It just so happens this week that Wednesday falls on the same day as the first game of the CFP quarterfinals, so hope you don\u2019t mind me avoiding game-specific questions.<\/p>\n
I generally like to wait at least 48 hours before being certifiably wrong about the outcome of something.<\/p>\n
As a Utes fan, I think Michigan lucked out. Sure, Kyle Whittingham is 66 and has never recruited with the big boys, but he runs a clean program and out-coaches most of his competitors. However, I don\u2019t understand the sequence of events. Was Whit pressured to resign from the Utah job in order that Morgan Scalley could be retained? Or did he know that the Michigan job was coming open? \u2014 John W., Newton, Mass.<\/strong><\/p>\n From what I understand, Utah and Whittingham were discussing his future well before Sherrone Moore\u2019s abrupt Dec. 10 dismissal, but by the time the exit agreement was finalized, the Michigan job was open. As I reported at the time, Whittingham was adamant he did not intend to retire from coaching, and that was the only remaining head coaching vacancy, so of course he was going to pursue it.<\/p>\n All of this seemed to take Utah fans by complete surprise, and looking back, it\u2019s not hard to see why. The school had begun planning for Whittingham\u2019s retirement years before most people\u2019s retirement age.<\/p>\n The sequence of events really began back when former athletic director Chris Hill \u2014 who himself retired in 2018 \u2014 first put a clause in Whittingham\u2019s contract creating a cushy \u201cspecial assistant to the athletics director\u201d retirement gig. That was before or around the time his coach turned 60. And Scalley was first anointed head coach-in-waiting way back in 2019. That designation was rescinded in 2020 following an investigation into Scalley\u2019s use of a racial slur<\/a>, then reinstated in 2023. Meanwhile, Whittingham himself said in 2019<\/a>, \u201cI can just about guarantee I won\u2019t be coaching at 65.\u201d<\/p>\n Problem is, Whittingham spent the next six years waffling on the subject. Behind the scenes, he indicated the 2024 season would be his last (hence the timing of Scalley\u2019s new contract), but when the Utes cratered to 5-7, Whittingham sought one more year to right the ship (which he absolutely did). Now Utah really did believe he\u2019d be retiring and was planning accordingly. Problem is, Whittingham still didn\u2019t want to.<\/p>\n Who did what next remains hazy, but it was described to me at the time as Utah and Whittingham deciding to amicably part ways. Whittingham wanted the money owed to him, but he also wanted a clean break, so he and athletic director Mark Harlan negotiated a new agreement. Still, you can tell the Michigan thing caught everyone off guard, because the original plan was for Whittingham to coach the Utes in the Las Vegas Bowl. So much for that.<\/p>\n In the span of two weeks, Michigan went from a potentially program-crippling scandal to the hiring of a future Hall of Fame coach. One coming off a 10-2 season, no less. The knock that Whittingham can\u2019t recruit at an elite level is frankly ridiculous and largely irrelevant. He was recruiting at a Big 12 non-blue blood, not Big Ten royalty. Utah was never going to sign top-10 classes.<\/p>\n But there\u2019s always some risk when hiring someone who\u2019s been at one place for so long, much less someone who has never worked east of Utah. I have no idea whether his approach will translate. But philosophically, you know exactly what you\u2019re getting from a Whittingham team: toughness and physicality. Very much in the spirit of Michigan\u2019s recent national championship coach, but with far less drama.<\/p>\n Who is to blame for USC vs. ND ending? \u2014 Plewis58\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Well, if you believe Lincoln Riley, it\u2019s Notre Dame\u2019s fault. Which I find hilarious.<\/p>\n USC, and USC alone, decided this century-old rivalry was no longer in its best interest due in part to the fact it voluntarily joined a conference that requires it to make multiple trips east every year<\/a>. And Riley, who previously reportedly tried to get out of USC\u2019s 2024 opener against LSU<\/a>, has apparently decided it\u2019s in his own best interest to stop playing nonconference games he might lose. AD Jen Cohen knew her fan base would revolt if they stopped playing their hated rival and tried to find a compromise the head coach could stomach: Playing the game early enough that a loss might not kill the Trojans\u2019 Playoff chances.<\/p>\n Notre Dame, which enjoys playing a game in California every year to end the regular season (it rotates USC with Stanford), did not love that idea but probably would have agreed to some modest change to the timing. However, USC\u2019s proposed \u201csolution\u201d was to move the game to Week Zero. Not only is that bizarre, but also it\u2019s currently against NCAA rules, which make an exemption only for overseas games and teams that play at Hawaii during the season. And even if that option were approved, it\u2019s a huge ask that requires your players to begin preseason camp a week earlier.<\/p>\n And all this due to a program that has never made the CFP worrying about maybe, possibly going 10-2 and missing the Playoff because its second loss was too late in the season.<\/p>\n It seems to me the one thing you can blame on Notre Dame is that Marcus Freeman\u2019s \u201canytime, anywhere\u201d quote gave Riley fodder<\/a> to rile up his fan base and deflect the blame to the other side. But as long as we\u2019re dredging up old quotes, here\u2019s Riley back in 2024:<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s been a lot of teams that sacrifice rivalry games. I\u2019m not saying that\u2019s what\u2019s going to happen, but as we get into this Playoff structure and if it changes or not, we get into this new conference, we\u2019re going to learn some about this as we go and what the right and best track is to winning a national championship. That\u2019s going to evolve.\u201d<\/p>\n We\u2019ll get a window into how his thinking has evolved when USC, which currently has Fresno State and Louisiana on the books next season, announces its replacement for the Irish. I did find it interesting that despite Notre Dame\u2019s own experience this season with losing to tough opponents and missing the CFP because of it, the Irish had no reservations turning around and replacing USC with a stronger team in BYU.<\/p>\n Dan Lanning has said Oregon should be playing at Texas Tech in the quarterfinals, not thousands of miles away at the Orange Bowl. Those who have covered or attended a first-round on-campus game have raved about the atmosphere. How far are we from all but the semifinals and championship games being on the campus of the higher seeds? \u2014 Jon, Amarillo, Texas<\/strong><\/p>\n I thought that was pretty cool of him to say. Nearly all coaches only advocate for things that would benefit their own team, but here\u2019s Lanning suggesting the setup is unfair to his opponent.<\/p>\n But he\u2019s probably not going to get his wish for at least another six years.<\/p>\n The new CFP deal that was agreed to in spring 2024 would keep the quarterfinals at the same six bowls through the 2031 season. Mind you, that agreement assumed a 12- or 14-team Playoff and remains on hold until the commissioners decide whether they\u2019re going to expand to 16, or possibly 24, in which case they may need to devise something different. But regardless, I\u2019ve heard nothing to indicate they\u2019d ditch the bowls.<\/p>\n Personally, I\u2019ve done a reversal on this particular subject. The on-campus games are awesome, but if the calendar remains as it is and the quarterfinals are on New Year\u2019s Eve\/New Year\u2019s Day, it feels only natural to me that they\u2019d be at bowl games. Ever since Indiana-Alabama became official, I\u2019ve realized how much cooler it is that it\u2019s at the Rose Bowl on New Year\u2019s Day than on Dec. 27 in Bloomington. An Ole Miss-Georgia Sugar Bowl also feels right given those schools\u2019 long histories in that game. (Also, we\u2019ve already seen Ole Miss at Georgia this season.)<\/p>\n The biggest problem with the bowls is you inevitably end up with at least one matchup that makes no sense geographically, like Arizona State-Texas in Atlanta last year and now Oregon-Texas Tech in Miami. One change that could help, which has already been agreed to, is that the traditional conference\/bowl partnerships are going away. Beginning next year, if Texas happens to be the No. 1 seed, it will go to the Cotton Bowl in Arlington, not the SEC\u2019s longtime partner bowl in New Orleans.<\/p>\n But I still don\u2019t know how you avoid what happened with this year\u2019s Orange Bowl. If they\u2019d flipped the locations for No. 3 Ohio State and No. 4 seed Texas Tech, the higher-seeded Buckeyes would be facing Miami in its home stadium. They\u2019d want to avoid that.<\/p>\n You\u2019ll notice earlier I said I favor keeping these games at bowl sites if the calendar remains the same. Lanning also said he\u2019d prefer the quarterfinals take place the Saturday after the first round. If that were to happen, I, too, would rather those games be on campus than at a New Year\u2019s bowl being played nowhere near New Year\u2019s Day.<\/p>\n Dec. 27 should always be reserved for the Pop-Tarts Bowl.<\/p>\n What more will it take for the media and committee to accept that the SEC isn\u2019t the power it used to be? There is no need for a five-bid league, especially when the middle of the conference sure looks mediocre. \u2014 Evan B.<\/strong><\/p>\n Doesn\u2019t every conference\u2019s \u201cmiddle of the conference\u201d look \u201cmediocre?\u201d That\u2019s why they\u2019re in the middle.<\/p>\n It seems like most fans and media members were against the illegal rules the NCAA set regarding player movement and compensation. But now those same fans and media members expect the NCAA to be able to make equally illegal rules regarding player eligibility in the Diego Pavia case and ex-NBA draftee case. Are we all just fans of only the illegal rules we agree with? \u2014 Patrick H.<\/strong><\/p>\n Oh, I would not put those issues on equal footing at all.<\/p>\n Dating to the Ed O\u2019Bannon case in 2014, one court after another \u2014 including the Supreme Court \u2014 has ruled against the NCAA when it comes to rules restricting what athletes can earn from NIL compensation. There has been no such legal consensus when it comes to eligibility rules.<\/p>\n The preliminary injunction Pavia won to be able to play in 2025<\/a> was specific to how junior college eligibility is counted, and it prompted the NCAA to issue a blanket waiver for other prospects in his situation. However, the large majority of athletes that subsequently went fishing for eligibility with similar lawsuits have not received favorable rulings. According to Boise State law professor Sam Ehrlich\u2019s College Sports Litigation Tracker<\/a>, there have been 42 eligibility lawsuits since Pavia\u2019s. Of those, 25 were either denied an injunction or had one overturned, three others were dismissed and five are pending.<\/p>\n But if you keep flooding the system in enough jurisdictions, inevitably a few will go through, which has created the current feeling of, \u201cwhat even are the rules at this point?\u201d<\/p>\n In late October, Gonzaga basketball player Tyon Grant-Foster, a Class of 2018 high school recruit who had already played five full seasons (two juco, one at Kansas during the COVID-19 altered season and two at Grand Canyon) won an injunction to play another year due to a novel argument. He cited a heart condition he suffered in 2021, which sidelined him for two seasons (both of which he got back), as evidence he was being discriminated against for a disability in not being granted a juco waiver like Pavia. Mind you, the Vanderbilt QB was arguing for a sixth year, not an eighth year.<\/p>\n The judge in Washington bought it. At which point the NCAA started being much more liberal in eligibility cases. I assume Patrick is referring to former NBA Draft pick\/European pro player James Nnaji, who was just declared eligible at Baylor. Pavia\u2019s attorney then cited the Nnaji case in a new complaint<\/a> arguing why Pavia and other juco players should receive even more eligibility, even though Pavia has said he is going to the NFL this spring either way.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t have a sense of what the public opinion split is these days on athlete compensation, but clearly a lot of people support the athletes getting paid. I don\u2019t sense much support, if any, for allowing former pros to compete in college.<\/p>\n Hey Stewart, flying under the radar during CFP\/bowl season is the story of a Missouri player suing his former school, Georgia, which had previously sued him in an NIL dispute. What are the ramifications of a ruling in this case, whether it ends in a settlement or it actually makes it in front of a judge? \u2014 Lucas A.<\/strong><\/p>\n No question, it\u2019s a big moment.<\/p>\n The background<\/a>: Defensive end Damon Wilson II left Georgia for Missouri last January, less than a month after signing a $500,000 deal with Georgia\u2019s collective to return for the 2025 season. Georgia, like a lot of schools, has begun including liquidated damages clauses (like buyouts for coaches) in its contracts to deter players from going in the portal, but this is the first known instance of a school taking a guy to court to collect. In an October request to compel arbitration, the school claimed Wilson, who to that point had received just one $30,000 monthly payment from that deal, owes them 13 times that amount \u2014 $390,000 \u2014 in damages, as stated in his contract.<\/p>\n Last week, Wilson, who went on to lead Mizzou in sacks this season, countersued Georgia, alleging it had \u201cweaponized\u201d that damages clause to \u201cpunish\u201d him for entering the portal. His attorneys say the agreement he signed was unenforceable because it stated it would \u201cbe used to create a legally binding document\u201d but never was.\u00a0Wilson also alleges that staffers for the program tried to scare suitors away by falsely telling them he would owe Georgia $1.2 million.<\/p>\n The story is a big deal because it could set a precedent, one way or the other, in schools\u2019 continued attempt to rein in the portal. On the surface, it may seem like Wilson has a losing argument. He signed the deal knowing exactly what the number would be, and he went in the portal anyway. But attorneys I\u2019ve spoken with over the past year about this very possibility say the onus will still be on the school to prove that the dollar amount is not strictly punitive and that it actually did suffer $390,000 in real damages.<\/p>\n