When the panel shifted discussion to the chaos of Name, Image and Likeness and its ripple effect on the transfer portal, NFL senior vice president of football operations Arthur McAfee III lit up. He applauded college football’s new “free agency” era for generating NFL-level buzz, even pointing to how the Washington Commanders were thrilled to draft Jayden Daniels after his stop at ASU.
Before he could finish, former ASU athletic director Ray Anderson, speaking at an ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law symposium Wednesday, jumped in: “To LSU, from ASU,” he corrected sharply, shaking his head at his longtime friend as the moderator teased, “Ray remembers that very well.” The room cracked up.
It wasn’t always funny. When Daniels bolted ASU for LSU, most in Tempe shrugged. A viral video circulated of a teammate filming Daniels’ locker being cleaned out and muttering, “He sucks anyways,” into the camera.
Two years later, Daniels won the Heisman and went No. 2 overall to Washington.
And now? ASU isn’t laughing. This time, it involves star quarterback Sam Leavitt at the center of social media speculation about potentially transferring. The Sun Devils would prefer not to watch another future star walk out the door.
Both On3 and The Athletic reported that Leavitt’s return was “doubtful.” Within moments, the Leavitt family pushed back. His brother and agent, Dallin, posted screenshots of texts with reporter Pete Nakos that stated the situation was “not where things are right now” and that Sam was “still deciding what he wants to do.” His father, Jared, sent a message to The Athletic summarizing his view even more bluntly: “No. That isn’t true.”
It is not clarity. It is not comfort. But it makes one thing obvious: The Leavitts did not want Sam’s private reflection plastered across the internet.
If this speculation had started in August, fans might have thought Leavitt was deciding between staying in school or entering the NFL Draft. Injuries and spotty performances have since reshaped the discussion. Leavitt is now widely expected to play college football again.
But if Leavitt does leave, whether for an SEC school with deeper resources or a clearer path to his long-term goals, it would stand as another case study in the world NIL has created. Roster building has become a frenzy, loyalty is transactional and college football has stepped fully into free agency with no guardrails.
The evolution has been dramatic. Anderson, ASU’s athletic director from 2014 to 2023, has witnessed the sport shift from a business framed by academics to a nearly pure marketplace.
“At Division I – particularly in the Power Four, and even some selected schools in the lower divisions – college football, very frankly, is strictly business,” Anderson said. “The academic and amateurism concepts, very frankly, are relics now.”
This shift toward revenue and marketable talent directly affects how players view the game. For some, college sports are no longer about education or life after athletics. They are a platform for exposure, branding and income. That perspective aligns with growing demands on programs to generate profits. As schools chase elite recruits and navigate the NIL landscape, financial stakes have soared.
The House v. NCAA settlement has intensified these demands by mandating schools redirect billions in revenue back to athletes. Securing and prioritizing football and men’s basketball, college athletics’ primary revenue drivers, is essential. Programs unable to generate revenue have become vulnerable.
Some programs have cut Olympic and other nonrevenue sports. Since the settlement, more than 40 Division I programs have reportedly been eliminated, affecting over 1,000 athletes.
“Unless you come up with some super creative way of creating additional revenues, the losses from the other sports are going to start being very prominent,” Anderson said.
The changes on the financial and institutional side have not gone unnoticed. McAfee said the NFL is watching closely how programs adjust to this transactional era, not just in terms of wins but in how athletes are coached, developed and supported off the field.
“From our standpoint, we’re looking at the total development of the athlete, not just the physical,” McAfee said. “We want to know if players have had consistent coaching, access to proper training and financial education. That includes how they’ve navigated the transfer portal, managed their own brand and dealt with the demands of increased expectations. Those factors directly impact how ready they are for the next level.”
Coaches face unprecedented scrutiny to produce immediate results amid the financial and competitive expectations NIL has brought. The past year provided stark examples: James Franklin was fired midseason despite nearly reaching a national title, while LSU could pay Brian Kelly up to $54 million just to hit the reset button.
ASU head coach Kenny Dillingham has faced similar scrutiny, with SEC programs reportedly circling with big offers. But Dillingham, an ASU alum, expressed confidence in the school’s support, saying, “I was never leaving. This is home. I have a lot of confidence that our administration is pushing the chips to the table.”
These coaching demands are inseparable from the rising influence of the transfer portal, which has reshaped how programs and players operate. For athletes, it provides leverage and flexibility; for programs, it offers opportunity but also volatility. It allows schools to spend their way to the top rather than waiting for recruits to develop, while adding expectations, as previously fired coaches know, to use that money wisely.
McAfee described it as a professional-style free agency, except in college, the rules are looser: Players can jump at the first opportunity for more money or playing time, turning roster management into a high-stakes game of constant adaptation.
“Some of the quarterbacks drafted last year had all transferred one or more times,” McAfee said. “Those experiences impact how clubs assess readiness for the NFL.” Players now have the tools to assess programs themselves, from coaching philosophies to marketing support, shaping decisions that were once largely one-sided.
Institutions are responding in real time. Athletic departments are expanding staff roles, hiring marketing personnel, player development coordinators and financial education specialists – building infrastructure previously unnecessary at the collegiate level.
Anderson highlighted the systemic strain: rising costs to compete for top talent, revenue-sharing requirements and the pressure to maintain high-profile programs have dramatically shifted the landscape.
“The intensity of the arms race to win the pay-for-play game, the institutional demands on athletic departments, it all happened faster than I expected,” Anderson said. “Even the wealthiest programs feel a ceiling on resources.”
That ceiling is not theoretical. Texas Tech, for example, is believed to be spending $28 million on its 2025 roster, making it one of the most aggressive NIL spenders in the country. The Red Raiders sit fifth nationally and are favored for the Big 12 title, showing what financial investment can do for a program. Yet not all schools are created or funded the same, which only heightens the challenges for athletic directors.
Conference self-interest and short-term thinking amplify these demands, forcing directors to manage budgets while keeping programs competitive. Anderson described the role today as more of a “chief revenue officer,” adding, “I was delighted to have been in it, and I am delighted to be out of it.”
For athletes such Leavitt, these forces collide in real time. His potential move isn’t just about playing time or a different offensive system. It reflects the broader recalibration of college football, where opportunity, exposure and NIL earnings are increasingly intertwined. Choices like his reverberate across programs, coaching staffs and recruitment pipelines, shaping how teams structure support, allocate resources and evaluate staff.
Assessing a player today requires more than evaluating physical talent. Transfers, development programs, financial literacy and adaptability under high-stakes demands are now crucial, all factors McAfee highlighted as key to how the NFL measures readiness.
These combined challenges are redefining success in college football.
“We look at what’s happening at the collegiate level from a full governance standpoint,” McAfee said. “It’s about coaching, playing, athletes and business models all at once. That’s a different level of professionalism than we’ve ever seen before.”
No one in the ecosystem escapes this reality. Coaches are measured on rapid results and revenue performance, players on both field performance and their ability to navigate complex institutional systems, and athletic departments on their capacity to innovate and manage talent pipelines.
Yet despite soaring spending and looming budget cuts, one truth remains unchanged: Everything in college athletics, including NIL, revolves around its cornerstone.
“Everything revolves around football first,” Anderson said. “That’s just the way it is.”
Be the first to comment