Dropback

What do they actually do

Dropback builds a web app for college athletic departments that replaces the spreadsheets and disconnected tools staff use to evaluate players and manage rosters. In one workspace, teams can ingest scouting/data feeds, apply custom valuation models, run roster and cap scenarios, and turn a prospect into a proposed contract for tracking and handoff front‑office product page, NextGen integration, webinar.

They also offer back‑office features and a migration program to help departments move from incumbent GM tools, including support to import data and cover remaining contract costs during the switch back‑office page, compare/teamworks. The product is live with public demos/webinars and a free trial/demo flow for departments to try it in real workflows homepage, webinar.

Who are their target customer(s)

• General managers / front‑office decision‑makers: They stitch together spreadsheets, email, and separate apps to evaluate players and propose deals, which slows down moving a prospect from scouting to a proposed contract front‑office product page, webinar.
• Roster managers and cap analysts: They struggle to model roster and cap outcomes under new revenue‑sharing rules; most optimization and what‑if planning is manual in current tools. Dropback announced cap workflows and Day‑1 revenue‑sharing support for this use case caps support.
• Scouts and recruiting analysts: They spend time importing and reconciling scouting data from multiple vendors and spreadsheets and lack consistent valuation models. Dropback integrates feeds (e.g., NextGen) and exposes fields in its valuation tools to reduce manual work NextGen integration, front‑office product page.
• Back‑office / operations staff for contracts and payroll: Migrating contracts, covering legacy tool costs, and keeping payroll accurate during a platform switch is a major operational burden. Dropback provides back‑office features and an explicit migration program to import data and offset remaining costs back‑office page, compare/teamworks.
• Athletic department executives at Power‑4 and Group‑of‑5 programs: They want pro‑grade tooling beyond ad‑hoc spreadsheets but worry about vendor fit, integrations, and replacing entrenched systems. Dropback positions for elite programs and has run demos across major conferences YC profile, introducing blog.

How would they acquire their first 10, 50, and 100 customers

• First 10: Founder‑led outreach via YC/network intros to elite programs, run hands‑on pilots ingesting real scouting feeds and producing roster/cap scenarios; remove switching friction with migration support and covering remaining legacy‑tool costs webinar, compare/teamworks.
• First 50: Turn pilot wins into case studies and playbooks, hire account reps for targeted outreach across Power‑4/G5, and co‑sell with data partners (e.g., NextGen) while productizing migration; use webinars and conference demos to drive inbound NextGen integration, webinar.
• First 100: Expand sport coverage and back‑office features to sell as a full Teamworks/GM replacement; add channel partners (conference offices, data vendors, cap‑consultants) and offer self‑serve trials with templated models to speed onboarding, leveraging cap workflows and integrations as partner credentials caps support, back‑office.

What is the rough total addressable market

Top-down context:

There are 350+ NCAA Division I athletic departments, and 134 FBS football programs that represent the highest‑spending segment of college athletics NCAA Division I members, EA: 134 FBS teams in 2024.

Bottom-up calculation:

Initial SAM focus: ~134 FBS athletic departments × assumed ACV $60k–$120k/year = ~$8–$16M. Expanded TAM: ~350+ Division I departments × the same ACV range = ~$21–$42M.

Assumptions:

• Sold per athletic department (one contract) rather than per team/sport.
• ACV range reflects enterprise SaaS for elite programs replacing multiple tools; exact pricing not disclosed.
• Assumes potential full adoption within FBS initially, with expansion across Division I over time.

Who are some of their notable competitors

• Teamworks: Broad athletics operations platform used by elite sports; has consolidated collegiate tools (e.g., acquired ARMS in 2023 and Front Rush’s inventory management in 2024) ARMS acquisition, Front Rush TRAC acquisition.
• ARMS Software (Teamworks): Recruiting, compliance, and operations platform widely used in collegiate athletics; acquired by Teamworks in 2023 ARMS acquisition.
• Front Rush (Teamworks): Recruiting/operations software brand in college athletics; elements have been integrated into Teamworks through acquisitions (e.g., FR TRAC) Front Rush TRAC acquisition.
• Microsoft Excel (status quo): The de‑facto tool many programs rely on for scouting data, roster planning, and budgeting, leading to manual, error‑prone workflows compared with integrated suites.
• Hudl: Video and performance analysis platform widely used in college sports; adjacent to Dropback’s scouting/analysis workflows and competes for staff time and budget CB Insights competitor landscape.