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 […]
-
Bill Connelly
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:
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.)
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
The new college sports agency is rejecting some athlete NIL deals with donor-backed collectives
By EDDIE PELLS – AP National Writer The new agency in charge of regulating name, image, likeness deals in college sports sent a letter to schools Thursday saying it had rejected deals between players and donor-backed collectives formed over the past several years to funnel money to athletes or their schools. Those arrangements hold no […]
By EDDIE PELLS – AP National Writer
The new agency in charge of regulating name, image, likeness deals in college sports sent a letter to schools Thursday saying it had rejected deals between players and donor-backed collectives formed over the past several years to funnel money to athletes or their schools.
Those arrangements hold no “valid business purpose,” the memo said, and don’t adhere to rules that call for outside NIL deals to be between players and companies that provide goods or services to the general public for profit.
The letter to Division I athletic directors could be the next step in shuttering today’s version of the collective, groups that are closely affiliated with schools and that, in the early days of NIL after July 2021, proved the most efficient way for schools to indirectly cut deals with players.
Since then, the landscape has changed yet again with the $2.8 billion House settlement that allows schools to pay the players directly as of July 1.
Already, collectives affiliated with Colorado, Alabama, Notre Dame, Georgia and others have announced they’re shutting down. Georgia, Ohio State and Illinois are among those that have announced plans with Learfield, a media and technology company with decades of licensing and other experience across college athletics, to help arrange NIL deals.
Outside deals between athlete and sponsor are still permitted, but any worth $600 or more have to be vetted by a clearinghouse called NIL Go that was established by the new College Sports Commission.
In its letter to the ADs, the CSC said more than 1,500 deals have been cleared since NIL Go launched on June 11, “ranging in value from three figures to seven figures.” More than 12,000 athletes and 1,100 institutional users have registered to use the system.
But the bulk of the letter explained that many deals could not be cleared because they did not conform to an NCAA rule that sets a “valid business purpose” standard for deals to be approved.
The letter explained that if a collective reaches a deal with an athlete to appear on behalf of the collective, which charges an admission fee, the standard is not met because the purpose of the event is to raise money to pay athletes, not to provide goods or services available to the general public for profit.
The same would apply to a deal an athlete makes to sell merchandise to raise money to pay that player because the purpose of “selling merchandise is to raise money to pay that student-athlete and potentially other student-athletes at a particular school or schools, which is not a valid business purpose” according to the NCAA rule.
A deal, however, could be approved if, for instance, the businesses paying the players had a broader purpose than simply acting as a collective. The letter uses a golf course or apparel company as examples.
“In other words, NIL collectives may act as marketing agencies that match student-athletes with businesses that have a valid business purpose and seek to use the student’s NIL to promote their businesses,” the letter said.
AP college sports: https://apnews.com/hub/college-sports
NIL
Angel Reese calls out Robert Griffin III, claims he’s lying ‘for clout’ in wake of Caitlin Clark take
Angel Reese called out Robert Griffin III for his take on her not liking Caitlin Clark. Without saying Griffin’s name, Reese went after him, who said he talked to people in her inner circle. “Lying on this app when everybody know the first and last name of everybody in my circle for clout is nastyyyy […]
Angel Reese called out Robert Griffin III for his take on her not liking Caitlin Clark. Without saying Griffin’s name, Reese went after him, who said he talked to people in her inner circle.
“Lying on this app when everybody know the first and last name of everybody in my circle for clout is nastyyyy work,” Angel Reese wrote. This came after Griffin called out people who attacked Reese after she was named a cover athlete for NBA 2K26. In the X/Twitter post, the former NFL quarterback mentioned that he spoke to Reese’s inner circle about the Chicago Sky star not liking Cark.
“People in Angel’s inner circle called me and told me I was right and Angel Reese has grown to hate Caitlin Clark because of the media always asking her about Caitlin and being constantly compared to her,” Griffin wrote. “Some people made it about race, but I never did and never will. Instead of becoming the villain in anyone’s story, I decided to just not.”
What Robert Griffin III said about Angel Reese and Caitlin Clark
Robert Griffin III originally shared his take on Angel Reese and Caitlin Clark in May after Clark fouled Reese in the Sky vs. Indiana Fever game. Reese went after the Clark before she was calmed down by the Sky coaches.
“So why do I think Angel Reese hates Caitlin Clark? It could be the fact that Aliyah Boston had to save Angel Reese from ending her career… After the foul, Caitlin Clark put on Angel Reese, and Angel Reese tried to hit her,” Griffin said at the time. “But if it wasn’t for Aliyah Boston putting her arms in the way, Angel Reese would not be playing basketball anymore, because she was going to sucker punch Caitlin Clark. Now, you tell me a time when you’ve seen somebody get fouled on a basketball court in a professional league, where they try to almost sucker punch somebody that they were friends with, because of a hard foul?”
Reese and Clark have been competing against each other since they were in college. Reese played at LSU, and Clark played at Iowa. Reese and LSU defeated Clark and Iowa in the 2023 National Championship Game, and the two went on to enter the WNBA in 2024. Clark was named WNBA Rookie of the Year last season, and Reese finished second in Rookie of the Year voting.
NIL
NCAA basketball committees consider March Madness expansion
The idea of expanding the tournament picked up steam in the spring when NCAA President Charlie Baker said it could add value. WASHINGTON — The committees for men’s and women’s Division I basketball met this week to discuss possible expansion of the March Madness tournaments, but made no immediate decisions or recommendations. “The still viable […]
The idea of expanding the tournament picked up steam in the spring when NCAA President Charlie Baker said it could add value.
WASHINGTON — The committees for men’s and women’s Division I basketball met this week to discuss possible expansion of the March Madness tournaments, but made no immediate decisions or recommendations.
“The still viable outcomes include the tournaments remaining at 68 teams or expanding the fields to either 72 or 76 teams in advance of the 2026 or 2027 championships,” Dan Gavitt, the NCAA senior vice president of basketball, said in a statement Thursday.
The idea of expanding the tournament picked up steam in the spring when NCAA President Charlie Baker said it could add value and that he’d like to see the issue resolved in the next few months.
He said the NCAA has had “good conversations” with TV partners CBS and Warner Bros., whose deal runs through 2032 at the cost of around $1.1 billion a year. Baker also mentioned increasingly difficult logistics involved with adding teams to what is now known as the “First Four” — a series of four games played on Tuesday and Wednesday of the first week to place four teams into the 64-team bracket.
Though there has been no concrete plan for how expansion would work, speculation has centered on bringing more at-large teams, likely from major conferences, into the 64-team bracket. Such a move that would come at the expense of champions of lower-level conferences.
Currently, two of the First Four games involve 16 seeds — teams that automatically qualify by winning lower-ranked conferences — while two more involve at-large teams often seeded 11 or 12. For instance, in 2021, UCLA made the Final Four as an 11 seed that also played in the First Four.
“I don’t accept that that model just continues in the future,” Southeastern Conference commissioner Greg Sankey said at league meetings in May.
He used the example of North Carolina State advancing to the Final Four as an 11 seed in 2023 as how bubble teams from big conferences can make long runs in the tournament.
“You could go ask my colleagues in the (automatic qualifier) conferences what should happen, and I’m certain they want that split to continue for life,” Sankey said. “But you’ve got some really, really good teams … that I think should be moved into the tournament.”
Any recommendation for expansion would have to be approved by the NCAA’s Division I board, which next meets in August.
AP college basketball: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-basketball-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-basketball
NIL
New college sports agency is rejecting some athlete NIL deals with donor
The new agency in charge of regulating name, image, likeness deals in college sports sent a letter to schools Thursday saying it had rejected deals between players and donor-backed collectives formed over the past several years to funnel money to athletes or their schools. Those arrangements hold no “valid business purpose,” the memo said, and […]
The new agency in charge of regulating name, image, likeness deals in college sports sent a letter to schools Thursday saying it had rejected deals between players and donor-backed collectives formed over the past several years to funnel money to athletes or their schools.
Those arrangements hold no “valid business purpose,” the memo said, and don’t adhere to rules that call for outside NIL deals to be between players and companies that provide goods or services to the general public for profit.
The letter to Division I athletic directors could be the next step in shuttering today’s version of the collective, groups that are closely affiliated with schools and that, in the early days of NIL after July 2021, proved the most efficient way for schools to indirectly cut deals with players.
Since then, the landscape has changed yet again with the $2.8 billion House settlement that allows schools to pay the players directly as of July 1.
Already, collectives affiliated with Colorado, Alabama, Notre Dame, Georgia and others have announced they’re shutting down. Georgia, Ohio State and Illinois are among those that have announced plans with Learfield, a media and technology company with decades of licensing and other experience across college athletics, to help arrange NIL deals.
Outside deals between athlete and sponsor are still permitted, but any worth $600 or more have to be vetted by a clearinghouse called NIL Go that was established by the new College Sports Commission.
In its letter to the ADs, the CSC said more than 1,500 deals have been cleared since NIL Go launched on June 11, “ranging in value from three figures to seven figures.” More than 12,000 athletes and 1,100 institutional users have registered to use the system.
But the bulk of the letter explained that many deals could not be cleared because they did not conform to an NCAA rule that sets a “valid business purpose” standard for deals to be approved.
The letter explained that if a collective reaches a deal with an athlete to appear on behalf of the collective, which charges an admission fee, the standard is not met because the purpose of the event is to raise money to pay athletes, not to provide goods or services available to the general public for profit.
The same would apply to a deal an athlete makes to sell merchandise to raise money to pay that player because the purpose of “selling merchandise is to raise money to pay that student-athlete and potentially other student-athletes at a particular school or schools, which is not a valid business purpose” according to the NCAA rule.
A deal, however, could be approved if, for instance, the businesses paying the players had a broader purpose than simply acting as a collective. The letter uses a golf course or apparel company as examples.
“In other words, NIL collectives may act as marketing agencies that match student-athletes with businesses that have a valid business purpose and seek to use the student’s NIL to promote their businesses,” the letter said.
NIL
Robert Griffin III fires back at Angel Reese over liar accusation, Caitlin Clark ‘hate’
Robert Griffin III is not backing down from Angel Reese, who went after him for claiming to have spoken to her inner circle about the Caitlin Clark hate. On X/Twitter, the former NFL quarterback told Reese that she should “tighten” her circle instead of “trying to check” him. “I spoke up in support of Angel […]
Robert Griffin III is not backing down from Angel Reese, who went after him for claiming to have spoken to her inner circle about the Caitlin Clark hate. On X/Twitter, the former NFL quarterback told Reese that she should “tighten” her circle instead of “trying to check” him.
“I spoke up in support of Angel Reese against racism not to start drama,” Robert Griffin III wrote. “But I won’t let anyone twist the truth just because it’s inconvenient to them. Instead of trying to check me, just tighten up your circle. They calling me and saying you hate Caitlin Clark, not the other way around. I have zero interest in being the villain in anyone’s story. I just want to have fun, tell the truth and celebrate sports. But I won’t pretend or lie just to protect feelings.”
This began on Thursday morning when Griffin went after the fans who were attacking Angel Reese for being on the cover of NBA 2K26. In the social media post, Griffin said people in Reese’s inner circle talked to him about her relationship with Caitlin Clark.
“People in Angel’s inner circle called me and told me I was right and Angel Reese has grown to hate Caitlin Clark because of the media always asking her about Caitlin and being constantly compared to her,” Griffin wrote. Reese saw the post later in the morning and went after Griffin.
More on Robert Griffin III and Angel Reese
“Lying on this app when everybody know the first and last name of everybody in my circle for clout is nastyyyy work,” Reese wrote. It’s clear Reese doesn’t believe that Griffin spoke to anyone close to her about Clark.
In May, Griffin said that Reese hates Clark and explained his reason. “It could be the fact that Aliyah Boston had to save Angel Reese from ending her career,” Griffin said about an incident between Clark and Reese during a Chicago Sky vs. Indiana Fever game. “After the foul, Caitlin Clark put on Angel Reese, and Angel Reese tried to hit her. But if it wasn’t for Aliyah Boston putting her arms in the way, Angel Reese would not be playing basketball anymore, because she was going to sucker punch Caitlin Clark. Now, you tell me a time when you’ve seen somebody get fouled on a basketball court in a professional league, where they try to almost sucker punch somebody that they were friends with, because of a hard foul?”
Reese, who played at LSU, is having a strong start to her WNBA career. The 23-year-old is averaging 13.3 points and 12.8 rebounds this year. In 2024, Reese finished second in Rookie of the Year voting (behind Clark) after averaging 13.6 points and 13.1 rebounds.
NIL
Texas Athletics, Learfield partner to launch Longhorn Sports Agency to manage NIL …
Texas Athletics announced in late June that it would be partnering with Learfield to launch the Longhorn Sports Agency, an initiative to “optimize (Name, Image and Likeness) operations and maximize opportunities for Longhorn student-athletes”. Learfield is the top media company in the world of college athletics, with ties to over 1,200 universities and connections to […]
Texas Athletics announced in late June that it would be partnering with Learfield to launch the Longhorn Sports Agency, an initiative to “optimize (Name, Image and Likeness) operations and maximize opportunities for Longhorn student-athletes”.
Learfield is the top media company in the world of college athletics, with ties to over 1,200 universities and connections to over 12,000 national and local brands. These connections will significantly assist Texas when it navigates what remains of the NIL world after the House v. NCAA settlement on June 6.
“The Longhorn Sports Agency reflects our commitment to building an industry-leading infrastructure that supports our student-athletes and strengthens the Texas brand,” Texas Athletics director Chris Del Conte said.
Advertisement
The partners plan to run the Longhorn Sports Agency using three objectives. The first is to create “on-campus NIL leadership,” making advising opportunities readily available for student-athletes on the Forty Acres.
The second is to assist athletes in creating content campaigns, with the aim of building and eventually monetizing a strong personal brand for each student-athlete.
Lastly, the Longhorn Sports Agency will provide access to “deal facilitation and compliance technology through the Compass NIL platform”.
Compass NIL is an app that stores all NIL exchanges in one place, providing athletes with a platform to receive deal opportunities, make agreements and receive payment from those deals through a digital wallet. Created by Learfield, this platform plays a vital role in the structure of the Longhorn Sports Agency.
“With the House settlement and the current landscape of college athletics, it’s critical to accelerate innovation, and we’re proud to support Texas as they continue to lead with a bold, future-focused approach to NIL,” said Solly Fulp, Learfield’s executive vice president of NIL growth and development.
Following the three initiatives, with the assistance of Compass NIL, Texas Athletics will staff the agency with NIL executives accordingly, including a director of NIL business development, an associate of business development and an NIL marketing partnership manager.
These executives will work with a group of Learfield staff, consisting of two supervising producers, an editor and a social content producer. The Learfield content creation team and Texas Athletics NIL executives will work with Longhorn Network and Longhorn Sports Properties to maximize athlete profit through storytelling and personal branding. This group of staff will work under Lucas Motta, vice president of Longhorn Sports Properties.
“Everything we do at Texas is about setting a high standard, and NIL is no different,” Del Conte said. “This initiative is about doing NIL the right way, with intention, innovation and the full backing of our partner, Learfield, who knows how to achieve excellence in NIL.”
LeBron with a young fan after the game!
A PURE CHAMPIONSHIP
Windy credits Thunder BUT is ‘personally affected’ by Hali injury | SC with SVP
Mets vs. Pirates Game Highlights (6/27/25) | MLB Highlights
Chris Viamonte becomes Mount Union baseball’s second Gold Glove winner
‘Local Legends’ push for success in Moorhead girls hockey camp
Croatia well prepared to defend world crown
UFC GYM Selects MMA.INC’s BJJLink.com Software as the Technology Engine to Power its Global Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (BJJ) Franchise Growth
The new college sports agency is rejecting some athlete NIL deals with donor-backed collectives
11 Home Matches Highlight 2025 Racer Soccer Schedule
PlayStation NBA CREATOR CUP | FULL GAME HIGHLIGHTS | Ft. Kristopher London, Cam Wilder & More!
How Global Gambling Trends Influence Local Conversations in Colorado
Angel Reese calls out Robert Griffin III, claims he’s lying ‘for clout’ in wake of Caitlin Clark take
Teague takes NIU gymnastics head coach title – Northern Star
AD Pat Kraft, hockey coach Guy Gadowsky on mega-prospect’s decision
Guest opinion: Utah’s sky-high tech ambitions are a bet worth making | News, Sports, Jobs
has always dreamed in Mercurial. Now his initials are on the boots.
The new Kyl…
Portal Update – Basketball and Gymnastics Take Hits
Former South Carolina center Nick Pringle commits to Arkansas basketball, John Calipari
Deputies investigating incident that caused panic at Pace youth sports complex
This is poetry in motion.
-
Technology2 weeks agoPet fitness and wellness trends for a healthier and happier dog
-
College Sports2 weeks agoWAC to Rebrand to UAC, Add Five New Members in 2026
-
Motorsports1 week agoWhy Cosmetics are Making Up for Lost Time in Women’s Sports
-
Professional Sports3 weeks agoAlex Pereira responds to rumors of UFC heavyweight title fight with threatening message
-
College Sports3 weeks agoAlabama Basketball
-
Professional Sports3 weeks agoFrancis Ngannou sends Dana White a message following Jon Jones' shock UFC retirement
-
College Sports2 weeks agoA new era of Dickinson hockey begins behind the bench – The Dickinson Press
-
Motorsports2 weeks agoNASCAR This Week – Patriot Publishing LLC
-
Sports3 weeks agoSEC Conference imposing a fine will create the opposite effect.
-
Health2 weeks agoFlorida assault survivor shares hope for change with new mental health law