Coaches Hot Seat Rankings—Week 14. Our full rankings are delayed due to technical difficulties. Our team is working on a solution, and we will release them as soon as possible.
In the meantime, the Top 20 appears on our site.
The coaching carousel has started spinning earlier than expected this year, with two notable moves reshaping the landscape just days before rivalry weekend. On Tuesday morning, North Carolina shocked the college football world by parting ways with Hall of Fame coach Mack Brown, ending his second stint in Chapel Hill after six seasons. The decision came just 24 hours after Brown had publicly stated his intention to return in 2025, marking an awkward end for the 73-year-old who led the Tar Heels to six straight bowl appearances during his return tenure.
While Brown prepares for his final game against NC State this Saturday, Rice made its move by hiring Davidson head coach Scott Abell to lead their program. Abell, who built Davidson into an FCS powerhouse with his innovative triple-option offense, faces the challenge of translating his success to the FBS level.
These early moves could be harbingers of a relatively quiet coaching carousel, as many programs appear hesitant to make changes amid uncertainty surrounding player revenue sharing and a thin candidate pool. However, that hasn’t stopped the temperature from rising for several coaches fighting to save their jobs.
In this week’s Hot Seat Rankings, we examine the mounting pressure at FIU, where Mike MacIntyre’s tenure has devolved into chaos amid allegations of misconduct and thrown furniture. We’ll also analyze Neal Brown’s expensive mediocrity at West Virginia, Kenni Burns’ historically bad run at Kent State, and the declining returns at Appalachian State under Shawn Clark.
Week 14 – Coaches Hot Seat Top 4
In the economics of college football, Mike MacIntyre’s tenure at FIU represents a perfect market failure – where moral hazard meets reputational collapse in real-time. His 11-24 record tells only part of the story; the real ledger is written in broken trust and thrown furniture.
The math is brutal: one chair was thrown in a rivalry game halftime, twelve current players silently support allegations of misconduct, and eight are starters. It’s a balance sheet of fear, where scholarships become leverage and silence becomes currency.
MacIntyre’s recent attempt to rewrite FIU’s history (“this program hasn’t had a good history since the beginning”) reads less like a gaffe and more like a desperate man’s attempt to hedge against his failure. However, markets have a way of finding true value, and in college football, truth emerges in empty seats and player testimonies.
The most telling metric isn’t his 3-8 record in 2024 but the text message circulating through his locker room, begging players to defend him to the athletic director. It’s the kind of desperate liquidity call that precedes institutional collapse, where a coach’s credibility becomes the ultimate distressed asset.
In the end, MacIntyre’s FIU tenure might be remembered not for the games lost but for the moment when the cost of silence exceeded the price of speaking out.
Neal Brown’s story at West Virginia reads like a cautionary tale of college football’s middle class. In an era when programs are expected to ascend or decline, Brown mastered the art of maintaining perfect mediocrity—a feat that paradoxically sealed his fate.
Every season followed a similar script: flashes of potential undermined by predictable setbacks. He’d win just enough to keep hope alive but never enough to compete. His 37-34 record tells the story of a program stuck in limbo, neither good enough to challenge the conference elite nor bad enough to force immediate change.
The numbers that matter aren’t the wins and losses but the empty seats at Milan Puskar Stadium. In college football’s attention economy, being average is worse than being terrible. At least terrible teams inspire passion. Brown’s teams inspired something far more dangerous: indifference.
The 2024 season, following a deceptively promising 9-4 campaign exposed the fundamental flaw in Brown’s tenure. When finally given a veteran team and heightened expectations, his program reverted to its mean. A pattern that speaks to a larger truth about college football: you can’t build a program on almost but not quite.
Brown’s buyout is $16.7 million if fired before Dec. 31, 2024. Reports suggest WVU donors may help fund this buyout, making his termination more financially feasible than previously thought. The high buyout was initially considered job security, but donor intervention changed that calculus.
Kenni Burns’ tenure at Kent State has devolved from a cautionary tale into pure absurdity. His 2024 season reads like a dark comedy: losing to St. Francis (PA), a non-major program, before suffering historic beatdowns at Tennessee (71-0) and Penn State (56-0). His overall record now stands at 1-33, with zero wins in 2024.
The numbers tell a story of competitive collapse. Kent State hasn’t just lost – they’ve been outscored 486-160. In MAC play, where mid-majors are supposed to find their level, they’ve been outscored 282-99. The final indignity came in losing the Wagon Wheel rivalry to Akron, sacrificing even the $5,000 bonus that might have helped with those credit card payments.
But the contract extension through 2028 transforms this from tragedy into farce. Kent State isn’t just paying for failure – they’re financing it long-term, like a subprime mortgage on competitive irrelevance. Their head coach can’t balance his checkbook, and their football program can’t score a point against top-25 teams. Both, somehow, keep getting extended credit.
In the end, Burns isn’t just losing games—he’s redefining the boundaries of institutional patience in an industry famous for lacking it.
Burns’ buyout after 2024 is $1.51 million, per his contract extension signed in February 2024. This figure represents approximately three years of his base salary at Kent State.
The 2024 season has only reinforced the narrative of App State’s decline under Clark. At 5-5 (potentially 5-6 with Georgia Southern remaining), the program continues its downward trajectory from its previous G5 powerhouse status.
Key 2024 Issues:
Blowout losses (66-20 to Clemson, 48-14 to South Alabama)
2-5 in Sun Belt before recent recovery
Defensive collapse (allowing 35.1 PPG)
However, recent wins over JMU and ODU show signs of life. The question is whether this late-season surge can save Clark’s job, especially given his careful contract structure with decreasing buyouts.
The math is stark: Clark’s overall record is now 44-28 (.611), but the trend line points downward. For a program that once dominated the Sun Belt, mediocrity feels like failure. App State faces a decision: whether maintaining a winning record justifies retaining a coach who’s transformed their championship expectations into bowl eligibility hopes.
In a college football weekend that promises to reshape conference landscapes and ignite rivalries, three pivotal matchups take center stage in this Targeting Winners gridiron trifecta. The 23rd-ranked UNLV Rebels, orchestrating a Cinderella season under Barry Odom, square off against the aerial assault of San Jose State in a Mountain West thriller that could redefine the conference hierarchy
Meanwhile, the Big Ten trembles as Indiana’s high-octane offense, averaging a staggering 43.9 points per game, dares to challenge Ohio State’s fortress-like defense, allowing a mere 10.3 points per game, in a clash that could alter the College Football Playoff picture.
And in Los Angeles, the crosstown rivalry between USC and UCLA takes on newfound urgency, with bowl eligibility hanging in the balance for the Trojans and pride at stake for the Bruins in their inaugural Big Ten season.
It’s a weekend where underdogs dream big, powerhouses defend their thrones, and every snap could alter the course of the season. Tune into the Targeting Winners Podcast for a breakdown of other featured games this week.
In the high-stakes college football arena, where careers are made and broken on the whims of boosters and the bounce of an oblong ball, ten men are perched precariously on the edge of oblivion. “Gridiron Gambles: The 10 College Football Coaches Walking a Tightrope” isn’t just a headline—it’s a window into the soul-crushing, sweat-soaked world where multimillion-dollar contracts collide with the harsh realities of wins and losses. From the Appalachian highlands to the sun-baked plains of Texas, these coaches navigate a landscape where success is measured in increments of eternal optimism and crushing disappointment. Their stories, a cocktail of ambition, desperation, and financial engineering, reveal the true nature of an industry where the difference between genius and failure is often nothing more than a well-timed trick play or a kicker’s wayward foot.
In the peculiar economy of college football, where success is measured in increments of eternal optimism and crushing disappointment, Shawn Clark finds himself caught in the undertow of expectations at Appalachian State. The numbers tell one story: 39-23 since taking the helm in 2020, a winning percentage that would keep most mid-major coaches comfortably employed. But numbers, as any good statistician will tell you, can lie by omission.
What the raw data fails to capture is the psychological toll of regression. The Mountaineers weren’t just expected to be good in 2023 – they were supposed to be the darlings of the Group of Five, the team that might crash the party of college football’s elite. Instead, they’ve become a case study of the dangers of potential unrealized. At 4-5, with games against James Madison and Georgia Southern looming like storm clouds on the horizon, Clark has managed to do something remarkable: he’s made winning 63% of his games feel like a failure.
The truly fascinating part isn’t that Clark might lose his job – it’s that he’s demonstrated how quickly the currency of past success can be devalued by present disappointment. In the modern college football marketplace, where fans trade in the futures market of expectations rather than the commodity market of actual wins, Clark’s greatest sin wasn’t losing – it was making people believe they could win more.
Contract and Buyout: The Price of Promise
To understand the true economics of college football’s expectations game, look no further than the elaborate financial instrument known as Shawn Clark’s contract. It’s a document that reads like a futures trading agreement, where the underlying commodity is hope itself. The university has systematically increased its investment in Clark yearly – from $775,000 in 2021 to $925,020 in 2023 – a nearly 20% appreciation in perceived value over just two years. This comes complete with a monthly “retention bonus” of $22,085, which seems precision-engineered by some unseen actuary to satisfy Clark just enough to stay.
But it’s in the buyout structure where the real financial engineering reveals itself. The university created what Wall Street would recognize as a descending ladder of put options – starting at $5 million and stepping down to a mere $250,000 by 2025. It’s the kind of carefully crafted exit strategy that investment bankers admire, protecting both parties while gradually reducing exposure. The genius is in how it mirrors the depreciation of both risk and potential – like a financial instrument slowly losing its time value as it approaches expiration.
The contract extension through 2026 tells its own story – one of institutional optimism colliding with the harsh reality of on-field results. However, it’s worth noting – and this is where the fine print becomes crucial – that these buyout figures come from Clark’s initial contract signed in December 2019. Like any sophisticated financial instrument, the terms may have been restructured during his 2021 extension. In the opaque world of college football contracts, such details often remain sealed in filing cabinets, known only to agents, attorneys, and athletic directors until they become relevant.
In the risk-obsessed college football world, where athletic directors typically rush to extend their coaches’ contracts at the first sign of competence, Charles Huff’s situation at Marshall stands as a fascinating market inefficiency. Here’s a coach entering the twilight of his original six-year contract – a virtual unicorn in modern college athletics – with no extension in sight and a buyout figure that reads more like a mid-level administrator’s salary than a Power Five coach’s exit package: $125,917.
The number itself tells a story. Not $125,000, not $126,000, but $125,917. It’s the kind of precise figure that suggests it was calculated by someone who believes in the power of actuarial tables and compound interest rather than the typical athletic department mathematics of ego and escalation.
What makes this situation particularly remarkable is its rarity. In an industry where coaches typically receive extension after extension – often before proving their worth – Huff operates in a state of contractual purgatory. His original 2021 deal will expire at the end of next season, creating the sort of uncertainty that athletic directors typically avoid, like a blocked punt. It’s as if Marshall accidentally discovered a new way to incentivize performance: by doing absolutely nothing.
This arrangement is a controlled experiment in coaching motivation. While his peers coach with golden parachutes worth millions, Huff operates with a buyout that wouldn’t cover the cost of a decent offensive coordinator in the SEC. It’s the kind of situation that would make Billy Beane smile. This market inefficiency either proves the conventional wisdom about coaching contracts wrong or demonstrates exactly why such wisdom exists in the first place.
Ultimately, Huff’s contract situation reads less like a strategic decision and more like an oversight – as if Marshall’s athletic department forgot to follow the standard operating procedure of college football’s coaching carousel. The question isn’t whether this approach is brilliant or foolish but whether it was an approach at all.
If you wanted to design a perfect experiment to test the breaking point of college football’s traditional patience with new coaches, you couldn’t do better than the case of Kenni Burns at Kent State. His record reads like a Silicon Valley startup’s burn rate: 1-22 overall, hemorrhaging games at a pace that would make even the most optimistic venture capitalist nervous. But what happened off the field transforms this from a simple story of athletic underperformance into something far more revealing about the economics of mid-major college football.
In a move that defied conventional market logic, Kent State doubled down on its investment in February 2024, extending Burns’ contract through 2028. Just months later, a local bank would be suing their head coach over $23,852.09 in credit card debt, representing roughly 4.5% of his annual salary. It’s the kind of financial disconnect that would make a Wall Street risk manager break out in hives: a man making half a million dollars annually defaulting on a credit card from the same community bank that once sponsored the school’s baseball program.
The financial architecture of Burns’ deal reveals the strange economics of mid-major college football. His base salary – starting at $475,000 and climbing to $515,000 – comes wrapped in a series of micro-incentives that read like a behavioral economist’s experiment in motivation. There’s $5,000 for beating Akron in the battle for the Wagon Wheel trophy (a sum that somehow manages to overvalue and undervalue a rivalry game simultaneously), and up to $15,000 for hitting academic benchmarks – as if to say, “If you can’t win games, at least make sure the players can read about them.”
But it’s in the confluence of the guarantee game clause and the credit card debt where the real story emerges. While up to $200,000 per year from Power 5 “guarantee games” goes directly to the football budget – effectively creating a financial instrument where Kent State profits from their competitive irrelevance – their head coach couldn’t manage to keep current on a $20,000 credit limit. The excuse of “a recent remodel and move” reads less like a justification and more like a perfect metaphor for the program: renovating while the foundation crumbles.
The buyout figure of $1.51 million after 2024 now looks less like an insurance policy against success and more like a cautionary tale about financial due diligence. In the strange economy of college football, Kent State potentially has to pay seven figures to part ways with a coach who couldn’t pay his credit card bill.
This is no longer a coaching contract; it’s a case study of the disconnect between institutional faith and personal finance. Every clause, every bonus, every carefully worded incentive tells the story of a program trying to convince itself that patience is still a virtue in an industry that traded that commodity away years ago. At 1-22, with their head coach dodging debt collectors, they’re not just losing games; they’re conducting an expensive experiment in the limits of institutional faith while their coach conducts his experiment in the limits of credit.
The most telling detail might be the timing: Burns’ team was 60 days past due on its payments to Hometown Bank and past due on delivering a single win in the 2023 season. In college football’s economy, some debts seem more forgivable than others.
In college football economics, Neal Brown’s contract at West Virginia is a case study in the psychology of institutional momentum. Here’s a coach who parlayed a 9-4 season into what might be the most elaborately structured compensation package in the mid-tier Power Five – a document that reveals more about the anxieties of college football administration than it does about winning football games.
The raw numbers tell one story: a $4 million base salary escalating to $4.4 million by 2027, a buyout structure that would make a Wall Street severance specialist blush ($9.525 million if terminated after this season), and a bonus structure so intricately layered it resembles a hedge fund’s fee schedule more than a coaching contract. But it’s in the timing that the real story emerges.
What makes Brown’s situation particularly fascinating isn’t just the money – it’s his apparent reconceptualization of the product he’s being paid to deliver. In October, after another loss to a ranked opponent (bringing his record against Top 25 teams to a sobering 3-16), Brown offered the most revealing quote in modern college football: “Did they have a good time? Did they enjoy it? It was a pretty good atmosphere. I’m assuming they had a pretty good time tailgating.”
It was the kind of statement that would make a McKinsey consultant proud – a brilliant pivot from measuring success by wins and losses to measuring it by customer satisfaction with the peripheral experience. Brown reframed a football program as an entertainment venue, suggesting that the actual game might be incidental to the tailgating experience. It’s as if the CEO of a struggling restaurant chain decided to focus on the quality of the parking lot rather than the food.
Brown’s contract’s genius—or perhaps madness—lies in its bonus structure. It reads like a Choose Your Own Adventure book written by an accountant: $100,000 for eight wins, $125,000 for nine, and up to $200,000 for running the table. Notably, nowhere in the contract is there a bonus for enhancing the tailgating experience.
But it’s in the perks where the true nature of college football’s economy reveals itself. Two courtesy vehicles, a country club membership (funded through “private dollars” – a distinction that speaks volumes about the creative accounting of college athletics), and a $5,000 allowance for university apparel. Even the ticket allocations are meticulously detailed: 25 premium tickets or a suite for football, five for basketball, and 20 for bowl games – enough to host quite a tailgate party of his own.
The buyout clause – 75% of the remaining salary if terminated without cause – stands as a monument to institutional fear: fear of being wrong or right or having to admit either. At current projections, that’s $9.525 million to say goodbye to a coach who might finish 5-7, make a bowl game, or do just enough to make everyone wonder if next year will be different. Or perhaps, given his new metrics for success, just enough people might have a good time tailgating to make it all worthwhile.
In the end, Neal Brown’s tenure isn’t just about coaching football – it’s about an institution trying to put a price on hope while their coach redefines what hope means. Each clause, each bonus, and each carefully worded provision reveals a program desperate to believe it has found its answer while simultaneously hedging against the possibility that it hasn’t. At 5-5, Brown isn’t just managing a football team – he’s curating an entertainment experience worth millions, where the game might be an excuse for the party in the parking lot.
In the complex marketplace of college football coaching talents, Kevin Wilson’s career trajectory reads like a case study in the industry’s peculiar definition of failure and success. Here’s a coach who helped orchestrate some of the most prolific offenses in college football history at Oklahoma, got fired from Indiana for winning too little, landed at Ohio State, where he helped set conference records, and then – in a move that defies conventional career logic – chose to take over at Tulsa, where he’s currently orchestrating what might be called a masterclass in proving why offensive coordinators don’t always make great head coaches.
The numbers tell a story that no Wall Street analyst would want to pitch to investors: 7-13 at Tulsa, adding to a career head coaching record of 33-60. But the path to those numbers makes Wilson’s case so fascinating. This is a man who once presided over an Oklahoma offense that scored 716 points in a season (still third-best in FBS history), helped develop multiple Heisman Trophy finalists at Ohio State, and somehow managed to make Indiana’s offense lead the Big Ten in passing – a feat roughly equivalent to making Vermont a skiing powerhouse.
Wilson’s career is exciting because it perfectly captures the football industry’s inability to value talent properly. Here’s a coordinator who helped create offensive systems that generated billions in revenue for major programs, yet when given his own program at Indiana, was dismissed after going 6-6 – a record that at Indiana should have earned him consideration for canonization rather than termination. The official reason was “mistreatment of players,” but in college football’s economy, winning six games at Indiana while losing the PR battle proves about as sustainable as a crypto startup with good fundamentals but an evil Twitter presence.
The move to Tulsa represents the greatest market inefficiency in college football or its most predictable regression to the mean. Wilson left a position at Ohio State where he was helping generate NFL quarterbacks like a factory assembly line to take over a program where success is measured in bowl eligibility rather than national championships. It’s as if a quantitative trader left Renaissance Technologies to manage a local credit union’s investment portfolio.
The tragedy isn’t that Wilson is failing at Tulsa – it’s that his career perfectly illustrates college football’s inability to distinguish between the skills needed to coordinate an offense and those required to run an entire program. His genius for designing plays that made Oklahoma and Ohio State unstoppable hasn’t translated into the ability to make Tulsa merely competitive. It’s the coaching equivalent of the Peter Principle: promoting someone until they reach their incompetence, except in this case, Wilson chose his promotion.
Ultimately, Kevin Wilson’s story isn’t just about wins and losses – it’s about how college football’s market for coaching talent consistently misvalues specialized skills. His career path from offensive mastermind to struggling head coach serves as a reminder that in college football’s economy, being brilliant at one thing doesn’t guarantee even basic competence at the next level up. At 3-5 this season, Wilson isn’t just coaching football – he’s providing a cautionary tale about the dangers of mistaking tactical brilliance for strategic leadership.
Some numbers tell you everything you need to know about a program’s soul. At Auburn, that number is $68 million – paid not to win games but to make coaches disappear since 2000. The figure transforms a football program into a case study of institutional behavior, like watching someone set fire to their house because they didn’t like the paint color.
Hugh Freeze arrived on the Plains as the latest solution to a problem Auburn can’t quite define. His 2-5 record wouldn’t be remarkable at many places, but it’s just the latest chapter in a story of perpetual dissatisfaction at Auburn. The Tigers have fired a coach two years after winning a national title (Gene Chizik), dismissed another despite his beating Alabama in odd-numbered years with mystifying regularity (Gus Malzahn), and scrapped Bryan Harsin for the crime of not being from around here.
What makes Freeze’s situation fascinating isn’t just his struggles – it’s how carefully Auburn planned for them. His contract reveals an institution that has learned one lesson from its past: how to structure a buyout. While previous coaches like Malzahn ($21.5 million) and Harsin ($15.6 million) had to be paid off like desperate ransom demands, Freeze’s $20.3 million sendoff can be stretched out in monthly installments through 2028, like a mortgage on mediocrity.
The cruel irony is that Freeze, hired to fix Auburn’s offense, has instead provided a masterclass in offensive futility. His team ranks among the SEC’s worst in scoring despite generating 444.5 yards per game – they’re breaking down exactly where the end zone comes into view. It’s as if someone hired Picasso to paint their house, and he insisted on using his feet.
Yet Freeze might survive, at least temporarily, because of a recruiting class ranked fifth nationally – though, as Texas A&M recently demonstrated by signing a top-20 class a month after firing Jimbo Fisher, even that achievement comes with an asterisk in the NIL era.
At 2-5, with five opponents ahead who all have better records, Freeze is approaching territory that not even Auburn’s most creative accountants can rationalize. He’s already matching Bryan Harsin’s pace toward dismissal and doing it with an offense that makes three yards and a cloud of dust look innovative.
The most revealing detail might be this: Auburn structured Freeze’s buyout not as a deterrent to firing him but as a more convenient mechanism. It’s the behavior of an institution that knows itself too well – like someone who builds the divorce settlement into their wedding vows.
In December 2021, Sonny Cumbie orchestrated what appeared to be a perfect audition. As Texas Tech’s interim coach, he dismantled Mike Leach’s Mississippi State team in the Liberty Bowl, displaying offensive creativity that makes athletic directors dream big dreams on small budgets. For Louisiana Tech, a program perpetually searching for innovation at discount prices, Cumbie represented a calculated risk: a quarterback whisperer who might turn Ruston into Conference USA’s laboratory for offensive evolution.
Twenty-four games later, that laboratory has produced mostly smoke. Cumbie’s record at Louisiana Tech reads like a scientific study in diminishing returns: 3-9, 3-9, and now 4-6, with an offense that’s regressed from five 40-point outbursts in 2022 to sporadic signs of life in 2024. The quarterback whisperer has largely gone silent.
But the real story isn’t in the wins and losses – it’s in the assembly of his coaching staff, where Louisiana Tech’s financial reality collides with its aspirations. “We are at the bottom rung of the assistant coach pay scale,” one fan noted, defending a collection of hires from places like Central Washington and Stephen F. Austin. Another countered, “None of these resumes are very impressive,” missing the point that impressive resumes rarely come at discount prices.
Consider the economics: Louisiana Tech offers Cumbie $900,000 annually, escalating to a modest $1 million, with $1.4 million to divide among ten assistants. In today’s college football, that’s like trying to build a sports car with spare parts from a bicycle shop. The program’s one notable coaching success story – Manny Diaz – stayed precisely one year before moving to bigger opportunities, a pattern that repeats itself across similar programs.
Cumbie’s tenure reveals the fundamental challenge facing programs like Louisiana Tech: they’re forced to bet on potential rather than proof, on coaches who might become something rather than those who already are. His staff, assembled from the outer reaches of college football’s map, represents either brilliant talent spotting or desperate bargain hunting, depending on your perspective and, crucially, the final score.
The tragedy isn’t that Cumbie is failing; his failure was priced into the system from the start. That Liberty Bowl victory, rather than launching a career, may have obscured an essential truth: miracles rarely come with multi-year warranties in college football’s modern economy.
At 10-24 overall, Cumbie has reached the point where even patient programs begin asking hard questions. But perhaps the most challenging question isn’t about Cumbie – it’s whether any coach, given Louisiana Tech’s resources, could build something sustainable from spare parts and promises.
At Arkansas, they’re learning that timing in college football isn’t just about when to fire your coach – it’s about understanding when you’ve lost the luxury of waiting. The Razorbacks find themselves trapped in a maze of their construction: $40 million in new financial obligations from revenue sharing and settlements, a coach with a $10 million buyout that nobody can quite justify, and a contract clause that threatens to extend the very situation fans are desperate to escape.
Sam Pittman’s tenure reads like a cautionary tale about institutional decision-making. In 2021, when his team peaked at No. 8 in the country, Arkansas rewarded a coach who had never led another program with contract protections that assumed he had somewhere else to go. “Zero leverage in any negotiations,” as one fan put it, somehow translated into maximum security.
Now, at 5-5, with Louisiana Tech and Missouri remaining, Arkansas faces a peculiar mathematical crisis: two more wins, including a potential bowl victory, would trigger an automatic extension. It’s the kind of clause that transforms every touchdown into a threat, every victory into a potential long-term liability.
The administration’s whispered excuse – waiting for revenue sharing to settle before making any moves – ignores a crucial market reality: this may be the recent slowest season for Power Five vacancies. While Arkansas waits for perfect conditions, they’re watching their coach surrender 694 yards to Ole Miss in the most expensive audition for an extension in SEC history.
The genuinely revealing detail isn’t Pittman’s 28-30 record or even the historic defensive collapse against Ole Miss. The architecture of decisions led Arkansas to create a contract where success and failure became equally problematic. They built a system where winning just enough could be worse than losing outright.
As the Louisiana Tech game approaches, Arkansas faces a question beyond football strategy: How much does it cost to fix a mistake before it compounds itself? In a season where every other Power Five job remains secure, the opportunity to make a change has never been more evident – or more urgently needed before those two fateful wins can materialize.
The irony isn’t lost on a fanbase watching their program twist into financial knots. They know that while $10 million might seem steep to move on from Pittman, it’s a bargain compared to the long-term cost of letting him stay just long enough to earn the right to stay longer.
College football usually punishes hubris swiftly, but at UAB, they’re experimenting to see how long an administration can ignore reality. The results aren’t encouraging.
Trent Dilfer inherited Bill Clark’s masterwork – six straight winning seasons, two conference titles, a program that survived death once and emerged stronger. In less than two years, he’s transformed it into a case study in institutional denial. The on-field collapse would be enough: no first-half touchdowns in conference play, players ejected for shoving officials and post-touchdown headbutts. But it’s Dilfer’s “It’s not like this is freakin’ Alabama” dismissal that reveals the more profound dysfunction.
Athletic Director Mark Ingram’s steadfast support of Dilfer doesn’t read like loyalty so much as a refusal to acknowledge a $4.1 million mistake. The Jalen Kitna situation crystallizes the dynamic: faced with predictable backlash over signing a player dismissed from Florida on child pornography charges, the administration didn’t retreat – they dug in deeper, with Dilfer dismissing “initial headlines” as if they were discussing a parking ticket rather than felony charges.
The tragedy isn’t just in UAB’s regression from conference champion to cautionary tale. It’s in watching an administration convince itself that standing firm amid disaster demonstrates strength rather than stubbornness. While Dilfer jokes about his high school coaching days after 35-point losses, Ingram’s support transforms from professional courtesy to something more troubling: an administrator who can’t or won’t distinguish between standing by his coach and standing in the way of his program’s recovery.
The most revealing detail isn’t the empty stands or the lopsided scores – it’s the growing suspicion among boosters that this might be what program death looks like when it comes from within rather than from above. UAB once rallied a city to save its football team. Now they watch that same team dismantled by the people charged with protecting it, led by a coach who reminds them they’re not Alabama, backed by an AD who seems determined to prove it.
In the heart of Blacksburg, Virginia, a story of ambition, expectation, and the relentless pursuit of gridiron glory unfolds. Brent Pry, the man tasked with resurrecting Virginia Tech’s football program, stands at the center of this tale—a coach caught between the weight of history and the harsh realities of the present. Three years ago, Pry arrived at Lane Stadium with the promise of defensive brilliance and a return to the Hokies’ golden era. The faithful, hungry for success, embraced him. In early 2024, a staggering 75.1% of fans rated his performance at the top of the scale. Hope, it seemed, had found a new home in Virginia Tech. But in the unforgiving world of college football, where yesterday’s hero can quickly become today’s scapegoat, Pry’s journey has been anything but smooth. His first season in 2022 was a brutal 3-8 campaign—a record that would make even the most optimistic fan wince. It was as if the Hokies had forgotten how to win, their once-feared program reduced to a shadow of its former self. Yet, like any good underdog story, 2023 brought a glimmer of hope. A 7-6 record, capped by a Military Bowl victory, suggested that perhaps Pry’s process was beginning to bear fruit. The defense, long the backbone of Virginia Tech’s identity, cracked the top 20 nationally. For a moment, it seemed the tide was turning. But college football is a game of “what have you done for me lately,” and 2024 has been a study of unfulfilled potential. As November’s chill settles over the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Hokies sit at 5-4, their dreams of ACC contention fading like the autumn leaves. The faithful who once believed Pry would deliver an ACC championship now watch each game with bated breath, hoping for a miracle but fearing the worst. The numbers tell a story of their own. A 1-11 record in one-score games hangs around Pry’s neck like an albatross, each close loss a reminder of what could have been. It’s the statistic that keeps coaches up at night, poring over game film in search of answers that seem just out of reach. In the high-stakes chess match of college athletics, Pry’s moves are scrutinized with the intensity of a Wall Street earnings report. His contract, set to pay him $5 million a year by 2026, looms large—a bet placed by an administration hoping for a long-term payoff. But the clock is ticking in a world where patience is rare. As the 2024 season hurtles toward its conclusion, Brent Pry stands at a crossroads. The next chapter in this saga of redemption and reckoning will be in the coming months. In the stands of Lane Stadium, under the Friday night lights, the verdict on Pry’s tenure hangs in the balance—a reminder that in college football, as in life, the line between triumph and tribulation is often as thin as a goal line.
As we gear up for another edition of the Targeting Winners Podcast, which will be released this Friday (available on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts), let’s dive into three games that have caught our attention—each with its own compelling narrative around coaching futures and championship aspirations.
Boise State at San Jose State: Mountain West Mayhem
The Broncos roll into San Jose as 13.5-point road favorites, but don’t let that spread fool you. This game has all the makings of a classic Mountain West slugfest. Boise State’s Group of Five playoff hopes hang in the balance, with Army and Tulane breathing down their necks.
This is particularly intriguing because San Jose State’s 34th-ranked run defense is squaring up against Ashton Jeanty and the Broncos’ ground game. Add in the Spartans’ explosive receiver Nick Nash (1,156 yards, 13 TDs), and we might see fireworks. Our prediction leans Boise State 34-24, closer than the spread suggests.
Utah at Colorado: Western Pride on the Line
Colorado enters as 10-point home favorites, but there’s more than meets the eye here. The Buffaloes’ dynamic duo of Shedeur Sanders and Travis Hunter face their stiffest test against Utah’s 8th-ranked pass defense. Coming off a controversial loss to BYU, the Utes are hungry for redemption.
The stakes? Colorado’s chasing both a Big 12 Championship berth and playoff dreams. This is a classic defense-versus-offense showdown, landing around 27-20 Colorado. That Utah pass defense is no joke, folks.
Texas at Arkansas: SEC Preview with Job Security Subplots
Here’s where things get spicy. Texas (-15) returns to the scene of one of Steve Sarkisian’s early career lowlights – that 40-21 beating in 2021. But the real story here is Sam Pittman’s job security at Arkansas.
Pittman’s situation is fascinating. The fanbase loves him personally, but what about those on-field results? Not so much. Here’s the kicker – Pittman needs two more wins, including a bowl victory, to trigger an automatic extension and bonus. After that Ole Miss embarrassment exposed some disciplinary issues, every game becomes a must-win for his future in Fayetteville.
Arkansas’s pass rush and run defense could make things interesting, but Texas’s talent advantage should prevail. We’re looking at Texas 35-24, though don’t be shocked if Pittman’s squad comes out swinging – there’s more than just pride on the line here.
Make sure to catch the full breakdown on this week’s Targeting Winners Podcast. The crew always brings insights you won’t find anywhere else, and these games deserve that deep-dive treatment.
For more in-depth analysis and daily updates on coaching hot seats across college football, keep it locked on CoachesHotSeat.com.
When Money Changes Everything: College Football’s New Math
If you want to understand what’s happening in college football right now, forget about the polls, the playoff rankings, and even the win-loss records. Instead, study Tony Altimore’s (@TJAltimore on X) financial visualization of athletic department debt. This document looks less like a sports analysis and more like a hedge fund’s risk assessment of distressed assets. What Altimore has captured, in clean lines and horrifying clarity, is the moment when college football’s financial chickens have come home to roost.
The numbers are staggering enough to make a Wall Street quant nervous. Major athletic departments have the kind of revenue shortfalls that would make a leveraged buyout specialist think twice, all while trying to maintain the facade that their business model isn’t fundamentally broken. Our Hot Seat Rankings arrive in this financial maelstrom, a list that increasingly reads like a collection of toxic assets nobody knows how to value.
Consider the range of buyouts in play: Marshall could rid itself of Charles Huff for the price of a mid-level administrator’s salary ($125,917), while Baylor would need to liquidate the equivalent of a small endowment ($20-25 million) to move on from Dave Aranda. In any rational market, these numbers represent the cost of doing business. But in 2024’s college football economy, where athletic departments are juggling NIL collectives, revenue sharing, the House Settlement, facility arms races, and operational deficits that would make a venture capitalist blanch, even UMass’s relatively modest $800,000 obligation to Don Brown looks less like a buyout and more like a luxury they might not be able to afford.
We’re witnessing the emergence of a new market inefficiency: coaches who become unsackable not through their success but through the financial implications of their failure. In a world where half our Hot Seat candidates owe their job security to their buyout clauses rather than their win percentages, we’ve entered a realm where being too expensive to fire has become its own kind of competitive advantage.
Welcome to college football’s new normal, where balance sheets matter more than playbooks, and the most important numbers aren’t on the scoreboard but in the fine print of contracts that increasingly look like they were designed by derivatives traders rather than athletic directors.
Here’s our Top 10 for this week, plus a little insider information on each:
1. Don Brown – UMass
Don Brown sits atop college football’s hot seat list in a way that perfectly captures the industry’s bias for action over patience. UMass administrators, energized by their MAC invitation and staring at a manageable $800,000 buyout, seem eager to start fresh before the 2025 conference transition. The kind of institutional momentum creates its own gravity – the desire to make a splashy hire before joining a new conference to signal ambition and commitment to a brighter future. But there’s a fascinating market inefficiency at play here that nobody’s talking about: Brown might be the rare coach whose value to the program is about to increase precisely when they’re most inclined to remove him. His decades of MAC experience as a defensive coordinator at Central Michigan and Connecticut (during its MAC era) and his deep New England recruiting roots represent institutional knowledge that money can’t easily buy. UMass is preparing to make a classic institutional mistake: paying to remove expertise they’ll need to acquire again, all in service of a fresh start that might not be as fresh as they imagine. After all, the next coach will face the same fundamental challenges – navigating one more year of independence before transitioning to the MAC – with less experience in both contexts.
2. Charles Huff – Marshall
Huff’s position has improved slightly with a recent win, but he is in year 4 of a 5-year contract, and his small $125,917 buyout means Marshall could make a change without significant financial strain. His hot seat status remains high, though the recent win may have bought him some time.
3. Stan Drayton – Temple
This week, a 52 – 6 loss to Tulane has intensified the pressure on Drayton. With no specified buyout disclosed, Temple might have flexibility in making a coaching change if they decide to go that route. The program’s struggles in the American Athletic Conference likely contribute to his hot seat status.
4. Trent Dilfer – UAB
Dilfer’s hot seat status has worsened with another loss. His $4,116,667 buyout is significant for UAB, which might give him more time. However, his unusual comments, media interactions, and poor on-field results have quickly put him in a precarious position despite being only in his second year.
5. Dave Aranda – Baylor
Despite a bye week, Aranda remains on the hot seat. His substantial $20-25 million buyout is a major factor in Baylor’s decision-making process. Recent wins have improved his standing, and there’s an industry consensus that he’s trending towards returning in 2025, partly due to the financial implications of a coaching change.
6. Sam Pittman – Arkansas
Sam Pittman moves down to #6 on our Hot Seat Rankings in what might be college football’s most emotionally complicated coaching situation. He’s the kind of figure who makes fans want to invite him over for dinner while simultaneously wanting to throw their remote through the TV during games. His Arkansas team has shown improvement this year, but in a way that feels like watching a gifted student consistently turn in C+ work – there’s something both promising and maddening about it all. The blowout loss to Ole Miss exposed the fundamental disconnect: a team with SEC talent playing with the discipline of a midnight pickup game. And here’s where it gets interesting – and credit to Jackson Collier of the Hardwood Hogs Podcast (@JCHoops on X) for surfacing a contract provision that adds another layer to this Southern football soap opera: If Pittman can scrape together seven wins between Louisiana Tech and one more victory (including a potential bowl game), he triggers an automatic raise and extension. It’s the kind of clause that transforms Arkansas’s $10 million buyout decision from merely expensive to existentially complex. The boosters’ dilemma is almost Shakespearean: How do you fire someone everyone likes who’s making the team better but not as much better as it should be? Especially when the cost of doing so keeps threatening to go up?
7. Sonny Cumbie – Louisiana Tech
A loss this week has likely increased the pressure on Cumbie. With a $1,625,000 buyout, Louisiana Tech has some flexibility if it chooses to make a change. The program’s performance in Conference USA will determine his future.
8. Kevin Wilson – Tulsa
Wilson’s first season at Tulsa has been challenging, but a recent comeback win against UTSA may have improved his standing. His buyout details aren’t specified, but Tulsa’s financial situation and patience with new coaches could influence his job security.
9. Ryan Walters – Purdue
Despite the most recent 45-0 loss to Ohio State, reports suggest Walters is expected to get more time at Purdue. His $9,590,625 buyout and the administration’s recognition of NIL challenges in the Big Ten could provide him additional job security despite the team’s struggles this season.
10. Hugh Freeze – Auburn
Freeze’s $20,312,500 buyout is a significant factor in his job security. Auburn’s recent performance and Freeze’s past success at Ole Miss are considerations. While he’s on the hot seat, the financial implications of a coaching change might give him more time to turn the program around.
In the high-stakes theater of college football, where careers rise and fall on autumn Saturdays, it’s time for the weekly ritual that makes athletic directors squirm and message boards light up: The Coaches Hot Seat Rankings. Like a real-time chronicle of coaching mortality, these rankings capture the brutal Darwinism of the profession, where yesterday’s genius is today’s candidate for early retirement. Week 11’s balloting is now open, and you can play judge, jury, and potential career executioner in the always-entertaining spectacle of coaching evaluation. Cast your vote now through the link provided – though be warned, participating in this weekly referendum on coaching competence can be strangely addictive.
In the high-stakes college football casino, the usual season-end trading frenzy has given way to something more unusual: fiscal restraint. We’re calling it “The Great Coaching Correction of 2024.” You see, athletic departments across the country are staring down a triple-witching hour of financial obligations that would make even a seasoned hedge fund manager break into a cold sweat: massive coaching buyouts, the impending $20 million House settlement expense per school, and another estimated $20 million (first year) hit from revenue sharing with athletes. Suddenly, the market for coaching talent is behaving less like cryptocurrency in 2021 and more like banks during a Federal Reserve stress test.
Billy Napier, Florida
Consider Billy Napier at Florida, a case study in modern football economics. In a world where 70% of Florida’s NIL payments flow to underclassmen—a stat that would make any Wall Street analyst question the business model’s sustainability—Napier has somehow convinced his CEO, Scott Strickland, to double down on their position. It’s the contrarian bet that either makes or ends careers. The market had priced Napier for failure after the Miami and Texas A&M disasters, but like a value investor spotting hidden assets, Strickland saw something others missed: stability in chaos. Or perhaps more accurately, he saw the price tag of starting over.
Napier’s Change Meter: Ice Cold
Sam Pittman, Arkansas
Meanwhile, Sam Pittman presents a different sort of market inefficiency in Arkansas. At 62, with a hip that’s giving out, he’s like an aging blue-chip stock with solid fundamentals but questionable long-term prospects. The twist? This comes courtesy of Jackson Collier of the Hardwood Hawgs Podcast – hidden in plain sight in his contract is a provision that would make any compensation committee blush: hit seven wins, including a bowl game, and trigger an automatic extension and raise. This incentive structure would make even the most hardened private equity executive wonder about governance. Let me repeat that – if he gets to seven wins – LA Tech plus one other, including the bowl – he gets a raise and extension. Completely doable.
Pittman’s Change Meter: Cool
Dave Aranda, Baylor
But the real arbitrage play is happening in Waco, Texas, where Dave Aranda’s job security has behaved like a volatile tech stock—swooping early, rebounding late, and keeping traders guessing. After opening 2-4 with wins against only Air Force and something called Tarleton State, Aranda’s position looked about as secure as a crypto wallet password. Yet here he is, three wins later, trading above his September lows on volume. His contract runs through 2029, and in this bear market for buyouts, that’s starting to look less like a liability and more like a forced diamond-hands strategy. If he is a smidge above .500, he stays.
Change Meter: Lukewarm trending cool
Charles Huff, Marshall
The distressed assets division brings us to Marshall’s Charles Huff, a coach whose contract is expiring like a soon-to-mature junk bond. At 27-20 over four seasons, including a telling 5-1 against non-Power Four competition this year, Huff’s position looks like a classic case of a middle-market firm unable to compete with the more prominent players. The smart money is betting on a change, though in this capital-constrained environment, even obvious moves come with additional scrutiny.
Huff’s Change Meter: Hot
Kevin Wilson, Tulsa
Then there’s Kevin Wilson at Tulsa, running a program performing like a penny stock in a bear market. When your highlight reel consists of a single comeback win against UTSA and a victory over 3-5 Louisiana Tech, you’re trading in territory usually reserved for companies about to be delisted. At 5-14 in two seasons, Wilson—a former blue-chip coordinator at Ohio State and Oklahoma—has turned premium pedigree into discount-bin performance.
Wilson’s Change Meter: Hot
Trent Dilfer, UAB
The most fascinating short position in the market might be Trent Dilfer at UAB. In less than two years, he’s taken Bill Clark’s ascending program—six straight winning seasons, two conference titles—and performed a dismantling usually reserved for failed hedge funds. His now-infamous “It’s not like this is freakin’ Alabama” quip reads like a CEO dismissing disappointing earnings by saying, “We’re not Apple.” The market rarely forgives such hubris, but at a $4.1 million buyout, the cost of forgiveness in this economy starts to look like a luxury good.
Dilfer’s Change Meter: Hot to Warm
Don Brown, UMass
At the extreme end of the risk spectrum sits Don Brown at UMass, whose position has moved from “distressed asset” to “complete write-off.” The market has spoken, and this particular security is being delisted.
Brown’s Change Meter: Scorching
High Profile, Power 4 Rumored Hot Seats
However, perhaps the most telling indicator comes from the “too big to fail” institutions—Florida State, USC, Oklahoma, Nebraska—where the Mike Norvells and Lincoln Rileys of the world operate with the kind of security usually reserved for government bonds. These programs have determined that stability, even at a premium, is preferable to the volatility of the coaching free agency market, especially with the looming costs of settlements and revenue sharing casting shadows over their balance sheets.
Change Meter: Ice Cold
Ultimately, college football’s coaching market operates with all the efficiency of a teenager with their first credit card. It overreacts to both success and failure, frequently misprices assets, and occasionally makes moves that would make a bankruptcy lawyer blush. But like all markets, it eventually finds its level—even if that level involves paying millions to make someone go away. This year, though, a cold dose of fiscal reality has tempered the usual irrational exuberance. When your industry is staring down $40+ million in new mandatory expenses, even the most trigger-happy athletic director thinks twice about adding another eight-figure buyout to the books.
Every Thursday afternoon, I lay out the games that have caught my analytical eye – the matchups where the numbers whisper something different than the conventional wisdom shouts. This week, I’m focused on three contests that feel like finding mispriced assets in an efficient market: Indiana, that offensive juggernaut masquerading as a No. 8 team, laying 14.5 points against Michigan’s statistical regression to mediocrity; Ole Miss, where the computers suggest Georgia’s dynasty might be vulnerable, priced at just +2.5 at home; and undefeated Army, dominating opponents by four touchdowns per game yet valued as mere 5.5-point favorites against North Texas’s explosive offense. Compare these picks with what you’ll hear on the Targeting Winners Podcast (dropping every Friday afternoon on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you consume your gambling insights) and make your own calls. In a sport where everyone claims to know what will happen next, sometimes the best strategy is following where the numbers – not the noise – lead you.
Michigan at No. 8 Indiana
In the grand theater of college football, where narratives shape reality as much as the numbers that describe it, there’s something deliciously compelling about Indiana’s position heading into Week 11. The Hoosiers, those perennial Big Ten afterthoughts, find themselves winning and dominating – the kind of dominance that makes the spreadsheet jockeys at FanDuel set a -14.5 point spread against Michigan. Yes, that Michigan.
The analytics tell a story that would have seemed unthinkable just months ago. Under first-year coach Curt Cignetti, Indiana’s offense isn’t just good – it’s third in the nation, averaging 47 points per game. This kind of statistical anomaly makes you wonder if someone’s Excel formula has gone haywire. But no, the Hoosiers are genuinely reshaping the geometry of Big Ten football. At the same time, Michigan’s offense has become a case study in regression to the mean, ranking an almost incomprehensible 116th nationally in scoring.
The quants have spoken, and their computers have run 20,000 simulations of this matchup. In 86.9% of these digital futures, Indiana emerges victorious. If you’re wondering what this looks like in real numbers, that’s 17,380 victories to 2,620 losses. The machines think Indiana will win by 16.8 points, enough to cover the spread and then some.
But here’s where it gets interesting: The betting public, those eternal skeptics of sudden transformation, are still showing traces of doubt. While 66% of bets are riding with Indiana to cover, there’s a stubborn 34% clinging to the idea that Michigan will either pull off the upset or keep it within two touchdowns. It’s the kind of contrarian betting behavior that usually signals either prescience or delusion – and we won’t know which until Saturday afternoon.
Indiana’s perceived slight in the College Football Playoff rankings is the most fascinating subplot. Despite being undefeated, they sit at No. 8, with the committee pointing to their 82nd-ranked strength of schedule like accountants finding a rounding error in the books. Their best wins? Washington and Nebraska, both 5-4. It’s the kind of resume that makes the traditional powers smirk – until they face this offensive juggernaut beating FBS opponents by nearly four touchdowns per game.
Followers of the Targeting Winners Podcast know that betting against momentum like Indiana’s is akin to fighting the tide. The analytics give them an 86.5% chance of making the playoff, projecting 11.3 wins this season. Meanwhile, Michigan is projected for just 6 wins – the number that makes you wonder if someone accidentally divided by two.
When CBS’s cameras roll at 3:30 PM Eastern on Saturday, we’ll witness either the continuation of Indiana’s improbable ascension or a reminder that football, like markets, can correct violently and without warning. The smart money – and the machines – are betting on the former.
But then again, that’s why they play the games.
No. 3 Georgia at No. 16 Ole Miss
There’s a peculiar beauty in watching markets adjust to new information, and that’s exactly what we’re witnessing in Oxford this week. The mighty Georgia Bulldogs, winners of 11 of their last 12 against Ole Miss, arrive as mere 2.5-point favorites. The spread makes you wonder if the bookmakers know something the rest of us don’t.
The analytics paint a picture that would have seemed absurd just weeks ago. The SP+ model, that grand attempt to quantify college football’s “most sustainable and predictable aspects,” has Ole Miss winning 28-26. In predictive models, this is the equivalent of a Wall Street quant suggesting that a blue-chip stock is about to underperform. The computers have run their simulations 20,000 times, and in 53.9% of these digital futures, the Rebels emerge victorious. It’s a razor-thin margin that suggests we’re witnessing something approaching perfect market efficiency in college football odds.
But here’s where it gets interesting: Ole Miss has been manufacturing points like a tech company manufactures growth statistics, ranking sixth nationally by averaging 23 points better than its opponents. Georgia, meanwhile, has been merely mortal, outperforming its competition by 11.7 points—the kind of regression that makes defensive coordinators wake up in cold sweats.
The most fascinating subplot in all this is the efficiency metrics. Ole Miss’s defense – yes, their defense – ranks third in FBS by surrendering just 0.192 points per play. It’s the kind of statistical anomaly that makes you double-check your spreadsheets. Georgia’s offense sits at a respectable 15th nationally, allowing 0.286 points per play. However, in the zero-sum game of elite college football, being merely “respectable” is often a predictor of impending doom.
The betting markets, efficient processors of public sentiment, show a slight lean toward convention—55% of bets are riding with Georgia. It’s as if the market can’t quite bring itself to believe what the numbers tell it, like investors holding onto a falling stock because they remember its glory days.
For those following the Targeting Winners Podcast, this game represents a classic conflict between narrative and numbers. The narrative says Georgia is still Georgia, still the team that demolished these same Rebels 52-17 last year in Athens. The numbers, however, tell a different story.
Carson Beck’s 11 interceptions loom over this game like a credit default swap in 2008 – a hidden risk that could suddenly become visible. Meanwhile, Jaxson Dart just finished carving up Arkansas for 515 yards and six touchdowns, the kind of performance that makes predictive models recalibrate their assumptions in real time.
When ABC’s cameras go live at 3:30 PM Eastern on Saturday, we’ll watch more than just a football game. We’ll be watching a market correction in real-time, a test of whether the traditional power structures of college football can withstand the assault of pure statistical efficiency. The FPI gives Georgia an 83.5% chance of making the playoff, while Ole Miss sits at 61.1%—numbers that could shift dramatically based on three hours in Oxford.
The smart money – and the machines – say Ole Miss by a field goal or less. In a sport increasingly dominated by data, sometimes the most radical act is simply believing what the numbers tell you.
No 25 Army at North Texas
In the efficient college football betting market, a price discovery problem occasionally emerges that makes you question everything you think you know about value. Consider Army, undefeated and ranked 25th, favored by merely 5.5 points against North Texas. The spread makes you wonder whether the market has identified a fundamental flaw in Army’s pristine record or if we’re witnessing a massive pricing error.
The numbers tell a story of two teams operating in entirely different realities. Army’s outscoring opponents by 26.6 points per game – the margin that typically commands double-digit spreads. But here’s where the market gets interesting: six of their seven FBS victories have come against teams with losing records. It’s like a hedge fund posting impressive returns while trading only the most predictable securities.
Enter North Texas, the Mean Green chaos merchants of the American Athletic Conference. They possess the conference’s highest-scoring offense, the statistical outlier that makes Army’s defensive metrics look like they might have been compiled in a different era of football. Their quarterback, Chandler Morris, just finished dissecting Tulane’s defense for 449 yards on 38-of-57 passing – the kind of efficiency that makes option-based teams break out in hives.
The betting market has priced this game like a tech stock during earnings season – volatile and uncertain. Army sits at -186 on the moneyline, which translates to an implied probability that seems almost quaint given their perfect record. The Black Knights are 6-0 as favorites this season, the kind of trend that typically makes sharps salivate. But North Texas, at +153, has shown a propensity for violence against point spreads, covering four times in eight attempts.
This game represents a classic market inefficiency for those following the Targeting Winners Podcast. Army’s backup quarterback engineered a 20-3 victory over Air Force, while Morris and company have treated defensive coordinators like day traders during a flash crash.
The total is 63.5, which suggests the market expects North Texas to dictate the tempo. This is a reasonable assumption considering Morris’s recent performance: 449 yards against Tulane, the kind of number that makes service academies reconsider their defensive philosophies.
When ESPN2’s cameras go live at 3:30 PM Eastern on Saturday, we’ll witness either a market correction or a confirmation that sometimes perfect records are less valuable than they appear. Army coach Jeff Monken might get his starting quarterback Daily back, but in a game where North Texas treats passing yards like venture capitalists treat revenue growth, it might not matter.
The computers and the sharps seem to be telling us that Army’s undefeated record is about to face its strongest stress test yet. In a sport increasingly dominated by offensive efficiency, sometimes the best bet is against perfection.
Get insider college football intel delivered to your inbox
Want insider analysis on college football program moves before they happen? Get hard-hitting insights, no fluff – straight to your inbox. Subscribe to the Coaches Hot Seat newsletter and be on the cutting edge of what’s happening in the world of college football.
