One of the biggest stories in college football over the last couple of weeks has been Texas Longhorns quarterback Arch Manning's decision to not opt in to the new EA Spots College Football game that's set to be released later this summer.
Manning, who will serve as Quinn Ewers' primary backup in 2024, reportedly wants to wait until he's "the guy" at Texas to opt in to the game.
Players who opt in to the game receive $600 and a copy of the game.
College football analyst Mike Farrell (previously of Rivals.com) went scorched earth on Manning's decision on MikeFarrellSports.com on Monday.
Farrell called Arch "overrated", questioned if the young quarterback is afraid of competing, and suggested that Arch and his circle "aren't very bright".
From MikeFarrellSports.com: Manning is already overrated. I’ve said that many times. If his name were Arch Smith and you watched his high school film at that awful level of competition, you’d 3-star him. But alas, people fall for the last name and hype. I made him a 4-star because of the last name and pedigree, so I guess I’m guilty as well, but for almost everyone to have him No. 1 overall and a 5-star plus or whatever, that seems odd to me. But that ship has sailed. Manning barely played as a freshman this past season at Texas and was third-string. And he’d still be third string had Maalik Murphy decided to stay and settle for a backup role. But with Murphy off to Duke, Manning is the one staying and settling. Is he a competitor? Who knows? But he and his circle aren’t very bright: I know that.
Ouch. Calling the Mannings, which is Arch's circle, not very bright is an odd move. Peyton, Arch's uncle, has been quite successful on and off the field. He won two Super Bowls in the NFL and his production company (Omaha Productions) is responsible for the ever-popular ManningCast on select Monday nights and several other popular television/internet series.
Peyton's net worth is reportedly north of $250 million. And Eli, Arch's other uncle, reportedly has a net worth north of $160 million.
They're doing pretty well for a couple of guys who "aren't very bright".
Farrell ultimately believes that the Mannings are "posturing" by keeping Arch out of this year's version of the game.
"Let’s be clear. This is a posture. This is a stance. The Mannings know his name is too big for $600 and a copy of the game, and they don’t want to give EA his NIL rights for peanuts," wrote Farrell. "But they also don’t want to be compensated for pushing the game as many others are because he’s not a starter. Imagine Manning pushing this product as a nothing backup. Embarrassing."
Farrell is probably on to something there. And while I agree that Arch could've quietly opted in and avoided this whole offseason story, I also understand the move from a business sense. Arch Manning promoting this game hits on a different level than a random ACC backup quarterback promoting the game. Paying Arch $600 to use his name, image, and likeness would be one of the best business deals of all time for EA Sports (and a terrible one for Manning).
If Arch opted out of the game -- instead of negotiating a lucrative deal with EA Sports -- out of respect for Ewers (who, again, is the starter at Texas), then that's a respectable decision.
Obviously the game would be better with one of the biggest names in the sport included. And while I wish Arch could've found some middle ground with EA Sports and opted in to the game, I at least understand his decision.
Arch and the Mannings probably could've handled this better. And maybe they'll still find a way to make it work before the game is released this summer.
But suggesting that Arch and his circle "aren't very bright" is a low blow from Farrell.
Though that probably shouldn't come as a surprise considering Farrell is one of the few people on this planet (maybe the only person on this planet) that's thrown shade at former Tennessee Vols offensive lineman Trey Smith.
More must-reads: