Paul Finebaum Names College Football Tradition That's No Longer Relevant

For years, the spring game was one of college football’s most reliable traditions. It gave fans an early look at their team, created offseason buzz and served as a bridge between winter workouts and the fall season.

That version of the spring game is fading fast. What was once a celebration of continuity and development now feels like a relic of a different era. The shift is not just about how teams approach the game. It is about how the sport itself has changed.

Last season, several programs canceled their spring games out of concern for tampering. Coaches worried that standout performances could attract outside interest, leading players to enter the transfer portal during the spring window and leave teams scrambling to replace them.

Auburn Tigers quarterback Byrum Brown (17) runs the ball during Auburn Tigers A-Day spring game. | Jake Crandall/ Advertiser / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images

Even with the spring portal window now removed, the damage to the tradition appears to have already been done.

Programs have brought spring games back, but in a diminished form. Many chose not to televise them, hoping to drive attendance and create a more controlled environment. That strategy has not delivered the intended results.

On "The Paul Finebaum Show," the SEC Network analyst explained why the interest has declined.

"I've never put a lot of stock in these games, and the primary reason is you don't really, unless you're inside the mindset of the brain trust, you don't know what the coaches are trying to get out of it," Finebaum said. "... I think the fans understand they just aren't important anymore."

That assessment may sound harsh, but it reflects a broader reality. Fans are less connected to rosters than they once were, and that connection was a key reason spring games mattered.

In previous eras, fans could follow a player’s development over several years. A freshman would arrive, learn the system and eventually grow into a contributor. Walk-ons could earn scholarships and become fan favorites. Those stories created investment and made spring games meaningful.

That dynamic has changed.

With the transfer portal, roster turnover has become constant. Players who are not seeing the field are more likely to leave, and those who emerge often move on to bigger opportunities. As a result, the long-term narratives that once defined programs are harder to find.

That lack of continuity makes it more difficult for fans to feel connected to what they are watching in the spring.

At the same time, the cost of fandom has increased. Fans are no longer just buying tickets and merchandise. They are being asked to contribute to NIL efforts and support collectives. Even spring games, once free or low-cost, now come with a price at many programs.

That combination has changed the value equation.

If the game itself does not provide meaningful insight and the emotional connection to the roster is weaker, there is little incentive for fans to invest additional time or money.

The result is a tradition that feels increasingly out of place in the modern landscape.

Spring games were built for a version of college football that emphasized continuity, development and long-term relationships between players and programs. That version of the sport no longer exists in the same way.

As the game continues to evolve, traditions that once felt essential are being reevaluated. The spring game may not disappear entirely, but its role is clearly shrinking.

At some point, programs will have to decide whether maintaining the tradition still serves a purpose or if it is simply holding on to something that no longer fits the direction of the sport.

Add us as a preferred source on Google