All that Tulane had to do was take down North Texas to win the American Conference championship, and it was all but assured a place in the College Football Playoff picture.

That they did, coming off a strong defensive performance to all but clinch what should be the highest position among Group of Five teams in the forthcoming CFP rankings as Selection Day draws near.

Coming into Championship Week, there was some newfound confusion around the final two seeds in the latest playoff bracket, with the committee leaving them blank as they await developments in the Group of Five and the ACC Championship Game.

With still plenty of football yet to be played this weekend, here is our latest projection for what the playoff field will look like after Tulane won the American title.

Predicting the College Football Playoff field after Tulane’s win

1. Ohio State. Our current projection is that the Buckeyes are able to stay undefeated and pass the test against perfect Indiana to win the Big Ten championship on the back of the top-ranked defense in college football and secure the No. 1 seed.

2. Georgia. Kirby Smart may be 1-7 against Alabama, but his defense could have a decisive advantage against a Crimson Tide offense that doesn’t look like its dominant self to win the SEC championship for a second-straight season.

3. Texas Tech. Arguably college football’s best defense, and inarguably the best in school history, should still have an edge against a BYU team it beat by 22 points a couple weeks ago, this time to win the Big 12 championship.

4. Indiana. The projected loss we foresee against the Buckeyes should be very close, within the narrow point spread, enough to stay tucked inside the top four for a team that has looked unstoppable and leads the nation in scoring margin this season.

5. Oregon. The one-loss Ducks should stay in the top-five, but behind the Indiana team that gave them that loss, by 10 points at Eugene earlier this season.

6. Ole Miss. Lane Kiffin’s departure for LSU didn’t hurt the Rebels’ position in the rankings, and they should stay in the picture to host a first-round game.

7. Texas A&M. No shot at the SEC championship after that loss against rival Texas, but the Aggies have done enough to warrant hosting a first-round game.

8. Oklahoma. The Sooners, especially their smothering defense, made a statement in the latter half of the season to move into the right side of the playoff bracket.

9. Notre Dame. A loss by Alabama should enable the Irish to move up one spot, even if arguments still persist, and credibly so, that Miami might deserve it more given its head to head win over the Golden Domers and their comparable resumes.

10. Alabama. Despite there being other teams on the bubble that could have an argument — namely BYU, Miami, Texas, and Vanderbilt — the selectors will prefer the loser of the SEC Championship Game over them, provided it’s close to make that decision easier.

11. Virginia. James Madison fans are cheering for Duke to beat Virginia for the ACC championship, but that’s not a result we expect, allowing the Cavaliers to sneak in at the bottom of the field. If Duke does it, Tulane moves to 11 and James Madison to 12.

12. Tulane. An inspired defense and some help from a hapless North Texas offense allowed the Green Wave to win the American Conference championship to secure the highest position in the rankings by any Group of Five team.

What the College Football Playoff bracket could look like

First Round Games

12 Tulane at 5 Oregon
Winner plays 4 Indiana

11 Virginia at 6 Ole Miss
Winner plays 3 Texas Tech

10 Alabama at 7 Texas A&M
Winner plays 2 Georgia

9 Notre Dame at 8 Oklahoma
Winner plays 1 Ohio State

Read more from College Football HQ

The 2025 SEC Championship will feature a showdown between two elite quarterbacks: Alabama Crimson Tide’s Ty Simpson vs Georgia Bulldogs’ Alabama Crimson Tide. Both have led their respective programs to this stage with elite play on the field, as evidenced by offensive numbers topping the SEC charts.

Let’s compare them on several fronts before the highly anticipated SEC showdown:

Ty Simpson vs Gunner Stockton: Stats

Both quarterbacks have one thing in common. They both had to patiently wait for their time before getting the opportunity to lead the team right from the start of the season. Simpson used to back up Jalen Milroe, while Gunner Stockton had to play behind Carson Beck.

In terms of rushing, Simpson has rushed for 126 yards on 75 carries, including two touchdowns. On the other hand, Stockton seems a better rusher, as he has rushed for 403 yards on 103 carries, including eight touchdowns.

Ty Simpson vs Gunner Stockton: Head-to-Head Comparison

There is only one match where both quarterbacks dueled it out. It happened in the 2025 regular season, in which Simpson’s Alabama defeated Stockton’s Georgia 24-21. In that game, Stockton completed 13 of 20 passes for one touchdown. He also rushed for 22 yards on five carries. On the other hand, Simpson completed 24 of 38 passes for 276 yards and two touchdowns. He also rushed for 12 yards on four carries, including one score.

Ty Simpson vs Gunner Stockton: NIL deals

Alabama’s Ty Simpson recently signed a high-profile NIL deal with Gatorade for 2025. He already has a diverse NIL portfolio, including deals with Hugo Boss, EA Sports, Raising Cane’s, Hollister, Panini and Topps. He is represented by “QB Reps.” According to On3, his NIL valuation is around $948,000.

Meanwhile, Georgia’s Gunner Stockton has signed NIL deals with CAVA, HEYDUDE footwear, Athens Area Humane Society, Associated Credit Union (ACU), and The Dairy Alliance (part of their “Milk’s Got Game” campaign). According to On3, his NIL valuation is around $524,000.

Read More News:

Fans Push Nick Saban As ‘Man for the Job’ As Ex Alabama HC Makes Bold CFB Commissioner Proposal

Netflix’s ‘Any Given Saturday’ Reveals Brian Kelly’s Behind-the-Scenes Pitch to Keep Garrett Nussmeier at LSU

$1.1M NIL-Valued Star Claps Back at HC Brian Kelly’s “Death Valley Jr.” Jab Ahead of Clemson vs LSU College Football Showdown

College Sports Network has you covered with the latest news, analysis, insights, and trending stories in college football, men’s college basketball, women’s college basketball, and college baseball!

UPDATE ON THE MATCHING CAMPAIGN (DETAILS BELOW): As of 10:02 a.m., total giving is at $38,755 from a total of 78 individuals, for an average of $496. 38% of the way to $100k by the press conference on Tuesday!

Champion of Westwood, a third-party media and branding agency run by Ken Graiwer that has helped UCLA baseball, softball, women’s basketball, men’s basketball (through subsidiary Men of Westwood), and more field competitive teams, is announcing today that it’s back in the UCLA football business.

“It’s an exciting time for UCLA football,” Graiwer told Bruin Report Online. “We are thrilled to once again partner with UCLA football student-athletes to find lucrative opportunities to use their name, image, and likeness, and help ensure that UCLA football can remain competitive in the world of collegiate roster building.”

Bruins for Life, which had been supporting UCLA’s NIL efforts in football, is transitioning to a third-party alumni group and mentorship program.

This announcement comes as UCLA ushers in a new era, with James Madison head coach Bob Chesney taking over as the UCLA head football coach. Attacking the Transfer Portal which opens in January will be one of Chesney’s first priorities, and to do so effectively, the program and its partners will need to have the funds to do so.

To jumpstart the Chesney era and UCLA’s NIL efforts, Champion of Westwood and BRO have partnered on a giving campaign, with a generous donor agreeing to match payments from BRO subscribers up to $200,000 — and there’s more. If BRO subscribers give at least $100,000 by the press conference introducing Chesney on Tuesday, December 9, the donor will match up to another $50,000. So, BRO subscribers have the opportunity to help contribute *half a million dollars* to UCLA’s NIL efforts in football.

As a further enticement, the first four people who give gifts of $25,000 or more will earn an exclusive opportunity for an all-expenses paid trip on a private jet with notable UCLA football alumni to an away game this coming season. The only condition is that the $25,000 must be given in full — it cannot be split up over a payment plan.

To give to Champion of Westwood, please use the form or link below.

If the form above does not work on your device, go here: Give to Football NIL Efforts

Chris Henry Jr. began his high-school career in Ohio, producing 29 catches for 292 yards and five TDs as a freshman, then transferred to Withrow (Cincinnati), where he exploded for 71 catches, 1,127 yards and 10 TDs in one season before moving west to Mater Dei (Santa Ana, California).

He publicly committed to Ohio State on July 28, 2023, and at times had his recruitment closed or off-limits. 

As the No. 1 overall wide receiver at ESPN, Rivals, and 247Sports, he was treated as a major haul for the Buckeyes’ 2026 class.

However, on National Signing Day, Henry did not submit a National Letter of Intent to Ohio State as anticipated. 

Multiple outlets tied the pause to Ohio State’s staff turnover, most notably the departure of lead receiver recruiter Brian Hartline.

Henry noted on social media that he “has not signed yet” and wanted to weigh his options after the coaching changes.

On Friday, he announced his official decision on “The Pat McAfee Show.”

Henry told McAfee he will officially sign with Ohio State, providing a massive boost to coach Ryan Day’s Buckeyes. 

Ohio State closed the 2025 campaign as one of the country’s top programs yet again, ending the regular season at 12-0 and in line to secure another Big Ten championship.

With 942 yards and 11 touchdowns, Jeremiah Smith, alongside Carnell Tate’s 793 yards and eight scores, led the elite receiving corps that Ohio State is known for.

Coach Ryan Day has built sustained elite performance and recruiting momentum since taking over in 2018, producing an 82-10 overall record, two national championship appearances, and a national title in 2024.

Ohio State’s recent track record of developing NFL receivers — names like Marvin Harrison Jr., Garrett Wilson, Chris Olave, Jaxon Smith-Njigba, and Terry McLaurin — gives Henry a proven pathway from the Horseshoe to pro-ready production.

Henry’s commitment provides an immediate impact on Ohio State’s 2026 class ranking and adds an elite red-zone/vertical threat for an offense that will also feature Smith.

Amid the coaching churn, programs have rushed to sell stability and opportunity, and Day appears ahead of the pack.

Read More at College Football HQ

• Lane Kiffin takes aim at Paul Finebaum amid criticism over LSU decision

• $87 million head coach shuts down interest in other college football jobs

• Manning Award finalists revealed: Who is the nation’s top quarterback?

• ESPN ‘College GameDay’ makes Lane Kiffin announcement before SEC championship game

There was a moment, not all that long ago, when it felt like the University of Wisconsin football program had finally found the right steward for its next era. Sit back and watch Fickell’s introductory press conference from Nov. 2022. You’ll see it: the fully formed blueprint, the clarity of vision, the confidence of a coach who had built Cincinnati into a College Football Playoff contender by leaning on something other schools couldn’t imitate.

Relationships. Development. High-school recruiting. Ownership of the Midwest. That was the sales pitch. That was the promise. And for about fifteen minutes, it sounded like the perfect marriage between a coach with a proven developmental background and a program that had built three decades of winning football on those very same values.

But three years later? The sport changed faster than the blueprint did.

And nothing illustrates that evolution, or that philosophical pivot, quite like looking at what Fickell said on Day 1, and what he’s saying right now.

From the jump, Fickell laid out a recruiting philosophy rooted in simplicity. Wisconsin, he said, would build from the inside out, starting with a “300-mile radius” that would serve as the core and crux of the program’s build.

Verbatim, Fickell said:

“Within a 300-mile radius, you can build the core and the crux of your program,” Fickell said during his introductory press conference. “And that’s what I love about this opportunity, is that within a 300-mile radius, that will be the core of what it is that we do. I have a good grasp on that. I’ve got to learn a lot more about maybe the 50-mile, the 100-mile radius. But as you get into Chicago and the areas that these guys have done an unbelievable job in, there are a lot of roots that have been built there.

“I know if we can kind of capture that within the 300-mile radius of where the core of the program is, then we can extend into the other areas where we’ll look at the history of what’s been really good here,” Fickell continued. The pipelines and those kinds of things. We’ll use a lot of the connections we’ve had. There are a lot of former great players who are from Ohio as well. We’ll have guys with backgrounds in different areas.”

When Fickell talked about that radius, he wasn’t describing some abstract idea. He was talking about a region that included places like Detroit, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and St. Louis, as well as the heart of Wisconsin and the football-rich pockets of Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and Iowa.

In his mind, this was where the backbone of the roster would be built. This was where the high school relationships lived, where the Badgers could win recruiting battles by being smart and connected. And this was where he believed the heavy lifting would happen. That wasn’t lip service.

That was the Cincinnati model brought north: lock down Wisconsin, live in established long-term pipelines across the Midwest. Then, supplement using the transfer portal sparingly, but only when a player fits perfectly.

Again, Fickell’s words:

“I’m a high school recruiting guy that says it’s about development of young men,” Fickell said. “Now, sometimes people will say, ‘You had this transfer.’ Yeah, we have had a matrix for transfers. We have had literally a matrix to say they’ve got to hit these points in these situations and these things, because the last thing I want to do is bring a guy into our program here in particular that’s going to mess with the culture, mess with the environment, mess with the relationships inside a lot of those rooms.

“So in my mind, it’s got to be a right fit, and it’s got to be the right people. The thing about transfers is sometimes you don’t know them, and you don’t have the opportunity like you’ve had in high school to get to know them, to be in their home, to build some relationships, and know when they walk in the door they’ve got four or five years to grow and develop into what it is that you want. I’ve never been a proponent of the transfer portal, but I think we’ve used it and would use it only in ways to fill gaps.”

For an outsider with no ties to the program, it was a developmental philosophy that fit the Wisconsin ethos like a glove. Toughness. Development. Ideally, players would become starters in Year 3, contributors in Year 4, and pros in Year 5. That’s the Barry Alvarez model. That’s the DNA of the Badgers. What more could fans have wanted?

And Fickell, along with the revamped recruiting department he brought along with him from Cincinnati, sounded ready to replicate it.

College football, though, doesn’t wait for your philosophy to catch up. NIL exploded. Free transfer rules wiped out continuity. Roster turnover hit 40–50% annually. Programs with deep donor pools — Penn State, Ohio State, Oregon, Texas — turned roster building into a cold, economic arms race.

And suddenly, the sport Fickell had built his blueprint around was gone. The 300-mile radius? It didn’t hold.

Wisconsin has lost multiple in-state recruits since Fickell took over, a trend some attribute to the staff lacking the same cachet with local high schools while trying to leverage the program’s brand more nationally to chase higher-end talent. There have been cases where that approach has paid off, but the larger pattern has been harder to ignore. The 2026 cycle underscored it again. The staff pushed their chips in on players like Amari Latimer and Jayden Petit — some of the top-ranked prospects at their positions — but still couldn’t hold onto them when it mattered.

Latimer flipped to West Virginia on Signing Day, and Petit, who the staff believed could eventually be a cornerstone, flipped to Oklahoma.

That doesn’t happen in the old model. But it does happen in the modern marketplace. The developmental model? It cracked.

Wisconsin couldn’t keep players long enough to develop them. You build a three or four-year plan for a high school prospect, only to watch another school drop an NIL number you can’t match. Or you redshirt a player, and they transfer before Year 3 because the depth chart looks crowded.

That turns every high-school recruit into a risk, not a building block. Fickell knows this now. And he said as much on Signing Day 2026.

“Not saying we don’t want to take high school kids, not saying we don’t want to take the in-state kids,” Fickell said. “I think for us, just recognizing and saying, okay, now this league is a bit different. And it is harder and harder with younger guys to think you can be successful. And so the balance there with the higher end of what you really believe as freshmen, we call them draft picks now. I mean, you don’t have 22 draft picks.

“So that was a little bit more of the idea, like, okay, let’s be disciplined in what we’re doing, which is going to put you in a situation where the transfer portal is going to have to be one of those things that’s probably bigger than you’ve ever used before. As well as retaining the guys that you’ve got in your program. You’ve got to invest and make sure the ones you have here are the ones that you’ve got to be able to keep here.”

That isn’t the 2022 blueprint, nor is it the framework college football was built on. It’s a coach and an administration reacting to the sport as it currently exists, even if they didn’t have the foresight, the positioning, or the resources to meet this era head-on. They’re pivoting now, and the question becomes whether they can deliver before the clock runs out.

The most honest problem? You cannot build for 2028 when your job depends on 2026. Wisconsin is 17–21 under Fickell, 10–17 in Big Ten play, and is just 2–11 against AP Top 25 teams. Not to mention, the program missed bowl games in both 2024 and 2025 for the first time since 1991-92, breaking a 22-season postseason streak. The fanbase is restless.

Donors are watching. And even if you land high-school players that you believe in, there’s no guarantee they’ll still be on your roster when it’s time for them to help you win. As Fickell hinted on National Signing Day, you need players who can help immediately, and you need them on campus in January if you want any realistic chance of getting production in Year 1.

“Being here in January was a really big thing for us,” Fickell said. “If you can’t come in January, you’re starting to look at guys and say, How do we have a chance to play this guy in Year 1 if they’re not here? You’ve gotta feel like the guys can get on the field. A lot of that has to do with some natural ability, but a lot of it has to do with a size that you have to have.”

That is the polar opposite approach of the Cincinnati-to-Wisconsin developmental arc he preached in 2022. It’s not because Fickell lied. It’s because the sport changed, and he either adapts or gets left behind.

That adaptation has finally arrived. Wisconsin just signed 13 players in its 2026 high-school recruiting class, the smallest class the program has taken since 2012, when the Badgers signed 12 athletes, and it was entirely intentional. Fickell said it openly: the philosophy has changed.

Instead of trying to bring in 22 high-school players every year, Wisconsin is now taking far fewer freshmen, treating them more like draft picks, and investing more heavily in proven players through the transfer portal. It reflects a model most top-tier programs use. It’s one built around having older players, instant-impact additions, and far fewer long-term projections. Because if you’re coaching for your job, you simply can’t wait multiple years for a developmental plan that might never materialize.

And the truth is, Wisconsin wasn’t positioned financially or structurally to compete in this new era. The NIL infrastructure wasn’t there. Athletic Director Chris McIntosh acknowledged it. Prominent donor Ted Kellner acknowledged it. By their own admission, Wisconsin operated in the “bottom third” of the Big Ten in NIL spending this past year. That’s how West Virginia beats you for a player you spent multiple years recruiting.

McIntosh and Kellner are now promising a long-overdue investment of resources in the football program. They want Wisconsin in the “top third” of the conference. They want a stronger donor base. They want to win big-time portal recruitments. But it’s a bold claim to suggest the Badgers will suddenly leap from the lower tier of Big Ten spending into the same financial lane as blue-blood programs chasing playoff berths.

And it’s even harder to project where Wisconsin will realistically land when nobody truly knows what other programs are operating with in terms of money behind the scenes. Whether the promised influx of NIL funding actually materializes remains to be seen, but the message inside the building has shifted: development alone won’t bridge the gap anymore.

Fickell has been candid about what that shift requires. On Signing Day, he offered one of his clearest acknowledgments yet that modern recruiting isn’t just about relationships or evaluations anymore, it’s about investment.

“I think it comes down to an investment,” Fickell explained. “And the truth of the matter is, in a traditional way of doing things, recruiting had been a lot about relationships. And I’m not saying that there aren’t still some traditional things, but there is a bigger piece of what recruiting is. And if you’re not willing to invest in some guys and you feel like they could get on the field, then you’ve got to make some disciplined decisions.”

You have to acquire proven production to win now, because universities need the revenue stream, and the ones serious about winning put their money where their mouth is. Football is the lifeblood of any successful athletic department, and the consistency Wisconsin once enjoyed meant the Badgers were never forced to invest like their peers, at least not until the product became nearly unwatchable and the reality finally set in.

And that leaves Wisconsin somewhere between what Fickell promised and what the sport has forced him to become. The old model was built through high-school recruiting, long-term development, maintaining strong Midwest relationships, and occasional use of the transfer portal.

The new standard across college football is one built on a portal-based roster construction, smaller, more selective high school classes, expectations of instant contributions, older, more physically mature players, a draft-pick mentality toward freshmen, and a staff operating in survival mode as it coaches for its future. None of this is a shot at Fickell.

But make no mistake: Fickell deserves the lion’s share of the blame for where Wisconsin sits today. Three seasons in, there are very few data points suggesting he’s been a difference-maker on Saturdays. His game management has been shaky, his situational decisions have been costly, and there are real questions about whether he has stayed ahead of the curve or fully understands what it takes to win in this version of the Big Ten.

Fickell has routinely been slow to adapt, miscalculated which schemes translate in this league, assembled a subpar coaching staff, and, too often, failed to put his players in the best positions to succeed.

But all of that can be true while also acknowledging the other half of the story.

Fickell attempted to build Wisconsin using the exact recruit-and-develop blueprint that once made him one of college football’s most successful coaches, and the sport changed beneath his feet. The Badgers were slow to give him the resources required to execute that plan, and when you aren’t the kind of coach who tilts games through pure in-game acumen, you have to compensate with terrific coordinators and high-end talent.

This staff has rarely gotten more out of the roster than the raw talent already on it, which makes acquiring better players non-negotiable. So while it’s fair to question whether Fickell and his recruiting department can actually maximize whatever new NIL funding they’ve got at their disposal, it’s equally true that the athletic department did Fickell no favors by asking him to win while operating with fewer resources than his peers.

To Fickell’s credit, he’s fully aware of how difficult the evaluation piece has become in this era. He said something on Signing Day that spoke to the razor-thin margin staffs operate on, where almost every high school eval has to be correct because developmental timelines no longer exist.

“The lifeblood of what you do is still bringing guys in that you can develop, and we’ve got to be able to do that,” Fickell said on Signing Day. “You can’t miss on those guys that are going to be developed. That’s what’s sometimes harder. You don’t miss on four and five-star guys. They might not pan out completely, but there’s a reason those guys are higher rated or ranked in a lot of things — they’re more developed. You’ve got a good idea whether their high-end ceiling is better than somebody that’s a two or three-star.

“Usually, the reason that they’re ranked a little bit higher is that they’ve got an opportunity to walk in and play a little bit more. So, there’s a greater balance in making sure you’re doing a better job of being right about the guys that maybe can or can’t play just yet.”

Now, finally, the staff and athletic department appear aligned with reality. The NIL commitment from private donors and corporate partnerships is rising, so they say. The recruiting approach has shifted. The urgency is unmistakable. Fickell is coaching with the understanding that Year 4 determines everything. Wisconsin has gone from trying to “build the core and crux” of the program within a 300-mile radius to preparing itself to assemble a roster capable of winning now through the portal — not because the vision changed, but because the sport demanded it.

And this offseason will reveal whether the adaptation came too late or just in time.

We appreciate you taking the time to read our work at BadgerNotes.com. Your support means the world to us and has helped us become a leading independent source for Wisconsin Badgers coverage.

You can also follow Site Publisher Dillon Graff at @DillonGraff on X.