I felt really good about our symposium at the NFL Combine in February, and I wanted to keep the momentum going. A couple of our panelists then discussed a chat loop set up among GMs in the conference, so I thought I’d give personnel staffers on a lower level a similar platform. That’s how the 2026 G5 GM Zoom series started.

Tonight was our second session. Here’s a brief overview of how the first two sessions have gone.

Tuesday: We had about 17 GMs discussing the art of having hard conversations, or, more specifically, saying no. In this business, simply disagreeing on something can mean the end of a relationship. The topic led to a pretty robust discussion. One GM said he and his staff develop a detailed scouting report — not just on-field, but also detailing tardiness, failed wiz quizzes, poor effort in the weight room — that they can cite if a player comes in saying he’s not getting what he’s worth. I was also a little surprised by the responses to some of the questions. I asked if any of them would have an interest in fundraising or other outside-the-office duties, and to my surprise, some said they’d look forward to such an opportunity. I think there’s a desire to really be authentic with potential donors. I can’t think of a better way than that.

Tonight: The topic was building and maintaining a volunteer staff, a tough job when you’re asking people to put in long hours for no pay. One GM is highly skilled at finding work-study opportunities for his staffers, which is one way to at least show some appreciation for the hours put in. Some schools are having success asking volunteers to work full-time (something we’ve discussed in this space before), but these are very special circumstances. One of the more seasoned GMs has placed around 20 former volunteers in full-time jobs in sports (not all in football, but still). Being able to show your volunteers that there’s a path to success is a great way to keep the fires burning.

Our final three Zooms will cover software service preferences (what’s good, what’s bad, what’s the best value); development and compensation of paid staff; and how to stop, or at least contain, tampering.

Many of them are on the road, so I don’t expect perfect attendance. The key is having a space for them to be able to draw on their peers’ experiences and come up with ideas for solving problems.

Anyway, it’s been fun so far, and really educational. Hopefully this is something we can extend to other strata of the industry soon. The beauty of technology means people don’t have to sit in one room to share ideas anymore. Might as well take advantage of it.

I’ve been thinking about our event Friday, the 2026 Dropback ITL Symposium, which took place Friday morning in the Indiana Convention Center before about 400 members of the college personnel community. We had 48 FBS schools represented, including 37 P4 schools and 20 GMs. Anyway, our two panels (three GMs, three NIL agents each) weighed in on 20 questions posed by Dropback founder Luke Bogus and myself over almost two hours on the second floor of the convention center.

I already posted a few takeaways in our Friday Wrap, but I had a few more today. First let’s get the cliches out of the way.

• No one wants to take NIL payments away from players, no one is saying players shouldn’t be compensated for their images, etc.
• Everyone is willing to let things be decided on the field, and no one is asking for mercy.
• Everyone accepts that life isn’t fair.

With that said, there were a few recurring themes:

• The January portal was a win, simply because it was one window instead of one in December and one in the spring. The timing is still tricky, but I don’t think there was a lot of pushback. If there was any, it was that there’s no certainty that this is the policy going forward. No one in a position of authority has declared the January window “the way” going forward.
• The feeling on the panel was that money should go to veteran players. I mentioned this in the Friday Wrap, but Iowa GM Tyler Barnes raised the point that there should be some kind of cap on pay for high school players. Unknown players don’t have a lot of name recognition anyway, to say nothing of the limited snaps they usually play. We’ve seen the NFL basically do the same thing in the 2011 CBA. Unfortunately, this is probably wish casting as it would take federal legislation.
• There’s clearly a lot of mystery about who represents which players; it’s so bad that one GM said he relies on journalists to tell him who represents whom. The problem here is that there’s nothing comparable to a Standard Representation Agreement (SRA), the document that the NFLPA requires players to sign when they agree to representation. Again, short of some kind of federal intervention or an opt-in to some governing body, that’s impossible.
• With no rules, college officials and agents are left to rely on their own senses of honor; the value of relationships was mentioned so many times I lost count. However, as we know, morality is subjective, and honest people sometimes disagree. I raised the idea of some kind of code of conduct that could be accepted across the industry, but no one seemed to think that would make a difference. Unfortunately, the panelists are probably right.
• You can argue about the makeup and effectiveness of the College Sports Commission (CSC), which is supposed to call balls and strikes on NIL deals, but you can’t argue that they’ve communicated effectively with schools. No one on either panel said he’d heard a word from the CSC. No one seemed to know much about what the CSC was doing, and given the role the CSC is supposed to play, that’s a concern. I hope someone at the CSC reads this. People in NCAA personnel offices would love to hear from them.
• Unfortunately, for the second straight year, there was little to no optimism that tampering could be curbed, much less stopped. It’s admirable that the NCAA is trying to do something about it, but the panelists just shrugged their shoulders, figuratively, at these efforts. Even in the agent world, which is governed by the NFLPA, there’s almost no way to stop this. The player who benefits from such activity is never going to turn in his benefactor.
• I was happy with the candor and honesty shown, but let’s be honest — when you’re giving opinions on touchy issues before a room of 400 people, it’s natural to edit yourself. The feedback is that people would be more open to talk in a roundtable situation, maybe 12 people talking about the issues. I’d like to think there’s someone out there that could provide such a forum, but who knows? Maybe I’m the one who should.

Just more stuff to think about. I think the problems facing the game may not be as overwhelming as some claim, but it’s not perfect. I hope ITL can be part of any solutions.