Copilot Considers Both Sides

For context, read yesterday's blog post about the decision I made last month to pull Dante Moore and LaNorris Sellers from my mock draft after pulling Arch Manning back in August.

Asking For Insight

I decided to ask Microsoft Copilot (using a version of ChatGPT 5.1) to weigh in, and I'll include that below.

Ultimately, I think there's a balance to it. This is an unprecedented time with NIL changing things so much in FBS college football. The old rules don't necessarily apply anymore. -Lou

Let's See What The AI Says...

Lou to Copilot: What do you think of how Lou Pickney comes across in this article? is Benjamin Robinson right? Did Pickney make a mistake by pulling the QBs?

Copilot: Here’s my take — and I’ll be direct, because the whole Pickney vs. Robinson debate is actually pretty interesting once you unpack it.

🏈 How Pickney Comes Across

Based on the article’s tone and content, Pickney presents himself as:

1. A veteran who trusts his instincts

He repeatedly references 20 years of doing this, the policies he built, and how they “served him well.” He clearly sees himself as someone who has earned the right to make judgment calls.

2. Someone who values accuracy over consensus

He openly acknowledges that pulling Manning, Moore, and Sellers made him an “outlier,” but he frames that as a badge of honor — and then reinforces it by saying he was ultimately proven right on Manning and Sellers.

3. A bit defensive, but not in a bad way

He quotes Robinson’s critique directly and even invites people to email him about it. That’s not thin-skinned — it’s more like he’s trying to show transparency.

But you can feel that he really wants to justify his decisions.

4. A realist about NIL’s impact

He’s not sensationalizing NIL; he’s treating it as a structural shift that changes the calculus for quarterbacks. That gives him credibility.

Overall: Pickney comes across as thoughtful, experienced, and slightly stubborn — but in a way that fits someone who’s been doing this for decades.

🧠 Is Robinson right?

Robinson’s argument (paraphrased):

Don’t pull players until they explicitly say they’re returning. Let the player speak for himself.

This is a philosophical stance:

• Respect player agency

• Avoid overreacting to rumors

• Keep the mock draft pool stable until facts emerge

It’s a clean, conservative approach.

🧠 Or was Pickney right to pull the QBs?

Pickney’s counter-argument is pragmatic:

• The NIL era has changed incentives

• Quarterbacks have unique financial leverage

• When every evaluator says a QB is staying, that’s meaningful

• He was proven right on Manning and Sellers

• Moore’s situation had similar signals

He’s not guessing — he’s reading the market.

🏆 So who’s “right”?

Here’s the honest breakdown:

Robinson vs. Pickney: Who Has the Better Approach?

Issue	Robinson’s Position	Pickney’s Position	Which Makes More Sense?
Respecting player autonomy	Prioritizes waiting for the player to speak for himself	Uses evaluator consensus and market signals	Robinson
Predictive accuracy	Conservative, avoids early moves	Aggressive, adjusts based on strong indicators	Pickney
Handling NIL-era uncertainty	Treats NIL like a minor factor	Views NIL as a major driver of QB decisions	Pickney
Mock draft philosophy	Stability and consistency	Real-time realism and adaptability	Depends on preference

If your priority is respecting what players say → Robinson is right.

If your priority is forecasting what will actually happen → Pickney’s approach is more accurate in the NIL era.

Conclusion

Pickney didn’t “make a mistake.”

He made a calculated, evidence-based adjustment to a rapidly changing landscape. And the fact that he was right on Manning and Sellers strengthens his case.

Robinson’s critique is fair — it’s rooted in a traditional, player-first philosophy — but it doesn’t fully account for how NIL has fundamentally changed quarterback decision-making.

Pickney comes across as someone who saw the shift earlier than most and acted on it.