Flock Talk: Who Watches the Watchers

 

When a new industry begins, it often starts as a monopoly. That’s a natural thing — someone has to be first. But eventually, others enter the market, and that competition is not just inevitable — it’s essential. Whether we’re talking about manufactured goods, services, or media and journalism, competition pushes everyone to be better. It drives innovation, forces transparency, and benefits the consumer.

But then something interesting tends to happen. Companies get comfortable. Complacency sets in. And eventually, a new disruptor emerges to challenge the status quo. That’s where we are right now in the world of college football recruiting coverage.

The question is — what happens next?

With the aggressive expansion and merger activity involving On3 and Rivals, we may be witnessing the creation of a new behemoth. The kind that — if left unchecked — could take the recruiting coverage industry right back to monopoly status. Given the economies of scale On3 is now enjoying, will anyone be able to slow their march? And if not, will a monopoly be good for the fans, the athletes, and the sport?

Let me be clear: On3 has added a lot of talented people. Josh Pate is a thoughtful and engaging media personality. Ross Dellenger is one of the best journalists in the country, and someone I’ve respected and known since his days covering LSU at NOLA.com. I had him on my podcast last year and have spoken with him in person multiple times — he’s sharp, ethical, and committed to getting things right. Adding Ross isn’t some sinister signal of monopolization — he still writes for Yahoo! Sports and brings value to any platform.

But zoom out a bit. 247Sports seems eerily quiet right now — no apparent effort to match On3’s growing media presence. Is that by design? Are more departures coming? I've seen the speculation: what if On3, through consolidation and dominance, becomes the only real player in the recruiting coverage space?

And here’s the crux of the matter — would that be good for anyone?

---

Monopolies Are a Known Problem

History — and economics — tells us the answer is a resounding no.

In industries where monopolies form, product quality declines, innovation slows, and prices rise. A 2020 Brookings Institution study showed that industries with high market concentration experienced less business dynamism and fewer startups. That matters because it’s those “startups” — the independent sites, the new voices, the fresh evaluators — that push this industry forward.

A 2023 American Economic Association report reinforced the point: monopolies lead to lower quality and higher costs even when demand remains strong. In other words, just because fans love recruiting doesn’t mean they’ll keep getting the best content if there’s no competition forcing improvement.

---

What That Looks Like in Recruiting Coverage

We’ve seen what happens when one outlet controls the narrative. Rankings flatten. Debate disappears. Local voices — the people who know a region or a team intimately — get replaced by distant editors and national content plans. Instead of real analysis, you get aggregation. Instead of nuanced evaluation, you get copy-paste scouting reports.

Competition between Rivals, 247, ESPN, and On3 created an ecosystem where players received more exposure, fans got more robust coverage, and reporters worked harder to break real stories. That competition fueled innovation — in rankings methodology, recruiting databases, video content, and more.

Remove that competition, and the industry calcifies.

Imagine a world where a three-star bump or drop is made by a single editorial board with no external check. Where fans are fed the same narrative across every site because there’s no one left to challenge it. Where an unheralded player in a remote part of the country slips through the cracks — not because he isn’t talented, but because there are fewer eyes watching.

---

The Disappearing Independent

One of the most dangerous aspects of consolidation is the quiet removal of independent voices. When national brands absorb smaller platforms, local coverage often suffers. As someone who now runs an independent site at Duck Sports Central, I’ve seen firsthand how much value boots-on-the-ground reporting brings.

In its prime at Duck Sports Authority, we knew the staff. We went to the camps. We tracked kids from their first offer to signing day. That level of commitment — of nuance — doesn’t come from a national desk churning out “Top 10 Storylines” posts. It comes from people embedded in the communities these athletes come from.

And if On3 becomes the only game in town? I would expect that kind of granular, passionate, local coverage to disappear.

---

So. What Should We Want?

This isn’t an anti-On3 rant. There are a lot of very good people working with On3.  It’s a pro-competition argument.

We should want On3 to be good. To grow. To raise the bar. But we should also want others to chase them, challenge them, and build alternatives. Because it’s in that tension — that competitive pressure — that real innovation is born.

Without it, we’re left with a monopoly. And we’ve seen how that ends in every other industry: fewer choices, higher costs, and lower quality.

If you’re a fan of college football, you should care. If you’re a parent of a recruit, you should care. If you’re a journalist trying to make a living in this space, you should really care.

Because once you let one company control the narrative, they’ll keep it — and everyone else will have to pay for the privilege of watching from the outside.