Welcome to the offseason version of Four Down Territory.
It’s going to be a little different than it was in-season. I'll post one weekly during the season, which for me is from SEC Media Days through Missouri's final game.
During the offseason, I’ll post every other week.
1. New kids on the block and depth.
The 2024 freshman class is on campus, meaning everyone on the roster should be, too.
First, let's get to this point, you know you're cool if you say your nickname and then you say "also known as" (insert government name here) like James Madison did.
Moving on.
if you've followed PowerMizzou's new position-by-position football roster comparison series, you may notice a slight difference through the first two positions (quarterback and running back) between the 2023 and 2024 football rosters.
Depth.
Not to say every position group or every 2024 starter is or will be as good as the previous year's but from top to bottom some of these position groups have improved dramatically.
Let's take the running back and linebacker rooms for example.
From top to bottom, this year's running back room looks more balanced.
Marcus Carroll was the 10th-best rusher in the FBS statistically with 1,350 yards.
Nate Noel had a 1,100-yard season in 2021 and rushed for a little more than 830 yards a year ago.
Neither one of them is probably as good as Cody Schrader (doesn't mean they can't be). Carroll and Noel looked pretty good during spring ball and are competing to be the RB1.
It's possible that the nation's 10th-leading rusher could be RB2 (or if things go how Mizzou would like them to go RB1A). That's depth.
Turn over to the quarterbacks of the defense and the Tigers have brought in three linebackers in the transfer portal this offseason with Khalil Jacobs being the latest newcomer by transferring to the team last week.
He went from a special teamer in 2022 to recording 56 tackles, 8.5 tackles for loss, three sacks, three forced fumbles and an interception in 2023 for Corey Batoon at South Alabama.
Missouri already had two linebackers it liked in Triston Newson and Chuck Hicks. Both of whom, should be the presumptive starters going into fall camp but with all of this depth at the position how do we know they'll keep those jobs to start the season or throughout the season?
Miami transfer Corey Flagg Jr. isn't a pushover.
He had 48 tackles, six tackles for loss and a forced fumble last year, and that was the worst year of his career outside of his true freshman campaign when he still recorded 15 tackles and a fumble recovery in six games.
Are any of those linebackers better than the duo of Ty'Ron Hopper and Chad Bailey? To be determined. However, from top to bottom, you can't deny the depth of these rooms. You can't deny Missouri is going for "it." And "it" refers to the 12-team College Football Playoff.
2. Revenue sharing with athletes and the possible changes.
The NCAA and Power Five conferences essentially agreed to back pay about $2.8 billion to current and former athletes. Also in the deal, there's supposed to be up to $20 million given to each program to pay athletes moving forward while also not impacting NIL.
First, it's a win for the athletes. You get paid and then you can still get paid via NIL.
Imagine going back to 2019 and telling people that college athletes would go from making no money to making money and then some. That person would probably call you crazy.
So we know the athletes will get paid but how does that change the landscape of college athletics besides trying to figure out how to split the money up?
I was listening to The Right Time with Bomani Jones podcast and Jones and Dominique Foxworth talked about private equity and how its introduction into college sports could be problematic for several reasons.
For example, plenty of people make money off college sports even though it's not a profit-maximizing business. Yes, college sports make plenty of money and that's one of the main goals along with getting people to donate money. But it doesn't maximize profits because the money is spent on things to attract athletes (think fancy weight rooms and locker rooms) and fans (new up-to-date large stadiums).
Currently, donors (largely) donate because they want to. They want to give back and see the school succeed.
Private equity is about getting to the bag and maximizing profits. Not necessarily the pomp and circumstances that make college sports great.
So, that makes me think how does that take away from what we know now? What will be the cost-cutting casualties of such a thing?
Will the number of assistant coaches be cut down because they're expendable? Will the people who make up the strength and conditioning unit staff be expendable? Will the stadium prices on food go up while the quality takes a hit? Will things like stadium renovations happen less frequently?
What happens if these private equity firms buy up all the teams or conferences?
Currently, schools want to attract recruits and fans and prove to their rivals they're better than them and have more resources. (They do more than this, these are just a few things they do.)
But if one firm buys teams that rival each other they may force them to cut back on spending money.
Why? It wouldn't make sense (is my guess) to allow properties they own to use money to outdo each other when the firm wants them to have more money coming in and less going out. That's not to say rivalries will be dissolved or anything like that. But you'd think the arms race in college sports would slow down in this particular world if and or when private firms get involved.
There's so much to figure out, and things happen so quickly. It's an interesting ordeal.
It’s going to be a little different than it was in-season. I'll post one weekly during the season, which for me is from SEC Media Days through Missouri's final game.
During the offseason, I’ll post every other week.
1. New kids on the block and depth.
The 2024 freshman class is on campus, meaning everyone on the roster should be, too.
First, let's get to this point, you know you're cool if you say your nickname and then you say "also known as" (insert government name here) like James Madison did.
Moving on.
if you've followed PowerMizzou's new position-by-position football roster comparison series, you may notice a slight difference through the first two positions (quarterback and running back) between the 2023 and 2024 football rosters.
Depth.
Not to say every position group or every 2024 starter is or will be as good as the previous year's but from top to bottom some of these position groups have improved dramatically.
Let's take the running back and linebacker rooms for example.
From top to bottom, this year's running back room looks more balanced.
Marcus Carroll was the 10th-best rusher in the FBS statistically with 1,350 yards.
Nate Noel had a 1,100-yard season in 2021 and rushed for a little more than 830 yards a year ago.
Neither one of them is probably as good as Cody Schrader (doesn't mean they can't be). Carroll and Noel looked pretty good during spring ball and are competing to be the RB1.
It's possible that the nation's 10th-leading rusher could be RB2 (or if things go how Mizzou would like them to go RB1A). That's depth.
Turn over to the quarterbacks of the defense and the Tigers have brought in three linebackers in the transfer portal this offseason with Khalil Jacobs being the latest newcomer by transferring to the team last week.
He went from a special teamer in 2022 to recording 56 tackles, 8.5 tackles for loss, three sacks, three forced fumbles and an interception in 2023 for Corey Batoon at South Alabama.
Missouri already had two linebackers it liked in Triston Newson and Chuck Hicks. Both of whom, should be the presumptive starters going into fall camp but with all of this depth at the position how do we know they'll keep those jobs to start the season or throughout the season?
Miami transfer Corey Flagg Jr. isn't a pushover.
He had 48 tackles, six tackles for loss and a forced fumble last year, and that was the worst year of his career outside of his true freshman campaign when he still recorded 15 tackles and a fumble recovery in six games.
Are any of those linebackers better than the duo of Ty'Ron Hopper and Chad Bailey? To be determined. However, from top to bottom, you can't deny the depth of these rooms. You can't deny Missouri is going for "it." And "it" refers to the 12-team College Football Playoff.
2. Revenue sharing with athletes and the possible changes.
The NCAA and Power Five conferences essentially agreed to back pay about $2.8 billion to current and former athletes. Also in the deal, there's supposed to be up to $20 million given to each program to pay athletes moving forward while also not impacting NIL.
First, it's a win for the athletes. You get paid and then you can still get paid via NIL.
Imagine going back to 2019 and telling people that college athletes would go from making no money to making money and then some. That person would probably call you crazy.
So we know the athletes will get paid but how does that change the landscape of college athletics besides trying to figure out how to split the money up?
I was listening to The Right Time with Bomani Jones podcast and Jones and Dominique Foxworth talked about private equity and how its introduction into college sports could be problematic for several reasons.
For example, plenty of people make money off college sports even though it's not a profit-maximizing business. Yes, college sports make plenty of money and that's one of the main goals along with getting people to donate money. But it doesn't maximize profits because the money is spent on things to attract athletes (think fancy weight rooms and locker rooms) and fans (new up-to-date large stadiums).
Currently, donors (largely) donate because they want to. They want to give back and see the school succeed.
Private equity is about getting to the bag and maximizing profits. Not necessarily the pomp and circumstances that make college sports great.
So, that makes me think how does that take away from what we know now? What will be the cost-cutting casualties of such a thing?
Will the number of assistant coaches be cut down because they're expendable? Will the people who make up the strength and conditioning unit staff be expendable? Will the stadium prices on food go up while the quality takes a hit? Will things like stadium renovations happen less frequently?
What happens if these private equity firms buy up all the teams or conferences?
Currently, schools want to attract recruits and fans and prove to their rivals they're better than them and have more resources. (They do more than this, these are just a few things they do.)
But if one firm buys teams that rival each other they may force them to cut back on spending money.
Why? It wouldn't make sense (is my guess) to allow properties they own to use money to outdo each other when the firm wants them to have more money coming in and less going out. That's not to say rivalries will be dissolved or anything like that. But you'd think the arms race in college sports would slow down in this particular world if and or when private firms get involved.
There's so much to figure out, and things happen so quickly. It's an interesting ordeal.
