NIL

House vs. NCAA

Published

8 months ago

May 7, 2025

The college sports world is still waiting for a resolution to the House vs. NCAA settlement nearly a month after a federal judge presided over the final approval hearing.

The $2.8 billion settlement, if approved, would benefit thousands of former and current college athletes. It would provide back pay to former athletes for missed name, image and likeness (NIL) opportunities. And it would allow current and future athletes — especially elite ones and those who participate in the money-making sports of football and men’s basketball — to benefit from revenue sharing from their universities.

But U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken’s approval of the House settlement has been held up by one issue: roster limits.

The settlement would allow schools to increase the number of scholarships provided in most sports, but it also would set roster limits below what many teams carry.

In football, Division I programs would be allowed to increase the number of full scholarships provided from 85 to 105. However, football teams wouldn’t be able to carry more than 105 players — a significant reduction for teams that often field rosters of 120 or more thanks to walk-on players.

The possibility of such reductions has caused stress for many players across the country who occupy fringe roster spots — and for the coaches who have had to think about cutting them. Many athletes and their parents let Wilken know about such challenges through objection letters, and she listened.

Wilken first suggested during the final approval hearing April 7 that the NCAA and its power conferences — the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12 — consider revising the settlement to either phase in roster limits or grandfather in the roster spots of current players.

When the NCAA and power conferences declined that suggestion after the hearing, Wilken issued an ultimatum: Find a solution to the roster problem or lose approval of a settlement that has been in the works for years. She gave the parties 14 days to begin negotiating the issue, a deadline that arrives Wednesday.

“Judge Wilken has been the greatest champion for college athletes in this whole process,” said a Chicago-area mother of a Division I athlete. “As a graduate of a Power Four school, I am completely disgusted with how the Power Four is acting and how many of their athletic directors are acting (when it comes to roster limits). I am completely disgusted with the NCAA. I’m completely disgusted with the plaintiff attorneys, who are not representing everybody in the class of Division I athletes.”

Understanding the math

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, photographed Jan. 27, 2011. (Jason Doiy/The Recorder)

If the NCAA and power conference leaders can come up with a solution Wilken accepts, it would end nearly a year of uncertainty for many athletes, especially those in non-revenue-generating sports and those who hold walk-on or partial-scholarship roster spots.

Some teams trimmed their rosters early to get ahead of the issue, with many reports surfacing in the fall of athletes being cut or recruits having their offers withdrawn. But some athletes with fringe roster spots have spent months wondering whether they will have a place on their teams next year.

The mother of the Division I athlete, who participates in a spring sport, said her son has been nervous about his roster spot, and the knowledge that cuts might be on the horizon has created a difficult dynamic on the team. Some players worried about losing their places. Others felt guilty knowing they would have a spot over a teammate.

The coach was upfront with his players — and vocal against the limits — but it still created what she called “a cloud over his team.”

“It’s been really hard for the team because they understand the math,” said the mother, who asked not to be named because of the changing nature of her son’s spot on the team. “Kids and teams are used to the competition embedded for playing time or starting roles, but the idea of viewing your teammate as, ‘It’s me or him for next year,’ is not something that any of them signed up for or have really had to do before.

“They keep saying things like, ‘Well, next year — hopefully, if I’m back.’ … It’s just so much to put on a bunch of 18- and 19-year-olds.”

How college sports are preparing for ‘seismic change,’ including revenue sharing and new roster limits

Noah Henderson, director of the sport management program at Loyola’s Quinlan School of Business, has been a vocal critic of the proposed roster limits.

After the preliminary approval of the settlement, Henderson — a former golfer at Saint Joseph’s in Philadelphia — looked at how many roster spots might be eliminated, first examining SEC baseball teams and Football Bowl Subdivision teams. His conclusion, which he wrote for Sports Illustrated, was that more than 100 SEC baseball spots could be lost with a 34-player limit, and potentially thousands of spots could be lost at the highest level of football.

Henderson published more articles for SI on potential effects of the House settlement, and he also took his concerns directly to Wilken via objection letters about the roster limits.

“I was a student-athlete myself,” he told the Tribune. “I know how hard anyone works to get there, whether you’re playing important minutes or you are someone who shows up to lift and practice every day fighting to make the team better. No one is on a D-I roster by luck. Everyone worked really hard to get there, and it felt like in a lot of the talk about these roster limits, that wasn’t necessarily reflected.”

Henderson was far from the only person to voice his objections to Wilken. Dozens of athletes, their parents and advocates wrote letters explaining how the roster uncertainty affected them, including many in April before Wilken issued the decree that attorneys needed to find a solution before she would grant approval.

“I think people’s voices are really powerful in this,” the athlete’s mother said. “I think people’s outcry is part of what pushed this judge to make this stand. … All of a sudden she gets 120 letters in one day, that is a powerful thing.”

Planning ahead

The uncertainty hasn’t been easy for coaches either. Many are trying simultaneously to get their rosters in order and do right by the athletes who may or may not be cut — while also allowing for the possibility they could keep those players around.

Illinois football coach Bret Bielema said during his news conference at the end of spring practice that he has one plan if the NCAA limits rosters to 105 players and another if teams can have 115 to 120. Bielema, who does exit interviews with each player every fall and spring, said he tried to be “upfront and honest” about where they stood in each scenario.

“I shared that with every kid,” Bielema told reporters. “As soon as we have any information, I update them with that. … The one thing as a coach, I promise you, I’m a couple steps ahead of where reality is all the time.”

Bielema didn’t advocate for a 105 limit, but he likes the idea of a uniform number across college football to even the playing field, however it plays out. He said recruiting has been “for lack of a better term, a s−−−show” recently.

“The more we can get that (number) streamlined, the better the world will be,” he said.

Former Jacobs tight end Nick True catches a pass against Burlington Central on Sept. 30, 2022, in Burlington. (H. Rick Bamman/For the Beacon-News)

Some college athletes didn’t wait to see how it pans out and entered their sport’s transfer portal.

Illinois walk-on tight end Nick True said Bielema brought up the roster limits to him, but he already had decided to transfer, believing that “what I was showing on tape and what I was proving to the coaches, I just wasn’t getting the opportunity I felt like I’ve shown I deserve.” He is looking at smaller programs where he can be more confident he’ll get on the field and said he has offers from Ball State and Illinois State.

True, from Jacobs High School in Algonquin, said he knows other players who entered the portal after talking with Bielema amid the murky future of their spots.

“Being in that position is hard for them, wanting to pursue their football dreams,” True said. “But getting all of this last minute and trying to find a new school is obviously not going to work out for a lot of them. It is definitely tough for a lot of them.”

Notre Dame football coach Marcus Freeman indicated to reporters this spring he was taking a similar approach to Bielema, formulating a plan for 105 players and another if the Irish can carry more.

Notre Dame coach Marcus Freeman looks on during the Blue-Gold spring game April 12, 2025, in South Bend, Ind. (Justin Casterline/Getty Images)

Irish wide receiver Alex Whitman was among the walk-ons who wrote a letter to Wilken. He noted how walk-ons participate for the love of the game, their team and their school, often taking on unsung roles on the scout team to contribute in whatever way they can.

“If the proposed settlement goes through as is, it means that I could be cut,” Whitman wrote. “I would be left with two undesirable options, leave my dream university where I invested so much time and energy or stay and watch from the sidelines as my eligibility quietly disappears, essentially forcing me to choose between student or athlete.

“It feels like everything I have worked for is being taken away, not because of merit but because of the decisions of a few who prioritize money over people.”

Henderson advocated in one of his letters and in an ensuing SI story for the implementation of practice squads. His reasoning was the House settlement already is serving as a “de facto” collective bargaining agreement — including a salary cap of sorts that would be about $20.5 million per school in the first year — without the NCAA and its schools having to recognize their athletes as employees.

Why not emulate professional sports and try to save some roster spots by creating practice squads?

“I looked at this and saw we were moving toward a professional model of sports,” Henderson said. “And that’s something common in professional sports is you have some developmental system, a farm team or minor-league system — or taking the model from football, a practice squad — where you can still have more players on a roster.

“In football, there are a lot of injuries. There’s a reason schools are carrying 123 guys.”

A Yahoo Sports report last week said a plan is in the works to grandfather in current roster spots and phase in the limits, and an attorney for the plaintiffs told The Associated Press on Monday that he believes the agreement “will solve the judge’s concerns.”

If a such a proposal is agreed upon, the issues for football walk-ons could be solved temporarily. But many questions remain about the future reduction of Division I roster spots.

Future challenges

Former Wheaton St. Francis volleyball player Kyle Zediker sets the ball against Naperville Central on April 6, 2022, in Wheaton. (Jon Langham/For the Naperville Sun)

Former Wheaton St. Francis volleyball player Kyle Zediker already had moved out after his first year at Grand Canyon University in Phoenix and was at home in Illinois when he received the news.

Zediker was on FaceTime with a teammate, who was attending what they thought was a compliance meeting. Instead, Grand Canyon officials let the men’s volleyball team know the program was being cut just a year after it made the NCAA Tournament semifinals.

“It was pretty sad,” Zediker said. “It’s tough to have to go there for one year and then leave all my friends and connections that I made at that school behind. We really did have a great thing going there, a really good young core moving forward for volleyball. So it is really sad to know all that has to be left behind.”

The team received no warning that such news was coming.

Over the phone, Zediker strained to understand the reasoning, which to the best of his knowledge was “a business decision.” Grand Canyon, which announced in March it would opt into the House settlement, cited the low number of Division I men’s volleyball teams and said it would reallocate funds to its other programs. The university said it will honor existing scholarships and field a club men’s volleyball team.

“In a rapidly evolving college athletics landscape, GCU is constantly evaluating how it can best position itself as a Division I athletic department and a university,” the school said in a statement. “The move will allow GCU to focus on supporting its remaining 20 athletic programs at the highest levels in their respective conferences.”

The American Volleyball Coaches Association responded with a statement expressing its “deep concern” with the program’s elimination. It said that in the changing world of college sports, “these challenges must not be met with the reduction of opportunities that transform lives and communities.”

The situation underscores the potential danger to non-revenue-generating sports. For some universities, that might be the elimination of entire programs as athletic departments figure out how to allocate funds in the revenue-sharing era. And for some, it could mean the aforementioned roster trims.

Zediker, a setter who had 219 assists in his first season, is in the transfer portal and expects to move fairly quickly on his next opportunity. He has been struck by the amount of support he has received — including from the Grand Canyon coaches who lost their jobs — as he tries to find a new home.

But he’s worried about some of his teammates who might have trouble latching on to a new team, especially with the roster situation in flux.

“Especially people who maybe didn’t get a ton of playing time, maybe they didn’t play at all,” Zediker said. “If they’re going in the portal, it’s really tough for those guys to find new homes just because it’s hard for college coaches to take someone that has no film.

“So knowing that some of my teammates are in that situation, but they’re very good volleyball players, it’s really tough to see that because they’re so deserving of a spot and they’re amazing people. But it’s just the way the landscape of men’s volleyball is going right now and how the NCAA is changing.”

If the roster limits are phased in and/or current players are grandfathered in, it could help athletes in the 2025-26 school year. But eventually Division I opportunities may decrease in all sports.

Two area high school football coaches noted to the Tribune that recruiting opportunities for many of their players already have diminished because of the transfer portal. Wiping out perhaps thousands of roster spots would make it worse, and high school athletes would have to continue to adjust their expectations for which collegiate level they can play.

Henderson argued that a temporary solution at least would allow time for the roster restructuring to play out naturally.

“I don’t think it will have as drastic an impact if you amortize this over a few years,” he said. “What you’ll likely see is conferences like the Ohio Valley and the Missouri Valley get strong athletes. … You’re going to see talent be dispersed in a different way.

“The issue (right now) is the shock to the system. If you put 10,000 athletes in the transfer portal in one year, it’s going to upend (a lot). If you do it gradually, you can allow talent to more naturally find a home and sort of rebound.”

Originally Published: May 6, 2025 at 1:09 PM CDT

NIL

Texas college football: Will NIL reform help or hurt in 2026?

Published

27 minutes ago

December 27, 2025

Your Sports Nation

2026 NIL changes could change Texas college sports

For many college football players in Texas, the game has moved off the playing field and to a bargaining table. The transfer portal opens Jan. 2, sparking a bidding war sports analyst Eric Kasimov anticipated.

AUSTIN, Texas – For many Texas college football players, the game has moved off the playing field and to a bargaining table.

The transfer portal opens Jan. 2, sparking a bidding war that sports analyst Eric Kasimov anticipated.

What they’re saying:

“So, what’s going to happen. It’s wide open and the rules are being written as we’re having this conversation right now,” said Eric Kasimov the CEO and founder of SportsEpreneur.

In October, Kasimov wrote about the new NIL rules in Texas.

He predicted compensation would be part of “every serious recruiting conversation.” Direct pay, which is now allowed under a new state law, would be selling points and Texas would be one of the most aggressive NIL markets in 2026. The changes are already paying off.

“Well, I’ll tell you one thing that right now, and it’s close to home for you guys is Texas Tech, right? Texas Tech is a top four team in the playoffs and obviously like a candidate to win it all and they have their mantra of let’s win at all costs,” said Kasimov.

Powerhouse programs like the Longhorns and Aggies are no longer odds-on favorites by recruits. The schools in Austin and College Station have to battle more in-state programs for players who are graduating from high school and must protect those currently on their rosters. Out-of-state programs — with deep pockets — are also making moves.

“You look at an Ohio State University who comes in and they secure one of the best players from Texas, Devin Sanchez last year, five-star recruit and Devin, Sanchez now plays at Ohio State. And I’m sure there’s a lot of schools in the state of Texas that would have said, Hey, why didn’t you stay home? Well, things are different now,” said Kasimov.
A recent $2 billion proposal involving a private equity group by the Big 10 escalated the bidding war. The idea has stalled but still raises a big question.

“If Michigan, Ohio state, Oregon, USC are coming into Texas and taking the top talent because they have the brands and they have extra money that they can give, what is Texas and the SEC going to do,” said Kasimov.

The current NIL situation, according to Kasimov, has no guardrails to it and is just the Wild West. He believes it’s confusing for fans.

FOX 7 Austin asked several fans what they thought. Paul Friedman said he is happy to see student athletes compensated for their services and is not concerned that football has essentially gone pro.

“No, I am not. That’s a direction we’ve been heading for 30 years, and it’s the correct direction. The wrong direction was where they called student-athletes amateurs and paid them under the table illegally,” said Friedman.

Another fan, Kevine Dean, told FOX 7 Austin he doesn’t like what NIL has done to the college game he grew up watching.

Congress may now get involved. Legislation may come up in 2026 with new restrictions.

“And it’s like, you know, you’re in class and you’re, you know you don’t want the teacher giving you too many rules, but you’ve kind of like kind of bent the rules too far. Now, we’re going to get the teachers involved. We’re going to be the bring the principal in here. I don’t think that’s what they want. But they’ve gone so far out of bounds that they need someone to bring it in,” said Kasimov.

There’s talk about a salary cap like in the NFL and a luxury tax like baseball for teams that have big payrolls. Some want modified free agency deals to prevent year-to-year jumps. Some are also calling for a commissioner of college football.

Kasimov doubts the NIL genie will be put back in the bottle.

“If they resolve it, I don’t think it’s resolved forever. I think it gets resolved for that time being,” said Kasimov.

In the meantime, this advice was offered by Kasimov:

For athletes, seize the opportunity
For parents, understand the system
For coaches and schools, adapt fast
For fans, watch the evolution in real time

“I don’t know if it’ll be the end of kids staying in Texas, I just think it opens it up more,” said Kasimov.

The Texas NIL law was written to automatically adjust to any changes made on the national level.

Interview with SportsEpreneur CEO Eric Kasimov

Dig deeper:

FOX 7 Austin’s Rudy Koski sat down with Eric Kasimov, CEO and founder of SportsEprenuer, to discuss NIL reform and its impact on Texas college football next year.

ERIC KASIMOV: Well, I’ll tell you one thing that right now, and it’s close to home for you guys is Texas Tech, right? Texas Tech is a top four team in the playoffs and obviously a candidate to win it all and they have their mantra of ‘let’s win at all costs’. And I think some of the bigger programs that we’re used to seeing, Texas A&M, University of Texas. They’re like, ‘Hey, what’s going on here? They’ve raised a lot of money.’ And next thing you know, you see a university that wants to go all in with this new way of living. In the college sports world and college football, specifically, a school like Texas Tech can become a big name. So I think in 2026, I think it’s the universities that want to make noise have an opportunity to make noise.

You could look at another university like SMU who joins the ACC, right? And SMU is a program that said when they got to go to the ACC. They didn’t get a TV deal with them. They’re not earning any of the revenue, but what they did is they went out and they earned money on their own. So they’ve already secured $159 million in cash, and then they’ve secured donors down the line of $200 million to cover that gap. So a school like an SMU might be on the forefront of having opportunities to do it. And then you throw everything else that’s going on right now, conversations about private equity deals with the Big 10, $2.4 billion, where each university would get roughly, they’d get different amounts based on which university it is, but roughly $150 million, whether that happens or not, we don’t know. Recruiting is the other one. Recruiting is part of the whole ecosystem, recruiting is a national sport by itself. It always has been to some degree, but now these universities are coming in with more money. You look at an Ohio State University who comes in and secures one of the best players from Texas, Devin Sanchez last year, a five-star recruit and Sanchez now plays at Ohio State. And I’m sure there’s a lot of schools in the state of Texas that would have said, ‘Hey, why didn’t you stay home?’ Well, things are different now. Right. So what’s going to happen, it’s wide open and the rules are being written as we’re having this conversation right now.

RUDY KOSKI: You know, in talking with people, just in general conversation, the average fan, they’re saying, all right, well, yeah, the kids deserve to make some money. And I’ve also heard instead of having the under the table bag men, it’s now out in the open. So what’s the big deal? But you know is it one of those things that no one likes to see the wizard behind the curtain? Is that what this is?

KASIMOV: It could be, you know, sometimes I think we, uh, we know it’s happening, and then you see the video of it, like you work in news, right? Like you hear about the story and then you see the video of it. You’re like, ‘Oh my gosh, I can’t believe that happened.’ It happened anyway, right. It was going on. And yeah, I think that’s, that’s a lot to do with it. Ed Orgeron of LSU said, you know, they used to come in the back door, the bag men, and now they’re just coming through the front door. It’s concerning. It’s been going on. And I think it’s going on now and they are coming through the front door. But there’s still no guardrails to it. So it’s just the Wild West. And so that’s confusing to people. And I think it’s confusing to the fans. Like you said, the average fan.

KOSKI: As you look at what’s coming down the pack, and as you analyze what’s happening, do you think the future is the Big Ten private equity, bringing in big dollar donors like this, getting a cut of the pie, or is it more like what Congress is thinking about doing in regards to just setting caps and turning it into maybe like baseball?

KASIMOV: Yeah, it’s hard to say. I mean, for the big 10, you had 18 universities. Sixteen of them seemed to be OK with the private equity deal, where they would give up 10% of the stake of their media deal. Two universities, University of Southern Cal and Michigan said no. Michigan called it a payday loan. They need all 18 universities to be on the side of that sort of private equity deal. Does that happen? I don’t know. I don’t know if that’s the future of it. I think, and I don’t think the SEC, Greg Sankey, I don’t think they’re on board with it. I don’t think Texas is on board with it, I don’t think Texas A&M is on board with it. At the same time, if the Big 10 were to show up with that, it’s going to force the hand of the SEC to do something. I don’t think the SEC in the state of Texas, which is fertile ground for college football talent right now. I believe there’s for the 2025 NFL season, 199 players in the NFL are from the state of Texas. That’s by far the most; California and Florida follow that up. They do not want to lose that talent. If Michigan, Ohio State, Oregon, USC are coming into Texas and taking the top talent because they have the brands and they have extra money that they can give, what is Texas and the SEC going to do.

At the same time, I don’t know if the Big 10 truly wants this. Obviously some universities do, but they don’t all. And what is, what happens down there? You know, then you have to commit to the Big Ten until 2046 is what they’re saying. That’s a payday that the UC investments, who’s the private equity people behind the deal are going to get. That’s a lot. So I don’t know. I could see if you were to ask me like, ‘Hey, what’s your prediction?’ I think a lot of people might agree with this. Sure, two conferences, the SEC and the Big Ten and more format like the NFL. I don’t know if that’s going to happen, but I guess the other thing to say is Congress is now involved. And it’s like, you know, you’re in class and you don’t want the teacher giving you too many rules, but you’ve kind of like kind of bent the rules too far. Now, we’re going to get the teachers involved. We’re gonna be ‘bring the principal in here.’ I don’t think that’s what they want. But they’ve gone so far out of bounds that they need someone to bring it in.

KOSKI: You touched on this just a moment ago in regards to recruiting. Texas is a big pot for players nationwide. What does this new future mean for recruiting in Texas? Are the days of Texas getting the top running back, A&M, you mentioned Texas Tech, all the kids staying home, that’s not gonna happen anymore?

KASIMOV: These kids grow up, and I think this will always be the case. They want to play for the school that they watched, right? If their parents were fans, if their families were fans and they rooted for A&M, that’s where they want to go. And that’s what they want to play. And that, that letter comes in and that offer comes in. That still holds a lot of value at the same time. I mean, people travel. It’s okay. You know, if you live in Texas and your kid ends up at Oregon or Florida or Florida State, right, you can go and visit and you can travel. I don’t know. If it’ll be the end of kids staying in Texas, I just think it opens it up more. These kids from Texas have been going out of state already. That’s not a new thing. It’s just at what level. So if they’re keeping a certain percentage of the top players to stay in Texas. Does that percentage dwindle down now? And all of a sudden are more of these kids going out there. Like I referenced before, Devin Sanchez, he goes to Ohio State. That’s one of the top corners, one of the top players in the country. People liken him to the Jeremiah Smith of defense. Like that’s the type of impact he could have. With all these universities that we’ve referenced in the state of Texas, how does not one of them kind of keep that kid there? But again, it’s a one-off. Does it happen on a consistent basis where these kids are traveling and go into different places like USC, Oregon, Ohio State?

KOSKI: So is the good thing out of all this as we debate whether or not is the good thing, out of this schools like Texas State, Texas Tech, SMU, UTSA, they now can be players.

KASIMOV: Yes.The problem though is on the other side of it, Houston, who was running a deficit of, of, I believe around $8 to $9 million does not have that sort of money, but that’s the society we live in, right? They have to figure out a way to kind of climb back up in there. But yes, to your point, Texas Tech can compete now because they can play, you know, how do they want to earn money, right? Do they have oil money that they can go out and get and bring this in here and say, ‘Hey, let’s go win at all costs. What do we have to do to bring in the best talent, the best coaches and the best facilities and resources?’ It’s a combination of both. So you’ll have schools that are going to commit to this. They’re going to rise to the challenge. They’re gonna raise the money and they’ll have an opportunity to compete just because you spend a lot of money, doesn’t mean you’ll win. But at the same time, we’re gonna have universities that won’t be able to play, they’ll run a deficit and they’re going to get in trouble, which is like what Trev Albert said, when he says we have a spending problem. So if we just, just because we have the money and we spend it incorrectly, does it mean it’s gonna work out?

KOSKI: And that bodes this next comment, you know, didn’t we see this movie before with Major League Baseball? You know, the Yankees, the Dodgers, they had all the money. Milwaukee didn’t, Cleveland didn’t and something had to be done because you had the haves and the haves not. And where do you go?

KASIMOV: Yeah, it’s frustrating for fans. No doubt. I mean, we had an amazing game seven of the world series, right? If you watch that tune in like amazing baseball top player players, but at the same time in the back end of that, you said, of course the Dodgers want it because they spend the most amount of money. This isn’t a fair system where other teams are out here and they can’t compete at that level, right? A game here, a series there. Yes, they can, but overall it becomes problematic and people tune out. And that’s the big thing, right, TV dollars are going to rule this. The SEC and the Big 10 don’t have the big TV contract. They do now they’re okay. You know, SEC with ESPN, right? All that kind of stuff. Big Ten with FOX. If they lose that down the road, that, that becomes a problem. That’s where they lose the money.

KOSKI: What do you think? What’s your crystal ball say about 26? Do we resolve this? Or does this can keep, do we keep on kicking the can?

KASIMOV: If they resolve it, I don’t think it’s resolved forever. I think it gets resolved for that time being. Unless a commissioner comes in, which I know like Nick Saban has commented, like college ball needs a commissioner. They need a system in place. They need guard rails. I don’t think they can figure that out in time. I think things will change. I think the college ball playoffs will change. I think they’ll continue to adjust that. Uh, it seems though that they’re not running all the different scenarios, right? So they ran the scenarios of like, let’s expand to 12 teams. Okay. So they do that and then Boise state joins the playoff and they get a buy. And it’s like, well, that doesn’t make sense. Why would a group of five team get a bye? Okay. So let’s change it for the second year. Then they change it. For the second. And all of a sudden they’re upset because, uh, Uh, JMU and Tulane are now taking two spots from a team like a Notre Dame or a Texas or a Vanderbilt and that people are upset about that. So what are they going to change it again for the third year? Are they running all the scenarios of what could happen? Right. We don’t know. So I think that becomes a problem is who’s running it and are they thinking through everything. And I just don’t think they are.

KOSKI: That was another question that I want to ask you, please. A lot of people say the bowl system is dead. I don’t think it’s dead. I think it’ going to contract and get back to a core group. What do you think?

KASIMOV: That would be great. I think bowl season, I think what you’re just getting into the nostalgia of it. People are very in, into nostalgia, right? You go to a store today and like the nineties are back and in different times, right, it’d be the seventies and different clothes and different music are coming back. That’s fun. People are excited about that. Let’s go watch some old movies, but in, and in college ball bowl season is so much like that. It’s like, we remember sitting down New Year’s Day and just, well, how much college ball can we watch and right now It’s just not a thing. I mean, there’s bowl games happening and you go ask someone on the street and they’re like, I had no idea there was a game on today. It’s not a, that’s important. Now the playoffs, different people are going to tune in, especially for this round of the playoffs that are coming up and in the future, they’ll continue to do that, but yeah, I think they need to create a system where the bowls matter and a part of that has to do with the fact that these are sponsored, right? They’re spending millions of dollars and I don’t understand how the sponsors are going to want to stay in the game of bowl season. When no one’s watching, no one is going to the games. They’re showing half empty stadiums. So they’re going to have to come up with something to give an advantage. But there’s a lot that goes into it, including the NFL drafts. So a lot of the top players are going to opt out because they want to get ready for the combine and the draft that follows just like soon after. I mean, think about the team that makes a championship game in late January, the combines in late February in the drafts in late April, these players have to get themselves ready to deal with all that comes with that timeline, right. And then that’s. Yeah, it’s serious stuff.

The Source: Information in this report comes from reporting/interviews by FOX 7 Austin’s Rudy Koski.

College FootballTexasSportsMoney

Link

NIL

Dante Moore’s NIL Valuation As He Weighs NFL Draft Or Oregon Ducks

Published

1 hour ago

December 27, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Oregon Ducks quarterback Dante Moore NIL valuation name image likeness NFL Draft decision Dan Lanning Will Stein cfp — Dec 20, 2025; Eugene, OR, USA; Oregon Ducks quarterback Dante Moore (5) throws a pass during the third quarter against the James Madison Dukes at Autzen Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Troy Wayrynen-Imagn Images | Troy Wayrynen-Imagn Images

Link

NIL

Predicting landing spots for the top 5 college football transfers (Dec. 26)

Published

2 hours ago

December 27, 2025

Your Sports Nation

A week out from the transfer portal officially opening, some top college football stars have indicated the intention to move on to a new school. Per On3sports’s rankings, here are the top five portal prospects, and a likely landing spot (or two) for each.

Sam Leavitt, Arizona State QB

Despite many more QBs entering the portal, Leavitt remains at the top of the list of the top portal passers. Leavitt’s 2025 season was limited to just seven games, in which he threw for 1,628 yards and 10 touchdowns. He showed more in 2024, taking ASU to the College Football Playoff with over 3,300 all-purpose yards and 29 touchdowns.

Leavitt is thought to be focusing in on Indiana and Oregon as potential landing spots. He’ll have two years to play and figures to be one of the top passers in college football, wherever he lands.

In 2024, he helped Arizona State reach the College Football Playoff by passing for 2,885 yards and 24 touchdowns and rushing for 443 yards and five more scores. His 2025 season was cut short by an injury in October, but in the portion of the year he could play, Leavitt passed for 1,628 yards and 10 scores in just seven games.

Chaz Coleman, Penn State DE

Colemani is an elite 6’4″ edge rusher who didn’t see a ton of time at Penn State in 2025 as a freshman. Coleman played in nine games, making eight tackles, including three tackles for loss with one QB sack.

Coleman has been projected as likely to end up at Ohio State, where the Buckeyes have done well in developing pass rushers. His position coach at Penn State has now been hired at South Carolina, so the Gamecocks might be a surprise contender on his recruitment.

Drew Mestemaker, North Texas QB

Mestemaker is one of those players who seemingly emerged from nowhere. A former-walk on, he passed for 4,129 yards and 31 touchdowns as a redshirt freshman at North Texas. The 6’4″ QB has three years of eligibility left.

The likely landing spot for Mestemaker remains Oklahoma State, where his North Texas coach Eric Morris has settled. He has also been linked with Texas Tech as one of several other schools interested in the talented young QB.

Byrum Brown, South Florida QB

Brown has spent four years at South Florida, but did preseve his redshirt year in 2022. Last season, he threw for 3,158 yards and 28 touchdowns while running for another 1,008 yards and 14 scores on the ground. He’s the premier dual-threat QB in this transfer class.

Brown’s most likely landing spot will be Auburn, where his USF coach Alex Golesh has landed. Florida is another school that has been documented as a possibility, as former Tulane boss Jon Sumrall will need a talented passer to lead his offense.

Jontez Williams, Iowa State CB

Williams was injured in late September and missed most of the 2025 season, but is a talented defensive back. The 6’2″ defender picked off four passes in 2024 and broke up five more passes. He’ll have two years of eligibility remaining.

Williams hails from Florida and Miami has been notable as a contender for his next landing spot. Of course, Iowa State coach Matt Campbell has moved on to Penn State, so the Nittany Lions should probably be in the conversation as well.

Link

NIL

Iverson Hooks Triggers NIL Money Dispute With UAB Contract

Published

3 hours ago

December 26, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Iverson Hooks NIL buyout UAB Contract Pay Back Transfer Portal — iStockphoto / © Tommy Gilligan-Imagn Images

UAB star Iverson Hooks is choosing to enter the transfer portal. His decision not to continue his college football career creates an interesting situation regarding his NIL money.

Does he owe it all back to the Blazers?

I do not know the specific terms of Hooks’ agreement with the university but it appears as though he is on the hook (pun intended) for every single penny he has ever received while in Birmingham. This could get litigious.

Who is Iverson Hooks?

Hooks is not a name you would know unless you are a diehard fan of college football. He was one of the best players on the Group of Six level in 2025.

The former three-star recruit committed to UAB in the Class of 2022 over 11 other offers from schools like UCF, Arkansas State, Western Kentucky and Troy. His first three years with the program saw him record 25 catches for ~300 yards and three touchdowns.

This past season was a huge breakout year for the 5-foot-10, 175-pound pass-catcher.

History for Hooks ‼️

Iverson Hooks became the first player in school history with multiple 10+ reception games in a single season on Saturday.

He is the first player since Roddy White to have multiple games with 10 or more receptions, and just the third player in school history… pic.twitter.com/v9nvVnvaJo

— UAB Football (@UAB_FB) November 23, 2025

Hooks caught a team-high 72 passes for a team-high 927 yards and seven touchdowns. He has two years of eligibility remaining.

However, the rising redshirt junior does not plan to finish out his career in Birmingham. Hooks is going to enter the transfer portal.

How much money does he owe back to UAB?

This is where things get murky.

The exact details of Iverson Hooks’ financial agreement at UAB are unknown. Perhaps it had already reached its conclusion after four seasons. I don’t know. Maybe there is no buyout attached to his deal.

However, there is a specific clause for termination attached to a majority of contracts with Blazer Impact, the primary NIL arm in Birmingham.

“If Blazer Impact terminates the Agreement pursuant to Section 13.1.2, 13.1.3, 13.1.4, or 13.1.7, Licensor shall pay Blazer Impact a lump sum payment, as liquidated damages and not a penalty, 100% of all Licensing Fees and Endorsement Activity Fees that were paid to Licensor under the Agreement through the date of termination, or 100% of the total Licensing Fees and Enforcement Activity Fees that were scheduled to be paid to Licensor under the remaining term of the Agreement, whichever amount is more. Licensor shall pay the above liquidated damages within 30 days of termination by Blazer Impact.”

This may not apply to Hooks. He might be exempt based off of the unique language in his unique contract. We don’t know.

If he is not exempt, Hooks will be expected to pay back every last dollar he was paid by Blazer Impact over the last four years. Maybe the bigger school that ultimately receives his commitment will pay the buyout? Maybe this will go to court. We’ll see.

Link