In this conversation, Josh Pate and Colin Cowherd dissect the evolving landscape of college football, revealing how seemingly obvious strategies in NIL, the transfer portal, and team building often lead to unforeseen consequences. They highlight how traditional powerhouses are being challenged by new financial dynamics and how patience and a focus on long-term development, rather than immediate gratification, can create significant competitive advantages. This discussion is crucial for coaches, administrators, and serious fans who want to understand the systemic shifts impacting the sport and how to navigate them effectively, offering a strategic edge by looking beyond the surface-level noise.

The Hidden Currents of College Football: Why Today's "Obvious" Moves Create Tomorrow's Disadvantages

College football, a sport steeped in tradition, is undergoing a seismic shift, driven by the powerful forces of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) and the unrestricted movement of the transfer portal. While many coaches and programs are scrambling to adapt by chasing immediate talent infusions and quick wins, a deeper analysis reveals that these very actions can sow the seeds of future instability and competitive disadvantage. In a recent conversation on "The Herd with Colin Cowherd," Josh Pate and Colin Cowherd explored the intricate systems at play, demonstrating how conventional wisdom often misses the downstream effects of these new realities. They argued that the most sustainable advantages are not built on short-term gains but on a more patient, strategic approach that anticipates how the system will respond to immediate pressures. This discussion offers a critical lens for anyone seeking to understand the true drivers of long-term success in this rapidly changing environment, showing why the path of least resistance often leads to a dead end.

Why the Obvious Fixes Make Things Worse

The allure of immediate talent acquisition through the transfer portal and aggressive NIL deals is undeniable. Programs are tempted to land top-tier players with the promise of lucrative compensation, believing this is the fastest route to championship contention. However, as Josh Pate argues, this approach often ignores the fundamental nature of player development and team cohesion. "Coaches are different than players," Pate notes, drawing a distinction between the career paths of administrators and athletes. While coaches may move between programs, players often engage in rapid, multi-year transfers, a pattern that differs significantly from a coach's career trajectory. This constant churn, driven by the pursuit of immediate NIL payouts, can undermine the very foundation of a successful program.

Colin Cowherd echoes this sentiment, observing how teams like USC, despite spending heavily on transfers, may find themselves perpetually chasing solutions. "Most of the guys that leave," Cowherd suggests, "it's like the third defensive lineman at Georgia who probably doesn't have the motor of the first two." These are often players who are not core to a program's identity or long-term vision, yet their departures, fueled by NIL opportunities elsewhere, create voids that are then filled by more transfers. This cycle, Cowherd implies, can lead to a program that is consistently rebuilding rather than building, a symptom of prioritizing immediate impact over sustained development.

The consequence of this "quick fix" mentality is a system where loyalty and long-term commitment are devalued. Players are incentivized to move for the highest bidder, creating a volatile environment where team chemistry and strategic continuity are difficult to establish. This dynamic directly challenges the traditional model of building a program through sustained recruiting and player development, pushing established powers into a bidding war that may not align with their core values or long-term goals. The immediate benefit of landing a talented player is often overshadowed by the hidden cost of disrupting team culture and devaluing the commitment of existing players.

The Hidden Cost of Fast Solutions: NIL's Double-Edged Sword

The introduction of NIL has fundamentally altered the financial landscape of college football, creating opportunities for players but also introducing complex challenges for program management. While the intention was to allow athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness, the reality has become a competitive bidding war for talent, often overshadowing the traditional metrics of on-field performance and program fit.

Josh Pate proposes a systemic solution to this dilemma: a revenue-sharing model akin to professional sports, with built-in incentives for player retention. "If you tweak that and you made revenue sharing just the true sense of revenue sharing, you wouldn't have to worry about the portal as much if you structured it right," Pate suggests. His vision involves "classman pay scales" where compensation increases with a player's tenure at the university, heavily back-loading revenue sharing for those who remain on the roster. This approach would naturally create a disincentive for players to transfer, as they would forfeit significant future earnings. Such a system, he argues, would address the root cause of player movement, which is often the pursuit of immediate financial gain that could be secured through longer-term commitment.

The downstream effect of this proposed NIL structure is a more stable and predictable environment for college football programs. Instead of a constant churn of players seeking the next lucrative deal, teams would be incentivized to invest in their current roster, fostering loyalty and continuity. This shift would allow coaches to focus on development and strategy rather than constantly recruiting and integrating new players. The immediate discomfort of altering current NIL practices would yield a lasting advantage: a more cohesive and experienced team, capable of sustained success.

Cowherd's observation about USC spending "way too much money on way too many guys that didn't make an impact" highlights the inefficiency of the current system. When NIL is primarily a transactional tool for acquiring talent without a long-term commitment strategy, it becomes a wasteful expenditure. Pate's proposed model aims to redirect that spending toward rewarding loyalty and building a stable core, transforming NIL from a chaotic bidding war into a mechanism for reinforcing program stability.

What Happens When Your Competitors Adapt? The SEC's Shifting Power Dynamic

The conversation then shifts to the established powerhouses of the SEC, particularly Alabama and Georgia, and how they are navigating the new NIL and transfer portal landscape. Colin Cowherd posits that the traditional dominance of these programs might be threatened by states with greater financial resources and a more robust alumni base, such as Texas. He points to the sheer number of Fortune 500 companies in states like California and Texas compared to Alabama, suggesting that the financial infrastructure supporting college football is undergoing a significant redistribution.

Cowherd's "Top 10 Next 10" list, which includes programs like Texas, Texas A&M, Michigan, Ohio State, and Oregon, underscores this point. These institutions possess massive endowments, significant alumni networks, and substantial "oil money," creating a financial moat that can withstand the pressures of NIL. The concern for traditional SEC powers is that they might be outbid for talent, as evidenced by Georgia losing out on a quarterback to Vanderbilt. This scenario illustrates a critical systemic feedback loop: as other states and conferences leverage their financial advantages, the historical dominance of the SEC could erode.

Josh Pate offers a nuanced perspective, acknowledging the financial disparities but also highlighting the strategic choices of programs like Alabama and Georgia. He notes that both are "dead set on recruiting top five classes out of high school and then spending a vast majority of their NIL money reinvesting in the guys they recruited." This approach represents a deliberate choice to prioritize high school recruiting and internal development over a heavy reliance on the transfer portal. It's a strategy that requires patience, as the payoff from developing high school talent often takes longer than acquiring immediate impact players from the portal.

The implication here is that while other programs might be chasing short-term gains through transfers, Alabama and Georgia are attempting to build a more sustainable model. This requires a commitment to their existing recruiting philosophy and a willingness to invest in the players they identify and develop. The competitive advantage, in this context, comes from resisting the temptation to mirror the chaotic strategies of others and instead doubling down on a proven, albeit longer-term, approach. This strategy is "unpopular but durable" because it requires a level of discipline and foresight that many competitors may lack.

The 18-Month Payoff Nobody Wants to Wait For: Building Through Difficulty

The discussion around Indiana's success under Curt Cignetti provides a compelling example of how prioritizing development and resisting the immediate allure of the transfer portal can create a significant competitive advantage. While many programs are scrambling to fill roster spots with transfers, Indiana has focused on building through high school recruiting and player development, a strategy that requires patience and a commitment to a longer-term vision.

Colin Cowherd highlights this by contrasting Indiana's approach with the perceived "wild, wild west" era of college football. He points out that while USC might spend heavily on transfers, they also sent out a massive high school class. This suggests an awareness, even at programs heavily involved in the portal, that high school recruiting remains a crucial component of long-term success. Indiana's success, however, is framed as a model where "a set of basic values and principles, you're trying to recruit, recruit a decent amount of high school and reinvest in them and develop them." This is the kind of college football, Pate suggests, that many are comfortable with.

The advantage of this approach lies in its durability and the difficulty for competitors to replicate. Building a team through high school recruiting and development takes time. It requires coaches to identify talent, nurture it, and foster a culture of commitment. This process is inherently slower and less glamorous than acquiring established players through the transfer portal. However, as Cowherd notes, "most teams won't wait." The pressure for immediate results often forces programs to prioritize short-term fixes, leaving those who invest in development with a significant, albeit delayed, competitive edge.

This mirrors the concept of "competitive advantage from difficulty." The effortful thinking required to map out a long-term development strategy, coupled with the patience needed to see it through, creates a moat around successful programs. Indiana's success, built on a foundation of high school talent and development, is precisely the kind of outcome that is "unpopular but durable" because it requires a commitment that most teams are unwilling or unable to sustain. The immediate pain of not chasing every shiny new transfer is offset by the lasting advantage of a cohesive, experienced, and loyal team.

Where Immediate Pain Creates Lasting Moats: Mendoza's Ascent and the "Eyeball Test"

The conversation turns to Fernando Mendoza, Indiana's quarterback, and the stark difference between perception and reality when evaluating talent. Cowherd and Pate agree that Mendoza's performance against Oregon, particularly his ability to make "wow throws," dispelled any doubts about his NFL potential. Pate, having seen Mendoza in person, emphasizes the palpable difference: "the ball's like a cannon coming out of his hand. He's making a lot of far hash out throws, the typical NFL throws that you want to see made." This firsthand observation underscores a critical element of evaluating talent: the "eyeball test" often reveals nuances missed by purely statistical analysis.

The implication is that Indiana's talent, often underestimated by those who rely solely on aggregated data or pre-conceived notions, passes this rigorous "eyeball test." Pate recounts a conversation with a coach on the sideline where he suggested that Indiana's players could "easily pass for LSU" from a talent perspective. This highlights a systemic issue where perceptions of talent are often based on outdated narratives or a lack of direct observation. The downstream effect is that programs like Indiana, which are developing talent effectively, may be undervalued by the market, creating opportunities for those who are willing to look beyond the surface.

Furthermore, Mendoza's performance post-Heisman win is noted as a rare instance where a player has elevated his game after receiving such accolades. This suggests a level of character and dedication that transcends the typical pressures of college football. Pate adds that there are "not an ounce of character concern" with Mendoza, further solidifying his status as a high-potential prospect. This combination of physical gifts, mental fortitude, and a supportive program environment creates a powerful synergy.

The competitive advantage here is derived from recognizing and developing talent that others might overlook or dismiss. By investing in players like Mendoza and building a program that allows them to thrive, Indiana is creating a moat around itself. This moat is built not on immediate NIL wins but on the sustained development of talent that is demonstrably capable of performing at the highest levels. The "immediate pain" for such a program might be the struggle to compete with the NIL spending of wealthier institutions, but the lasting advantage comes from cultivating genuine talent and a winning culture that transcends financial disparities.

The System Responds: Incentivizing Loyalty and Stability

The discussion culminates in a focus on how the college football system, driven by NIL and the transfer portal, is evolving and how stability can be achieved. Josh Pate's proposed solution of back-loading NIL compensation based on player tenure is a direct attempt to reshape the incentives within the system. By heavily incentivizing players to remain on their roster, programs can mitigate the disruptive effects of the transfer portal.

"If you heavily incentivize and backload revenue sharing for guys contingent that they remain on their roster, you don't have to legislate that they have to stay there. They just have all the incentive in the world to only leave in the worst of cases," Pate explains. This approach acknowledges that players seek financial security and opportunity, but it redirects that pursuit towards long-term commitment within a single program. The system, in this view, can be engineered to reward loyalty and stability, rather than constant movement.

Cowherd agrees that the "wild, wild west" era is likely coming to an end, with legislative or structural changes on the horizon. He points to the strategies of Alabama and Georgia, who are reinvesting NIL money into their high school recruits, as an example of a more sustainable blueprint. This approach, while requiring patience, focuses on building a core of talent that is developed within the program, rather than constantly acquiring external talent.

The key takeaway is that the system will inevitably adapt. The current state of rampant transfers and aggressive NIL bidding is likely unsustainable. Programs that anticipate this shift and build models that prioritize player retention and development will gain a significant advantage. This requires a willingness to embrace a longer time horizon, understanding that immediate discomfort--such as forgoing a quick transfer acquisition--can lead to substantial long-term payoffs. The competitive advantage is found not in playing the current chaotic game, but in shaping the future of the game by fostering loyalty and building through sustained development.

Key Action Items:

• Reframe NIL Strategy: Shift from a transactional, short-term acquisition model to one that heavily incentivizes player retention through back-loaded compensation and tenure-based bonuses. This pays off in 12-18 months by creating roster stability.
• Prioritize High School Recruiting & Development: Double down on identifying and developing high school talent, understanding that this is a longer-term investment that builds a more cohesive and loyal core. This strategy yields dividends over 2-4 years.
• Embrace the "Eyeball Test" for Talent Evaluation: Go beyond statistics and direct observation to assess player potential, recognizing that perceived talent disparities can be misleading. This immediate action can uncover undervalued assets.
• Resist the Urge for Immediate Portal Fixes: Forgo the temptation to fill immediate roster gaps with transfers if it compromises long-term development or team culture. This requires immediate discipline for a payoff in 1-3 years.
• Develop a Long-Term Strategic Vision: Create a multi-year plan that accounts for player development cycles, coaching continuity, and the evolving financial landscape, rather than reacting to short-term pressures. This is an ongoing investment with payoffs in 3-5 years.
• Foster a Culture of Loyalty and Commitment: Actively build a program environment where players feel valued and incentivized to stay, understanding that team chemistry and experience are significant competitive advantages. This is an immediate cultural shift with compounding benefits over time.
• Advocate for Systemic NIL Reform: Support initiatives that create more structured and sustainable NIL frameworks, such as revenue sharing tied to tenure, to mitigate the chaotic effects of the current system. This is a longer-term investment in the sport's future.