I've seen a lot of indignant comments from readers asking why The Athletic is writing so much about Bill Belichick and Jordon Hudson. It's a reasonable question. Though I'd point out these comments are being posted at the bottom of a Belichick-Hudson article they just read.

So I think they answered their own question.

Note: Submitted questions have been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Does Belichick coach a game for UNC? And if he does, will his private life be permanently forgotten the instant the game against TCU kicks off? -- Melissa B.

I got several questions to this effect. I'd recommend pumping the brakes. UNC has invested way too much in Belichick and his program -- $20 million in staff salaries alone -- to turn around and dismantle it six months later. I've seen references by various media outlets to his buyout dropping from $10 million to $1 million on June 1, but that's what Belichick would owe if he leaves. The school would owe him closer to $30 million if it were to part ways with him now.

As for the possibility of firing him for cause, what is the cause, exactly? Hiring his meddling, much-younger girlfriend to be his manager? Unless he secretly put her on the UNC payroll, that's not exactly a fireable offense. Causing negative publicity for the university? I'd contend it's been far more negative toward Belichick and his girlfriend than it has for UNC.

I assume all parties will proceed to kickoff and hope the Hudson story falls to the wayside, as most offseason controversies do. And it probably will -- if the Tar Heels win. Any honeymoon Belichick might have been afforded if his first season goes like Deion Sanders' did at Colorado has been taken off the table. People are questioning whether Belichick's judgment might be a bit off now that he has reached the twilight of his career. I can only imagine the narrative if UNC starts 2-4.

I've seen other comparisons to Deion, in that he brought a lot of attention to Colorado football that it had not previously enjoyed. But the situations aren't remotely similar. Love him or hate him, Deion created excitement for a previously irrelevant program, to the tune of sellout crowds and record TV ratings. I don't get the sense that even UNC fans are excited about the program right now. I've seen quite a few comments in our Belichick/Hudson stories from UNC fans saying they're embarrassed about their coach.

That will change in a hurry if the Tar Heels win, of course. Winning cures everything. But if not, it may be apathy, much more so than Hudson, that could make for a brief tenure.

With the news of a presidential commission in college sports led by Nick Saban and Texas Tech booster Cody Campbell, the question that jumps to mind is what, exactly, do these guys want at the end of all this? And how aligned are their interests? Saban's public comments imply he mostly regrets the loss of power that he and coaches like him had. Campbell claims, through his public editorials, that this state of college sports is unsustainable, but his actions through his collective have done as much as anyone to disrupt the system. So, what do these guys actually have in mind for all this? -- Benjamin D.

We have so few details about this developing presidential commission, so I wouldn't begin to guess what the mission is there. But as for the end game, I have that same question not just for Saban and Campbell but for every ex-coach, congressman, senator, state legislator and whoever else is out there promising to save college sports. It's one thing to hold endless hearings in which people take turns saying, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" It's another to devise actual, practical solutions.

We know what the conferences and NCAA want: an antitrust exemption, like Major League Baseball has, so they can make their own rules without being sued every 10 seconds. The primary decree being that athletes are not employees. It's an audacious ask considering even the NFL does not have a blanket antitrust exemption. People sue that league all the time.

If nothing else, we're witnessing an interesting pendulum swing politically. We got to this point in large part because legislators at the state level wanted more protection for the athletes and began enacting their own name, image and likeness laws that eventually forced the NCAA to cave. Even early interest in the issue from congressmen and senators came in the form of proposed bills that would afford athletes more access to certain benefits.

But the current push is all about restoring protections for the schools, to limit their liabilities, to give coaches more control of their rosters, etc. The pro-athlete movement was 15 years in the making, required thousands of billable hours and was achieved through a long series of modest, incremental gains.

As best I can tell, the other side does not yet have a cohesive strategy.

A recent MGoBlog post made an analogy that recruiting is the draft, and transfers are free agency. You can fill needs via free agency, but you can't build a winning team. You have to hit on draft picks. Does that analogy work when you can sort of build a team (a la 2023 FSU, 2024 Ole Miss) that can win via transfers only? -- Kyle L.

That's exactly right.

Transfer rules were relaxed in April 2021. Look at the teams to win national championships since then. Georgia in 2021 and '22 was built almost entirely with homegrown players. Michigan in 2023 had a few key transfers, especially on the offensive line, but pretty much every household name on that team spent three to four years in the program. And then came Ohio State last year. Ryan Day certainly went big in free agency by getting Will Howard, Caleb Downs and Quinshon Judkins, but the core of that team was still a whole bunch of guys who came in as freshmen (Josh Sawyer, TreVeyon Henderson, Cody Simon and others).

Now, there are plenty of examples of teams like Colorado that built their entire roster through free agency and had very good seasons -- in the Buffs' case, a 9-4 season. But 9-4 at one school is not necessarily a success at another. Which is why I wouldn't use Ole Miss as a shining example.

Lane Kiffin and the Grove Collective spent a lot of money in the 2023 and '24 portal cycles to try to build the Rebels into a CFP team and still fell short. And it wasn't for lack of talent. Kiffin went out and got a future first-round quarterback in Jaxson Dart (who was there for three years, so effectively a draft pick), star receiver Tre Harris and a bunch of stud D-linemen who helped build Ole Miss into an elite defensive team. Only to lose to Kentucky at home and finish 10-3.

Now, Ole Miss has to start over. Whereas Ohio State's championship run began with all those juniors from the 2023 team opting to return for another year, Kiffin will rely heavily on another crop of transfers and hope he has as good of a hit rate or better than he did with the last ones. That's a tough formula to maintain year after year. The more common strategy might be for a coach taking over a new program to rely heavily on free agents to be impactful immediately while waiting on his draft picks to develop.

What level of football do I have to watch to find something roughly equivalent to CFB in the 20th century, where the focus is on regional conference rivalries and the postseason is a bonus exhibition rather than the dominant focal point of the entire year? Is that the FCS? Division II? Does it even exist? -- Dan M., Washington, D.C.

You'll find plenty of regional conferences at the lower levels. Start following the Big Sky, where everyone is in the Pacific or Mountain time zones, and you get great rivalries like Montana-Montana State and Idaho-Idaho State.

But a form of football that treats the postseason like a bonus exhibition? I'm not sure that's ever existed in any American sport outside of major college football in the old bowl system. You could, however, get into more European football, where they generally have no postseasons at all, just endless tournaments between countries and clubs that have little connection to their actual seasons.

Just like bowl games.

Ralph Russo brought up a good point on "The Audible" podcast about the "slow drip" of college football moving to a super league, with the top teams (like Clemson-Notre Dame) scheduling each other. Who needs whom more: blue blood programs (Ohio State, Georgia, Texas, etc.) or conferences? -- Rob W., Columbia, SC

The concessions the ACC made to appease Florida State and Clemson would indicate the conference needed those schools more than the other way around, even with those schools supposedly locked into the league's Grant of Rights for another decade. But that doesn't mean the same is true for the Big Ten and SEC.

Suppose Alabama and Georgia decided they want out of the SEC and found a way to do it tomorrow. Obviously, it would hurt the SEC. But by how much, really? ESPN would still pay that league a lot of money for the rights to show games between Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Florida, Tennessee and several other big brands. The football product itself might be hurt in the short term, but the SEC was pretty good when Nick Saban got to Alabama or Kirby Smart got to Georgia.

The Big Ten would be in a tougher position if Ohio State and Michigan left, both because they are cash cows and because so much of that conference's identity is tied to its "Big Two." Even then, though, the conference would not fall to pieces. It would still have 16 schools, including Penn State, USC, Oregon and Nebraska. (Yes, Nebraska is still a decent TV draw.) It would no longer be in the same ballpark as the SEC competitively or financially, but it would remain plenty attractive to TV partners.

But I'm skeptical even Ohio State and Michigan have the leverage to strike out on their own and pull a Notre Dame. I'm sure they could put together an attractive independent schedule full of home-and-homes with P4 programs. But would they really make more money than they do from the Big Ten? Notre Dame gets some financial advantage from being an independent. They do it because it's such an important part of the school's identity.

Also, where would Ohio State, for one, park its other 35 sports? The Big Ten would not be rushing to lend a hand if it were to defect.

A more realistic possibility that falls short of a full-on super league is more stratification within conferences, like we're seeing in the ACC. Would anyone be surprised if, come 2030, when the Big Ten's TV deal expires, Ohio State, Michigan and a few other schools negotiate a bigger share of revenue for themselves, at the expense of Northwestern and Purdue? They get the concession that they bring more value to the conference without the risks that come with going independent or some other radical option.

What would be considered a successful season for Florida State after last year's disaster? What would put Mike Norvell's seat in jeopardy? -- Esteban G., Jacksonville, Fla.

Get to a bowl game. This isn't the old days, when it might take you three or four years of new recruiting classes to turn a 2-10 program into a 7-5 program. Everyone now is always one great portal class from a quick turnaround, and Norvell's class of 23 transfers is ranked No. 6 on 247Sports. (Fair warning: Last year's was ranked No. 7, and you saw how that turned out.)

At the same time, no one should expect to go from 3-9 to 11-2 overnight, as Indiana did last year. It was an extreme outlier. (The Hoosiers also had a new coach.) Even at a brand-name school like Florida State, you'd hope the fan base can accept a more realistic year-over-year goal of just getting back to .500.

The Noles made some clear upgrades on the offensive line with Ole Miss' Micah Pettus and Wake Forest's Luke Pettibon. Former USC receiver Duce Robinson was a big-time recruit in 2023 but got somewhat lost in the shuffle there. He'll likely get more opportunities at FSU. Nebraska edge James Williams was a big get on the D-line. One of the biggest additions may be Houston cornerback Jeremiah Wilson, who came in after spring camp.

My biggest concern for FSU is at quarterback. A year after Norvell's baffling decision to go all in on the underachieving DJ Uiagalelei, he chose another guy he's seen up close in the ACC: ex-Boston College starter Tommy Castellanos. He's a talented dual-threat guy who had his moments over the past two years. Bill O'Brien benched him before BC's stretch run last season, at which point he immediately left the team. I'm not convinced he'll be FSU's savior.

And then there's the guy who will be calling plays for him: Gus Malzahn. Interesting OC choice by Norvell, who will be giving up play calling this year. I'm not for or against the hire, but I wonder if Malzahn's reputation as an offensive genius has stretched a bit beyond its peak. His past two UCF units were ranked in the top 20 nationally in yards per play, thanks in large part to stud running back R.J. Harvey. Quarterback play, on the other hand, was not anything special.

But again, if this crew can string together six or seven wins, great. It's a nice bridge to 2026. If, on the other hand, it's something like 4-8, FSU boosters might be passing the hat to afford Norvell's $60 million-plus buyout.

What is stopping the NCAA -- or the SEC, with its even more restrictive numbers -- from dropping the roster limits from the House settlement? Why is it not going back to scholarship and roster limits being two distinct and separate discussions? -- Brian H., Oakton, Va.

The NCAA argument is that roster limits are necessary for competitive balance. In the past, scholarship limits essentially served that purpose. Yes, teams have walk-ons that allow them to have bigger rosters than 85, but those are generally guys who can't get a scholarship elsewhere. If you say schools can give out as many scholarships as they want and put as many guys on their roster as they want, theoretically, Alabama could have 150 scholarship players while its opponents have 85.

I think we can agree that would be silly.

The more confusing part is how the settlement of a multibillion-dollar antitrust case that was specifically focused on the issue of NIL backpay is being used to determine how many athletes can play for college water polo teams. But that's for smarter legal minds than me to address.

Oasis reunion tour or Rilo Kiley reunion tour? -- Dan G., Los Angeles

Hard to say. There are few bands I detest more than Oasis, but I'm also not that familiar with Rilo Kiley. And by "not that familiar," I mean "hadn't heard of them until reading this question."

If I go to an NFL game and a receiver on "my" team drops an easy TD, I'm going to vocally express my displeasure with him. What if I go to a Penn State vs. Ohio State game and a Penn State receiver drops an easy TD? We've mostly lived by the "no booing student-athletes" mantra in the past, but given the money in the game nowadays, are the cuffs off? Or should I feel bad if I do this to a student-athlete? -- John H., State College, Pa.

I'm not here to tell you who you should or shouldn't boo. You spent the money on the ticket. It's your right to choose how you behave. Just don't embarrass yourself with nasty DMs to college athletes on social media. Zero tolerance for that stuff.

@John H. If a Penn State receiver can get open enough to drop an easy touchdown, I'm calling that a win. -- Jason K.

That's a good point, too.

Programming note: This will be my last mailbag for a few weeks due to The Athletic college football staff's offsite meetings next week, followed by some vacation time. Let's see how many more Belichick-Hudson stories emerge while I'm out.