NIL

Insights from Top NIL Supporters at the Group of 5 Level

Published

7 months ago

May 24, 2025

Insights from Top NIL Supporters at the Group of 5 Level

To understand the evolving attitudes of athletics donors at the Group of 5 level, I conducted my final interview with a top NIL donor in April 2025. He was thinking about the major shifts in athlete talent redistribution driven by changes in NIL and the transfer portal.

“From my perspective it is a no-win situation. It starts when I give money to NIL. The coach uses it to pay better players. The coach then leaves for a pay raise and takes all the players with him, and you have nothing to show for it. I would rather just give money to the university.”

He closed with: “Do not BS me with this ‘student-athlete thing’ anymore.”

This donor is not the only NIL supporter to have this point of view. Things have certainly changed in the NIL era, and I empathize with the challenges facing my fundraising friends, particularly at the Group of 5-level.

As more revenue is needed to fuel a championship-level athletic department in the revenue share era, it is important to reexamine one of the biggest sources of revenue: major gift-level donors. Motivations have changed.

The Importance of Major Gift Donors in the NIL Era

Since the start of the NIL-era in 2021, collectives have diversified revenue sources to a mixed degree. Fundraising events, concerts, raffles, on-line auctions, partnerships with businesses, and memberships are much more common now than three years ago.

While these sources provide what is essentially complementary funding, the consensus is that major gifts still account for most of the NIL revenue for programs. Most estimations have major gifts at 70-80% of the overall revenue mix. The importance of major gifts can get lost in the ever-crowded NIL news, but make no mistake, major gifts are the most relevant revenue source.

A major NIL gift varies by program: $100,000+ for the Big Ten or SEC, and $25,000+ for the Group of 5. Regardless of level, big gifts matter. The top five to ten gifts each year are crucial for fundraising and competitive success.

Noted NIL investors, such as Cody Campbell of Texas Tech and Mike Repole of St. John’s, have received well-deserved publicity for their support. But I strongly suspect that the NIL funding success of hundreds of programs in NCAA Division I, including the Group of 5 level, are due to many under-the-radar major gift donors.

Clearly, most programs are not blessed with the level of NIL support that Campbell or Repole have provided their alma maters; however, most programs have their own top donors. The numbers are different, but it is relative.

The Attitudes of Top Group of 5 NIL Supporters

Major college athletics has changed so rapidly that even highly engaged donors do not fully understand the long-term transformation expected with the House settlement.

To get a better understanding of donor motivation, a flash survey was sent to 15 of the top NIL investors from a total of 11 Group of 5-level universities. Each of the 15 individuals polled are among the top five NIL donors at their related institution. Further, each of the Group of 5 conferences was represented in the feedback.

Each of the 15 major NIL investors were posed one question: “What is your biggest motivator to invest in NIL at the highest level?”

The donors had six options to answer the question:

I want to help athletes.
I want to help the coach(es).
I want to help the athletic department and AD.
I want to help the university.
I want to win.
All the above.

Not surprisingly, the most common answer from the major donors was F, “All the above.”

The second most common answer was E, “I want to win.” One donor, affiliated with a Mountain West program wrote, “Not to complicate it. I support NIL to win which in turn will help the university.”

More interesting feedback came from another donor, who is a top NIL donor to a different Mountain West program:

“Honestly, all except A (‘I want to help athletes’) for me. I agree with that statement, but it is for sure last on the list. Purely from a financial standpoint, all students – athlete or not – need to use college to figure their sh*t out. I do not believe anyone should have that financial burden or pressure to help that kid except for themselves and their family.

“NIL is a handout, probably more so at the top end. Easy money now, but (what) does it teach (about) work ethic? If an athlete wants to go out to book appearances and market for a brand, I am all for that, but I believe it should be independent of the school. I understand why we got here, and I hate it.”

For decades fundraisers emphasized, or often led with, “athlete impact” in their compelling narrative to donors. Supported by data from donors in the flash poll, coupled with other data collected during more than 20 consulting engagements by Penry Advisors in the last two years, it is imperative for fundraisers to reshape the traditional giving narrative for college athletics.

The momentous change in college athletics is clear to donors. It has shifted their focus more towards competitive success. Donors have realized that their investments catalyze the success of the most visible marketing arm of universities: athletics, which in turn paints the university in the most positive light. As the donor above candidly shares, their support of athletics has less to do with impacting athlete lives and more broadly the success of programs and universities. This represents a shift in fundraising strategy.

Combating Donor Fatigue

Not all donors have embraced the NIL era. One reason is the belief that NIL does not support athletes’ educational success, a shift from traditional fundraising strategies. However, donors are embracing the changing narrative.

A second reason donors have been slower to embrace investment in the NIL world is because some athletic departments were slow to embrace NIL. The slow-to-embrace approach by departments was often well-intentioned and done out of caution. However, as I often remind clients, “When NIL (or rev share) is not fully embraced internally, how can we expect donors to fully embrace it?”

The well-respected consulting firm Advancement Resources has stated that donor fatigue stems from fundraising organizations continuously asking for loyalty gifts and not for gifts that donors have great interest in making. So then, how can leaders and fundraisers reshape a giving narrative that is interesting and compelling for the present day? While college athletics is different, many of its redeeming qualities remain. A refined narrative is not a desirable, it is a requirement for fundraising success.

Donor fatigue is real and should not be minimized. However, I have found people that possess great wealth will give almost anything if you treat them right and have a compelling vision and plan. They want to be inspired and make an impact.

The Plan: Donor Strategy in the Revenue Share Era

Major gift donors will continue to lead in the revenue share era. Because of the fungible nature of operating budgets, ultimately more revenue via donor funds equals more money to invest in a winning program.

I once read that fundraising legend Si Seymour famously said, “Support flows to promising programs rather than needy” organizations. Investors want to know the plan to thrive.

A plan must articulate an optimistic and realistic path of competitive success moving forward. It also needs to outline the role donors will play in achieving success. A compelling narrative will both reset expectations and create more interest for donors.

Donors know the college athletics landscape has changed, but often they are unaware of the path forward. Supporters, particularly for the Group of 5-level schools, want to know how leaders envision their school as being relevant and thriving in a massively changing landscape that seems to favor those with the most resources.

Emphasis on Excellence Funds

Recently, the creation or reemphasis on unrestricted excellence funds has become a key trend. These funds, such as UNT’s Green Lights Fund, UConn’s Fight On Fund, and Temple’s Competitive Excellence Fund, aim for competitive success and athlete retention.

For many programs, these donor-supported funds will essentially replace the donor funding now funneled through collectives. An in-house effort has two substantial benefits: better coordination of fundraising efforts and seamless donor benefits (e.g., tax deductibility, priority points, stewardship).

Leadership Giving Societies

Strategically, to generate more interest and funding, revenue share giving – via excellence funds – has been paired with a new or existing annual fund leadership giving society. These giving societies frequently provide unique benefits and experiences to incentivize top-level annual giving. Now over half Group of 5 level athletic departments have leadership annual giving societies, and this trend continues to proliferate.

New Scholarships

For traditional donors to college athletics, there is good news. With the expected House settlement, coaches can now scholarship entire rosters. For example, baseball can now give 34 scholarships instead of the current limit of 11.7. Further, programs can count $2.5 million a year in newly funded scholarships towards the revenue share cap of approximately $20.5 million. Scholarships are a fantastic menu item to get donors more connected to the department and are often a pathway to attract new major gift donors.

Donor motivations vary; but most donors want to know they are making a difference to produce more competitive sport programs. Unrestricted excellence or enhancement funds, annual fund leadership giving societies, and expanded scholarship programs are three areas that will have impact on competitive success in this new era.

Takeaways

Big gifts are the largest revenue source for most NIL collectives and will significantly impact the revenue share era. Top-level donors provide a competitive advantage.
To combat donor fatigue, leaders must reshape the giving narrative with new expectations and optimism, emphasizing competitive success.
To invest at the highest level, donors to know how leaders envision their school will be relevant and thrive in the significantly changed landscape.

Jason Penry has 20 years of experience in consulting for universities. Penry was the second-ever holder of the James W. Aston ’33 University Chair in Institutional Development, established in 1985, at Texas A&M University. Penry spent over a decade in university leadership as a chief advancement officer/vice president/vice chancellor at Arkansas State and Angelo State/Texas Tech System.

NIL

No. 1 transfer portal QB heavily linked to three major college football programs

Published

45 minutes ago

January 2, 2026

Your Sports Nation

Former Michigan State transfer Sam Leavitt officially entered the NCAA transfer portal on Friday with a “do not contact” tag, meaning schools can’t reach out unless Leavitt or his camp makes the first move.

Leavitt burst onto the national scene in 2024 after transferring to Arizona State, establishing himself as the Sun Devils’ starter and finishing the season with 2,885 passing yards, 24 touchdowns and six interceptions, while adding 443 rushing yards and five scores as a true dual-threat.

He helped fuel ASU’s 11–3 finish and first-ever College Football Playoff appearance, earning Big 12 Offensive Freshman of the Year and second-team All-Big 12 honors.

Leavitt followed that up with solid production in 2025, throwing for 1,628 yards, 10 touchdowns and three interceptions while adding 300 rushing yards and five scores, though he was limited to just seven games after a lingering foot injury required season-ending surgery on October 31.

Before coming to college, Leavitt starred at West Linn High School in West Linn, Oregon, as a consensus four-star prospect and the No. 21 quarterback in the 2024 class per 247Sports, choosing Michigan State over offers from Washington State, Arizona, Florida State, and Washington.

With the transfer portal set to open at midnight Friday, On3’s Pete Nakos and Steve Wiltfong provided the latest intel on programs showing early interest, reporting that three schools have emerged as primary contenders for Leavitt — Miami, Oregon, and LSU — as the No. 1-ranked quarterback in the portal.

Arizona State Sun Devils quarterback Sam Leavitt. — Arizona State Sun Devils quarterback Sam Leavitt (10) celebrates with head coach Kenny Dillingham after their win against TCU Horned Frogs | Jacob Reiner-Imagn Images

Oregon, Miami, and LSU each present a compelling scheme and situational fit for Leavitt.

Oregon offers a home-region landing spot with an offense built to maximize his mobility and timing with playmakers, while Miami provides a high-visibility ACC platform and a scheme well-suited for an accurate, aggressive quarterback as the Hurricanes continue to explore veteran portal options.

LSU also looms as a logical destination, with Lane Kiffin’s new staff actively working the portal and seeking an immediate upgrade at quarterback, where Leavitt’s experience and draftable traits would fit seamlessly.

It’s also worth noting that Oregon and Miami are both CFP semifinalists set to lose their starting quarterbacks, creating a rare opportunity for Leavitt to step into a title-contending environment right away.

NIL

College Football TV Ratings: Pop-Tarts Bowl draws 8.7 million viewers as non-CFP viewership increases

Published

2 hours ago

January 2, 2026

Your Sports Nation

Through the first part of Bowl Season, ESPN has seen strong returns on its non-College Football Playoff games. The biggest one, of course, was the Pop-Tarts Bowl.

An average of 8.7 million people tuned in for the game, which saw BYU take down Georgia Tech on ABC, ESPN announced. It’s the best viewership for the game since 1991, when it was the Blockbuster Bowl, and became ESPN’s best non-CFP bowl game since the 2019-2020 Citrus Bowl.

SUBSCRIBE to the On3 NIL and Sports Business Newsletter

As a whole, ESPN’s bowl game viewership is up 13% for non-College Football Playoff games through Dec. 27, the network announced. On the whole, 2.7 million people on average have tuned in as multiple games drew strong numbers.

BYU’s victory over Georgia Tech came down to the final seconds as the Yellow Jackets fell short on the final possession. The Cougars then had the opportunity to partake in one of college football’s newest – and most popular – traditions. Head coach Kalani Sitake and the players got to eat one of the edible mascots after two of the three went into the toaster.

Protein Slammin’ Strawberry was the one who “escaped” beforehand, though. Officials for the Pop-Tarts Bowl game said it was the decision to “go pro,” which brought a new twist to the celebration.

The Pinstripe Bowl between Penn State and Clemson drew its best viewership on record as 7.6 million people tuned in for the Nittany Lions’ victory over the Tigers. Additionally, the Gator Bowl hit 6.0 million viewers on average – its best figure since 2009. Virginia took down Missouri in that game to secure a 10-win season for the Cavaliers.

At 4.4 million viewers, the Rate Bowl also drew its highest numbers since 2011 as Minnesota picked up yet another bowl game victory over P.J. Fleck, taking down New Mexico. The L.A. Bowl went out on a high note with a new record-high of 3.8 million viewers tuning in for Washington’s win against Boise State in the final installment of the game, as On3’s Brett McMurphy previously reported.

Three other bowl games drew record viewership, as well, according to ESPN. The First Responder Bowl between FIU and UTSA brought in 3.1 million viewers to set a new all-time high, while the Hawaii Bowl averaged 2.7 million viewers for Cal’s thrilling win over Hawaii on Christmas Eve. That made it the most-watched Hawaii Bowl since 2013. Finally, the Military Bowl averaged 2.5 million – its best since 2018 – as East Carolina took down Pitt.

Link

NIL

Two college football programs going ‘head-to-head’ to land $2.4 million QB

Published

3 hours ago

January 2, 2026

Your Sports Nation

Quarterback Brendan Sorsby emerged as a productive, efficient starter for Cincinnati in 2025, throwing for 2,800 yards and 27 touchdowns against five interceptions, while adding 580 rushing yards and nine rushing scores on the ground, completing 61.6% of his passes across 12 games.

The Bearcats finished 7–5 overall (5–4 in Big 12 play) under third-year head coach Scott Satterfield, marking a two-win improvement from the previous season and the program’s best finish since the Luke Fickell era.

However, Sorsby informed Cincinnati of his intent to enter the transfer portal ahead of the window opening, which runs from January 2 to January 16.

A Denton, Texas, native from Lake Dallas High School, Sorsby was rated a three-star recruit and the No. 66 quarterback in the 247Sports Composite rankings for the 2022 cycle, initially committing to Indiana over offers from Army, Delaware, Navy, and East Texas A&M.

With the Hoosiers (2022–23), Sorsby redshirted in 2022 and appeared in just one game before playing in 10 contests in 2023, throwing for 1,587 yards, 15 touchdowns, and five interceptions while showcasing his dual-threat ability with 276 rushing yards and four rushing scores.

He transferred to Cincinnati ahead of the 2024 season and quickly established himself as the Bearcats’ starter, posting a career high 2,813 passing yards alongside 18 passing touchdowns, and seven interceptions, plus 447 rushing yards and nine rushing TDs, before another strong finish in 2025 that solidified him as one of the more proven quarterbacks in the transfer portal.

With the portal opening Friday at midnight, On3 reporters Pete Nakos and Steve Wiltfong flagged Texas Tech as an early frontrunner while identifying LSU as a competing suitor, describing the two programs as going “head-to-head” to land Sorsby.

Shortly after, ESPN’s Pete Thamel reported that Sorsby already has visits lined up with both programs, with the quarterback set to visit Texas Tech late Friday before heading to Baton Rouge.

Texas Tech Red Raiders head coach Joey McGuire. — Texas Tech Red Raiders head coach Joey McGuire looks on from the sidelines against the Oregon Ducks | Sam Navarro-Imagn Images

Texas Tech offers an immediate schematic fit for Sorsby, operating a pass-heavy, vertical offense under Joey McGuire’s staff, while also providing geographic proximity to his Texas roots.

Furthermore, the Red Raiders are expected to have a clear opening at quarterback with senior starter Behren Morton set to move on, creating a direct path to early playing time.

LSU, meanwhile, presents a different but equally compelling case, offering SEC competition, greater national exposure, and a proven track record of developing transfer quarterbacks under head coach Lane Kiffin, notably Ole Miss’ Trinidad Chambliss and now New York Giants QB Jaxson Dart.

With the portal window opening at midnight, typical transfer timelines point to visits and official meetings taking place quickly, with a commitment potentially coming within days to a few weeks as NIL discussions and evaluations progress.

Sorsby’s current NIL valuation sits around $2.4 million, ranking him among the top-valued quarterbacks in college football, a figure that could rise if schools escalate offers, with some suitors reportedly prepared to push past $4 million.

NIL

Patriot League Announces 2026 Football Schedule

Published

3 hours ago

January 2, 2026

Your Sports Nation

BETHLEHEM, Pa.—Fresh off an exciting postseason run to the FCS playoff semifinals, a new era will dawn for Villanova Football in 2026 as the Wildcats join the Patriot League as an associate member. The complete schedule for the League’s 41^st football season was announced by the conference office on Friday morning. The two newest additions to the Patriot League – Villanova and William & Mary – will face each other in a season-opening Week Zero (August 29) matchup.

The Patriot League expands to 10 teams for the first time, as the FCS playoff semifinalist Wildcats and Tribe join second-year member Richmond, along with Bucknell, Colgate, Fordham, Georgetown, Holy Cross, Lafayette and two-time defending champion Lehigh. The 2026 schedule features 74 total games, including 45 League matchups, with the 10-member programs playing a nine-game round-robin schedule. Villanova will continue its historical conference rivalries with William & Mary and Richmond, with home games against both foes on the Wildcats home schedule.

Villanova has an evenly balanced 2026 slate with six regular season games at home and six on the road. The non-conference schedule includes a trip to ACC member Louisville (September 11) and a road game at LIU (September 19), as well as a home date with Morgan State (September 26).

The Patriot League will continue to feature a full conference schedule to determine the League champion and automatic bid to the NCAA DI FCS Championship. Due to the odd number of League games, Patriot League programs will rotate between five and four home games during the upcoming scheduling cycle. Fordham, Holy Cross, Richmond, Villanova and William & Mary will play five home League games, while Bucknell, Colgate, Georgetown, Lafayette and Lehigh will be on the road five times during the 2026 League schedule.

Villanova compiled a record of 48-18 (.727) over the last five seasons (2021-25) while making four playoff appearances and winning 10+ games four times. Its winning percentage is the eighth highest among all FCS programs during that time span, while the Wildcats are one of just four FCS teams with 10+ wins in at least four of the last five years. Expanding the snapshot to the last 10 seasons (2016-25), Villanova owns a record of 78-40 (.661) with six playoff appearances.

PATRIOT LEAGUE FIRSTS

Villanova and William & Mary will open their Patriot League schedules on Week Zero (Aug. 29) against each other. The Wildcats will play their next League game the following week when they travel to Bucknell. The Tribe’s second League meeting will be in Week Two when they head to Lehigh.

RIVALRY WEEK

The final week of the regular season (Nov. 21) will feature meetings between historic rivals, including two of the four most-played matchups in college football. Lafayette hosts Lehigh in the 162nd meeting of “The Rivalry,” college football’s most-played rivalry game. William & Mary plays Richmond for the Capital Cup in the 137th meeting of a matchup coined “The Oldest Rivalry in the South.”

Fordham hosts Holy Cross for the Ram-Crusader Cup, in a series that began in 1902, with the trophy to be contested for the 41st time. Bucknell will host Colgate for the 74th time in a series that began in 1894, and Georgetown and Villanova meet on the gridiron for the first time since 1950, in a matchup more known for its important games on the hardwood.

FCS PLAYOFF REMATCH
For the second straight season, Patriot League Champion Lehigh will meet its previous season’s FCS Playoff opponent during the regular season as a new League rival. The Mountain Hawks travel to Villanova to take on the Wildcats in Week Eight on Oct. 24. Lehigh met Richmond to open the 2025 season.

FCS POSTSEASON SUCCESS

Eight of the 10 programs have finished ranked in the Stats Perform and AFCA FCS Coaches Poll since 2015. During that span, the 10 programs have combined to win 20 games in the FCS Playoffs, advancing to the quarterfinal round nine times, including three by Villanova and two apiece by Colgate and Richmond. Holy Cross and William & Mary have both advanced to the quarterfinals once.

For more information on the 2026 Patriot League football schedule, including times and coverage, visit the football composite schedule on the League’s official website – www.PatriotLeague.org. Follow the Patriot League on X (@PatriotLeague) and Instagram (@patriotleague) to stay connected.

2026 Patriot League Football Schedule By Week
*denotes Patriot League Game
Week 0 (Aug. 29)
Bucknell at Richmond*
Colgate at Fordham*
Lafayette at Georgetown*
Lehigh at Holy Cross*

William & Mary at Villanova*

Week 1 (Sept. 5)
Villanova at Bucknell*
Holy Cross at Colgate*
Georgetown at Lehigh*
Fordham at CCSU

Delaware State at William & Mary
Richmond at Howard
Lafayette at UConn

Week 2 (Sept. 11-12)
(Friday, Sept. 11)
Villanova at Louisville
(Saturday, Sept. 12)
Bucknell at VMI

Lehigh at William & Mary*
Georgetown — Bye
Colgate at Central Michigan
Fordham at Coastal Carolina
Holy Cross at Miami (Ohio)
Lafayette at Marist
Richmond at NC State

Week 3 (Sept. 19)
Bucknell at Penn
Georgetown at Richmond*
Colgate at Cornell
Holy Cross at Yale
Lafayette at Columbia
Lehigh at Dartmouth
Villanova at LIU

Fordham at William & Mary*

Week 4 (Sept. 26)
Bucknell at Pittsburgh
Holy Cross at Lafayette*
Colgate at Villanova*
Lehigh at Penn
Georgetown at Columbia
Fordham at Stony Brook
Richmond at Furman

William & Mary at Duke

Week 5 (Oct. 3)
Bucknell — Bye
Fordham at Lehigh*

Holy Cross at William & Mary*
Richmond at Lafayette*
Georgetown at Cornell
Morgan State at Villanova

Week 6 (Oct. 10)
Bucknell at Georgetown*
Richmond at Fordham*
Colgate — Bye
Holy Cross — Bye
Lafayette — Bye
Lehigh — Bye
Villanova — Bye

William & Mary at NC Central

Week 7 (Oct. 17)
Lafayette at Bucknell*
Georgetown at Colgate*
Villanova at Fordham*
Holy Cross at Harvard
Lehigh at Cornell
Richmond — Bye

William & Mary — Bye

Week 8 (Oct. 24)
Bucknell at Holy Cross*
Colgate at Richmond*

Georgetown at William & Mary*
Lafayette at Fordham*
Lehigh at Villanova*

Week 9 (Oct. 31)
Bucknell at Lehigh*

William & Mary at Colgate*
Richmond at Holy Cross*
Villanova at Lafayette*
Georgetown — Bye
Fordham — Bye

Week 10 (Nov. 7)
Fordham at Bucknell*
Colgate at Lehigh*
Holy Cross at Georgetown*

Lafayette at William & Mary*
Richmond at Villanova*

Week 11 (Nov. 14)

Bucknell at William & Mary*
Lafayette at Colgate*
Georgetown at Fordham*
Villanova at Holy Cross*
Lehigh at Richmond*

Week 12 (Nov. 21)
Colgate at Bucknell*
Fordham at Holy Cross*
Georgetown at Villanova*
Lehigh at Lafayette*

William & Mary at Richmond*

2026 Patriot League Football Schedules By Team
*denotes Patriot League Game
Bucknell
Week 0 (Aug. 29): at Richmond*
Week 1 (Sept. 5): Villanova*
Week 2 (Sept. 12): at VMI
Week 3 (Sept. 19): Penn
Week 4 (Sept. 26): at Pittsburgh
Week 5 (Oct. 3): Bye
Week 6 (Oct. 10): at Georgetown*
Week 7 (Oct. 17): Lafayette*
Week 8 (Oct. 24): at Holy Cross*
Week 9 (Oct. 31): at Lehigh*
Week 10 (Nov. 7): Fordham*

Week 11 (Nov. 14): at William & Mary*
Week 12 (Nov. 21): Colgate*

Colgate
Week 0: at Fordham*
Week 1: Holy Cross*
Week 2: at Central Michigan
Week 3: Cornell
Week 4: at Villanova*
Week 5: at Harvard
Week 6: Bye
Week 7: Georgetown*
Week 8: at Richmond*

Week 9: William & Mary*
Week 10: at Lehigh*
Week 11: Lafayette*
Week 12: at Bucknell*

Fordham
Week 0: Colgate*
Week 1: at CCSU
Week 2: at Coastal Carolina

Week 3: at William & Mary*
Week 4: Stony Brook
Week 5: at Lehigh*
Week 6: Richmond*
Week 7: Villanova*
Week 8: Lafayette*
Week 9: Bye
Week 10: at Bucknell*
Week 11: Georgetown*
Week 12: at Holy Cross*

Georgetown
Week 0: Lafayette*
Week 1: Lehigh*
Week 2: Bye
Week 3: at Richmond*
Week 4: Columbia
Week 5: Cornell
Week 6: Bucknell*
Week 7: at Colgate*

Week 8: at William & Mary*
Week 9: Bye
Week 10: Holy Cross*
Week 11: at Fordham*
Week 12: at Villanova*

Holy Cross
Week 0: Lehigh*
Week 1: at Colgate*
Week 2: at Miami (OH)
Week 3: Yale
Week 4: at Lafayette*

Week 5: at William & Mary*
Week 6: Bye
Week 7: at Harvard
Week 8: Bucknell*
Week 9: Richmond*
Week 10: at Georgetown*
Week 11: Villanova*
Week 12: Fordham*

Lafayette
Week 0: at Georgetown*
Week 1: at UConn
Week 2: Marist
Week 3: at Columbia
Week 4: Holy Cross*
Week 5: Richmond*
Week 6: Bye
Week 7: at Bucknell*
Week 8: at Fordham*
Week 9: Villanova*

Week 10: at William & Mary*
Week 11: at Colgate*
Week 12: Lehigh*

Lehigh
Week 0: at Holy Cross*
Week 1: at Georgetown*

Week 2: William & Mary*
Week 3: Dartmouth
Week 4: at Penn
Week 5: Fordham*
Week 6: Bye
Week 7: at Cornell
Week 8: at Villanova*
Week 9: Bucknell*
Week 10: Colgate*
Week 11: at Richmond*
Week 12: at Lafayette*

Richmond
Week 0: Bucknell*
Week 1: at Howard
Week 2: at NC State
Week 3: Georgetown*
Week 4: Furman
Week 5: at Lafayette*
Week 6: at Fordham*
Week 7: Bye
Week 8: Colgate*
Week 9: at Holy Cross*
Week 10: at Villanova*
Week 11: Lehigh*

Week 12: William & Mary*

Villanova

Week 0: William & Mary*
Week 1: at Bucknell*
Week 2 (Sept. 11): at Louisville
Week 3: at LIU
Week 4: Colgate*
Week 5: Morgan State
Week 6: Bye
Week 7: at Fordham*
Week 8: Lehigh*
Week 9: at Lafayette*
Week 10: Richmond*
Week 11: at Holy Cross*
Week 12: Georgetown*

William & Mary
Week 0: at Villanova*
Week 1: Delaware State
Week 2: at Lehigh*
Week 3: Fordham*
Week 4: at Duke
Week 5: Holy Cross*
Week 6: at NC Central
Week 7: Bye
Week 8: Georgetown*
Week 9: at Colgate*
Week 10: Lafayette*
Week 11: Bucknell*
Week 12: at Richmond*

ABOUT THE PATRIOT LEAGUE
The Patriot League is in its fourth decade of academic and athletic achievement, continually demonstrating that student-athletes can excel at both academics and athletics without sacrificing high standards. The Patriot League’s athletic success is achieved while its member institutions remain committed to its founding principle of admitting and graduating student-athletes who are academically representative of their class. Participation in athletics at Patriot League institutions is viewed as an important component of a well-rounded education.

Link

NIL

Red Raiders ready to open NIL checkbook at QB?

Published

4 hours ago

January 2, 2026

Your Sports Nation

Here are five burning questions for Texas Tech football this offseason…

Who will be QB1 in 2026?

Texas Tech football outgrew the talent of its quarterback in one offseason. Behren Morton was a perfect fit for the Texas Tech program that existed in his four years prior, but head coach Joey McGuire’s unwavering loyalty to Morton may have cost this year’s team a shot at the national championship.

Morton will be graduating now, so the checkbooks are open for general manager James Blanchard to find a new QB1.

As of Friday, Blanchard and other Texas Tech athletes’ only public interest has been in Cincinnati quarterback Brendan Sorsby. Blanchard reposted Sorsby’s transfer portal announcement, and within an hour, 12 Texas Tech football players had commented on his post.

Sorsby is rated the No. 1 quarterback available in the portal by On3. He is regarded as a potential first-round pick if he enters the NFL draft, but the money college programs are expected to offer will surpass a rookie contract.

Other names to watch are Florida’s DJ Lagway and Arizona State’s Sam Leavitt.

Can Texas Tech’s defense do it again?

Texas Tech will lose five premier starters on defense to exhausted eligibility: DT Lee Hunter, ILB Jacob Rodriguez, OLB David Bailey, OLB Romello Height and S Cole Wisniewski.

Those five made up 337 total tackles, 29 sacks and 15 forced fumbles in 2025.

Texas Tech will hit the portal to fill a handful of the upcoming defensive holes, but the Red Raiders will retain a handful of players who can step up. Rodriguez’s counterpart, linebacker Ben Roberts, is atop that list.

Between the Big 12 Championship and the Capital One Orange Bowl, Roberts had three interceptions. He also had a career-high 16 tackles in Thursday’s loss.

Roberts and budding linebacker/safety John Curry will man the interior linebacker spots in 2026 alongside at least one portal addition.

What does Quinten Joyner’s return from injury mean?

USC transfer running back Quinten Joyner tore his ACL on Aug. 18 before taking a regular season snap with Texas Tech. He had not been named the primary back, but his name was circulated in game strategy more frequently than Cameron Dickey and J’Koby Williams.

Dickey and Williams had strong freshman campaigns in their minimal snaps played, but McGuire didn’t know their full capabilities yet. So, before Joyner’s injury, he intended to run a three-headed system with no true starter.

McGuire remained content to run a 1A and 1B system with Dickey and Williams following the injury. It panned out perfectly. Dickey was a 1,000-yard rusher, and Williams thrived as a runner, receiver and kick returner.

Heading into 2025, they were all high-reward, experimental running backs, but one of the three may not be satisfied to play another season as a rotational player. None have entered the transfer portal as of Friday, but Dickey and Williams’ 2025 tape could warrant a payday and a guaranteed starter tag at multiple P4 programs.

Is Micah Hudson a starter in 2025?

The Micah Hudson saga has been nothing short of a rollercoaster. From becoming Texas Tech’s first five-star recruit to being used sparingly as a freshman to then transferring to Texas A&M and back to Lubbock a semester later, Hudson has yet to have his opportunity.

He reportedly struggled to grasp the playbook during his freshman season, which warranted his minimal usage. Then, when he returned to Texas Tech, the talent was too good for him to be anything more than a rotational piece.

Hudson has pledged his loyalty to McGuire and Texas Tech, so his name will be amongst the replacements for starters Caleb Douglas and Reggie Virgil. It’s reasonable to assume Texas Tech grabs one or two receivers from the portal, but Hudson is in a prime position to earn reps over the offseason.

His most recent snaps came against West Virginia in the season finale, when he had two touchdowns in the waning moments of a blowout win.

Will culture survive heartbreak?

Texas Tech hung its hat on brotherhood this season. The talent was there at certain positions, but the culture McGuire built was a pillar of Texas Tech’s team-wide success.

However, Height noted in the locker room following Texas Tech’s 23-0 College Football Playoff loss that some players weren’t “locked in.”

No one was named, but there was evident frustration from defensive players with their offensive teammates. All of which is expected in the hour after a season-ending defeat, but if McGuire can’t reroute that energy into pushing for a title next season, it will hinder them.

Texas Tech is no longer the longshot team. There will be a huge shift in how team culture is established, going from the perennial middle-of-the-pack program to a place where the floor is now a playoff win.

Find more Texas Tech coverage from The Dallas Morning News here.

Link

NIL

Four thoughts on the College Football Playoff quarterfinals

Published

5 hours ago

January 2, 2026

Your Sports Nation

Jan. 2, 2026, 11:53 a.m. ET

Does anyone know where the College Football Playoff quarterfinals and semifinals are actually played and why they’re still called bowl games? Better yet, does anyone care?

The Cotton Bowl isn’t even played at the Cotton Bowl? The “bowl” era is gone, replaced by a tournament designed to maintain the names of the most well funded and connected. Indeed, four teams actually play in two bowl games every year. The other 36 exist only for traditions, pageantry, “rewarding” teams (yes, even 5-7 teams) with a 13th game and, of course, money. The best players opt out for fear of injury and many more for the transfer portal which didn’t even open until Jan. 2 when almost every bowl was already played. Without television money, most bowls would cease to exist.

Link