It’s been a few months since we’ve dropped a “thoughts” article on the trending topics surrounding college football but rivalry week and early December provided a good opportunity for another one. This edition will discuss the possibility of corporate logos on jerseys and the flag planting mania that overtook college football on Saturday, November 30, 2024. Let’s start with the logos on jerseys.

More Corporate Logos?

Back in June 2024, the NCAA began allowing corporate sponsorship on football fields across the country. There hasn’t been any major issue with them and it wasn’t (still isn’t) surprising because the monetization of everything in college athletics is inevitable. Next up is corporate logos or patches on jerseys worn during competition. The major hurdle is getting apparel manufacturers like Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour to agree to the change but the only real obstacle is how the money gets divided to compensate for the current contracts. At least we can start referring to the NCAA and schools as corporate sellouts!

It’s not a surprise that schools would like this because there’s likely to be a significant amount of money involved. With schools on the hook for up to $20 million in revenue payments starting in 2025-26, they’ll be looking to offset that cost as much as possible. To echo our thoughts from the June 2024 article allowing logos on fields, this possibility might be most helpful for schools at the bottom rung of revenue in Division 1. No, the contracts won’t be as lucrative compared to the Big Ten and SEC but even small amounts will help keep these athletic departments with either the back payments or revenue sharing aspects (maybe both?).

The worst about this isn’t faux outrage that college athletics will be about chasing the money bag or that the fabric of collegiate athletics has been ruined. (Spoiler: the fabric changed long ago and it’s been about money for decades). No, the worst part is the NCAA’s PR spin will once again take a victory lap as if they masterminded the outcome from the start when in reality it’s because all the legal losses have forced them to change how they operate. Don’t be surprised when they invoke the “it will help the student-athlete” line that no one buys.


Flag Planting Epidemic

All across the college football landscape on November 30 was a rash of flag planting following rivalry victories. It happened between ArizonaArizona State (a pitchfork was used instead of a flag), ClemsonSouth Carolina, FloridaFlorida State, NC StateUNC, and MichiganOhio State. All of these instances led to consternation among conference commissioners and collegiate leaders. Our thoughts on the actual act of flag planting?



Flag planting wasn’t an issue until this rivalry weekend. Oklahoma and Texas have planted their flag after victories in the Red River Rivalry, which is played at a neutral location each year (the Cotton Bowl). Texas and Oregon both planted a flag following a victory at Michigan in 2024. Baker Mayfield planted the Oklahoma flag at Ohio State in 2017. So what’s changed to make it such a big problem in 2024?

One reason is that these were rivalry games making the stakes higher but the impact these games could have on the College Football Playoff can’t be dismissed because there are real implications of where a team will be seeded or if they even make the expanded 12-team field. Another reason it’s suddenly an issue is that the outcry has been amplified significantly via social media but the outrage doesn’t fit the infraction. Planting a flag on the opponent’s logo is seen as unsportsmanlike but it can’t be adjudicated normally because it happens after the game. It can’t be easily punished like a typical taunting penalty that occurs within 60 minutes of game time.

The kneejerk reaction is to ban the act of planting flags but that’s not really going to solve the issue. An unfortunate part of sports is that fighting happens. It shouldn’t and when it occurs there should be accountability and punishment for those involved. However, the NCAA, its member schools, and the conferences are going to address the symptoms of flag planting instead of getting to the cause: leadership. Yes, the players bear responsibility and accountability for their actions but those actions can be taught. Or, in this case, not taught. Remember, we’re dealing with men typically between the ages of 18 to 22 and who hasn’t done something dumb or rash during that time of their life?

Imagine if coaches taught their players how to respect their opponents or others. Isn’t that why they become coaches, to be leaders and teachers for their athletes? Imagine if athletic directors and conference commissioners had the same expectations instead of bickering about the latest College Football Playoff rankings because the focus is on exposure (aka money). Imagine if the NCAA was focused on leading the way for college athletics instead of always being reactive because they don’t want to lose another legal battle.

Let’s be fair, the NCAA, schools, coaches, etc. aren’t the only parties to blame when it comes to teaching proper behavior. MAC Commissioner Jon Steinbrecher has the right idea but it requires the right leadership to get it done. The problem is that if the NCAA is the one leading the way, then the legislation is likely to be a myopic and half-hearted attempt to keep a grasp of control that is slowly fading away. Instead of quickly overreacting, maybe the NCAA and its members should take the time to develop a clear and full governance structure that has accountability for all parties from the top down. That means players, coaches, ADs, schools, conference commissioners, and the NCAA should bear responsibility.

Given how college athletics has shifted its focus almost entirely on money, the best way to change behavior is to enforce monetary penalties for the parties mentioned above (players would have to face suspensions sans any CBA). Imagine how quickly behaviors would change if people knew they would be financially responsible for their consequences. This could even be extended to other infractions too. All of this would require the parties to willingly go against their own interest, something the last 5 years of realignment have taught us won’t happen.

Photo Courtesy of Barbara J. Perenic / USA TODAY Network