Welcome to Marcello’s Mailbag, where college football is always at the top of the pile. This is a safe space to share opinions and ask questions without fear or ridicule. No question is dumb, though you may believe there are dumb answers. Luckily, I’m willing to look like a jester, but more often than not, I’ll fill your mind with the information you need to understand the most magical sport in the world.
We’re quickly approaching the opening of the 2025 NCAA Tournament, the most exciting week in college sports, but that doesn’t mean college football is on the backburner. Most schools have started spring drills as they introduce new players, a few superstar transfers and attempt to make sense of their depth charts before the transfer portal opens again in April.
We already have coaches openly campaigning for future players in the portal while also facing the reality of cutting players to meet new 105-man roster guidelines tied to the House v. NCAA settlement.
What does that mean for the upcoming portal cycle? It might not be as crazy as past years, but plenty of fringe players — scholarship-worthy walk-ons and backups — will enter the portal in April looking for new homes that may no longer exist because of roster limits. Coaches have been dealing with this new reality behind the scenes since January, but now that the spring semester has hit the midpoint, decisions need to be made as coaches cut 20-plus players from their locker rooms this summer.
The madness never ends for college football coaches.
Meanwhile, March Madness is in full swing, whetting our whistles and feeding our appetites for controversy. West Virginia was inexplicably left out of the Big Dance in favor of North Carolina, which was only 1-12 in Quad 1 games. (Who knew Rich Rodriguez banning TikTok dances would lead to the NCAA Tournament not inviting the Mountaineers to the Big Dance?)
The week provides us with an opportunity to reexamine how the College Football Playoff’s Selection Committee makes its decisions and how its process is unnecessarily clandestine compared to the NCAA Tournament’s Selection Committee, which utilizes data that is readily available to the public.
I’ll explain that and much more in this week’s mailbag … just as soon as I finish editing my latest TikTok dance.
Ed Helinski (X): Who might have the best CFB head coaching gig? And, on the flip side, who has the worst?
Context is king. What do you value as a head coach? Job security? Living situation? Ease of winning championships? I’m not sure you can label a blue blood job the best gig in the sport when you can be out of a job after two seasons. Sure, the highs are incredibly fulfilling and success usually leads to bigger paydays and a more substantial legacy, but does that potentially make it the best job in America?
Ryan Day is now one of the highest-paid coaches in the sport. He solidified himself as a legend at Ohio State after winning the national title in January, but just one month earlier, fans were booing him out of The Horseshoe, and extremists made death threats, prompting Day to hire security to protect his family around the clock. Anything less than a national title would have elicited calls for his job. Yes, the same coach who has the highest win percentage (70-10, .875) in the FBS since Knute Rockne (.881) led Notre Dame in the 1920s.
College football’s highest-paid coaches: Oregon’s Dan Lanning enters top five with amended contract
John Talty
Day gets paid handsomely to deal with the pressure — and so do the coaches at top-20 schools like Alabama, Tennessee and Michigan, but is it worth it in the long run? Yes, but only if you’re winning.
So, regarding living conditions, job security, salary and a navigable path to a championship, the best job in college football is at Air Force. The head coach there deals with well-disciplined men on a strict schedule, and more importantly, he doesn’t have to worry about NIL or the transfer portal. The three service academies in the FBS forbid players from accepting payments, which means no late-night contract negotiations with players or overzealous agents demanding more money. In Colorado Springs, Troy Calhoun has built a contender in the Mountain West where he’s won two conference titles and recorded five double-digit win seasons in 18 years leading the Falcons. His name comes up for jobs at more prominent programs every other year, and he hasn’t taken the bait. He’s got a good thing going there.
Job security? You’ve got it at Air Force. Fisher DeBerry served 23 years as the head coach before he retired, paving the way for Calhoun to lead the program for the better part of the last three decades.
In the era of roster fluidity, Air Force maintains consistency in the locker room, allowing coaches to develop players in a winning system. Most coaches jump into the profession to make an impact on young men and create hallmark memories and long-lasting relationships. That disappears as players move from team to team through the portal.
The worst job in America? ULM. Its lack of resources, tradition and location gives it an unwanted title. Terry Bowden was fired a little over a year ago after he served as more of a fundraiser than a head coach. Bryant Vincent somehow won five games in his first year leading the program last season, a tremendous achievement considering the circumstances he inherited. Indeed, the Warhawks have had one winning season in the previous 32 years.
Ben Weinberg (X): Any chance the committee/CFP operation becomes more transparent with the metrics they use for strength of schedule/record, etc to be more like the basketball selection committee?
I don’t see it. Whenever I’ve asked whether the committee would consider sharing the metrics they utilize with the public, I get non-answers from the CFP. I participated in a mock selection exercise three years ago in Dallas, and we used the same database of statistics and sabermetrics as the real committee that picks the 12 teams. SportSource Analytics provides the data, but it is not readily available to the public. More troublesome to me is that fans believe the metrics they see on ESPN’s CFP TV shows — the strength of schedule, quality wins, etc. — with what the committee uses. Those are ESPN’s in-house numbers pulled from their own formulas, not necessarily what the committee utilizes behind the scenes. It makes for a muddied presentation.
I also wrote about this in December. CFP selection chairman Warde Manuel told me he would “leave that up to the commissioners to determine” whether the CFP should be more transparent with data.
You know, it’s funny. We eliminated the BCS because it relied on computer ratings. Now that we’re allowing humans to make selections, there’s a renewed push to insert more formulas to guide the system. I’m all for it, to be honest. SEC commissioner Greg Sankey echoed those sentiments last week.
“It came fully human-driven, and there are some background metrics, but perhaps there’s a balance that we could explore,” he told The Post and Courier.
Why not get the smartest analytics people in a room together and have them develop a computer ratings system that is weighed into the CFP’s weekly top 25? The well-respected Bill Connelly at ESPN would be a good start.
In the end, I’m not sure that happens, either. The Big Ten and SEC are pushing for multiple automatic qualifiers, and even in a 14-team playoff, we could be on course for a system that needs only one at-large selection starting in 2026. The selection committee’s power may soon diminish considerably.
John (X): Considering Northern Illinois’ move to split football (Mountain West) from the other sports (Horizon), will the G5 lead the way in college realignment before the big TV deals are done in 2030?
Yes, but realignment probably won’t be substantial. The Pac-12 still needs one more football member, but the conference is slow-playing expansion while seeking feedback on the value of its future media rights before pitching itself again to potential members. I know that half a dozen schools in the AAC and Mountain West have publicly remained committed to staying in their respective conferences after pursuits by the Pac-12 and MWC, but that could change with the right amount of money from the Pac-12.
I believe the Pac-12’s top target has been — and still should be — Memphis. The question is whether the Pac-12 has the money to pull the Tigers out West. Memphis administrators were unhappy with the figures presented in the fall, so they pulled out of discussions and remained in the AAC. After a year of studying how extensive travel schedules have affected teams like Cal and Stanford in the ACC, sinking resources into a move across the country might be a no-go.
At this point, the smaller conferences must prepare to backfill their leagues. There is no active effort to aggressively expand in the MAC, Conference USA or AAC. The only TV contracts that expire before the first major conference deal (Big Ten) are in the MAC (2027) and CUSA (2028). I don’t see those two conferences making any big moves unless they are forced to do so by aggressive efforts out West, and it appears the Pac-12 is content to add just one more member. I’m not sure that’s an AAC member. Texas State and UNLV make the most sense to me, but that’s me talking out of the side of my mouth.
Conference TV contracts
- Mid-American Conference: Expires after 2026-27
- Conference USA: Expires after 2027-28
- Big Ten: Expires after 2029-30
- Big 12: Expires after 2030-31
- Sun Belt: Expires after 2030-31
- AAC: Expires after 2031-32
- Mountain West: Expires after 2031-32
- SEC: Expires after 2033-34
- ACC: Expires after 2035-36
Have a question? Email or tweet Brandon Marcello, and your question may be answered in the next edition of Marcello’s Mailbag.
Read the full article here
