Utah QB Cam Rising medically retires from football after seven-year college career
Utah QB Cam Rising medically retires from football after seven-year college career
Show Caption
Hide Caption
How coaches salaries and the NIL bill affects college football
Dan Wolken breaks down the annual college football coaches compensation package to discuss salaries and how the NIL bill affects them.
Sports Pulse
Cam Rising is calling it career.
The former Utah Utes quarterback and longtime college football player announced Wednesday he is medically retiring after suffering a hand injury during the 2024 season. He said he was advised by two orthopedic physicians he won't ever be able to play football and is seeking a third opinion as he will undergo surgery.
"I will continue to rehab and do all I can to get healthy. In the meantime, I will unfortunately be forced to medical retire from the game I love," Rising wrote on social media.
Rising retires from the sports after seven seasons of college football.
Cam Rising's college career
The decision to medically retire comes after a frustrating end to Rising's college career.
The No. 22 ranked quarterback in the 2018 recruiting class that included Trevor Lawrence, Justin Fields, Micah Parsons and Amon-Ra St. Brown, Rising committed to Texas out of high school, redshirting his first season in Austin. He then decided to transfer to Utah and sat out the 2019 season. He played his first game during the shortened 2020 season as he suffered a shoulder injury that prematurely ended the campaign for him.
Rising lost the quarterback battle to start the 2021 season, but after a 1-2 start, head coach Kyle Whittingham turned to Rising under center. The Utes found momentum with Rising as the starter, finishing the regular season 8-1 and earning a spot in the Pac-12 championship game. In the contest, Rising led Utah past Oregon for the school's first Pac-12 title and first Rose Bowl appearance. He was named a Pac-12 first-team selection with 2,493 passing yards with 20 touchdowns and five interceptions, as well as 74 carries for 499 rushing yards and six rushing touchdowns.
The quarterback returned to Utah in 2022 and again led Utah back to the Pac-12 championship game. Against College Football Playoff contender Southern California, Rising led the upset against the Trojans to clinch back-to-back conference titles and Rose Bowl appearances. However, in the Rose Bowl game against Penn State, Rising suffered a devastating knee injury. The injury resulted in him missing the entirety of the 2023 season with a medical redshirt as Utah finished 8-5.
Now in his seventh-season, Rising returned to Utah for the 2024 campaign. He started the first two games of the season before he suffered a lacerated finger on his throwing hand early against Baylor on Sept. 7. He returned more than a month later against Arizona State, but was injured early in that contest. That ended up being the last game he played in as Utah determined he as out for the season as the Utes went 5-7, the program's worst record in 11 years.
Does Cam Rising still have eligibility left?
It might sound crazy that someone who started college in 2018 can still play at the level, but Rising still technically could have petitioned for another year of eligibility via injury redshirt. However, it became evident his time in Utah was done. Earlier this year, Whittingham alluded to the team moving on from Rising.
"I've talked to Cam a few times, but that is really up to Cam to divulge, when he wants to divulge what his plan is,' Whittingham said. "We've certainly had communication and you don't see him on the roster right now, so that should tell you some things there."
If this is in fact the end, Rising finishes his college career with 6,127 passing yards, 53 passing touchdowns, 986 rushing yards and 12 rushing scores. Rising went 20-8 as a starting quarterback, fifth all-time in career wins at Utah.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Big Ten coach calls out anti-West Coast bias in College Football Playoff system
Big Ten coach calls out anti-West Coast bias in College Football Playoff system The first season of the 12-team College Football Playoff certainly created plenty of controversy. While ultimately, most people felt as though the selection committee took the correct 12 teams, the process of getting there was anything but smooth. This week, a Big Ten head coach called out the committee for alleged bias against West Coast schools. Interestingly, however, the coach in question is not in charge of a West Coast program himself. Rather, the man behind the comments, was, of all people, Penn State head coach James Franklin. "There's a lot of challenges," Franklin said, via CBS Sports. "You've got East Coast people voting on this, and they haven't watched enough of the West Coast games based on the time. All the different rankings that are out there. In my mind, a formula makes the most sense because it takes the bias out that we all have." Franklin's proposed solution to the matter was going back to a BCS-style formula to determine the rankings. "It's funny, because I think there's all these complaints about the BCS, but then we go to this, and I think it goes back to really, my answer is, the problem is, everybody voting and everybody involved in the process—whether you want to be biased or not, we all are biased. I think in a lot of ways, you could make the argument a formula could be better. But we didn't love the formula. So we went to this other system." USC fans know all too well, however, that leaving the rankings to the computers does not always work out. After all, back in 2003, the Trojans infamously got screwed out of the BCS Championship Game despite being ranked No. 1 in both the AP and Coaches Polls. However, Franklin's point about the current system having major issues is certainly a valid one. Perhaps one day, college football will be able to come up with a method of selecting a postseason field that will not inevitably make people mad. Right now, however, that day feels like a long way in the distance. As for Franklin, his comment was not entirely altruistic. Given that Penn State plays in the same conference as four West Coast schools, USC, Oregon, Washington, and UCLA getting more national respect could certainly help the Nittany Lions' resume in seasons to come.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Amateur Hour Is Over: College Athletes Can Get Paid by Schools
Good morning and welcome to another edition of Free Agent! Hold onto your buckets and your babies—this might be a wild ride. College sports is officially entering a new era. Amateurism is over and professionalism is (mostly) here. Athletes can officially get paid directly by their schools without a workaround involving boosters or a name, image, and likeness (NIL) collective. Instead of our usual format, the newsletter this week is focused on this monumental change. Advertisement But first, I want to thank everyone who voted in our survey last week about who you're rooting for in the NBA and NHL finals. Free Agent readership was surprisingly evenly split in both series. Shoutout to the fan who said "Seattle kid. Anyone but Thunder." You'll have your team soon, I'm sure. As for hockey, I was amused by this response: "I want Ron Desantis to have more Stanley Cups than Canada." Three down, 40 to go. Locker Room Links A New Era of College Sports Late on Friday, a federal judge gave final approval to a settlement in House v. NCAA, bringing to an end three antitrust cases against the NCAA and power conferences. It's a huge change: Starting July 1, college sports will spend a decade (at least) in a revenue-sharing system, with schools directly paying athletes for their NIL. Next school year athletic departments will be allowed to pay a combined $20.5 million to athletes across all their sports, with the number rising in the future. (The NCAA and power conferences will also pay almost $2.8 billion in damages to athletes who, dating back to 2016, weren't allowed to sign NIL deals.) Advertisement I talked to Mit Winter, an NIL attorney at Kennyhertz Perry, about how all of this is going to work. Hopefully this answers all the questions you might have about the new system, although a lot of it is still in limbo. I've been following this closely and I still learned a lot from our conversation. If you have lingering questions, email me at freeagent@ and I'll try to figure out an answer for you. Q: With final approval of the House settlement, colleges will be able to directly pay athletes for the first time. Give us a brief breakdown of how these payments are going to work. A: Looking forward for college athletics, schools will be able to directly pay their athletes NIL compensation. So they are actively entering into contracts now with their athletes that spell out, "All right, here's how much we are going to pay you for the use of your NIL in various ways." That's obviously a change from how things have worked in the past in college athletics where the cardinal rule was, "Schools, you cannot pay your athletes." Q: But the athletes still aren't technically employees, so that's causing some other complications, right? A: Correct, they're not currently considered employees. These agreements they're entering into with schools are just NIL licensing agreements. Sometimes they include a services component as well, where the athlete might make appearances or sign autographs or something like that. Advertisement Q: But there are some new restrictions on outside NIL deals with boosters? A: In addition to now allowing schools to directly pay their athletes, the House settlement also contains some new rules around deals athletes can do with NIL collectives and boosters. Athletes will have to disclose to a new clearinghouse entity called the College Sports Commission all third-party NIL deals they do. The College Sports Commission is contracted with Deloitte to do this review process of all of the deals. If an athlete submits a third-party NIL deal and it's determined that the deal is with an associated [to the school] entity or individual, then there's a couple of extra layers of review of that deal. First, the deal has to be for a valid business purpose. Once that determination is made, then the next overview Deloitte will be performing is, "Okay, is the amount being paid to the athlete within what's being called an appropriate range of compensation for the services being provided by this specific athlete?" But if Deloitte determines either the deal's not for a valid business purpose, like they think it's just a "pay-for-play" booster deal in disguise, or if the amount of compensation being provided to the athlete is not within the appropriate range of compensation, then Deloitte will notify the College Sports Commission that, "Hey, there's a problem with this deal." Then at that point it's up to the College Sports Commission to say, "All right, athlete, you can go ahead and do this deal if you want to, but you might be ineligible to participate in college athletics." Advertisement Q: Some believe this might lead to the old ways of under-the-table payments and recruiting violations. A: It's a definite possibility because the amount of NIL compensation that schools could pay their athletes is going to be capped at, for the first year, $20.5 million for the entire year for all of the school's athletes, so not just the football team. And there are some football teams making well over $20 million in NIL compensation from booster and collective deals for this upcoming season. So you can see if you have a football team right now taking $30 million, and then in the future, the cap for all of the school's athletes is going to be $20.5 million, there's obviously a $10 million gap right there, that if you can't do it through legitimate deals, third-party NIL deals and Deloitte is shooting down all these third-party deals, that's when you might go back to under-the-table payments from boosters to win recruiting battles or keep a guy at a school. Q: Talk to us about this from the conference level. A: Every Division I school, no matter what your athletics revenue is, you're going to be able to pay [athletes] up to $20.5 million. That money can come from any source that the university can use to find that money. Obviously, it's going to be easier to come up with that money for some Division I schools than others. Big Ten and SEC schools might have the easiest time just because the amount of TV revenue those conferences receive and then distribute out to their members is higher than any other conference, including the Big 12 and the ACC. But schools, they're going to be heavily reliant on donors for sure, but then there are other potential strategies they're going to use. Advertisement There's a lot of talk about private equity or private capital that some schools might access. There are businesses out there that are very heavily focused now on helping schools generate revenue through different types of creative partnerships, so it's going to be all over the map in terms of how schools are trying to come up with this new $20.5 million. And then you'll have some schools that will cut staff. Some have already cut staff, including Oklahoma, who's an SEC school, obviously, so they've cut staff. You've had some schools announce they are dropping a few sports, like tennis programs have been dropped in some places, swim and dive teams. So it's going to vary from school to school on how they come up with this money. Q: Now, back to the athletes themselves, there are no changes to the transfer system, right? Athletes are still kind of on these one-year contracts, with a fair amount of ability to move at will? A: Yes, correct. The transfer rules are going to stay the same, they're not affected by the House settlement at all. Although schools and conferences would love to be able to put some more transfer restrictions back in place and they're hopeful that Congress will pass a law that gives them an antitrust exemption that would then allow them to put some of those transfer rules back in place because courts have held right now that those transfer rules violate antitrust law. Some of the contracts that schools are entering into with their athletes, they have some provisions that are trying to prevent as much movement as there has been, like buyouts and clawbacks and things like that. [It] remains to be seen whether those will be effective or not in limiting movement, so we'll just have to see how that plays out. Advertisement Q: There are already some lawsuits challenging the current NCAA eligibility rules, but what lawsuits are coming next, or are already in play after the House settlement? A: A big one's going to be Title IX. There will be a lot of Title IX lawsuits, because as we talked about earlier, [schools] will be able to pay out $20.5 million to their athletes, and most schools are planning on paying out, at least if you are a [Power Four] school with a football team, are paying out 75 percent to 80 percent of that $20 million to the football team, around 15 percent to the men's basketball team, maybe 5 percent to the women's basketball team, and then 5 percent to other sports, which might be softball, baseball, whatever other sport a school chooses—85 percent to 90 percent of that $20 million is going to go to male athletes. Some people think that's not in compliance with Title IX, other people think it is. It's a gray area right now, there's no black-and-white law. That will be litigated probably in lots of places and there will be probably lots of lawsuits filed against schools on that issue. I also think we will see some litigation related to the salary cap, because it was not agreed to by a player's association where, like in pro sports, the salary caps and things like that are collectively bargained with a players association, which makes them exempt from antitrust law. But this salary cap in college athletics is not going to be exempt from antitrust law. So future college athletes coming into college athletics will be able to bring damages, lawsuits, challenging that salary cap, so I think we'll definitely see some of that. I think we'll probably see some more employment litigation for determination that college athletes are employees. There's already one big case pending on that issue called the Johnson v. NCAA case in federal court. It said college athletes can be employees, it didn't say they are. It said, "They can, and here's the test to determine whether they are." That was an appellate court, it's now down at the trial court level to actually make that determination. But I definitely think we'll see some more of that litigation, especially now that you have the schools contracting with athletes. It potentially makes that employment argument stronger than it was before. Advertisement This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity. Replay of the Week Lots of great candidates this week that you've probably already seen, like the Tyrese Haliburton game-winner, a brawl in the Stanley Cup Finals, and perhaps the best home run robbery you'll ever see (the A's still lost). But here's a wild golf shot you probably missed (and that wasn't even the craziest golf shot this weekend). That's all for this week. Enjoy watching the real game of the weekend, the UFL championship game featuring the D.C. Defenders against the Michigan Panthers (Saturday, 8 P.M., on FOX). Many are calling it the Jason Bowl due to my dual loyalties. The post Amateur Hour Is Over: College Athletes Can Get Paid by Schools appeared first on
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Iowa Football Preview 2025: The Hawkeyes Are Set For A 10-Win Season
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, there was a great pitcher named Bret Saberhagen. He's a fringe Hall of Fame candidate who won two Cy Youngs, a World Series, and had a great career. He's also forever known for a long stretch of rocking in odd-numbered years and being blah in even-numbered football has become the Bret Saberhagen of the Big Ten, winning ten games in 2019, 2021, and 2023, and failing to get past eight victories in 2020 (to be fair, there were only eight games), 2022, and 2024. X CFN, Fiu | CFN Facebook | Bluesky Fiu, CFN Iowa Offense BreakdownIowa Defense BreakdownSeason Prediction, Win Total, Keys to Season Iowa has won ten or more games in a season 11 times. Eight of them have been under Kirk Ferentz. Appearances in good bowl games have become the norm. The team committed the fewest penalties per game in all of college football, only Air Force was flagged for fewer yards, there weren't problems with turnovers, and ...Iowa lost to UCLA and Michigan State. If last year's team beat the Bruins and Spartans - who both finished with losing seasons - it would've been a ten-win Hawkeyes were good, but five of the eight wins were against teams that ended up under .500, another was against Illinois State from the FCS, and another came against a meh Nebraska that's been part of the formula for Iowa. It usually beats all of the teams it's supposed to. In the 10-4 2023 season, Northwestern was the only FBS team Iowa beat that finished with more than seven 2021 and 2019, Iowa won ten games in both seasons, beat good Minnesota teams, and the other 18 games came against the meh. This year, Oregon will finish with more than seven wins. So will Penn State, and so will a few other good teams on the Iowa slate. So no, Iowa might not get to ten wins without a little bit of help, but it's 2025. It's an odd year in so many a program overdue to make the College Football Playoff, and puts itself in a position to win every year, it might just Saberhagen its way into something special. Iowa Offense BreakdownIowa Defense BreakdownSeason Prediction, Win Total, Keys to Season © 2025 The Arena Group Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.
