NIL

For Northwestern lacrosse, NIL leaders won't quit on equity

Published

2 months ago

April 1, 2025

For Northwestern lacrosse, NIL leaders won't quit on equity

Crucially, any school that opts to participate in revenue-sharing cannot do so on a team-by-team basis, according to the website. In other words, schools that participate must abide by the terms of the settlement for all sports.
“I don’t think we’ll ever say that NIL is not a priority,” he said. “It’s always going to be important. The question is, ‘How much can Northwestern afford to make it a focus versus other commercial revenue streams and other areas of effort?’”
“I don’t have a firm answer for that because we’re still figuring it out,” Bauer said. “It’s really a question of resources and institutional priorities.”
In the age of name, image and likeness compensation in the NCAA, winning often comes with financial perks, not just championship banners. The biggest payouts are largely concentrated in the highest-revenue sports, most notably football and men’s basketball.
“The sports that generate the most revenue — understandably so — are going to be the ones that receive the bulk of that revenue back,” Bauer said.
So what would an increased focus on commercial NIL look like going forward?
“We’ve done deals with at least one athlete from all 19 of our programs,” Schmidt said. “Almost 400 athletes have done an NIL deal with TrueNU over the past few years.”
“I do think these sports, specifically the Olympic sports, will be under greater scrutiny at their own individual schools,” Gilfillan said. “Every university is weighing a cost-benefit analysis of what they can and cannot afford.”
Gilfillan also said athletic directors across several universities have sent letters to alumni and fans warning of potential changes. Potential cost-cutting measures, he said, could include cutting roster spots or limiting funds for travel, food, equipment and/or healthcare training staff.
“Equity is important,” Bauer said. “We never like to do anything for one gender sport that we don’t do for another one.”
The ‘Cats won a national championship in 2023 and reached the title game again last season before a heartbreaking 14-13 loss to Boston College. This year, No. 3 Northwestern has surged to a 9-2 start, with big wins over Notre Dame, Syracuse, Maryland and USC and the only losses coming to No. 1 Boston College and No. 2 North Carolina. Despite challenges, some of the team’s on-field success has translated to the NIL sphere, an area that is rapidly growing at Northwestern.
Regardless, Gilfillan said NIL collectives, operating separately from revenue-sharing, can continue to have an impact if they make an effort to do so.
As for Northwestern, Bauer said most athletes won’t receive major revenue-sharing benefits, making other commercial NIL opportunities all the more important.
“What is driving NIL are the major revenue sports, which are football and basketball,” Rotering said. “That’s not just true at Northwestern. That’s true NCAA-wide.”
Despite this, Mitch Gilfillan, an NIL expert and attorney at Quinn Johnston, said the revenue-sharing model could place sports that lose money under greater examination.
Northwestern lacrosse players can also make money through the Northwestern NIL Store, which sells branded apparel, jerseys and custom gear. As of March 28, all but seven Northwestern lacrosse players have profiles on the website. And deals don’t stop there. For example, first-year attacker Aditi Foster recently partnered with the clothing brand Hollister to promote their products through Instagram.
For Northwestern student-athletes, most NIL income comes from TrueNU, a collective that creates partnerships between charities and student-athletes. TrueNU raised approximately .6 million in revenue in 2023, according to its tax Form 990, available through ProPublica. Now, Jacob Schmidt, TrueNU’s executive director, said the organization’s revenue has reached more than million since its launch in fall 2022. Schmidt also said TrueNU raises at least 95% of NIL income at Northwestern, and a “handful” of lacrosse players participate in a lot of events with the organization. Schmidt declined to comment on how much NIL income goes to lacrosse players specifically.
For Northwestern lacrosse, along with thousands of other Division I programs, the net impact of the upcoming House settlement remains murky. Still, Bauer said he thinks NIL will always be a part of Northwestern’s vision.
The upcoming House v. NCAA settlement adds an additional piece to the NIL puzzle. On April 7, there will be a final approval hearing to confirm the terms of the settlement. If approved, the settlement would pave the way for individual universities to begin revenue-sharing with student-athletes, with an estimated cap of .5 million per university in 2025-26, according to the NCAA website.
“When we first started, there was only one apparel partner, and it was Fanatics,” said Brad Bauer, the general manager of Northwestern’s official NIL program. But Bauer said Fanatics was unwilling to work with highly successful Northwestern sports like lacrosse, field hockey and softball, so instead, he decided to establish a partnership with Campus Ink to run the NIL Store and include all programs.
Northwestern women’s lacrosse, the university’s most successful program with eight national titles, is an NIL wild card.
Still, challenges persist in the development of major NIL opportunities in women’s lacrosse. According to the Equity in Athletics Data Analysis from the U.S. Department of Education, Northwestern paid approximately million in expenses for sports outside of football and basketball between Sept. 1, 2022 and Aug. 31, 2023. During that same period, it obtained approximately million in revenue from those sports, according to the report.
“I think each individual sport still has the capability to either fundraise or to provide NIL opportunities for student-athletes if their athletic department doesn’t have the funds to do it,” he said. “That takes work, and it takes a group of volunteers. It takes a group of people that are strongly invested into those specific programs to continue to make sure that they’re successful.”
Lacrosse-specific data was not available, but the charts appeared to indicate that football and men’s basketball were the only revenue-positive sports during that time. Rob Rotering, a Northwestern graduate and athletics department donor, said the amount of revenue in women’s lacrosse might limit the NIL opportunities players could pursue.
In addition, Bauer said the NIL department has almost finished a project to produce licensed NIL trading cards for lacrosse and softball, in partnership with ONIT Athlete.

Related Topics:athlete athletic Basketball big college commercial deals equipment food football group nil season softball sports team university

Up Next

Top women's basketball players in transfer portal

Don't Miss

Beyond the Game

Click to comment

NIL

Spring update of 2025 college football SP+ rankings for every FBS team

Bill ConnellyMay 22, 2025, 07:00 AM ET Close Bill Connelly is a writer for ESPN. He covers college football, soccer and tennis. He has been at ESPN since 2019. Open Extended Reactions In 93 days, it all starts again. From Week 0’s Irish Farmageddon (Iowa State vs. Kansas State in Dublin) in mid-August to the […]

Published

1 hour ago

May 22, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Spring update of 2025 college football SP+ rankings for every FBS team

Bill ConnellyMay 22, 2025, 07:00 AM ET
Close

In 93 days, it all starts again. From Week 0’s Irish Farmageddon (Iowa State vs. Kansas State in Dublin) in mid-August to the national title game in late January, the 2025 college football season looms. And with transfer portal movement finally slowing down — including spring moves, FBS teams have averaged more than 19 transfers this offseason, up more than 40% from last season — we can finally take a semi-confident look at what’s in store this fall. That means updating our numbers.

Below are updated SP+ projections for the coming season. A quick reminder: Preseason projections are based on three factors.

1. Returning production. The returning production numbers are based on rosters I have updated as much as humanly possible to account for transfers and attrition. The combination of last year’s SP+ ratings and adjustments based on returning production makes up about two-thirds of the projections formula.

2. Recent recruiting. This piece informs us of the caliber of a team’s potential replacements (and/or new stars) in the lineup. It is determined by the past few years of recruiting rankings in diminishing order (meaning the most recent class carries the most weight). This is also impacted by the recruiting rankings of incoming transfers, an acknowledgment that the art of roster management is now heavily dictated by the transfer portal.

3. Recent history. Using a sliver of information from the previous four seasons or so gives us a good measure of overall program health.

(One other reminder: SP+ is a tempo- and opponent-adjusted measure of college football efficiency. It is a predictive measure of the most sustainable and predictable aspects of football, not a résumé ranking, and along those lines, these projections aren’t intended to be a guess at what the AP Top 25 will look like at the end of the season. These are simply early offseason power rankings based on the information we have been able to gather.)

Here are the updated rankings:

Post-Spring SP+ Rankings

TEAM	SP+ (RK)	OFF.	DEF.	ST	AVG. W	SOS RK
1. Ohio St.	29.5	39.6 (7)	10.1 (2)	0.3 (11)	10.3	21
2. Alabama	27.9	40.4 (5)	12.6 (5)	0.2 (20)	9.8	11
3. Penn St.	27.7	40.6 (3)	12.9 (6)	0.1 (58)	10.4	29
4. Georgia	26.9	39.0 (8)	12.1 (4)	0.6 (1)	9.8	13
5. Texas	26.4	35.4 (17)	9.0 (1)	-0.5 (135)	9.6	12
6. Notre Dame	24.9	38.3 (10)	13.4 (8)	-0.2 (106)	10.5	44
7. Oregon	24.7	40.5 (4)	15.8 (11)	0.5 (3)	10.1	32
8. Clemson	23.3	39.9 (6)	16.7 (12)	-0.3 (133)	10.0	34
9. LSU	22.1	40.7 (2)	18.6 (23)	0.1 (48)	8.5	9
10. Michigan	21.5	31.8 (32)	10.3 (3)	0.2 (22)	9.8	38
11. Ole Miss	19.8	34.6 (20)	14.8 (9)	0.3 (7)	8.9	23
12. Miami	18.8	43.2 (1)	24.4 (44)	0.2 (19)	9.2	36
13. Tennessee	18.4	31.4 (34)	13.0 (7)	0.2 (21)	8.8	24
14. Florida	17.3	35.4 (16)	18.2 (21)	0.3 (8)	7.0	2
15. Texas A&M	17.2	34.9 (18)	17.7 (18)	0.2 (24)	7.7	10
16. Oklahoma	16.5	33.3 (25)	16.7 (13)	0.2 (31)	6.9	1
17. S. Carolina	16.1	33.3 (24)	17.2 (15)	0.1 (50)	7.2	7
18. Kansas St.	15.6	35.7 (14)	20.0 (26)	0.2 (26)	9.0	57
19. Illinois	14.3	32.3 (28)	18.0 (20)	0.2 (30)	8.7	40
20. SMU	13.1	37.2 (11)	24.2 (42)	0.1 (40)	8.4	45
21. Missouri	12.5	30.7 (41)	18.3 (22)	-0.1 (96)	7.7	25
22. Arizona St.	12.2	32.6 (26)	20.4 (27)	-0.6 (136)	8.4	61
23. Indiana	12.2	32.1 (30)	19.9 (25)	0.2 (29)	8.1	31
24. Louisville	12.1	36.7 (12)	24.5 (45)	-0.1 (97)	8.3	43
25. Auburn	11.8	29.4 (48)	17.7 (19)	-0.1 (83)	6.9	15
26. Texas Tech	11.8	38.3 (9)	26.5 (55)	0.2 (23)	8.4	62
27. BYU	11.5	32.2 (29)	20.6 (30)	0.3 (10)	8.4	64
28. Iowa	11.4	26.9 (68)	15.5 (10)	0.3 (12)	7.0	22
29. TCU	11.1	34.8 (19)	23.7 (38)	-0.1 (92)	7.5	41
30. USC	11.0	36.2 (13)	25.2 (47)	0.1 (63)	7.2	20
31. Utah	11.0	28.3 (54)	17.3 (16)	0.2 (36)	7.9	55
32. Iowa St.	11.0	31.5 (33)	20.6 (29)	-0.1 (87)	7.8	51
33. Boise St.	9.2	35.5 (15)	26.3 (53)	-0.3 (132)	9.8	84
34. Nebraska	8.9	26.3 (75)	17.4 (17)	-0.2 (119)	7.5	35
35. Baylor	7.5	34.6 (21)	27.1 (58)	0.2 (38)	6.7	46
36. Florida St.	7.2	27.7 (58)	20.6 (28)	0.3 (13)	6.8	30
37. Wisconsin	7.2	26.5 (73)	19.3 (24)	0.0 (70)	5.2	4
38. Arkansas	7.0	31.0 (38)	24.0 (40)	0.2 (35)	5.1	3
39. Washington	6.4	28.8 (52)	22.4 (34)	-0.2 (121)	6.3	28
40. Minnesota	6.0	22.8 (100)	16.8 (14)	0.0 (64)	6.8	27
41. Duke	4.9	27.0 (67)	22.0 (33)	0.0 (66)	6.8	60
42. NC St.	4.8	31.2 (36)	26.4 (54)	0.1 (55)	6.6	39
43. Kentucky	4.7	25.8 (79)	21.0 (31)	0.3 (14)	4.7	8
44. Ga. Tech	4.7	32.4 (27)	27.7 (64)	-0.1 (100)	6.6	47
45. Rutgers	4.7	28.9 (50)	24.2 (43)	0.1 (52)	5.8	16
46. Va. Tech	4.3	28.3 (53)	24.0 (41)	0.2 (37)	6.6	54
47. Pittsburgh	3.4	29.9 (45)	26.5 (56)	0.2 (17)	6.1	48
48. Tulane	3.3	31.4 (35)	28.1 (66)	0.0 (77)	8.0	73
49. JMU	3.0	29.2 (49)	26.2 (52)	0.1 (53)	8.5	104
50. Kansas	3.0	32.0 (31)	29.0 (75)	-0.1 (94)	6.0	50
51. UCLA	2.9	26.5 (72)	23.7 (37)	0.1 (54)	5.2	19
52. Colorado	2.6	29.9 (46)	27.2 (60)	-0.2 (114)	5.5	49
53. Memphis	2.1	33.4 (23)	31.2 (94)	0.1 (42)	8.7	121
54. N. Carolina	2.0	30.9 (39)	29.0 (74)	0.0 (72)	6.6	68
55. Vanderbilt	1.7	27.3 (63)	25.7 (50)	0.3 (9)	4.7	5
56. Syracuse	1.6	30.7 (42)	29.1 (76)	-0.2 (101)	4.8	14
57. W. Virginia	1.0	29.9 (47)	28.9 (73)	0.2 (18)	5.2	53
58. Oklahoma St.	0.9	30.9 (40)	30.0 (84)	0.0 (78)	5.4	42
59. Houston	0.9	24.3 (91)	23.4 (36)	-0.2 (120)	5.8	67
60. Arizona	0.7	28.8 (51)	28.1 (67)	0.2 (16)	5.4	56
61. UCF	0.4	27.8 (57)	27.3 (62)	0.0 (81)	5.7	58
62. Boston Coll.	0.3	26.9 (70)	26.5 (57)	-0.2 (127)	5.2	37
63. UTSA	0.0	33.9 (22)	33.9 (108)	0.2 (33)	7.8	90
64. Michigan St.	-0.2	21.6 (107)	21.9 (32)	0.2 (32)	4.7	26
65. California	-0.3	25.8 (80)	26.0 (51)	0.0 (82)	5.9	65
66. Cincinnati	-0.3	25.1 (86)	25.4 (49)	-0.1 (88)	5.3	59
67. Army	-0.6	24.5 (89)	25.1 (46)	0.0 (75)	7.6	94
68. Navy	-1.0	27.7 (59)	28.7 (71)	-0.2 (113)	7.9	81
69. Liberty	-1.1	27.4 (62)	28.5 (69)	-0.2 (105)	9.2	136
70. Maryland	-1.1	24.2 (93)	25.3 (48)	0.0 (68)	5.1	52
71. Miss. St.	-1.4	27.5 (60)	28.9 (72)	0.2 (27)	3.8	6
72. Toledo	-1.4	26.2 (77)	27.6 (63)	-0.1 (86)	8.8	133
73. Oregon St.	-2.4	27.9 (56)	30.3 (85)	0.0 (67)	6.6	71
74. Louisiana	-3.1	26.8 (71)	29.9 (83)	0.4 (6)	7.5	91
75. UNLV	-3.3	27.4 (61)	30.7 (89)	0.4 (5)	7.7	122
76. S. Alabama	-3.4	26.4 (74)	29.8 (82)	0.0 (69)	7.3	108
77. USF	-3.5	30.4 (44)	33.9 (107)	0.2 (25)	6.2	63
78. Ga. Southern	-4.0	27.3 (64)	31.3 (95)	0.2 (15)	7.3	110
79. Virginia	-4.3	24.4 (90)	28.6 (70)	0.1 (56)	5.1	69
80. Ohio	-4.4	25.2 (83)	29.6 (79)	-0.3 (131)	7.4	70
81. Wake Forest	-4.6	26.0 (78)	30.6 (88)	0.1 (60)	5.2	72
82. Wash. St.	-4.8	30.6 (43)	35.5 (116)	-0.2 (110)	5.6	74
83. SJSU	-5.2	25.7 (81)	30.9 (92)	-0.2 (108)	7.3	96
84. UConn	-5.4	25.1 (84)	30.5 (86)	0.1 (61)	7.4	124
85. WKU	-5.8	22.4 (102)	28.2 (68)	0.6 (2)	7.7	101
86. Troy	-6.0	23.8 (96)	29.8 (81)	-0.1 (84)	6.6	89
87. Northwestern	-6.1	17.7 (129)	23.8 (39)	-0.2 (103)	3.7	18
88. Stanford	-6.2	25.5 (82)	31.7 (96)	0.2 (28)	3.4	33
89. Fresno St.	-6.2	23.0 (99)	29.2 (77)	-0.2 (102)	6.5	109
90. ECU	-6.6	27.0 (66)	33.6 (106)	0.0 (65)	6.0	98
91. Buffalo	-7.1	22.2 (104)	29.3 (78)	0.1 (49)	7.7	130
92. N. Texas	-7.2	31.0 (37)	38.2 (127)	-0.1 (91)	6.8	131
93. Texas St.	-7.2	27.0 (65)	34.2 (112)	0.0 (79)	6.1	105
94. Air Force	-7.3	20.0 (117)	27.2 (59)	-0.2 (125)	6.2	116
95. Coastal Caro.	-7.3	28.0 (55)	35.4 (114)	0.1 (43)	6.0	92
96. Miami-OH	-7.6	14.9 (135)	22.5 (35)	0.4 (4)	6.5	112
97. Colorado St.	-8.3	24.0 (95)	32.3 (98)	-0.1 (89)	5.9	106
98. App. St.	-8.8	24.1 (94)	32.9 (103)	-0.2 (112)	6.2	111
99. Marshall	-9.4	24.6 (87)	34.0 (110)	0.1 (59)	5.7	78
100. Arkansas St.	-9.9	26.9 (69)	36.8 (122)	0.1 (51)	5.3	103
101. Purdue	-10.0	20.8 (111)	30.8 (90)	-0.2 (117)	2.9	17
102. SDSU	-10.1	17.9 (125)	28.0 (65)	-0.1 (93)	5.7	128
103. ODU	-10.2	22.8 (101)	33.0 (104)	0.0 (80)	4.8	87
104. J’ville St.	-10.4	22.0 (105)	32.4 (99)	-0.4 (134)	6.5	135
105. Wyoming	-10.8	21.4 (108)	32.2 (97)	0.1 (46)	5.4	119
106. NIU	-11.0	16.3 (133)	27.3 (61)	-0.2 (124)	6.3	129
107. Sam Houston	-11.1	19.7 (118)	30.8 (91)	-0.2 (129)	5.2	86
108. Hawaii	-11.5	19.1 (121)	30.6 (87)	-0.2 (118)	5.5	132
109. La. Tech	-11.9	17.8 (126)	29.7 (80)	-0.1 (98)	5.8	100
110. Delaware	-13.0	20.4 (113)	33.5 (105)	-0.2 (115)	5.4	127
111. Bowling Green	-13.7	23.0 (98)	36.7 (121)	0.0 (71)	5.3	107
112. UAB	-13.8	25.1 (85)	38.9 (130)	0.1 (47)	4.6	83
113. EMU	-14.2	20.0 (116)	34.2 (111)	0.1 (57)	5.1	123
114. Georgia St.	-14.3	24.3 (92)	38.6 (129)	-0.2 (109)	3.7	76
115. FAU	-14.4	21.0 (109)	35.4 (115)	-0.2 (107)	4.6	118
116. UL-Monroe	-14.6	17.8 (128)	32.4 (100)	-0.1 (95)	4.4	75
117. CMU	-14.8	17.8 (127)	32.5 (102)	0.1 (44)	5.3	97
118. WMU	-14.8	20.7 (112)	35.5 (117)	0.1 (39)	4.8	117
119. Utah St.	-14.8	24.5 (88)	39.4 (132)	0.0 (76)	4.3	82
120. Tulsa	-15.6	22.3 (103)	37.8 (125)	-0.2 (111)	3.9	113
121. Rice	-15.8	16.7 (132)	32.4 (101)	-0.2 (104)	4.1	120
122. New Mexico St.	-16.0	21.8 (106)	37.8 (124)	0.2 (34)	5.4	93
123. UTEP	-16.1	19.0 (122)	35.1 (113)	-0.2 (130)	4.8	95
124. Nevada	-16.3	20.3 (115)	36.6 (119)	-0.2 (126)	4.1	77
125. Middle Tenn.	-16.4	17.5 (130)	33.9 (109)	-0.1 (90)	5.3	134
126. Temple	-16.4	20.8 (110)	37.2 (123)	0.1 (62)	3.8	99
127. Missouri St.	-17.6	26.3 (76)	43.8 (136)	-0.2 (115)	4.0	102
128. So. Miss	-17.7	20.3 (114)	38.1 (126)	-0.1 (85)	3.4	125
129. FIU	-18.0	18.0 (124)	36.0 (118)	-0.1 (99)	4.7	79
130. New Mexico	-18.4	23.6 (97)	42.1 (134)	-0.2 (123)	3.6	80
131. Kennesaw St.	-18.9	12.3 (136)	31.1 (93)	0.0 (73)	4.2	114
132. Akron	-19.3	17.3 (131)	36.6 (120)	0.1 (41)	4.5	126
133. Charlotte	-19.4	19.1 (120)	38.5 (128)	0.1 (45)	2.9	66
134. Ball St.	-21.2	18.1 (123)	39.3 (131)	0.0 (74)	3.4	115
135. UMass	-23.9	19.3 (119)	43.2 (135)	-0.2 (128)	3.5	85
136. Kent St.	-24.9	15.6 (134)	40.6 (133)	-0.2 (122)	2.8	88

This time around, I am also experimenting with what you might call a fourth projection factor: coaching changes. Using data discussed in this March column, I have incorporated some adjustments based on who changed head coaches and/or offensive or defensive coordinators and how those teams performed against historic norms last year. Translation: For teams or units that underachieved significantly against their 20-year averages and changed coaches or coordinators (example: Oklahoma’s offense, Purdue’s entire team), that means a slight bump upward. For teams or units that overachieved and lost their coaches or coordinators (example: UNLV as a team or Louisiana Tech’s defense), that means a bump down.

The adjustments aren’t enormous, but when you see that Oklahoma’s projected rating has risen since February, that explains it.

Minimal changes near the top

Thirteen teams moved up or down at least 10 spots compared to February’s rankings, due to either transfer portal addition/attrition, the coaching adjustments mentioned above, or simply me getting a much better read on returning production after official roster releases. At the very top, however, not a ton changed. The top four teams from February continue to occupy the same spots, though Texas hopped Notre Dame and Oregon into the No. 5 hole. Clemson and Michigan rose a bit, Tennessee dropped five spots after Nico Iamaleava’s transfer, and Oklahoma eased into the top 15. (With their ridiculous schedule, however, the Sooners’ projected win total still isn’t great.)

Editor’s Picks2 RelatedThe overall conference hierarchy hasn’t changed much either, though with the Sun Belt getting hit particularly hard by spring transfer attrition, the AAC moves into the top spot among Group of 5 conferences.Average SP+ rating by conference1. SEC (15.3 overall, 33.1 offense, 17.8 defense, 60.7% average returning production)Top three teams: No. 2 Alabama, No. 4 Georgia, No. 5 Texas2. Big Ten (9.5 overall, 29.1 offense, 19.6 defense, 56.7% average returning production)Top three teams: No. 1 Ohio State, No. 3 Penn State, No. 7 OregonBoth the SEC and Big Ten boast three of the projected top seven teams, but if we measure conferences by average ratings, the SEC still has a commanding lead due, as always, to the lack of dead weight. Only two of 16 SEC teams are projected lower than 43rd overall, while the Big Ten has six such teams, including three ranked 70th or worse. That helps explain why, despite playing only eight-game conference schedules, SEC teams occupy 13 of the top 15 spots in the strength of schedule rankings.3. Big 12 (6.3 overall, 31.0 offense, 24.7 defense, 61.8% average returning production)Top three teams: No. 18 Kansas State, No. 22 Arizona State, No. 26 Texas Tech4. ACC (5.0 overall, 30.8 offense, 25.8 defense, 59.2% average returning production)Top three teams: No. 8 Clemson, No. 12 Miami, No. 20 SMUWe see a similar dynamic with the Big 12 and ACC — in terms of the quality of its top teams, the ACC (three top-20 teams) seems to have an advantage over the Big 12 (one top-20 team). But the Big 12 has eight top-35 teams compared to the ACC’s four, and while no Big 12 team is projected lower than 66th, the ACC’s average is dragged down by three teams ranking 79th or lower.5. AAC (-7.8 overall, 26.0 offense, 33.8 defense, 49.4% average returning production)Top three teams: No. 48 Tulane, No. 53 Memphis, No. 63 UTSA6. Sun Belt (-8.1 overall, 24.9 offense, 33.0 defense, 46.3% average returning production)Top three teams: No. 49 James Madison, No. 74 Louisiana, No. 76 South Alabama7. Mountain West (-8.6 overall, 23.5 offense, 32.1 defense, 46.5% average returning production)Top three teams: No. 33 Boise State, No. 75 UNLV, No. 83 San Jose StateThree G5 teams are within one point of each other on average, though again, the distribution varies significantly by conference. The MWC is propped up significantly by Boise State, the best projected G5 team, but its average is dragged down by three teams ranking 119th or worse. The Sun Belt has only one such team. The AAC, meanwhile, has a solid five teams in the top 70 … and four teams projected 120th or worse.8. Conference USA (-13.0 overall, 20.4 offense, 33.4 defense, 50.7% average returning production)Top three teams: No. 69 Liberty, No. 85 Western Kentucky, No. 104 Jacksonville State9. MAC (-13.7 overall, 19.8 offense, 33.5 defense, 41.1% average returning production)Top three teams: No. 72 Toledo, No. 80 Ohio, No. 91 BuffaloNo conference was hit harder by the portal than the MAC, which has only three teams ranked higher than 94th in the returning production rankings below. That’s going to wreck your averages, though Toledo and Buffalo both escaped too much damage in this regard.An approximate CFP contenders listMy SP+ strength of schedule ratings are based on a simple question: How would the average top-five team fare against your schedule? Oklahoma’s schedule currently features five of the projected top 11 teams and nine of the top 25, while Notre Dame’s features only two teams projected higher than 30th; SP+ SOS says a top-five team would average a 0.757 win percentage against OU’s schedule (equivalent to 9.1 wins in 12 games) and a 0.894 win percentage against Notre Dame’s (10.7 wins). That’s a pretty big difference.Schedule strengths obviously vary quite a bit within conferences — not every SEC schedule is Oklahoma’s — but it’s worth acknowledging that when it comes to potential College Football Playoff-worthy résumés, the bar can be set in a different spot based on a team’s conference.Average strength-of-schedule rating per conferenceSEC 0.799 (9.6 wins for a typical top-five team)

With iconic stories, hit Originals and live sports, there’s something for everyone on Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+. Get all three for a price you’ll love.

Big Ten 0.846 (10.2)

ACC 0.891 (10.7)

Big 12 0.902 (10.8)

AAC 0.956 (11.5)

Sun Belt 0.958 (11.5)

MWC 0.959 (11.5)

CUSA 0.964 (11.6)

MAC 0.965 (11.6)

When it comes to how a top-five team would fare, the average SEC schedule is about one win harder than the average ACC or Big 12 schedule. The Big Ten, with its deadweight teams, is about a half-win harder than those leagues but is still more likely to get lumped in with the SEC than the others in the Power 4.

Long story short: We can confidently say that any 10-2 or better team in the SEC or Big Ten would be a likely playoff contender, just as any 11-1 or better team in the ACC or Big 12 would be. We can therefore create a loose list of likely CFP contenders by looking at the teams most likely to hit those marks.

Odds of an SEC team going 10-2 or better: Alabama 65% (SOS rank: 11th), Texas 61% (12th), Georgia 61% (13th), Ole Miss 38% (23rd), Tennessee 33% (24th), LSU 30% (ninth), Florida 18% (second), Auburn 13% (15th), Oklahoma 9% (first), Missouri 5% (25th)

Odds of a Big Ten team going 10-2 or better: Penn State 82% (SOS rank: 29th), Ohio State 77% (21st), Oregon 73% (32nd), Michigan 62% (38th), Illinois 29% (40th), Nebraska 13% (35th), USC 10% (20th), Indiana 9% (31st)

With a particularly weak nonconference schedule and a particularly good team, Penn State might be in the driver’s seat in terms of playoff qualification, while Ohio State, Oregon, Alabama, Michigan and Georgia are all over 60% likely to finish the regular season with two or fewer losses.

Odds of a Big 12 or ACC team (or Notre Dame) going 11-1 or better: Notre Dame 52% (SOS rank: 44th), Clemson 37% (34th), Miami 23% (36th), Kansas State 17% (57th), BYU 7% (64th), Texas Tech 7% (62nd), SMU 6% (45th), Arizona State 5% (61st)

Odds of a Group of 5 team going 11-1 or better: Boise State 37% (SOS rank: 84th), Liberty 17% (136th), Toledo 11% (133rd), Memphis 8% (121st), James Madison 7% (104th)

Notre Dame starts the season with games against Miami and Texas A&M, and while the rest of the schedule features plenty of solid opponents (five are projected between 30th and 47th), if the Irish are 2-0 out of the gates, they’re staring a second straight CFP appearance in the face.

Updated returning production rankings

With updated SP+ projections come updated returning production figures. A reminder: While returning production doesn’t correlate with pure quality, it does correlate well with improvement and regression, particularly at the extremes.

(Note: The production of incoming transfers is mashed into both the numerator and denominator of the returning production formula — so if you lose your starting quarterback but bring in someone else’s from the portal, your returning yardage is probably somewhere around 50%. The production of transfers from schools below the FBS level get half-credit.)

Post-Spring Returning Production Rankings

Team	Ret Prod	Off (Rk)	Def (Rk)
1. Clemson	80%	85% (1)	76% (6)
2. Arizona St.	79%	78% (5)	79% (2)
3. Vanderbilt	77%	78% (7)	77% (3)
4. Illinois	75%	78% (6)	72% (11)
5. Kennesaw St.	74%	67% (29)	82% (1)
6. Texas Tech	73%	70% (19)	76% (5)
7. Texas A&M	72%	70% (20)	74% (7)
8. Rutgers	71%	81% (3)	61% (39)
9. Baylor	70%	77% (9)	63% (25)
10. Oklahoma	70%	77% (8)	63% (30)
11. USF	67%	69% (22)	66% (19)
12. Wisconsin	67%	68% (26)	67% (16)
13. Boise St.	67%	75% (12)	59% (49)
14. Kansas St.	67%	71% (17)	63% (27)
15. Arizona	67%	71% (15)	62% (37)
16. Michigan St.	66%	71% (16)	62% (35)
17. Utah	65%	75% (11)	56% (60)
18. Ga. Tech	65%	68% (24)	62% (34)
19. Delaware	65%	54% (71)	77% (4)
20. Houston	65%	69% (23)	61% (40)
21. Auburn	65%	67% (30)	63% (26)
22. Cincinnati	65%	62% (51)	68% (14)
23. LSU	65%	65% (40)	64% (23)
24. Michigan	65%	65% (41)	64% (22)
25. Penn St.	65%	76% (10)	53% (70)
26. Stanford	64%	56% (67)	73% (9)
27. UTSA	64%	82% (2)	46% (89)
28. Miss. St.	64%	61% (52)	68% (15)
29. Alabama	64%	59% (57)	69% (13)
30. Florida	64%	66% (34)	62% (32)
31. TCU	64%	67% (31)	62% (38)
32. UL-Monroe	64%	64% (46)	64% (24)
33. Pittsburgh	64%	66% (36)	61% (42)
34. Toledo	63%	75% (13)	52% (75)
35. Navy	63%	74% (14)	52% (73)
36. Virginia	63%	60% (53)	66% (18)
37. Oregon St.	62%	58% (62)	67% (17)
38. Indiana	62%	62% (50)	61% (41)
39. Boston Coll.	62%	63% (48)	61% (44)
40. NC St.	61%	66% (35)	57% (56)
41. Iowa St.	61%	65% (43)	57% (54)
42. Nebraska	61%	69% (21)	52% (74)
43. SMU	60%	66% (32)	54% (67)
44. Missouri St.	60%	71% (18)	50% (81)
45. Arkansas	60%	65% (37)	54% (68)
46. Middle Tenn.	60%	59% (58)	60% (45)
47. Northwestern	60%	56% (66)	63% (29)
48. Ga. Southern	60%	68% (27)	52% (76)
49. Kentucky	59%	63% (47)	55% (63)
50. Buffalo	59%	44% (99)	74% (8)
51. Liberty	59%	59% (56)	59% (50)
52. BYU	59%	65% (38)	52% (72)
53. Duke	59%	60% (54)	58% (53)
54. Florida St.	59%	57% (63)	60% (46)
55. JMU	58%	65% (44)	51% (77)
56. Missouri	58%	44% (101)	72% (10)
57. Louisville	58%	58% (60)	57% (55)
58. S. Carolina	58%	66% (33)	49% (82)
59. UConn	57%	68% (25)	46% (90)
60. Miami	57%	52% (75)	62% (36)
61. Notre Dame	56%	47% (89)	65% (20)
62. Wyoming	56%	80% (4)	32% (129)
63. Iowa	56%	64% (45)	47% (88)
64. Kansas	56%	62% (49)	49% (84)
65. Wake Forest	55%	51% (78)	60% (47)
66. Temple	55%	65% (39)	45% (96)
67. Coastal Caro.	54%	67% (28)	42% (104)
68. SJSU	54%	52% (74)	55% (64)
69. CMU	54%	45% (95)	62% (33)
70. Hawaii	53%	42% (104)	65% (21)
71. SDSU	53%	36% (121)	70% (12)
72. Va. Tech	53%	47% (88)	58% (52)
73. UTEP	52%	65% (42)	40% (111)
74. Troy	52%	49% (82)	56% (59)
75. Colorado	52%	50% (81)	55% (66)
76. Tulane	52%	49% (84)	56% (57)
77. Tulsa	52%	46% (93)	58% (51)
78. Minnesota	52%	43% (102)	61% (43)
79. Washington	52%	48% (85)	55% (62)
80. W. Virginia	52%	48% (87)	56% (58)
81. Tennessee	51%	39% (110)	63% (28)
82. Texas	51%	40% (109)	62% (31)
83. N. Carolina	51%	56% (68)	46% (94)
84. California	51%	48% (86)	53% (71)
85. Air Force	50%	57% (64)	43% (99)
86. Colorado St.	50%	59% (59)	41% (107)
87. USC	50%	50% (80)	49% (85)
88. N. Texas	49%	44% (98)	55% (65)
89. ODU	49%	44% (97)	54% (69)
90. Oklahoma St.	48%	40% (106)	55% (61)
91. New Mexico St.	48%	56% (65)	39% (112)
92. Ohio St.	48%	47% (90)	48% (86)
93. UCF	47%	47% (91)	48% (87)
94. Ohio	47%	59% (55)	35% (120)
95. Ole Miss	47%	45% (94)	49% (83)
96. Georgia	46%	42% (105)	51% (79)
97. Arkansas St.	46%	58% (61)	34% (122)
98. Syracuse	46%	32% (128)	60% (48)
99. La. Tech	46%	49% (83)	43% (102)
100. UCLA	45%	54% (72)	37% (114)
101. Army	43%	36% (120)	51% (80)
102. So. Miss	43%	55% (70)	31% (130)
103. ECU	43%	51% (77)	35% (117)
104. Oregon	43%	40% (107)	45% (95)
105. UAB	43%	43% (103)	43% (101)
106. Georgia St.	42%	53% (73)	32% (125)
107. Maryland	42%	39% (112)	46% (92)
108. Purdue	42%	39% (113)	46% (93)
109. S. Alabama	42%	44% (100)	40% (110)
110. FAU	41%	50% (79)	32% (127)
111. Akron	41%	52% (76)	30% (131)
112. Fresno St.	41%	40% (108)	42% (103)
113. Rice	41%	36% (122)	46% (91)
114. FIU	41%	46% (92)	35% (118)
115. Memphis	40%	39% (114)	41% (108)
116. Sam Houston	39%	56% (69)	23% (135)
117. Louisiana	38%	32% (127)	44% (97)
118. Charlotte	38%	35% (123)	40% (109)
119. EMU	37%	37% (117)	36% (116)
120. Texas St.	36%	38% (115)	35% (121)
121. New Mexico	36%	32% (129)	41% (106)
122. Kent St.	36%	34% (126)	39% (113)
123. WKU	36%	38% (116)	35% (119)
124. App. St.	36%	28% (131)	43% (100)
125. UMass	36%	39% (111)	32% (128)
126. Nevada	35%	36% (119)	34% (123)
127. NIU	35%	37% (118)	33% (124)
128. WMU	33%	26% (132)	41% (105)
129. Miami-OH	33%	15% (136)	51% (78)
130. Bowling Green	32%	45% (96)	19% (136)
131. Wash. St.	32%	34% (125)	29% (132)
132. UNLV	32%	34% (124)	29% (133)
133. Utah St.	31%	19% (135)	43% (98)
134. Ball St.	29%	22% (134)	37% (115)
135. J’ville St.	28%	24% (133)	32% (126)
136. Marshall	27%	31% (130)	24% (134)

As was the case in February, Clemson leads the way here. And with the way that talent trickles upward in the transfer portal era, it’s probably not a surprise that nine of the top 10 teams in returning production (and 22 of the top 26) are power-conference teams. The P4 boasts 59.6% returning production overall, while the G5 is at 46.8%. That’s a pretty massive gap, one that isn’t likely to shrink anytime soon.

NIL

Real Jet inks branding deal with Indy 500 rookie

The surprise car with the pole position in Sunday’s Indy 500 race will carry another surprise: branding for Kenny Dichter‘s new Real Jet private aviation service. Real Jet will be the primary sponsor for Robert Schwartzman‘s No. 83 Prema Chevrolet in Sunday’s race, via a last-minute deal engineered by Horizon Sports & Experiences. Chris Lencheski‘s […]

Published

3 hours ago

May 22, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Real Jet inks branding deal with Indy 500 rookie

The surprise car with the pole position in Sunday’s Indy 500 race will carry another surprise: branding for Kenny Dichter‘s new Real Jet private aviation service.

Real Jet will be the primary sponsor for Robert Schwartzman‘s No. 83 Prema Chevrolet in Sunday’s race, via a last-minute deal engineered by Horizon Sports & Experiences. Chris Lencheski‘s Phoenicia Sport and Entertainment represents Prema.

“Horizon brought me the deal Wednesday, and it seemed like the same kind of lightning in a bottle as when we branded two Triple Crown winners,” Dichter said. As for the marketing strategy, “Real Jets is about speed and reliability, so it seemed like a perfect connection Real Jets first sports deal,” Dichter said.

Shwartzman, a rookie, won pole position for the 2025 Indy 500 with a four-lap average of 232.790 mph. He’s the first rookie to start on pole in the Indy 500 since 1983 and only the third rookie to ever win the pole position.

Dichter’s previous private air brands, Marquis Jet (later acquired by NetJets) and Wheels Up (acquired by a consortium led by Delta Air Lines), were also renowned for their sports marketing prowess, including having some of the most sought-after Super Bowl parties, year after year.

NIL

Trump and Coach Saban have the right game plan to save college sports » Coach Tommy Tuberville

“Regardless of which path Trump chooses to address the current state of college sports, I’m confident that his administration — which has already proven to be both effective and unafraid to shake up the status quo — can make meaningful reforms to make sure college sports remain intact.” WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) penned an op-ed […]

Published

6 hours ago

May 22, 2025

Your Sports Nation

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) penned an op-ed in Fox about the current state of Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) and college sports amidst the everchanging NIL landscape. In the piece, Sen. Tuberville addresses the growing problems college athletes are facing with the pay-for-play environment making it nearly impossible for Olympic sports and female athletics to survive. The current “patchwork” of laws has created an uneven playing field that President Trump and Congress are well-positioned to address in the near future. Sen. Tuberville currently serves as the Chairman of the HELP Subcommittee on Education and the American Family.

Read excerpts from Sen. Tuberville’s op-ed below or the full piece here.

“As a former college football coach for 40 years, I’ve witnessed firsthand the transformative power of college sports in shaping young lives. From the locker room to the classroom, athletics instill discipline, teamwork and resilience — values that extend far beyond the field. But ever since the Supreme Court ruled that college athletes can be compensated for the use of their Name, Image and Likeness (NIL), college sports have been in a tailspin.

While I’m all for players making money, we need to create national standards to protect the integrity of college sports. Because there are no national rules for NIL contracts, every state has passed its own laws. This patchwork of laws has created an uneven playing field and given some universities advantages over their competitors.

We now have pay-to-play as bidding wars for recruits are starting in middle and high school. This is not to mention the transfer portal, which has become a revolving door with student-athletes jumping from school to school in pursuit of more money.

[…]

Regardless of which path Trump chooses to address the current state of college sports, I’m confident that his administration — which has already proven to be both effective and unafraid to shake up the status quo — can make meaningful reforms to make sure college sports remain intact.

Meanwhile, I’ll continue to work with my colleagues to hopefully draft legislation that could pass both chambers. The challenges facing college sports today are formidable, but not insurmountable. With President Trump’s leadership and a unified approach, we can navigate this new era while preserving the integrity and spirit of collegiate athletics.”

Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees.

###

Link

NIL

OSU announces coaching change – Oklahoma State University Athletics

STILLWATER – Oklahoma State University Director of Athletics Chad Weiberg has announced that Cowgirl golf coach Greg Robertson will not return next season. “We appreciate Greg’s service over the past six years and wish him well in the future,” Weiberg said. Annie Young will serve as interim head coach. A national search for […]

Published

7 hours ago

May 22, 2025

Your Sports Nation

STILLWATER – Oklahoma State University Director of Athletics Chad Weiberg has announced that Cowgirl golf coach Greg Robertson will not return next season.

“We appreciate Greg’s service over the past six years and wish him well in the future,” Weiberg said.

Annie Young will serve as interim head coach. A national search for the next head coach will begin immediately.

Link

NIL

Will the series with Notre Dame continue for the Trojans?

Published

8 hours ago

May 22, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Will the series with Notre Dame continue for the Trojans?

Introducing… Aubrey O’Day
Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation.
Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings.
Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge.
From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour.
Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage.
Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.

NIL

Geno Auriemma, UConn Land Elite Transfer Portal Guard From Rival USC Trojans

The USC Trojans women’s basketball team lost a couple of players through the NCAA Transfer Portal including guard Kayleigh Heckel. Heckel spent one season with the Women of Troy before announcing her intentions to enter the portal on April 3. Heckel was one of the top available guards in the transfer portal after earning extended […]

Published

9 hours ago

May 22, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Geno Auriemma, UConn Land Elite Transfer Portal Guard From Rival USC Trojans

Heckel was one of the top available guards in the transfer portal after earning extended minutes in the NCAA Women’s Basketball tournament. Heckel posted on her Instagram on May 20 that she will be transferring to the UConn Huskies.

Mar 29, 2025; Spokane, WA, USA; USC Trojans guard Kayleigh Heckel (9) walks off the court during the second half of a Sweet 16 NCAA Tournament basketball game against the Kansas State Wildcats at Spokane Arena. Mandatory Credit: James Snook-Imagn Images / James Snook-Imagn Images

“K9 by name, husky by nature. see you in storrs! Go huskiesss,” Heckel wrote.

The UConn Huskies knocked out the USC Trojans in the Elite 8 of the NCAA Women’s Basketball Tournament, 78-64. It was the second year in a row the Huskies knocked the Trojans out of the tournament in the same round. UConn went on to win the tournament.

The UConn Huskies lost star guard Paige Bueckers, who was the No. 1 overall pick in the WNBA Draft. Forward Sarah Strong just completed her freshman season, already on a path to being a top college basketball player. UConn is looking to win back-to-back championships, and Heckel is set to be a part of that team.

Coming out of high school, Heckel was a five-star recruit who committed to the USC Trojans. Throughout her freshman season, Heckel continued to develop as a player, averaging 16.9 minutes with 6.1 points. She also averaged 1.4 rebounds, 1.9 assists, and 1.3 steals.

MORE: Los Angeles Lakers Insider’s Bold Prediction For Bronny James

MORE: USC Trojans’ Jahkeem Stewart Best True Freshman In All Of College Football?

MORE: Elite 4-Star Recruit Luke Wafle To Commit To USC Trojans Over Penn State, Florida?

With USC Trojans guard JuJu Watkins set to miss time, though it is still unknown exact timetable, Heckel could have competed for a starting role with the Women of Troy but ultimately chose to enter the portal. Heckel chose the UConn Huskies over the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

While Heckel may begin as a depth piece for the UConn Huskies, she will be led by coach Geno Auriemma, a 12-time national champion-winning head coach. Heckel will be on a squad looking to compete for another national title.

The USC women’s basketball team is heading into a season with a new starting five. With Watkins recovering from her ACL tear, center Rayah Marshall and forward Kiki Iriafen in the WNBA, USC coach Lindsay Gottlieb and the staff have their work cut out for them.

Feb 8, 2025; Los Angeles, California, USA; USC Trojans guard Kayleigh Heckel (9) and USC Trojans guard JuJu Watkins (12) during the second quarter against the Ohio State Buckeyes at Galen Center. Mandatory Credit: Robert Hanashiro-Imagn Images / Robert Hanashiro-Imagn Images

Guard Kennedy Smith will be returning which is a positive for the Trojans. Smith finished the season averaging 9.5 points, 4.3 rebounds, 2.0 assists, and 2.2 steals. The USC guard is entering just her sophomore season. Guard Malia Samuels only had one start in the 2024-2025 season but earned more minutes as the season progressed.

Through the Transfer Portal, the Women of Troy acquired guard Kara Dunn, from the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets. Dunn led Georgia Tech in scoring, averaging 15.5 points per game, and averaged 5.8 rebounds, 1.3 assists, 1.3 steals, and 0.1 blocks. The Trojans also acquired former Washington State forward Dayana Mendes. The forward averaged 8.3 points, 5.3 rebounds and 1.3 steals per game last season.

USC will have a standout incoming freshman next season, with five-star recruit Jazzy Davidson joining the team. While the USC team may look different next season, the Women of Troy will be just as competitive, and look to take the next step in the NCAA Tournament.