College baseball coaches forum: Revenue sharing, portal evaluations, postseason format

The 2026 college baseball season begins Friday. And that means it’s time for The Athletic’s annual coaches forum.

In part one, we asked our panel about the best position players and pitchers they have ever seen in college baseball, which teams might surprise in 2026 and what stats are important to them when evaluating a prospect. In part two, the coaches shared some recruiting memories. Who was the biggest recruiting find of their career? What about the one who got away? And today, in part three, the coaches discuss revenue sharing, the transfer portal and the postseason format.

Here are the coaches:

• J.D. Arteaga, Miami
• Mike Bianco, Ole Miss
• Jordan Bischel, Cincinnati
• Dan Fitzgerald, Kansas
• Scott Forbes, North Carolina
• Pat Hallmark, UTSA
• Wes Johnson, Georgia
• Skylar Meade, Troy
• Eddie Smith, Washington

How has the first year of revenue sharing gone?

JD Arteaga (Miami): It’s gone good. No complaints here. This is my third season as a head coach here. In my first year, we had $0 (for NIL). Obviously, football success helps everybody. It’s gone well. I don’t think our budget is what it is at some of the SEC schools, but we’re in a good place. It’s a private school, and it’s very expensive, and it allows us to offset the cost of tuition. It’s just really helped us out recruiting-wise.

Mike Bianco (Ole Miss): Good. One of the things that — and this is not really answering the question but it is — I think our hope, and I don’t want to speak for everybody, but I think I can, is that we’re we’re getting to some type of finish line where, what’s college athletics and more specifically college baseball going to look like five years from now? The most difficult thing is that the rules change every year. And it’s changed dramatically every year.

And I’m very structured. I’m very systematic, which I would think most coaches are. And so you have a recruiting system. You have a plan for how you bring kids in and visits and how you put the roster together. And again, those things can change over time with the way the game has changed, the way the rules have changed. But that has changed so much over the last four or five years, it’s just been unbelievable, the way you put the roster together. And so to me, that’s the most difficult thing. It’s not so much the portal or guys leaving or guys coming. It’s trying to figure out what’s the best way to put Ole Miss or whoever you’re coaching in the best spot to succeed. That’s been the most difficult thing.

So you asked how has it worked? I think we’ve done a good job, and our university has done a great job handling it from both an NIL standpoint and a revenue-share standpoint. And we’re hoping that we’re kind of getting towards the end. We’re not there yet because there’s going to be some more portal window changes and some different things. But we’re hoping that we’re getting closer to that finish line to where you can get more systematic about this is what we do versus shooting from the hip.

Jordan Bischel (Cincinnati): Oh, man, I think it has so many potential positives. Our sport, our kids have been underfunded for quite a while. Our best players deserve a little bigger piece of the pie, and this has opened the door. I think it has brought it in-house, which makes it a little more above the table instead of under the table. I think that’s positive, but ultimately the devil’s going to be in the details, or the execution of it’s going to be.

Do all the deals get reported? What’s the vetting of it? If it runs as intended, I think it’s a really, really positive thing. I think it allows our student-athletes to reap a lot of the benefits, but it doesn’t let the inmates run the asylum. But we don’t know yet how well it’s going to be enforced, and in a sense, that’s going to be what defines it.

I’m optimistic. This is all brand new after a lot of years of doing it one way, and so I think it’s going to get there, but obviously, there’s some red flags coming out from the sports that have a lot more money coming through, and you just hope that it can be reined in. But you’re going to see it be different. The SEC is going to invest differently than the Big 12, and the MAC is going to invest differently than the Big 12, but at least it kind of puts everything on the table and helps people understand what their competition is doing. To me, it really has a positive framework, and now it’s going to be the execution of it.

Dan Fitzgerald (Kansas): I think we’ve learned a lot. I think that there are pieces of it that are great because it’s clarified and maybe puts more tangible parameters on, at least in our situation of, okay, we have this much money that we can give out, versus the NIL world, which was a little bit more theoretical of, hey, this guy is able to get this, but you couldn’t really — those were done through a third party, so you weren’t technically supposed to be offering that. So I think the good part of the revenue sharing is that it’s something that you can tangibly use as a part of your scholarship package and whatnot.

I think the challenging part of it is there’s a lot of disparity in college baseball. There are teams that have a ton and teams that have very little. So, there’s part of me that loved the 11.7 (scholarships), and it was just kind of across the board. That’s what you had, and you’re able to factor in academic money and find challenging ways to get it done with players.

But I do think that revenue sharing certainly is a great thing for student-athletes, but I think the kinks still need to be worked out. But as a coach, I like the fact that it’s something that we can use as a part of a package, and it’s more controllable theoretically than NIL.

Scott Forbes (North Carolina): Interesting, to say the least. It depends on how your school is using and distributing those funds. It’s gone pretty well. Our administration is committed to baseball. Like any coach, you want to see more commitment because you know what you’re up against. But in this new landscape, I think you’re really going to tell more since some of the rules have changed even more. Last year, they had the deadline (before the House settlement passed). You could frontload players (with NIL funds), all that stuff. Well, this year, it’s a little bit different.

The teams that have the biggest rev share, especially in baseball, they’re going to have more of an advantage. And then how do you still compete against those teams? So I think that’s a question that if you ask in a couple years, you’re going to get a lot of different answers for sure.

Pat Hallmark (UTSA): It’s been a learning experience. And I don’t mean that in a negative way. It’s been a learning experience in a positive way. We’re learning a lot. And not just on the whole landscape of revenue sharing, but how can we put ourselves in the best position to make the most of this? And you can piss and moan all you want, and that’s not going to help. And I truly mean it’s been a learning experience in a positive way.

Wes Johnson (Georgia): Well, obviously, our football team is really good.

Skylar Meade (Troy): Well, our AD, who did move on, Brent Jones (now at Georgia Tech), has done a tremendous job, and without going into the specifics of it, we’ve invested heavily here at Troy.

I think the rev share makes it kind of easy because it’s, yes, it’s taxed, but it’s money that they understand over this 10-month contract. They get allotted whatever their dollars are, whereas I think the NIL world, it being purely an NIL world, got a little bit screwy, a little haywire, and I know NIL still exists. But I think the rev share makes it really, really simple.

But I think we’re in a good spot. I think it’s good that (the players) get paid. Obviously, we have invested probably more than some others, but the reality is, I’m just appreciative that we have a place that is willing to do that.

Eddie Smith (Washington): Well, we don’t have any rev share here, so trying to compete with people who have $50,000 to $1.5 million or more, it’s been pretty challenging.

How do you go about evaluating a potential transfer you want to sign?

JD Arteaga (Miami): A lot of things come into play. The league they’re playing in, the competition, their playing history. Why are they leaving to me is huge. That’s one of the first questions I ask. Why are you in the portal? If you started 50 games at the school that you’re at and it’s a good school, why are you leaving? Some guys want to play at Power 4 and see how good they are. That’s a good answer, always. But if it’s a financial decision, then that’s not a good answer.

Mike Bianco (Ole Miss): I think it’s twofold. I think one is just from a skill standpoint. We have to be careful because of our league — we feel it’s the number one conference in college baseball, and so there are people that can be really good in other leagues, but won’t be as good in our league. And so I think that’s tough. It’s a big leap sometimes for players.

But the other thing for us, which is super important in this era of transfers and NIL and rev share is, who is he, and how is he going to affect our locker room? It’s super important to us because you can get some really good players and not win. And it happens every year. And so that’s critical to us. And I don’t want to say that we’ve hit 100 percent with that, but we’re usually pretty good with it. And that is a big factor to us, as big as the other factor.

Jordan Bischel (Cincinnati): The huge difference, for me, between a high school kid and a transfer, for a high school kid, we are not going to lean into the statistical side all that heavily. We are going to lean into tools and what people tell you about him and projectability and those things because certainly there is such a wide range of competition at the high school level. But at the college level, for us, production matters a fair amount. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, but for us, if they’re not having success at the college level, it’s tough to project that’s going to flip because we have some sort of magic pixie dust that can help them.

I think we saw that with Indiana football this year. I think Curt Cignetti is big into that — have they produced before? That’s not always the case. Sometimes there’s a reason. Usually, with our transfers, you’ve seen that they put up pretty good stat lines.

Dan Fitzgerald (Kansas): I think it’s tricky. I think that the good part of it is you’re able to oftentimes have a large sample size of stats that you can really kind of put the puzzle together on what kind of player they are.

I think the hard part is that it moves so fast in the portal, and there are times when the guy goes in and it’s a little bit harder to figure out the makeup side because calling that coach where a guy’s just left, some of those conversations can be kind of challenging because obviously most of the time … I shouldn’t say that. A lot of times, guys leave, and they leave on great terms, and it’s mutually beneficial. But I think it moves really fast, so making sure that the makeup piece is a fit for your culture is probably the most challenging part because you don’t have as much time to really vet that.

Scott Forbes (North Carolina): You can look a little more at numbers there because they played in college. And you look at the league that they played in, you look at the competition that they played in. And they should have pretty good numbers. Obviously, if it’s an ACC, SEC, that type of transfer, the competition is really good. But for us, again, it goes back to the premium things that we’re looking for. Number one, is it the right fit in our locker room? After we’ve said, okay, if it’s a pitcher, he’s got to command, he’s got good numbers, he can strike you out, does he profile more as a starter or a reliever? If he’s been a starter at another school, can he come into UNC and potentially fill a void as a reliever? Same thing with junior college kids.

And the hitting, the same thing. There are going to be some guys you’re going to have interest in that may strike out and walk about equally, but they have a high OPS because they’re driving the ball in the gap and over the wall, which you need on a team. But you also need those guys, that their high OPS is not just because they hit doubles and home runs, it’s because they get on base and combine that with some extra base hits.

Pat Hallmark (UTSA): We look for production. Production is first. And we have definitive things we’re looking for, whether it’s a transfer from the portal or from junior college. But we’ve got to have production.

Wes Johnson (Georgia): We’re going to look at the competition level, look at how they’ve done against velo on both sides. If they’re a good pitcher, how their velo plays, and then how that hitter did against velo.

Skylar Meade (Troy): There needs to be a fit because you don’t want to get overloaded in the wrong areas and not be a dynamic team or have dynamic skill sets. But we want guys that are hungry. I think that comes in a lot of ways. We’ve brought in some kids that are crazy talented from a school that has struggled. That hunger of wanting to be a part of winning … becomes a huge motivator to them. When they come in, it’s like their drug, “Oh my gosh, winning, this is a different feeling.” And that becomes a new motivator for them.

And so, we really do try to find some guys that maybe get pushed by the wayside, because maybe they have come from not the greatest program, perhaps, but we think they can be a great fit for us. And that will be part of their motivating factor to make them the best version of themselves.

Eddie Smith (Washington): Well, if it’s a player at a four-year school, I think stats speak big volumes. You can’t fake stats over a 50-plus-game schedule. And so that’s a big tool for a player at a four-year school. We’ll be able to pair that with some video. And maybe if we’re fortunate enough, it lines up that we can watch him live in a summer league.

For a junior college player, stats, again, are really important. Now you’ve got to be pretty dominant in stats at the junior college level. And there’s a reality that some players at the junior college level can dominate the junior college level statistically, but still aren’t physically ready for the Division I level. So I think it takes a little bit more in-person, eye test scouting when you’re talking about a junior college player.

Do you like the current postseason format?

JD Arteaga (Miami): I do. It’s tough to extend it much more. It’s already tough, especially the further along you go in the postseason, dealing with the portal. I remember sitting in my hotel room during the Super Regional last year and talking to recruits when I should have been getting ready for Louisville. But I guess it’s a great price to pay. That means you’re still playing while other people are just recruiting. But if somehow they can kind of work with a (portal) window a little bit where you’re not in the postseason and you’re not recruiting in the portal, that would help. But yeah, I like the format of it.

Mike Bianco (Ole Miss): Yes. I’m OK with it. I don’t know if I’ve found another one that makes me think, “Wow, that would change the game and make it so much better.” I’ve seen different ones. Not that I’m totally against some of the other ones that have floated out there. But I like this.

Jordan Bischel (Cincinnati): I do. I would love us to try to get to 72 or 76 or 80 teams. I know there’s always going to be, whether you have 12 teams or 200 teams, there’s always going to be the next one that feels like they’re deserving. But the sport has really seen a proliferation of the power conferences chewing up the vast, vast majority of the at-large bids. I think those teams are deserving. I think they’re really good. We were towards the bottom of the list last year … a lot of Big 12 teams were in that last group. We weren’t in that last four, but Oklahoma State was. There were three Big 12 teams in that. I think they’re all very good teams that could do damage at a Regional.

So I don’t think the answer is put more mid-majors in and cut those teams out. But I look back at Central Michigan, those years where we won 40 games, 42 games, and without (winning the) conference tournament, your season was over. And I would love to see a path where a couple more of those can get in the tournament without costing another team a bid.

Dan Fitzgerald (Kansas): I think there’s a better format — Mike Rooney’s presentation a couple years ago on the 32 host sites. I think the challenging part of our sport is that it’s based around the series, and winning a series is kind of the staple of college baseball. You’re always trying to win a series, and in the selection show, it’s always interesting how many times that comes up, like, “They won this many series. They won X amount of series in the Big 12 or in the SEC or the ACC,” and then we get to the postseason and for the first weekend, you play a completely different format, and then you get to a Super (Regional) and you play a series. And so there’s part of it that it just makes a lot of sense to continue on with the idea of you’re just continuing to play series after series.

Playing in the NCAA Tournament is awesome, but you think about if you were playing on the road at someone else’s place, it’s electric. If you’re playing at home in front of your crowd, it’s electric, so I think it’s the best thing for our sport. It’s also the best thing for fan engagement. I think about last year. We were not a top 16, but we were certainly a top 32, and to be able to host a two-out-of-three series against someone in Lawrence, Kansas, I mean, this place would explode, and I think everyone in college baseball would say the same thing. So that’s the format I wish we had, and I think that’s the one that makes the most sense.

And that’s where I think a little bit of expansion could really benefit. It’s those teams. You look at Austin Peay last year, and there are others, but they go and just dominate, and there’s just not enough room in the field. I think that would be really good.

Scott Forbes (North Carolina): Yeah, I think it’s great. College baseball, in my opinion, is at an all-time high — the interest level, the crowds. You get that feeling at 64 (teams), anything can happen. And that has happened to us, good and bad. There are so many good college baseball teams. Even with this new landscape and NIL and all that stuff, you’ll get your tail beat if you’re not prepared and you don’t play well.

Pat Hallmark (UTSA): The format of it, I like. How it’s picked is strongly biased toward Power 4 teams.

Wes Johnson (Georgia): I like the format. We have changed now because now they’re going to allegedly seed teams 1 through 32. I think there was a lot of posturing prior to this year. And you look at certain teams getting a draw that they shouldn’t get just because it was easy travel for a team. So you had some teams get very easy draws and some teams that were really good and they got really hard draws, just because of the simple fact of what region their school was in. I think that’s always been the case.

But love the format. I love Regionals, Super Regionals and Omaha. And I think our sport took a big step in the right direction, seeding 1 through 32.

Skylar Meade (Troy): I like it. I don’t like some of the ways and rationale you get to (selecting the teams). Obviously, if you’re asking me those questions, I’m not going to give the greatest of answers, (with) some of the things that happened to us over the last two years. I’ve used respect (to share) my beliefs on it. I think it’s some of it’s garbage and not handled right.

Do I think there’s some things that can maybe take us to another level? I think there’s a potential to do kind of like a college basketball play-in, and I’m not advocating to raise this thing to 96 teams. I do think there’s a way you can do 68, but then you move it to like 32 (host) sites. … I think 32 sites would then emphasize the incredible financial potential that baseball has. So if Troy hypothetically is the 25th-ranked team in the country, well, we wouldn’t be hosting (in the current format), right? But if there’s 32 sites, we now become a host. Well, we get 5,000 people here outside my window at Riddle-Pace (Field), and people go bonkers and crazy. This is a way to get more programs a taste. We don’t need the SEC teams to get a taste. They love it. They’re in there, but can we get other teams?

Eddie Smith (Washington): I like it. I would be excited if they were to divide the Regional round into two separate rounds. There’s been all this talk about 32 hosts and all these three-game series, best-of-three series, Round 1, and then Round 2, obviously, would pair down to 16 sites and 32 teams playing for 16 spots in the Super Regionals. I’m a fan of that because I don’t think there’s anything like postseason baseball. And if we start getting 32 schools every year exposed to that and reminded of that, I think that just grows the game that much faster because now you’ve got double the fan base, administrators, media members in the local area covering what the best part of our sport, which is postseason college baseball.