Julian Lewis, a freshman at Colorado Buffaloes, is being compared to NIL earners like Shedeur Sanders and Cooper Flagg, despite doubts about his potential. An article suggested Lewis could target $100 million in NIL earnings, but critics argue that this is unrealistic given the current landscape of college athletics. With an early NIL valuation of $1.1 million, a successful debut season could enhance his status, yet reaching Sanders’ $6.5 million from 2024 seems improbable. The investment focus for Colorado is shifting towards developing undervalued players rather than replicating past NIL spending. Operators in the college sports sector may require a significant overhaul for Lewis to approach such lofty financial figures.

By the Numbers

• Julian Lewis currently has an NIL valuation of $1.1 million.
• Shedeur Sanders earned $6.5 million in NIL deals in 2024.

Yes, But

While ambitious projections exist for Lewis, experts highlight that reaching such figures requires monumental changes in the college sports NIL framework. Detractors emphasize that current market conditions and potential federal regulations put long-term earnings at risk.

State of Play

• Colorado is shifting its investment strategy from high NIL spending to player development.
• Current NIL deals focus on enhancing player branding rather than reaching unprecedented sums.

What’s Next

The upcoming college season will be crucial for Lewis to establish his brand and boost his NIL valuation. Observers will watch how the Buffaloes adapt their strategy to balance player development with earnings potential.

Bottom Line

While Julian Lewis may have a promising start in NIL earnings, the notion of him reaching $100 million is highly speculative. The focus must shift towards sustainable growth and development in college athletics amidst evolving regulations and market dynamics.

After an offseason of preoccupation with the transfer portal and NIL negotiations, coaches and players are about a month away from getting back to the real business of college football.

Theoretically, the ultimate objective is still to win games. Lucrative income, draft position and promotional opportunities are all enhanced by victories, especially on the sport’s biggest stage.

For FBS teams, that stage is the College Football Playoff.

In years past, when rosters remained relatively intact and players maxed out their eligibility, it was easier to forecast the national championship contenders entering the season.

Penn State’s national championship in 1986 was the fulfillment of the promise that defined the ’85 team which was beaten by Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl title tilt.

If there is one reasonable expectation for the 2025 season, it is that the eventual champion will hail from a power conference.

The last independent to win the national championship was Miami (Fla.) in 1989. The last team from a non-power conference to win the championship was WAC member BYU in 1984.

When BYU won the title 41 years ago, the championship was determined by polls. The Cougars played only one ranked team all season — No. 3 Pitt in the opener — and completed a 13-0 season by defeating a 6-5 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl, which was contested before Christmas.

Depending on seeding in the current playoff format, a team might be required to run a gauntlet of four games.

Could a highly ranked non-power conference team prevail over even three consecutive opponents from the Big Ten, Big 12, ACC and SEC?

Conventional wisdom says “No.”

A common criticism of Penn State’s non-conference schedule is that it does not adequately prepare the Nittany Lions for the season’s biggest challenges, which have traditionally been Michigan and Ohio State.

That same contention will be made again this season if Penn State loses to defending Big Ten champion Oregon on Sept. 27 after opening against Nevada, FIU and Villanova, all at home.

With their wealth of resources, teams such as Notre Dame, Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, PSU, Alabama and Georgia are expected to contend annually for a playoff spot.

It’s the sleepers from the power conferences such as Arizona State and Indiana that infuse the postseason with excitement and unpredictability.

However, not all CFP teams from power conferences are equally fortified.

SMU, champion of the ACC, had the look of a deer staring into the headlights of an 18-wheeler throughout the CFP first-round game at Beaver Stadium last December.

Similarly, Boise State’s No. 3 seeding and 17-point loss to the Nittany Lions in the quarterfinals strengthened the case for changing the seeding procedures.

The Broncos’ Mountain West Conference championship and three-point loss to then-No. 7 Oregon camouflaged deficiencies that a power conference schedule would have exposed.

The stakes are particularly high this season at USC, LSU and Oklahoma State where head coaches Lincoln Riley, Brian Kelly and Mike Gundy, respectively, are testing the patience of their fan bases.

LSU’s opener at Clemson already has Kelly pulling out all stops.

“We’ve circled the game, and I’ve never done that before in openers,” Kelly said. “It’s all over our weight room. It’s all over workouts. We’re wearing shirts. We’re doing the kumbaya of we’re playing Clemson, and we need to beat Clemson.”

With that sense of urgency, and top-shelf scheduling, there’s no denying that the LSU program will be all business this season.

On the field, that is.

Jim Caltagirone writes a monthly column for the Mirror.

Jump To Top of Pag

The most significant transformation in college football recruiting over the last three years has been the evolution of the NCAA Transfer Portal into a de facto free agency system, alongside the seismic shift brought on by Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) regulations and the resulting “open bidding wars.” This continuous player movement has fundamentally altered roster construction and the timeline for competitive success. It has prompted a strategic and vocal response from the University of Georgia’s head coach, Kirby Smart, who has both adapted to and criticized the new landscape.

For UGA, a program built on elite high school recruiting and player development, the transfer portal presents both challenges and opportunities. While the Bulldogs continue to recruit top-tier talent through traditional cycles, the portal has become an undeniable force in shaping the final makeup of their roster each season.

Kirby Smart’s Two-Front Approach: Adaptation and Advocacy

Kirby Smart’s response to the rise of the transfer portal can be characterized as a two-front approach: advocating for systemic changes while privately adapting his recruiting and roster management strategies.

Publicly, Smart has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the current transfer portal windows, particularly their timing and frequency. He has consistently argued for a consolidated and logical calendar, expressing frustration with the chaotic nature of managing a roster while players are actively entering the transfer portal during crucial periods, such as preparation for bowl games and the College Football Playoff.

“The biggest decision that has to be made in college football right now, by far… is when is the portal window, and is there one or two?” Smart said, advocating for a single, later window that would allow teams to complete their seasons before player movement begins.

However, behind the scenes, Smart and his staff have demonstrated a remarkable ability to utilize the portal to their strategic advantage. Rather than completely overhauling their roster, Georgia’s approach has been targeted and needs-based. They have sought specific positions where there is weakness or lack of depth, bringing in experienced players who can make an immediate impact. Recent acquisitions have included key players at wide receiver, defensive back, and even on the offensive line—positions where finding immediate, game-ready talent through the high school ranks can be particularly challenging.

A “Culture Fit” Philosophy and Emphasis on the Trenches

One cornerstone of Smart’s portal strategy is his strong emphasis on “culture fit.” He has consistently asserted that Georgia will not simply recruit the most talented players available; instead, they will target players who align with the program’s demanding work ethic and team-first mentality. “We evaluate the transfer portal on who fits our culture more than who fits our talent level,” Smart explained. This philosophy aims to lessen the risks associated with integrating players who may not adapt well to the demanding environment at Georgia, thus protecting the locker room culture that has been crucial to their success.

Coach Smart strongly believes that the foundation of a championship team is built through high school recruiting, especially along the lines of scrimmage. He has voiced concerns about the scarcity of elite linemen in the transfer portal, reinforcing his commitment to identifying, recruiting, and developing these vital positions from the ground up. Long-term investment in the trenches remains the cornerstone of his program-building philosophy, with the portal serving as a supplemental tool rather than a primary source of talent.

Impact on High School Recruiting and Roster Management

The rise of the transfer portal has subtly yet significantly impacted UGA’s high school recruiting strategy. The coaching staff must anticipate potential departures to the portal and strategically maintain a small number of scholarships open to accommodate incoming transfers who can address immediate needs.

This has resulted in a more fluid, year-round approach to roster construction. The lines between the end of one recruiting cycle and the beginning of the next have blurred, particularly with portal windows in December and April/May becoming critical periods for talent acquisition alongside the traditional early signing period and National Signing Day.

The maturation of the transfer portal into a constant, high-stakes marketplace for player talent stands out as the most significant non-NFL change in college football recruiting over the last three years. At the University of Georgia, Kirby Smart has addressed this new reality with a blend of public critique and private adaptation.

113 Dawgs Make the 2024-25 First-Year Southeastern Conference Academic Honor Roll

A total of 113 University of Georgia student-athletes were named to the 2024-25 First-Year Southeastern Conference Academic Honor Roll, the league office announced. 

The First-Year SEC Academic Honor Roll is based on grades from the 2024-25 academic calendar. 

Any student-athlete who participates in a Southeastern Conference championship sport, has a grade point average of 3.00 or higher, and has completed a minimum of 24 semester hours is eligible for nomination.

First-year student-athletes in all sports are eligible to be named to the Honor Roll upon completion of their first full academic year in residence. 

The following student athletes were named to the 2024-25 First-Year SEC Academic Honor Roll: 

Baseball

Cade Brown (Business), Zachary Brown (Sport Management), Robert Burnet (Housing Management & Policy), Justin Byrd (Sport Management), Davis Chastain (Sport Management), Bryce Clavon (Real Estate), Brian Curley (Psychology), Alton Davis (Sport Management), Eric Hammond (Graduate Studies), Brennan Hudson (Finance), Daniel Jackson (Sport Management), Nolan McCarthy (Graduate Studies), Lucas Morici (Housing Management & Policy), JT Quinn (Consumer Economics), Asher Sabom (Management), Jordan Stephens (Management), Nathaniel Taylor (Business), Ryland Zaborowski (Graduate Studies)

Men’s Basketball

Justin Abson (Sport Management), Somto Cyril (Communication Studies), Savo Drezgic (Housing Management & Policy), Jordyn Kee (Housing Management & Policy), Tyrin Lawrence (Arts and Sciences), Dakota Leffew (Arts and Sciences), De’Shayne Montgomery (Housing Management & Policy), Asa Newell (Housing Management & Policy)

Women’s Basketball

Indya Davis (Management), Summer Davis (Management), Nyah Levereter (Journalism), Roxane Makolo Mualuja (Business Analytics)

Equestrian

Kendall Dean (Journalism), Emma DeJong (Communication Studies),Skyler Ezzell (Management), Caroline Fletcher (Agribusiness), Mia Frigon (Management), Katelyn Jedele (Animal Biosciences), Emma Lackey (Finance), Sienna Pilla (Marketing), Lendon Reeder (Agricultural Communication), Baylie Robbins (Management Information Systems), Ellie Royal (Risk Management and Insurance), Lauren Sanders (International Business and Management), Ella Wit (International Affairs)

Football

Ethan Barbour (Finance), Marcus Harrison (Intended Business Unspecified), Jahzare Jackson (Sport Management), Drew Miller (Marketing), Dwight Phillips (Real Estate)

Men’s Golf

James Earle (Real Estate), Grayson Wood (Consumer Economics)

Women’s Golf

Chantal El Chaib (Journalism), Candace Lou (Sport Management), Morgan Smith (Finance)

Gymnastics

Nyla Aquino (Criminal Justice), Csenge Bacskay (Communication Studies), Sadie Jane Berry (Communication Studies), Alexis Czarrunchick (Business), Kara Eaker (Furnishings and Interiors), Brooke Gleichowski (Sport Management), Emma Mason (Biomedical Physiology), Aberdeen O’Driscoll (Arts and Sciences), Harley Tomlin (Arts and Sciences)

Soccer

Nicole Bidun (Management), Sophia Brelage (Marketing), Cayla Jackson (Management)

Softball

Paislie Allen (Sport Management), Precious Bross (Sport Management), Mollie Mitchell (Management),Randi Roelling (Agribusiness), Ella Trout (Exercise and Sport Science), Esther White (Biomedical Physiology), Mua Williams (Sport Management)

Men’s Swimming and Diving

Bo Bridges (Sport Management), Renato Calderaro (Financial Planning), Will Gavin (Exercise and Sport Science), Drew Hitchcock (Accounting), Aiden Sadler (Cellular Biology), Elliot Woodburn (Management Information Systems)

Women’s Swimming and Diving

Ivy Buckley (Comm Sci and Disorders), Charlote Headland (Health Promotion), Marie Landreneau (Human Development and Family Science), Simany Lee (International Business and Management), Elle Noecker (Journalism), Helena Pinto Coelho Lopes (Psychology and Biology), Samantha Rydzewski (Furnishings and Interiors), Katie Belle Sikes (Biochemistry and Molecular Biology), Nyla Thompson (Exercise and Sport Science)

Men’s Tennis

Oscar Pinto Sansano (Political Science)

Women’s Tennis

Sarah Branicki (Special Education), Hayden Mulberry (Marketing)

Men’s Track and Field

Shemar Chambers (Graduate Studies), London Costen (Communication Studies), Jordan Fick (Sport Management), Jayden Keys (Finance), Edwin Kurjak (Mathematics), Joseph Minecci (Biological Science), Xai Ricks (Business), Mark Trammell (Finance), Maximus Tucker (Ocean Science)

Women’s Track and Field

Toni Birden (Consumer Economics), Elizabeth Cowley (Avian Biology), Lianna Davidson (Social Entr Cons Well-Being), Kayla Dickerson (Biology and Psychology), Sanaa Frederick (Arts and Sciences), Sole Frederick (Journalism), Rylee Hampton (Public Relations), Adaejah Hodge (Sport Management), Dejanea Oakley (International Affairs), Katherine Robinson (International Affairs and Political Science), Michelle Smith (Biomedical Physiology), Skylynn Townsend (Biomedical Physiology), Isabel Yonas (Exercise and Sport Science)

Volleyball

Emma Duffield (Psychology)

Jump To Today’s Discussion Thread

AJ Dybantsa Reveals LeBron James Workouts And Mamba Motivation originally appeared on Athlon Sports.

For AJ Dybantsa, his future aspirations are pretty cut and dry. He’ll spend the next year at BYU under the guidance of Kevin Young before making a leap to the NBA. That’s the plan currently being implemented and will be fun to watch.

Advertisement

The top incoming basketball recruit recently made the cover of Men’s Health with a feature piece as part of the top athletes in the high school class of 2025. Dybantsa shared insight about his future and how he’s being groomed as the next NBA star. An amazing factor about him comes after he reclassified up a year to attend BYU early.

Dybantsa’s game—a mix of above-the-rim finishing, midrange shot making, and elastic defense—is already at a pro level. “I’ve worked out with Bron,” Dybantsa drops casually, referring to NBA ironman LeBron James. “I’ve worked out with a lot of the top guys. I wish I had the chance to work out with Kobe.” He cites Bryant’s Mamba mentality as an inspiration and wears Nike Kobe 5s.

If there is one player who fits the mold of the NBA’s next generation, Dybantsa has got next. Kobe left us all prematurely, but his top-notch approach still lives on through one of AJ’s mentors, Kevin Durant, who is another player helping guide Dybantsa’s career. The newest member of the Houston Rockets had Young as an assistant coach during their time together with the Phoenix Suns.

Related: BYU phenom AJ Dybantsa shows off Nike ‘Air Bakin’ KD18 player edition

It was widely reported BYU offered Dybansta a $5 million NIL package, but money wasn’t the deciding factor. The culture with Young’s NBA-ready system spoke volumes to the nation’s top talent, leaving him blown away by the direction the Cougars were headed in. Dybantsa also gained deals with Red Bull and Nike before stepping foot on campus. But said he hasn’t gotten to the point of splurging yet. Even though, he recently took the title as college basketball’s top NIL earner.

Advertisement

There’s no doubt that Dybantsa will be one of the most electrifying players to watch next season.

This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 27, 2025, where it first appeared.