Randy Levine discusses the chaotic state of college sports amid NIL challenges

Randy Levine, who is the president of the New York Yankees and also a vice chairman of the Committee to Save College Sports, is collaborating with Brian Kilmeade to address the current turmoil in college sports. He points out the mounting issues surrounding name, image, and likeness (NIL) transactions, the tumultuous transfer portals, and the impact on player eligibility for student-athletes. Levine also outlined the financial strains on universities and mentioned efforts by President Trump to seek a legal resolution, hoping for a bipartisan solution within a 90-day timeframe.

As discussions unfold in Congress about potential legislation to govern college football, prominent figures from major conferences are weighing in on NIL, reexamining the future of college football.

Recently, former Alabama Crimson Tide head coach Nick Saban delivered his thoughts directly to Congress. He articulated some insightful points regarding the current trajectory of the sport and his concerns about it.

However, the unrestricted transfer portal and an escalating “arms race” in spending are reshaping the landscape of college football. It’s accurate to say the transfer system has its flaws, and spending heavily on players significantly influences team composition. Still, Saban raised some points about NIL that don’t quite match the realities of what college football has represented over the decades.

Saban remarked, “That’s not the same as turning the NIL into a pay-for-play system,” indicating that the potential for players to earn money from their name, image, and likeness shouldn’t lead to a bidding war for recruits or transfers.” He cautioned that once financial might dictates player selection, the essence of college athletics—beloved by millions—begins to fade.

In shared sentiments, Pete Bevacqua, the athletic director for Notre Dame, voiced similar worries. He mentioned, “If we keep pouring resources into football while roster costs soar, we risk isolating a handful of schools that excel at the Super League level.” He stressed that transforming college football into a mini-NFL doesn’t align with its core spirit.

Saban echoed this concern, noting how some institutions now boast rosters that cost nearly $40 million, which effectively sidelines smaller schools incapable of such investments from competing for championships.

But what’s interesting is that Saban and Bevacqua may overlook the fact that this disparity already exists within college football. In truth, it’s been a long-standing reality, even prior to the introduction of NIL.

For instance, viewing the list of U.S. Champions since 2000 reveals that Alabama has clinched six championships under Saban, while Ohio State has three, and Georgia has two titles. Schools like LSU, Florida, and Clemson have also secured their fair share, making it quite a narrow circle. The only ‘smaller’ program to break through in the past 25 years is Indiana—a bit ironic, given the current NIL era.

Going further back to the 1980s and beyond, programs like BYU and Washington made headlines, but the dominating names in football have largely included USC, Notre Dame, and Alabama, among others. Some of the champions before NIL, like Oklahoma and Nebraska, remain iconic.

Depending on how one defines ‘small’ programs, you can spot anomalies like BYU in 1984 or Pittsburgh in 1976. Yet, Saban and Bevacqua’s notion that NIL displaces smaller teams is mostly unfounded. Indiana’s recent win might be an exception, but it’s also an indication that repeated myths about NIL overshadow the reality.

In one way, NIL has become a tool that levels the playing field. Saban built a powerhouse at Alabama by attracting recruits with advantages that few others could match—its origins shrouded in debate. Historically, top players have been drawn to powerhouse programs like Alabama, USC, and Notre Dame, which promised national TV exposure, NFL prospects, and major bowl games.

However, now NIL offers teams like Indiana and Texas Tech a quicker route to national competitiveness. While coaching and other factors matter, it’s questionable whether someone like Fernando Mendoza would have ended up in Bloomington without NIL’s influence. Similarly, would Texas Tech have developed a top-tier defense without the benefit of NIL?

Sure, not every team can stretch their NIL budget to the fullest, as seen with Texas, which finished 9-3 in 2025 despite boasting the country’s priciest roster.

College football often romanticizes the past, and NIL isn’t exempt from this tendency. Are there changes that should be made? Definitely. But would those changes lead to the success of lesser-known programs? It’s less likely. Ironically, the best way forward might involve wealthier donors investing in programs that need it—just like what happened with Oregon, which transformed from a mid-major with Phil Knight’s backing. NIL provides similar opportunities, even if coaching and athletic directors might not fully embrace it.