2026 Team Previews

[EastHallApp]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... every-team

No one in the SBC above 75 and nine teams below 100 including us. Congrats to everyone that wanted to pay players, you killed football for us.

Friendly reminder that the NIL era started with a unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court decision. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch singing in harmony with Kagan and Sotomayor. That's how obvious it was.

The blame doesn't go to some fans posting on message boards. It doesn't even really go to those justices. It belongs with the NCAA, for stubbornly fighting tooth and nail against allowing players compensation for things as obvious as having their likeness on a video game, running a summer camp, or schools selling jerseys with their number on it. Handing out probation for things like a coach buying his player dinner, or a player visiting a former teammate and sleeping on his coach without paying him lodging fees.

Instead of using that time to create a thoughtful framework for athletes to get some form of compensation, they fought to the death against them ever getting a dime, got laughed out of court, and now here we are.

[EastHallApp]

Here is the ESPN Sun Belt preview. https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... every-team

We are the 9th place team in the league based on the SP metrics. We play 4 of the teams below us this season. Two each on the road and home. Overall we are 111 with the 120th SOS. Only Charlotte is below us for our Non conference. So assuming Maine is a win, 6-6 is about where we should be happy.

So are we?

Probably should distinguish between what we should reasonably expect based on our current staff and roster versus what we should be happy about.

[Stonewall]

D Lo is responsible for the roster. He has been given free hand. No excuses.

[AppStFan1]

I would say a losing record against peer schools is sufficient cause to fire him. If he can't get this team over .500 in year two, he needs to go in my opinion. A losing record would make three consecutive years of losing records, how often do you think that has happened in App State football history? NEVER, it has never ever happened in the entire history of our program. It is bad enough that we have had 3 losing seasons in 4 years but if we go 3 in a row and 4 in 5 years then he needs to go.

I agree with that but is that in the contract? If losing was enough for cause then no buyouts would have to be paid. The one thing I will say in his defense is that you can't say 3 in a row or 4 out of 5 with him. Clark did the others. Can only judge him based on what he has done.

I didn't mean "cause" as in we could legally get out of the contract, I simply meant that if he can't win this year than he needs to be fired (as in it would be the causation of his termination).

I hear you. Serious question though. After the debacle with Clark and Loggains, assuming we lose this year, should Gillin not be the first one fired? If Loggains does not pan out then don't you think an argument can be made that we would not want Gillin making the decisions on that?

This used to be my view - that the Loggains hire was so out of left field, that it better work or the AD needs to go before the next hire.

I've changed my view somewhat on this based on hearing from people that the decision was partially or fully taken out of Gillin's hands. Don't know that for a fact firsthand, just what I've heard.

I have heard that as well but an AD is in charge of the program so he has to take responsibility. If some folks pushed for Loggains then we need names and they should have no influence in the next hire.

I am pulling for Loggains big time because he is our head coach. I really don't want to fire him after this year unless we are way worse than last year and some things going on that give us good reason off the field as well. The fact he does not play politics like some want is not a reason to fire someone.

[AppSt94]

I agree with that but is that in the contract? If losing was enough for cause then no buyouts would have to be paid. The one thing I will say in his defense is that you can't say 3 in a row or 4 out of 5 with him. Clark did the others. Can only judge him based on what he has done.

I didn't mean "cause" as in we could legally get out of the contract, I simply meant that if he can't win this year than he needs to be fired (as in it would be the causation of his termination).

I hear you. Serious question though. After the debacle with Clark and Loggains, assuming we lose this year, should Gillin not be the first one fired? If Loggains does not pan out then don't you think an argument can be made that we would not want Gillin making the decisions on that?

This used to be my view - that the Loggains hire was so out of left field, that it better work or the AD needs to go before the next hire.

I've changed my view somewhat on this based on hearing from people that the decision was partially or fully taken out of Gillin's hands. Don't know that for a fact firsthand, just what I've heard.

I have heard that as well but an AD is in charge of the program so he has to take responsibility. If some folks pushed for Loggains then we need names and they should have no influence in the next hire.

I am pulling for Loggains big time because he is our head coach. I really don't want to fire him after this year unless we are way worse than last year and some things going on that give us good reason off the field as well. The fact he does not play politics like some want is not a reason to fire someone.

You love to beat this drum. He isn’t drawing ire because he isn’t placating the donors. Just stop.

[AppSt94]

I would say a losing record against peer schools is sufficient cause to fire him. If he can't get this team over .500 in year two, he needs to go in my opinion. A losing record would make three consecutive years of losing records, how often do you think that has happened in App State football history? NEVER, it has never ever happened in the entire history of our program. It is bad enough that we have had 3 losing seasons in 4 years but if we go 3 in a row and 4 in 5 years then he needs to go.

I agree with that but is that in the contract? If losing was enough for cause then no buyouts would have to be paid. The one thing I will say in his defense is that you can't say 3 in a row or 4 out of 5 with him. Clark did the others. Can only judge him based on what he has done.

I didn't mean "cause" as in we could legally get out of the contract, I simply meant that if he can't win this year than he needs to be fired (as in it would be the causation of his termination).

I hear you. Serious question though. After the debacle with Clark and Loggains, assuming we lose this year, should Gillin not be the first one fired? If Loggains does not pan out then don't you think an argument can be made that we would not want Gillin making the decisions on that?

This used to be my view - that the Loggains hire was so out of left field, that it better work or the AD needs to go before the next hire.

I've changed my view somewhat on this based on hearing from people that the decision was partially or fully taken out of Gillin's hands. Don't know that for a fact firsthand, just what I've heard.

Every hire involves a search committee. In this case it involved BoT members. Whether any donors were involved outside of the BoT, that I don’t know. Loggains apparently interviewed quite well. It happens. No one gets hires 100%.

[Bootsy]

I ran across the report below and thought this group might appreciate the perspective. As some perceptive folks here have pointed out, US higher education is in serious financial straits and many people don’t fully understand how bad this situation has become.

Anthony Bradley shared specifics in his Substack and on X. Here are a few examples from his article that hit close to home:

“Clemson: Roughly $1.5 billion in debt, one of the highest debt loads among major public universities in the Southeast.

• https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/dabo- ... 52760.html

UNC-Chapel Hill: Plans to cut spending by $89 million over three years amid federal research funding pressure.

•https://www.highereddive.com/news/colle ... 25/752856/

Duke University: severed 600 employees as part of a $350M budget cut (~10% of expenses). Voluntary separations started May 2025, layoffs in July. Duke is the second-largest private employer in North Carolina.

•https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/colle ... ng-freeze/

What’s worse, college sports are compounding economic woes for universities. This detailed report from The Manhattan Institute provides an overview of the issues at hand:

https://manhattan.institute/article/che ... ege-sports”

[Saint3333]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... every-team

No one in the SBC above 75 and nine teams below 100 including us. Congrats to everyone that wanted to pay players, you killed football for us.

Friendly reminder that the NIL era started with a unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court decision. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch singing in harmony with Kagan and Sotomayor. That's how obvious it was.

The blame doesn't go to some fans posting on message boards. It doesn't even really go to those justices. It belongs with the NCAA, for stubbornly fighting tooth and nail against allowing players compensation for things as obvious as having their likeness on a video game, running a summer camp, or schools selling jerseys with their number on it. Handing out probation for things like a coach buying his player dinner, or a player visiting a former teammate and sleeping on his coach without paying him lodging fees.

Instead of using that time to create a thoughtful framework for athletes to get some form of compensation, they fought to the death against them ever getting a dime, got laughed out of court, and now here we are.

Reminder that paying players directly is not NIL as intended (although it was intended by the schools with $100M budgets).

[EastHallApp]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... every-team

No one in the SBC above 75 and nine teams below 100 including us. Congrats to everyone that wanted to pay players, you killed football for us.

Friendly reminder that the NIL era started with a unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court decision. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch singing in harmony with Kagan and Sotomayor. That's how obvious it was.

The blame doesn't go to some fans posting on message boards. It doesn't even really go to those justices. It belongs with the NCAA, for stubbornly fighting tooth and nail against allowing players compensation for things as obvious as having their likeness on a video game, running a summer camp, or schools selling jerseys with their number on it. Handing out probation for things like a coach buying his player dinner, or a player visiting a former teammate and sleeping on his coach without paying him lodging fees.

Instead of using that time to create a thoughtful framework for athletes to get some form of compensation, they fought to the death against them ever getting a dime, got laughed out of court, and now here we are.

Reminder that paying players directly is not NIL as intended (although it was intended by the schools with $100M budgets).

True, revenue sharing and NIL are different things. But the lawsuit over the latter did seem to open the door to all the other court losses that followed for the NCAA.

[Saint3333]

Yes, it opened Pandora's box and those making the rules to implement the ruling did so to their benefit. Tale as old as time.

[AppStFan1]

I didn't mean "cause" as in we could legally get out of the contract, I simply meant that if he can't win this year than he needs to be fired (as in it would be the causation of his termination).

I hear you. Serious question though. After the debacle with Clark and Loggains, assuming we lose this year, should Gillin not be the first one fired? If Loggains does not pan out then don't you think an argument can be made that we would not want Gillin making the decisions on that?

This used to be my view - that the Loggains hire was so out of left field, that it better work or the AD needs to go before the next hire.

I've changed my view somewhat on this based on hearing from people that the decision was partially or fully taken out of Gillin's hands. Don't know that for a fact firsthand, just what I've heard.

I have heard that as well but an AD is in charge of the program so he has to take responsibility. If some folks pushed for Loggains then we need names and they should have no influence in the next hire.

I am pulling for Loggains big time because he is our head coach. I really don't want to fire him after this year unless we are way worse than last year and some things going on that give us good reason off the field as well. The fact he does not play politics like some want is not a reason to fire someone.

You love to beat this drum. He isn’t drawing ire because he isn’t placating the donors. Just stop.

That is a stupid reason and those folks need to grow up. My whole point is that regardless of what he does or does not do with donors everyone better want him to win because if they pull for him to fail then they are pulling for App State to fail this year.

[AppStFan1]

I ran across the report below and thought this group might appreciate the perspective. As some perceptive folks here have pointed out, US higher education is in serious financial straits and many people don’t fully understand how bad this situation has become.

Anthony Bradley shared specifics in his Substack and on X. Here are a few examples from his article that hit close to home:

“Clemson: Roughly $1.5 billion in debt, one of the highest debt loads among major public universities in the Southeast.

• https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/dabo- ... 52760.html

UNC-Chapel Hill: Plans to cut spending by $89 million over three years amid federal research funding pressure.

•https://www.highereddive.com/news/colle ... 25/752856/

Duke University: severed 600 employees as part of a $350M budget cut (~10% of expenses). Voluntary separations started May 2025, layoffs in July. Duke is the second-largest private employer in North Carolina.

•https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/colle ... ng-freeze/

What’s worse, college sports are compounding economic woes for universities. This detailed report from The Manhattan Institute provides an overview of the issues at hand:

https://manhattan.institute/article/che ... ege-sports”

They waste money out of desperation to win and raise tuition way too fast. Schools do an awful job managing money so I have zero sympathy for them. Sports are making it worse. Makes you wonder if the financial pressure might get schools to get creative to drop any sport that does not self sustain?

[t4pizza]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... every-team

No one in the SBC above 75 and nine teams below 100 including us. Congrats to everyone that wanted to pay players, you killed football for us.

Friendly reminder that the NIL era started with a unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court decision. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch singing in harmony with Kagan and Sotomayor. That's how obvious it was.

The blame doesn't go to some fans posting on message boards. It doesn't even really go to those justices. It belongs with the NCAA, for stubbornly fighting tooth and nail against allowing players compensation for things as obvious as having their likeness on a video game, running a summer camp, or schools selling jerseys with their number on it. Handing out probation for things like a coach buying his player dinner, or a player visiting a former teammate and sleeping on his coach without paying him lodging fees.

Instead of using that time to create a thoughtful framework for athletes to get some form of compensation, they fought to the death against them ever getting a dime, got laughed out of court, and now here we are.

That case actually had nothing to do with NIL, it was actually about additional educational benefits not players getting paid. That decision coincided with many individual State's laws about NIL. But yes, the NCAA seemed to never ever consider that "amateurism" as it had previously been ruled on would change a didn't have a contingency plan in place to deal with any potential changes. Once the Supremes ruled, the floodgates exploded and we now have what we have.

I have suspected from early on that the NCAA intentionally decided to do absolutely nothing ((actually they did worse than absolutely nothing because of the unlimited transfers) in the hopes that things would get bad enough to get Congress to give them an Antitrust exemption.

[Bigdaddyg1]

Does any sort of NCAA athletic/academic enforcement even exist anymore? I can’t really recall the last time I read about anything the NCAA did to a school, coach, player or program that really meant anything. I always wondered what “vacating wins” really meant. Schools sometimes lost some recruiting numbers or allowable scholarships but that would be a joke. App basketball once got in trouble for our (APR?) being too low. Is that still a thing? As much as I used to really enjoy football I seem to have more appreciation for “kids” who still work their tails off and love those “Olympic” sports we often brush aside. It’s still crazy to think that for a huge swath of the population football isn’t the center of their universe. Amazingly as well over 99% of the population every year has no aspirations of playing a professional sport and most still covet the idea of playing their beloved sport in college simply to compete and for the precious opportunity to obtain a degree. Sad that this seemingly antiquated concept is an afterthought.

[Stonewall]

It might be that most D 1 ummm students playing the major sports ARE professional athletes. At least the starters.

[AppWyo]

When the NCAA did not punish UNC-Ch for academic fraud a few years ago they lost most, if not all, of their credibility.

[Stonewall]

I’m not sure an athlete actually has to attend class.

[bcoach]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... every-team

No one in the SBC above 75 and nine teams below 100 including us. Congrats to everyone that wanted to pay players, you killed football for us.

You're welcome! Sorry for believing everyone should be paid commensurate to their talent. I thought that was generally accepted, but I've learned when it comes to sports, it's not.

Well I believe that talent must generate a profit in order for the company to pay them. Ours does not. It is just that simple.

[bcoach]

NIL,NIL,NIL I keep hearing NIL. Do any of our players actually have NIL contracts. All I really see is pay for play. The whole damn thing was started on a false narrative. It was all about that the players should get a share of the HUGE dollars being made by the schools. G5 schools were not and are not making those dollars. The whole thing is a crock of poop.

[Stonewall]

Been saying that for a year. We are paying them to play. They are professional athletes.