions. Everyone assumes Will Muschamp will come in and field a vintage Will Muschamp defense, but he hasn\u2019t called plays in six years.<\/p>\n Long story short, if you told me Texas would end up being this year\u2019s Penn State, I\u2019d be less than shocked.<\/p>\n Any of the others could fall flat, too, but for different reasons. Even then, it would probably be more of a 10-3 disappointment than a 7-6 disaster.<\/p>\n Indiana: New QB Josh Hoover just doesn\u2019t have it, and the defense takes a big step back without stalwarts Aiden Fisher and D\u2019Angelo Ponds.<\/p>\n Notre Dame: With no Jeremiyah Love or Jadarian Price and a reshuffled offensive line, the Irish find they can\u2019t line up and run the ball.<\/p>\n Ohio State: Turning over most of the starting defense two years in a row, coupled with a brutal schedule, finally catches up with the Buckeyes.<\/p>\n Oregon: Dante Moore, who had more stinkers last year than most remember, takes a step back without OC\/QB coach Will Stein.<\/p>\n Georgia: Frankly, the Dawgs showed a lot of cracks last season (lack of explosiveness and a non-existent pass-rush), and Kirby Smart hasn\u2019t been able to stack unbelievable recruiting classes like he could pre-NIL.<\/p>\n Hmm. Just writing that out makes me concerned for Georgia. On second thought, perhaps Georgia, not Texas, could be this year\u2019s Penn State\/Clemson\/LSU.<\/p>\n You\u2019ve got $25 million in NIL to build a team. Everyone is available. Build a starting 22. \u2014 Joseph A.<\/p>\n Sorry to break this to you, but $25 million probably isn\u2019t enough to field a de facto All-America Team at this point. Realistically, you\u2019d have to pick and choose which spots to fill with a superstar and which to fill with an average Power 4 starter.<\/p>\n But that\u2019s no fun. So, for these purposes, I\u2019m going to load up at the most important positions until I run out of money rather than try to budget for all 22. In most cases, the dollar figures are ballpark estimates of what the guy is making this year, based on the value of their position<\/a>, and I fully concede some might be terribly wrong.<\/p>\n QB: Drew Mestemaker, Oklahoma State ($3.5 million)<\/p>\n WR: Jeremiah Smith, Ohio State ($4 million)<\/p>\n WR: Charlie Becker, Indiana ($2 million)<\/p>\n RB: Kewan Lacy, Ole Miss ($1.5 million)<\/p>\n RB: LJ Martin, BYU ($1.5 million)<\/p>\n OT: Trevor Goosby, Texas ($2 million)<\/p>\n OT: Carter Smith, Indiana ($2 million)<\/p>\n DE: Dylan Stewart, South Carolina ($2.5 million)<\/p>\n DT: A.J. Holmes, Texas Tech ($1.5 million)<\/p>\n DT: Tyrique Tucker, Indiana ($1.5 million)<\/p>\n CB: Leonard Moore, Notre Dame ($1.5 million)<\/p>\n CB: Zabien Brown, Alabama ($1.5 million)<\/p>\n Fortunately, Mestemaker\u2019s number is public<\/a>, and it\u2019s a bargain compared with most of the top transfer QBs (who are making $4-6 million). So I saved enough to splurge on Jeremiah Smith, who is likely the highest-paid receiver by a considerable margin.<\/p>\n No question, this portion of the lineup is loaded, but I\u2019d need to fill my interior O-line, tight end, second edge-rusher (they\u2019re expensive!) and all the linebackers and safeties with scrubs. My hope is our offense will be unstoppable, while my defense mostly gets shredded over the middle but masks it with strip-sacks and interceptions.<\/p>\n \n Drew Mestemaker transferred from North Texas to Oklahoma State and could be one of the top QBs next season. (Bryan Terry \/ USA Today Network via Imagn Images)<\/p>\n How do you think the new age-based eligibility rule<\/a> will impact the transfer portal? Will players who don\u2019t get much playing time freshman year be more patient and stay for a second season, knowing there are more seasons to play? On the other end, do you think it will escalate bidding wars to stay for a fifth season rather than declare for the draft? \u2014 Steve A.<\/p>\n In football, I\u2019m not sure it will make much difference in the portal. Most high-level recruits aren\u2019t going to enter as freshmen planning to stay in college for five years. Their goal is to reach the NFL, so they\u2019ll still want to see the field as soon as possible.<\/p>\n But the draft angle will be fascinating \u2014 especially this year.<\/p>\n In theory, the majority of the 2027 draft class should be 2023 recruits now entering their fourth seasons, bookended by a decent number of fifth-year seniors and a handful of three-and-outs. But suddenly, all those fourth-year guys have an extra season of eligibility if they choose to take it. What percentage of projected Day 2\/Day 3 prospects will now stay in school to improve their stock, knowing they can make good NIL money as proven starters? I suspect it will be most of them, which, if so, could significantly water down the pool available to NFL teams.<\/p>\n Mind you, we just went through this to some extent with players who got a free year in 2020, but the first couple of classes who benefited from it were making very little money, if any. \u201cSuper seniors\u201d were the exception, not the norm. Now we\u2019re moving into an era where not playing five seasons could be the exception.<\/p>\n Once again, this will most directly affect current high school players. The NCAA roster limit remains at 105 players. If a coach believes he\u2019s going to keep, say, 15 of his 25 upcoming seniors for another year, he will have to take 15 fewer newcomers next offseason, whether recruits or transfers. He\u2019s likely to lean toward building an experienced roster rather than taking a big freshman class.<\/p>\n But all of this is a guess on my part. Whatever happens in 2027 could be a one-off. Roster trends will normalize once the new system has been in effect for more than one year.<\/p>\n You warn every year not to get excited about Nebraska. Any reason to be excited for 2026? \u2014 Justin<\/p>\n Have you seen their new uniforms<\/a>? The Huskers might go 7-6 again, but they\u2019ll look good doing it.<\/p>\n When will we begin to see NIL fatigue? Phil Knight, Cody Campbell, et al. have seemingly bottomless wells of money, but many donors and boosters do not. At what point do these people grow tired of gifting hundreds of thousands a year to help land players, only to see their school go 7-5? \u2014 Cristophe H.<\/p>\n Hi Stewart \u2014 crystal ball this: All teams are part of a college or university. Almost every institution is hurting financially right now. At the same time, expenses for college sports are increasing exponentially. Where does this buckle? Can TV revenue really support this model, whether it\u2019s a Super League or something else? \u2014 Anonymous<\/p>\n I grouped these questions under the umbrella of \u201cWhat happens when the money runs out?\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Never say never, but skeptics have been speculating about donor fatigue for five years, and all we\u2019ve seen is roster numbers go up and up and up. Mind you, most schools are less reliant on donors to fund NIL since the House settlement, given their $20-plus million rev share pot and the increasing use of MMRs (Learfield, Playfly, etc.) or apparel partners (Nike, Adidas, etc.) to provide deals to athletes. But the high-end programs can\u2019t fund both a $30 million football roster and a $20 million basketball roster without help from boosters.<\/p>\n People keep waiting for these fat cats to treat their investments in their favorite school\u2019s sports teams with the same risk-reward calculus they would in their everyday business, but I just don\u2019t think that\u2019s ever going to happen. Fandom is not a rational thing. So far, the only pullback we\u2019ve seen comes when donors no longer trust the coach. (See: Florida State.) Otherwise, they\u2019re basically playing fantasy football.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, despite whatever financial pressures hang over universities, a growing number of them are still subsidizing their athletic departments to cover mounting costs. Even top-of-the-food-chain schools like Michigan, UCLA and Washington have recently finagled their balance sheets to cover athletic deficits.<\/p>\n This should be the part where I say something like, \u201cAll of this is unsustainable,\u201d right? In a normal business, yes. But I\u2019m not sure casual fans appreciate just how powerful football or basketball success is at attracting students.<\/p>\n No amount of marketing campaigns comes close to the exposure a school gets from a deep run in the College Football Playoff or March Madness. Indiana saw its freshman applications and enrollment jump nearly 10 percent last school year after the Hoosiers\u2019 breakout 2024 season, and I\u2019d imagine those numbers will be even higher this year. Do that year after year, and a university can completely transform its academic profile nationally. And make much more money by charging out-of-state tuition.<\/p>\n It\u2019s telling that when the Pac-12 imploded, both Stanford and Cal did not hesitate to join the ACC at a discount \u2014 all but ensuring they will rack up enormous deficits \u2014 rather than drop down to a lesser conference. Both esteemed universities are subsidizing their athletic departments, which suggests they\u2019d rather pay a higher cost to compete than endure the brand hit that would come from no longer competing at the highest level in sports.<\/p>\n But ideally, everyone\u2019s athletic departments would be self-sustaining. And there\u2019s no reason they can\u2019t be. As big as those billion-dollar TV deals already seem, college football has been leaving oodles and oodles more revenue on the table. It\u2019s the second-most popular sport in the country by a healthy margin, and yet the combined P4 and CFP media deals total far less (around $4 billion) than the NBA\u2019s ($6.9 billion). And all of the major pro leagues are far savvier at maximizing dollars from sponsorships, merchandise sales and premium seating.<\/p>\n We\u2019re starting to see a few brave souls dare to corporatize their athletic operations, be it Utah ripping off the private-equity band-aid<\/a> or Kentucky converting its operations into an LLC<\/a>. My guess is these arrangements will eventually be standard, once everyone finally admits they are operating full-on professional sports franchises by a different name.<\/p>\n \n Utah became the first school to finalize a private equity deal for its athletic department. (Kirby Lee \/ Imagn Images)<\/p>\n Which team do you foresee having an equal chance of finishing either 3-9 or 9-3? \u2014 Robert W.<\/p>\n Vanderbilt. Who knows whether last season was the start of a golden era for the Commodores or the end of one.<\/p>\n The World Cup has the top four national teams in the semifinals, and they\u2019re great matchups for TV executives, with France facing Spain and England facing its old nemesis, Argentina. What matchups are the TV suits dreaming up for the CFP semifinals? \u2014 Luigi<\/p>\n The World Cup has been a ratings behemoth for Fox and Telemundo \u2014 40 million-plus for U.S.-Belgium and Mexico-England, around 20 million for England-Norway, and so on. But the semis airing at 3 p.m. ET on a weekday are less than ideal for TV.<\/p>\n Much like the CFP\u2019s Thursday- and Friday-night semis in mid-January.<\/p>\n I bring that up because ESPN had what should have been an ideal TV foursome in 2024-2025 with Notre Dame-Penn State and Texas-Ohio State, yet those games averaged 19.2 million viewers, ominously down 17 percent from the last four-team CFP when those games were on Jan. 1. Viewership then dropped another 13 percent in 2025-2026 for Miami-Ole Miss and Indiana-Oregon.<\/p>\n And now, in Year 3, the semis are another full week later than before (Jan. 14 and Jan. 15) because there wasn\u2019t enough time off this year between the quarterfinals on Saturday, Jan. 1, and the following Thursday\/Friday.\u00a0And one of them is now on TNT. Yet another reason it\u2019s insane to me that three of the four P4 commissioners want to cram another 12 Playoff games into an already unfavorable postseason calendar.<\/p>\n But perhaps this rivalry doubleheader could rev up those Nielsen meters.<\/p>\n![\"Drew](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/USATSI_28761755-scaled.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Devon](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/USATSI_27913127-scaled.jpg\")
<\/p>\n