After the Gridiron Shakes: Week 1's Seismic Shifts in College Football NIL Valuations
Share- Nishadil
- September 04, 2025
- 0 Comments
- 2 minutes read
- 3 Views

The dust has barely settled on a breathtaking Week 1 of college football, yet the financial tremors are already shaking the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) landscape. What happens on the gridiron now directly translates into market value, and the opening weekend delivered a masterclass in how quickly fortunes can shift for the sport's biggest stars.
Few teams captured the nation's imagination like the Colorado Buffaloes.
Their stunning upset over TCU wasn't just a monumental win; it was an NIL goldmine for several key players. Cornerback and wide receiver extraordinaire Travis Hunter, playing an astonishing 129 snaps on both sides of the ball, saw his On3 NIL Valuation surge by a staggering $550,000, bringing him to a formidable $1.7 million.
His two-way ironman performance was the talk of the sport, and brands are undoubtedly taking notice.
Equally impactful for Colorado was quarterback Shedeur Sanders. His record-breaking 510 passing yards and four touchdowns against TCU propelled his NIL valuation to an eye-watering $2.2 million, marking a $350,000 increase.
He now stands as the seventh-highest valued player in college football, a testament to his on-field brilliance and charismatic presence. The "Coach Prime" effect is clearly extending to his players' marketability.
Beyond Boulder, other titans of the game cemented or enhanced their NIL standing.
USC's reigning Heisman Trophy winner, Caleb Williams, despite a slightly less dramatic opener against San Jose State, remains a titan. His seamless transition into the new season keeps his NIL valuation hovering around $2.8 million, ensuring he maintains his elite status.
LSU quarterback Jayden Daniels, even in a losing effort against Florida State, put up impressive numbers, showcasing his dual-threat capabilities.
His valuation remains robust at $1.5 million, reflecting his consistent high-level play. Similarly, Drake Maye of North Carolina, after a strong showing against South Carolina, holds steady at $1.4 million, reinforcing his reputation as a top-tier quarterback prospect.
Oregon's Bo Nix and Alabama's Jalen Milroe also saw their stock either rise or solidify.
Nix's dominant performance against Portland State pushed his valuation to $1.3 million, while Milroe, despite some early season jitters, demonstrated his explosive potential against Middle Tennessee, keeping his NIL firmly at $1 million. Quinn Ewers of Texas, with a respectable outing, also maintained his $1 million valuation, poised for a crucial season.
However, not everyone emerged from Week 1 with an increased NIL portfolio.
While the spotlight shone brightly on the risers, some high-profile names found their valuations stagnant or, relative to expectations, underperformed. Arch Manning, the highly touted Texas backup quarterback, still commands an impressive $2.9 million NIL valuation, but without any game action, his market value remained unchanged.
The wait for his debut continues to keep his massive potential just that: potential.
Clemson's Cade Klubnik, despite a challenging start against Duke, saw his valuation remain at $950,000. While still substantial, his performance didn't provide the spark needed for a significant jump. Similarly, South Carolina's Spencer Rattler delivered a solid, albeit not spectacular, performance against North Carolina, maintaining his $1.1 million valuation.
In a rapidly evolving NIL landscape, "solid" sometimes means falling behind those making seismic leaps.
Week 1 proved unequivocally that on-field performance is the ultimate currency in the NIL era. For players like Travis Hunter and Shedeur Sanders, it was a catapult to new heights of marketability.
For others, it was a stark reminder that consistent excellence is required to not just maintain, but significantly grow, their personal brand and financial standing in the ever-competitive world of college football.
.Disclaimer: This article was generated in part using artificial intelligence and may contain errors or omissions. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. We makes no representations or warranties regarding its accuracy, completeness, or reliability. Readers are advised to verify the information independently before relying on