What to know ahead of this week’s House v. NCAA settlement votes
-
Dan Murphy
Close
Dan Murphy
ESPN Staff Writer
- Covers the Big Ten
- Joined ESPN.com in 2014
- Graduate of the University of Notre Dame
-
Pete Thamel
The trajectory of major college sports is set to bend this week to give athletes a significantly larger portion of the billions of dollars they help generate for their schools.
The industry’s top leaders will gather in the next few days to vote on the proposed terms of a landmark settlement. The deal would create a new framework for schools to share millions of dollars with their athletes in the future and create a fund of more than $2.7 billion to pay former athletes for past damages.
The settlement would also mark the end of at least three major federal antitrust lawsuits looming as existential threats to the NCAA and its schools, and would resolve the most pressing — and arguably most formidable — legal challenges facing the college sports industry. The deal would not, however, solve all of the NCAA’s problems or even provide clear answers to many crucial questions about how a more professionalized version of major college sports might look in the near future.
Here are some of the details and unsolved questions shaping conversations during what could be a monumental week in the history of college sports.
Terms of the settlement
While several important details are not yet finalized, sources have confirmed the following general structure of an agreement to settle the House v. NCAA case:
The NCAA’s national office would foot the bill for a $2.7 billion payment for past damages over the course of the next 10 years. The NCAA would generate the majority of that money partly by cutting back on the funds that it distributes to Division I schools on an annual basis.
The power conferences would agree to a forward-looking revenue sharing structure that would give schools the ability to spend a maximum of roughly $20 million per year on direct payments to athletes. The $20 million figure could grow larger every few years if school revenue grows. Each school would be left to decide how to allocate that money while remaining compliant with Title IX laws.
The plaintiffs, which could include all current Division I athletes, would give up their right to file future antitrust claims against the NCAA’s rules. This would include dropping two pending antitrust cases (Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA) that also have been filed by plaintiff attorneys Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler.
The sides would also agree to renew the class on an annual basis to include new athletes. New athletes — mostly incoming freshmen — would have to declare that they are opting out of the class in order to challenge the NCAA’s restrictions on payments in the future.
This rolling new class of athletes would, in effect, retire the most impactful tool that has been used over the past decade to chip away at the NCAA’s amateurism rules. Previously, Berman and Kessler needed only one athlete to lend his or her name to a case that would aim to remove illegal restrictions for all college athletes. Moving forward, a lawyer pushing to provide more benefits for athletes will first have to organize and gain commitments from a large group of players who opted out of the settlement.
Athletic and university administrators have long argued that their athletes are generally happy with what the schools provide and that the last decade’s lawsuits are the product of agitating lawyers and advocates. A settlement would not close the door on bargaining with athletes in the future, but it would make it less appealing for attorneys to test the legality of the NCAA’s rules without an explicit demand from a large swath of athletes.
While individual athletes could still opt out and sue the NCAA, the damages for a single athlete or small group of athletes would be far smaller. So, in practice, the House case settlement would provide schools with protection from future suits by removing the financial incentives that make these cases — which often takes years to fight — worthwhile for a plaintiffs’ attorney.
Class action cases have been an important tool to date for plaintiff attorneys because organizing college athletes — a busy and transient group of young people — is extremely difficult. (Although there are a number of groups actively attempting to form college players’ associations.) Some sports antitrust experts, such as Baruch College law professor Marc Edelman, say that, by making future class action lawsuits more difficult, this settlement would give schools ample license to collude on restricting payment to players. Edelman said this conflict could give a judge pause when deciding to approve the terms of the settlement.
Who’s in?
Attorneys representing the plaintiff class of all Division I athletes proposed terms to all defendants involved in the lawsuit in late April. To settle the case fully, the NCAA and each of the five power conferences will have to agree to the terms. Leaders from each group are expected to hold votes by Thursday.
The NCAA’s Board of Governors is scheduled to meet Wednesday.
The Big Ten presidents are planning to meet in person and vote this week as part of the league’s regularly scheduled meetings. That league has long been considered the major conference with the least amount of pushback on the vote. ACC presidents, SEC leaders and Big 12 leaders will also vote this week. In an odd twist, the Pac-12’s membership from this past season will gather virtually to vote, as the 10 departing programs will not vote in the conferences they plan to join next year. Since the Pac-12 was part of the suit as a 12-team league, the 12 presidents and chancellors of those schools will vote as a 12-school unit.
While the NCAA and conferences have to opt in, any athletes involved in the class will have an opportunity to opt out once the attorneys hammer out the details of settlement terms. Any athletes who opt out would retain the right to sue the NCAA in the future, but they would miss out on their cut of the $2.7 billion in damages. On the flip side, it’s unlikely that a current athlete who opts out would give up the opportunity to receive the forward-looking revenue share money, according to legal sources.
Next steps
If all parties agree to the broader terms of a settlement of the House case this week, their attorneys will get to work drafting the fine print of an agreement. That process can take weeks, according to attorneys with experience settling complex antitrust cases.
The judge overseeing the case, Judge Claudia Wilken of California’s Northern District, would then hold a preliminary hearing to review the terms of the settlement. If the judge approves, notice would be sent to all athletes providing them with a chance to formally object or opt out. And finally, the agreement would go back to the courthouse where Wilken would consider any arguments presented in objection before deciding whether the settlement meets her approval.
The Fontenot Case
Alex Fontenot is a former Colorado football player who sued the NCAA in late November for restricting athletes from sharing in television rights revenue. He filed his case a few weeks before Berman and Kessler (the two attorneys representing athletes in the current settlement negotiations) filed a similar complaint called Carter v. NCAA.
Both Kessler and the NCAA have argued that the two complaints are similar and should be consolidated into a single case, which would likely lead to the Fontenot case being part of the pending settlement talks. Fontenot’s attorneys do not want to consolidate and will present their argument for why the cases should be separate in a Colorado courtroom this Thursday.
Garrett Broshuis, Fontenot’s attorney, said he has concerns about how the House settlement could make it harder for future athletes to fight for more rights. Broshuis, a former pitcher at Missouri, has spent most of the last decade successfully suing Major League Baseball to help minor leaguers negotiate better working conditions.
The judge in the Fontenot case has not yet made a ruling on whether it should qualify as a class action lawsuit. If the House settlement is finalized, any college athlete would have to opt out of the settlement in order to take part in the Fontenot case. Opt-outs or objections raised during the House settlement hearings could give Judge Wilken additional pause in approving its terms.
Would Fontenot and other athletes who are working with his attorneys on this case opt out of the House settlement in hopes of pursuing a better deal in their own case?
“To the extent we can, we’re monitoring the media reports surrounding the proposed settlement,” Broshuis told ESPN this weekend. “Once the actual terms are available, we’ll closely scrutinize them. We do have concerns about what’s being reported so far, especially when it comes to the ability for future generations of athletes to continue to fight for their rights.”
Scholarship and roster limits
In the sprint to settle, there’s a bevy of details that are going to be left to college sports leaders to work out in coming months.
The inclusion of roster caps could impact college sports on the field. Right now, college sports operate with scholarship limits. For example, Division I football is limited to 85 scholarships, baseball to 11.7, and softball to 12. Meanwhile, Division I football rosters run to nearly 140 players on the high end, while baseball rosters top out around 40 players, and softball averages about 25 players.
Leaders in college sports are considering uniform roster caps instead of scholarship limits, which could be viewed as another collusive restraint on spending. This would give schools the choice to give out 20 baseball scholarships, for example, if they wished.
If rosters are capped at a certain number, the ripple effect could be more scholarships and smaller roster sizes. The viability of walk-ons, especially for rosters with dozens of them, could be at risk.
Sources caution that this won’t be determined for months, as formalizing roster caps are not part of the settlement. Sources have told ESPN that football coaches in particular will be vocal about radical changes, as walk-ons are part of the fabric of the sport. Stetson Bennett (Georgia), Baker Mayfield (Oklahoma) and Hunter Renfrow (Clemson) are all recent examples of transformative walk-ons.
The future of collectives
Multiple sources have told ESPN that some school leaders are hopeful the future revenue sharing model will eliminate or significantly decrease the role that NIL collectives play in the marketplace for athletes.
While an additional $20 million flowing directly from schools to athletes could theoretically satisfy the competitive market for talent and decrease the interest of major donors from contributing to collectives, experts say there is no clear legal mechanism that could be included in a settlement that would eliminate collectives. Those groups — which are independent from schools even if they often operate in a hand-in-glove fashion — could continue to use NIL opportunities to give their schools an edge in recruiting by adding money on top of the revenue share that an athlete might get from his or her school.
For the schools with the deepest pockets or most competitive donors, a $20 million estimated revenue share would be in reality more of a floor than a ceiling for athlete compensation. Most well-established collectives are planning to continue operating outside of their school’s control, according to Russell White, the president of TCA, a trade association of more than 30 different collectives associated with power conference schools.
“It just makes $20 million the new baseline,” White told ESPN. “Their hope is that this tamps down donor fatigue and boosters feel like they won’t have to contribute [to collectives]. But these groups like to win. There’s no chance this will turn off those competitive juices.”
How would the damages money be distributed?
Any athlete who played a Division I sport from 2016 through present day has a claim to some of the roughly $2.7 billion in settlement money. The plaintiffs’ attorneys will also receive a significant portion of the money. The damages represent money athletes might have made through NIL deals if the NCAA’s rules had not restricted them in the past.
It’s not clear if the plaintiffs will disburse the money equally among the whole class or assign different values based on an athlete’s probable earning power during his or her career. Some class action settlements hire specialists to determine each class member’s relative value and how much of the overall payment they should receive. That could be a painfully detailed process in this case, which includes tens of thousands of athletes in the class.
The NCAA also plans to pay that money over the course of the next 10 years, according to sources. It’s not clear if every athlete in the class would get an annual check for the next decade or if each athlete would be paid in one lump sum with some of them waiting years longer than others to receive their cut.
Are there any roadblocks to settlement expected?
In short, the NCAA’s schools and conferences will likely move forward with the agreement this week despite unhappiness in how the NCAA will withhold the revenue from schools to pay the $2.7 billion over the next decade.
There is significant pushback among leagues outside the power leagues on the proposed payment structure. According to a memo the NCAA sent to all 32 Division I conferences this week, the NCAA will use more than $1 billion from reserves, catastrophic insurance, new revenue and budget cuts to help pay the damages, sources told ESPN this week. The memo also states that an additional $1.6 billion would come from reductions in NCAA distributions, 60 percent of which would come from the 27 Division I conferences outside of the so-called power five football leagues. The other 40 percent would come from cuts the power conferences, which are the named defendants with the NCAA in the case.
The basketball-centric Big East is slated to sacrifice between $5.4 million and $6.6 million annually over the next decade, and the similarly basketball-centric West Coast Conference between $3.5 million and $4.3 million annually, according to a source familiar with the memo. The smallest leagues would lose out on just under $2 million annually, which is nearly 20% of what they receive annually from the NCAA.
(The NCAA would withhold money from six funds across Division I leagues — the basketball performance fund via the NCAA tournament, grants-in-aid, the academic enhancement fund, sports sponsorships, conference grants and the academic performance fund.)
In an e-mail obtained by ESPN from Big East commissioner Val Ackerman to her athletic directors and presidents on Saturday morning, she said the Big East has “strong objections” to the damages framework. She wrote that she’s relayed those to NCAA president Charlie Baker.
The 22 conferences that don’t have FBS football — known as the CCA22 — have also been engaged in conversations about their disappointment with the damages proposal, according to sources.
Per a source, some members of the CCA22 are planning on sending a letter to the NCAA requesting the responsibility be flipped — the power conferences contributing to 60 percent of the damages and the other 27 leagues contributing 40 percent. In her message, Ackerman wrote she expects former FBS football players will be “the primary beneficiaries of the NIL ‘back pay’ amounts” — suggesting that the damages may not be shared equally among athletes.
Ackerman’s letter does mention the widely held belief in the industry that it may be tough for any significant change: “At this stage, it is unclear how much time or leverage we will have to alter the plan the NCAA and [power conferences] have orchestrated.”
While optimism runs high at most every college football program this time of year, even the rosiest picture has some lurking shadows.
That is true even for the 25 teams in our post-spring Power Rankings. No matter how deep the rosters seem, everyone has some question marks or potential weak spots.
Our college football reporters take a look at the biggest areas of concern for each of the top teams, the potential Achilles’ heel that could keep them from reaching their goals for the season.
Area of concern: Wide receiver
The Nittany Lions addressed the wide receiver spot in the portal with Syracuse’s Trebor Pena and others, but until they actually elevate their production, questions will linger. Penn State has had only one wide receiver rank among the top 10 in the Big Ten in receiving in the past three seasons (Tyler Warren played tight end). Both Warren and top receiver Harrison Wallace III are gone, and Penn State needs its portal haul — Pena, a second-team All-ACC wideout in 2024, as well as Devonte Ross (Troy) and Kyron Hudson (USC) — to give quarterback Drew Allar enough capable targets this fall. Although Allar’s big-game struggles are also concerning, he hasn’t had a great group of receivers at his disposal during his Penn State career. — Adam Rittenberg
Area of concern: Running back
The position group that has been discussed more than any other since the spring at Clemson is running back — the only position on offense that loses the bulk of its production with Phil Mafah off to the NFL. But the Tigers have plenty of depth at running back, and that should help ease any concerns as they move into fall camp. Particularly because running back traditionally has been an area where Clemson has excelled, even when other groups on offense took a step back. (Clemson has had a 1,000-yard rusher 11 of the past 16 years, and that does not include 2023, when Mafah and Will Shipley split the carries nearly evenly and combined for more than 1,700 yards.) It is easy to see true freshman Gideon Davidson as a breakout player, considering the success Clemson has had with true freshman backs since Dabo Swinney arrived. Clemson also has receiver Adam Randall taking reps at running back to help round out the depth in a room that also features Keith Adams Jr. and David Eziomume. Jay Haynes continues to rehab a knee injury. — Andrea Adelson
Area of concern: Offensive line
The Longhorns lost four starters on the O-line to the NFL draft and are breaking in a new quarterback, although Arch Manning made two starts last season, as well as several key receivers with the losses of Matthew Golden, Isaiah Bond and tight end Gunnar Helm. They lost tackle Kelvin Banks Jr., the 2025 No. 9 draft pick, but Trevor Goosby got some key playing time last year at the position when Banks was injured. The Longhorns also lost 56-game starter Jake Majors at center and face Ohio State in Week 1, posing a quick learning curve for an almost completely new offensive line group. — Dave Wilson
Area of concern: Pass rush
The Bulldogs lost six veteran contributors on their front seven on defense, none more important than edge rushers Jalon Walker, Mykel Williams and Chaz Chambliss. Walker and Williams were first-round picks in the NFL draft, and Chambliss was an unheralded contributor over four seasons. They combined for 18 sacks and 28.5 tackles for loss in 2024. Making matters worse, Damon Wilson, a projected replacement on the edge, transferred to Missouri. Georgia feels good about Gabe Harris Jr., and it added Army transfer Elo Modozie, who had 6.5 sacks for the Black Knights last season. — Mark Schlabach
Area of concern: Quarterback
Quarterback Will Howard was everything the Buckeyes could have hoped for last year in his lone season at Ohio State. He was spectacular during the College Football Playoff, posting a QBR of 97.2 over four games during the Buckeyes’ march to the national championship. With Howard now in the NFL, the Buckeyes will be turning to either former five-star freshman Julian Sayin or Lincoln Kienholz this season, pending who wins the job during camp. Throwing to all-world wideout Jeremiah Smith will bolster whomever the starting quarterback winds up being. But even with Smith and All-American safety Caleb Downs anchoring each side of the ball, it’s difficult envisioning the Buckeyes truly contending again unless Ohio State gets good-to-great quarterback play like it did last season. — Jake Trotter
Area of concern: Offensive line
I don’t know that LSU has to necessarily worry about the offensive line because of moves made this offseason, but it has to be something to keep an eye on just because of the magnitude of the losses. The Tigers had one of the best tackle duos in all of college football last season in Will Campbell and Emery Jones, who were first- and third-round NFL draft picks. They lost four starters across the line in total. DJ Chester and Tyree Adams are back in different spots, while Brian Kelly added Braelin Moore from Virginia Tech. — Harry Lyles Jr.
Area of concern: Tight end
Since 2011, the Fighting Irish have had a whopping 10 tight ends selected in the NFL draft, including last season’s leading receiver, Mitchell Evans, who had 43 catches for 421 yards with three touchdowns. While the Irish feel they’ve upgraded their wide receiver group with the additions of Virginia transfer Malachi Fields and Wisconsin’s Will Pauling, tight end remains a bit of a question mark heading into preseason camp. Senior Eli Raridon has the size (6-foot-7) and hands to excel at the position, but he was plagued by injuries during his first couple of college seasons, after tearing an ACL as a freshman. He had 11 catches for 90 yards with two touchdowns in 2024. The status of another tight end, Cooper Flanagan, who tore his left Achilles tendon in the Sugar Bowl, is in question. — Mark Schlabach
Area of concern: Defensive line
It’s hard to say whether this is an area of concern just yet, but there are question marks with Oregon’s defensive line as the Ducks lost both Derrick Harmon and Jordan Burch from last year (as well as Jamaree Caldwell). Defensive end is a strength with Matayo Uiagalelei holding down the edge, but the rest of the line will require some newcomers to step up, such as USC transfer Bear Alexander and rising lineman Aydin Breland, who could be in line for a breakout season. A’mauri Washington, one of the few returning players, will likely be a fixture of the new-look line as well. — Paolo Uggetti
Area of concern: Pass rush
Alabama finished 13th in the SEC last season in quarterback sacks, and while sacks aren’t the end-all when it comes to rushing the passer, the Crimson Tide need to be more consistent in getting to the opposing quarterback. There’s not a pure edge pass rusher in the mold of Will Anderson Jr. or Dallas Turner on this roster, meaning Alabama will need to get more pressure from its interior linemen and perhaps a breakout season from redshirt sophomore outside linebacker Qua Russaw. — Chris Low
Area of concern: Quarterback
When the season ended, quarterback figured to be an obvious strength for BYU considering Jake Retzlaff was set to return. But with him expected to transfer as of late June, the Cougars are left without an established starter. McCae Hillstead showed flashes at Utah State in 2023, Treyson Bourguet started eight games in two years for Western Michigan and true freshman Bear Bachmeier was a big-time recruit who enrolled briefly at Stanford earlier this offseason before leaving for Provo. The expectation is that all three will have a chance to earn the starting job in fall camp, without a clear-cut front-runner. — Kyle Bonagura
Area of concern: Offensive explosiveness
The Illini had a good and efficient offense in 2024, but they weren’t particularly explosive, tying for 64th nationally in plays of 10 yards or longer and tying for 66th in plays of 20 yards or longer. Although quarterback Luke Altmyer and a veteran offensive line return, Illinois needs to replace its top two receivers in Pat Bryant and Zakhari Franklin, who are off to the NFL, and leading rusher Josh McCray, who transferred to Georgia. Offensive coordinator Barry Lunney thinks Collin Dixon, who averaged 14.7 yards per catch in limited work last fall, and incoming freshman Brayden Trimble can spark the offense. “Overall, we’re going to have a little bit more vertical speed in what we’re doing to stretch the defense than what we did,” Lunney told me. “That’s no slight on Zakhari or Pat at all. Those were just kind of bigger, stronger guys.” — Rittenberg
Area of concern: Pass rush
ASU’s late-season surge, from a decent team to one capable of coming within one play of the CFP semifinals, took place primarily thanks to players who are returning in 2025. Obviously losing star running back Cam Skattebo hurts, but the Sun Devils have some of the best overall returning production numbers in the country. We don’t know that they have a pass rush, though. It was an issue last season — ASU ranked just 110th in sacks per dropback — and while both of their sacks leaders (Clayton Smith and Elijah O’Neal) return, that duo combined for just 8.5 sacks between them. Kenny Dillingham evidently thought he had the answers in house, as he didn’t add a single edge rusher in the transfer portal, but while the secondary is sound and experienced, giving QBs too much time to find receivers can bring down even the most seasoned defense. — Bill Connelly
Area of concern: Defensive front
What was perhaps South Carolina’s biggest strength last season could be its biggest concern going into 2025. Gone up front are stalwarts Kyle Kennard, Bam Martin-Scott, Demetrius Knight and TJ Sanders, among others. That left a lot of holes to fill, and the Gamecocks largely addressed them by hitting the portal hard. Rising star Dylan Stewart will be the flashiest player and Bryan Thomas is the lone established senior, with transfers Gabriel Brownlow-Dindy, Davonte Miles and Justin Okoronkwo filling a big void. But perhaps the biggest name to know is sophomore Fred “JayR” Johnson, a rangy linebacker with lauded leadership skills who South Carolina hopes will blossom into the centerpiece of the defense after playing a small role as a freshman in 2024. — David Hale
Area of concern: Wide receiver
With receivers Jaylin Noel and Jayden Higgins both off to the NFL — having been drafted by the Houston Texans in back-to-back rounds — receiver is a good place to start. Noel and Higgins combined for nearly 2,400 receiving yards last season and that type of production will need to be replaced by more than just two players. But even with those holes to fill, the lack of a pass rush last season remains a glaring question mark. If the Cyclones can’t improve upon their conference-worst sack total, it’s hard to see how they can make a run at the Big 12 title, especially given the unknowns at receiver. — Bonagura
Area of concern: Defensive line
One of the most underappreciated keys to SMU’s playoff run last season was the veteran talent up front on defense. Elijah Roberts, Jared Harrison-Hunte and Jahfari Harvey all came from Miami and had multiple years as a starter under their belts in 2024. There won’t be nearly so much experience this year. Add in the departures of Ahmad Walker and Kobe Wilson at linebacker, and there’s a vacuum waiting to be filled in terms of leadership. SMU does return safety Isaiah Nwokobia, who was an All-ACC performer last season, and there’s buzz surrounding East Carolina transfer Zakye Barker at linebacker, but establishing some key voices — and performers — on the D-line remains a question. — Hale
Area of concern: Defense
Does the defensive makeover actually work? The Red Raiders’ D can’t get much worse than what it was in 2024, and that’s not hyperbole. Texas Tech finished 126th in total defense in 2024. The secondary was 132nd in passing yards per game. Shiel Wood takes over as defensive coordinator, and there have been tons of portal additions to this side of the ball. Players such as Stanford linebacker David Bailey and Georgia Tech end Romello Height stand out, along with five transfer defensive backs. There’s really only one way for this group to go, and it’s up. — Lyles Jr.
Area of concern: Defense
Despite the fact that talented defensive end Mikail Kamara is returning, the transfer-heavy unit that allowed the fewest rushing yards per game in the Big Ten last season lost some key contributors. Gone to the NFL are CJ West and James Carpenter, and while Indiana did not hesitate to dip into the transfer portal to reload with players such as Hosea Wheeler (Western Kentucky), Stephen Daley (Kent State), Dominique Ratcliff (Texas State) and Kellan Wyatt (Maryland), one of the Hoosiers’ strongest position groups last year has a lot to prove and live up to in 2025. — Uggetti
Area of concern: Stopping big plays
K-State’s offense was delightfully explosive last season, but the defense often gave up as many big plays as the offense created. The Wildcats blitzed a lot and harassed QBs well, but they ranked 110th in Total QBR allowed and 107th in completions of 10 or more yards allowed. That’s a concern considering the defense lost both leading pass rusher Brendan Mott and four of last year’s five starters in the secondary. Defensive coordinator Joe Klanderman might have to fiddle with the risk-reward balance to get the most out of this defense and help the Wildcats contend in the ultracompetitive Big 12. — Connelly
Area of concern: Wide receiver
One of the reasons Florida is expected to improve in 2025 is because of the talent that quarterback DJ Lagway brings. But the Gators’ top receivers from last season, Elijhah Badger and Chimere Dike, left for the NFL. Eugene Wilson III is back, but also coming off season-ending hip surgery. It will be up to Vernell Brown III, Dallas Wilson, Naeshaun Montgomery and J. Michael Sturdivant (UCLA transfer) to help establish themselves. — Lyles Jr.
Area of concern: Wide receiver
The Wolverines ranked 129th last season with just 1,678 passing yards. Quarterback play was part of the issue, as Michigan cycled through three quarterbacks (Davis Warren, Jack Tuttle and Alex Orji) in its first season after losing national champion JJ McCarthy. But Michigan’s receivers collectively didn’t make enough plays, as no wideout caught more than 27 passes or totaled more than 248 yards. The onus will be even greater on Michigan’s receivers with tight end Colston Loveland — the Wolverines’ only reliable target last year — now playing for the Chicago Bears. Instant impact from transfers Anthony Simpson (UMass) and Donaven McCulley (Indiana), combined with internal improvement from the likes of Fredrick Moore and Semaj Morgan, will be paramount if Michigan is going to threaten opposing defensive backfields in 2025. — Trotter
Area of concern: Linebacker
The Hurricanes did another fantastic job shoring up positions across the roster in the transfer portal, especially considering how much turnover they had from last season. But if there is one position that still has some questions, it is linebacker, mainly because depth may become an issue as the season wears on. Miami returns three key veterans in Wesley Bissainthe, Jaylin Alderman and Popo Aguirre, and signed NC State transfer Kamal Bonner and Rutgers transfer Mo Toure. Miami often looked slow and out of position at linebacker last season, but the new scheme from defensive coordinator Corey Hetherman should help. The player to keep an eye on here is Toure, whom Hetherman coached while he was at Rutgers. Toure is coming off a knee injury (his second torn ACL in three years), but his potential to fit into this defense, considering his past with Hetherman, is huge. — Adelson
Area of concern: Defensive end
For the past three years, Louisville was able to rely on a genuine star off the edge in Ashton Gillotte, who racked up 21.5 sacks from 2022-24. Gillotte is off to the NFL now, a third-round pick by the Chiefs. That leaves a major void at defensive end. Louisville has a couple of transfers — Wesley Bailey from Rutgers and Clev Lubin from Coastal Carolina — hoping to fill the void, but the strength of the D-line will certainly be on the interior, where the Cards have much more established depth. As Louisville works to remedy issues defending the pass, finding someone — or, ideally, a few guys — who can get after the QB will be one of the most critical jobs for the defense as it prepares for 2025. — Hale
Area of concern: Wide receiver
Just like last season, a big question for the Aggies’ potential is how their wide receiver room will shake out. The Aggies lost Noah Thomas, a bright spot in an otherwise spotty position for A&M and new offensive coordinator Collin Klein, to Georgia after Thomas caught 39 passes for 574 yards and eight touchdowns last year. No other player caught more than two TDs or eclipsed 400 yards on the season as the Aggies fought through a QB change from Conner Weigman to Marcel Reed. This year, the Aggies are looking toward NC State transfer KC Concepcion (71 catches, 839 yards, 10 TDs in 2023, 53-460-6 last year), Mississippi State transfer Mario Craver (17-368-3 as a freshman), as well as returners Ashton Bethel-Roman, 6-2, 220-pound freshman four-star recruit Jerome Myles and dynamic 2024 five-star recruit Terry Bussey, who played something of an all-purpose role last year. As this group goes, so will Reed and the offense. — Wilson
Area of concern: Quarterback
Austin Simmons seems like a talented individual — we’re talking about someone who is athletically gifted enough to play baseball for Ole Miss as well. But anytime you are replacing one of the better quarterbacks in your conference, in this case Jaxson Dart, who was a first-round NFL draft pick, there has to be some level of concern. But from what we’ve seen out of Simmons, there’s promise. His drive against Georgia last season, where he led a 10-play, 75-yard touchdown drive to tie the game while Dart was injured, should give the Ole Miss faithful something to be excited about. — Lyles Jr.
Area of concern: Tight end
It’s been a struggle at tight end for the Sooners, and there’s again uncertainty around the position heading into the 2025 season. Granted, there was plenty of blame to go around for Oklahoma’s struggles on offense last season, but finding more consistency at tight end in both the receiving and blocking categories would be a big boost for an offense that has tons of new faces. There isn’t a definitive starter at tight end entering preseason camp. Transfers Will Huggins (Kansas and Pittsburg State) and Carson Kent (Kennesaw State) are expected to battle with converted linebacker Jaren Kanak for the job. — Low
-
Adam Rittenberg
FRISCO, Texas — Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark is “doubling down” on the so-called 5+11 future College Football Playoff format, while acknowledging that it might benefit his league more in the future than currently.
The Big 12 and ACC have pushed the model, which would award automatic bids to the five highest-rated conference champions, plus 11 at-large bids determined by the CFP selection committee. The 5+11 model gained some support at the SEC’s spring meetings, while the Big Ten has focused more on a model that would award four automatic bids to Big Ten teams and to SEC teams, plus two apiece to the Big 12 and the ACC.
Yormark, his fellow commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua must determine the CFP format for 2026 and beyond by Dec. 1.
The Big 12 had only one representative, champion Arizona State, in the inaugural 12-team CFP last year. Arizona State lost to Texas in two overtimes in a CFP quarterfinal matchup at the Peach Bowl.
“Five-11 is fair,” Yormark said Tuesday in his opening address at Big 12 media days at The Star. “We want to earn it on the field. It might not be the best solution today for the Big 12 … but long-term, knowing the progress we’re making, the investments we’re making, it’s the right format for us. And I’m doubling down today on 5+11.”
Yormark added that he expects ACC commissioner Jim Phillips to take the same position when that league holds its media days this month in Charlotte, North Carolina. The ACC sent two teams, champion Clemson and runner-up SMU, to the 12-team playoff last year. Yormark touted the Big 12 as the “deepest football conference in America” and said he believes the league will have multiple CFP entries this season.
“I have a lot of faith in the selection process,” Yormark said. “They are doing a full audit of the selection process to figure out how they can modernize and contemporize and how they use data and how certain metrics can be more heavily weighted.”
Yormark told ESPN that he’s “relatively confident” that the CFP will go to 16 teams in 2026 and laid out the next steps to making it happen.
“The first step is we got to figure out, with the selection process, we’re kind of doing a deep dive,” he said. “Where can we improve it? Where can we modernize it? Are we using the right metrics? Are things weighted appropriately or not? So we’re going through that conversation, and I think on the heels of that, we’ll move into the format because I think for the room people need to get confident, more confident, in that selection process. And assuming they do, which I’m confident they will, we’ll be able to then address the format that makes sense.”
In March, the CFP named a Big 12 athletic director, Baylor’s Mack Rhoades, as the chair of its selection committee. Yormark said that in addition to schedule strength, “new metrics” will be added to the selection process to ensure fairness to all conferences.
The Big 12 will have the Week 0 stage as Iowa State and Kansas State renew their rivalry in Dublin. Other key nonleague Big 12 matchups include Baylor-Auburn, Baylor-SMU and Iowa State-Iowa.
“I’m confident we’ll get to the right place,” Yormark said. “And ultimately, I’m confident we’ll go to 5+11.”
ESPN’s Pete Thamel contributed to this report.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike