TAKE ONE: OVERRIDING ANALYTICS
In 2003, Michael Lewis introduced us to the revolutionary concept of "Moneyball," the story of how a small-market baseball team, the Oakland A's, used data-driven analytics to compete against the financial giants of Major League Baseball. It was a triumph of ingenuity over tradition, a method to find hidden value where others saw none. The strategy focused on efficiency and using advanced statistics to acquire underappreciated talent, leveling the playing field for a franchise that lacked the resources of teams like the New York Yankees. However, while Moneyball forever changed baseball and introduced the broader culture to the power of analytics, it is important to recognize that the Oakland A's version of Moneyball did not result in championships; it made them competitive, but not victorious. This reality is now beginning to cast its shadow across American culture, and nowhere is this more apparent to me than in the shifting dynamics of college football.
In the modern world of college athletics, college football is undergoing a transformation driven by the same analytical thinking that once defined Moneyball. College programs, just like the Oakland A's, are increasingly finding themselves in an arms race for talent and resources, with a few powerful programs monopolizing the spotlight. To level the playing field, it seems like the next frontier for college football is a combination of new tools and frameworks: the transfer portal, NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) agreements, and revenue-sharing models. These mechanisms all share a common thread—they are rooted in redefining how talent is valued and how players align with programs.
The transfer portal, in particular, has opened up a new frontier in roster management. Just a few years ago, the idea of a player freely moving between programs without sitting out a year was nearly unthinkable. Today, it's not just possible—it's strategic. Just as Moneyball found value in overlooked statistics, college football teams are now hunting for players overlooked or undervalued at their current programs. Oregon has found gems like Ajani Cornelius, Tez Johnson, and Jordan Burch to name a few via the portal.
This analytical mindset allows teams to fill gaps quickly, reshuffle rosters, and, ideally, strengthen their teams without waiting years for recruits to develop. The portal has created an environment of fluidity, where every year teams are reassessing their strengths and needs, looking for opportunities that fit their schemes.
But the transfer portal alone doesn't tell the whole story. NIL deals have added a completely new dimension to college football—one that feels strikingly similar to the economic side of Moneyball. While Moneyball was about finding value within a constrained budget, NIL agreements have introduced a market-based approach to valuing players in real-time. The top recruits and players are no longer merely lured by the prestige of a program; they now consider how much they can earn in sponsorships and endorsements. The programs that understand how to navigate this landscape, leveraging their alumni networks and local businesses, are quickly becoming the ones that benefit most. However, much like the Oakland A's, many of these programs face limitations. Not every school can afford the millions of dollars being funneled into NIL collectives, creating a gap that mirrors the financial disparity Moneyball tried to overcome.
The third part of this revolution is the newly established revenue-sharing agreements, which attempt to address the imbalance between the immense profits of college sports and the players who generate them. This is a recognition of the value that players bring to the table, much like how Moneyball identified undervalued players and utilized them more effectively. Revenue-sharing introduces a new variable into how college teams can attract and retain players. It's another move toward recognizing that the players, like assets in a portfolio, have a quantifiable value that can no longer be ignored or taken for granted.
In college football, there is an old saying that "It's not the Xs and Os, but the Jimmy's and Joe's' that win games," meaning it is not the plays as much as the players. Talent overrides scheme and it overrides analytics. Coaches and analysts are looking at roster management like general managers, not just thinking about playbooks and player development but also about maximizing resources and finding the best return on investment. Programs are adjusting to a world where loyalty can be fleeting, where players may jump ship for better opportunities, and where off-field earnings can dictate on-field alignments.
Yet, as we look at this shift, it's important to remember the lesson from the Oakland A's: Moneyball did not win championships; it made a poor team competitive. College football teams that lean too heavily on the analytics revolution may find themselves in a similar situation. They may be able to punch above their weight, to compete where they otherwise might not have been able to, but championships require more than just efficiency—they require depth, resilience, tradition, and a culture that can't be quantified on a spreadsheet. While the transfer portal, NIL, and revenue-sharing agreements are all tools that can help teams become more competitive, they don't guarantee success. The programs that win championships will likely be the ones that can balance these new tools with the intangible aspects of team culture, coaching stability, and the human side of competition. And I think this is the difference this year for Oregon – they have been able to balance all of these aspects of the game into a lot of wins.
The shadow of Moneyball looms large, not just in sports but in the broader culture, where data, efficiency, and analytics have begun to dominate how we approach everything—from business to education to relationships. In college football, this shadow has reshaped the way teams build rosters, the way players think about their careers, and the way fans understand the sport. The analytics revolution has certainly made college football more complex and more competitive, but whether it will lead to more championships or merely make more teams "competitive" remains to be seen. Just as the A's discovered, sometimes the numbers can only take you so far—the rest is heart, tradition, and a little bit of luck.
TAKE TWO: THE PLAYERS STILL MATTER
At the end of the day, I think the biggest takeaway is that tomorrow is the day that matters most to the future of the Oregon football program. the problem with Moneyball as an approach to roster management is that it does not prioritize winning championships - and in college football it will devalue high school prospects. The return on investment is lower and the risk higher for those prospects - and yet the future of the elite college football programs will be in developing depth at every position and using the transfer portal to shore up needs/fix misses in evaluations.
Those teams that understand this balance will have far more success than teams turning their entire rosters over every year or two. It is difficult to build a strong culture with mercenaries.
