If the past few weeks have shown us anything, it's that nothing is guaranteed in politics. President Joe Biden's decision to end his reelection campaign may have thrown this particular election into deep uncharted waters, but it's not without historical precedent. By opting not to run for a second term, Biden joins a small but illustrious group of past presidents.

James Buchanan
Buchanan's pledge to serve a single term in 1857 was "likely a good thing, in retrospect, since experts rank him as the worst president of all time," Stacker said. Buchanan was "eager to vacate the White House before civil war became a reality," and his "antagonistic relationship with Stephen Douglas split the Democratic Party," clearing a path for Republican Abraham Lincoln to win the election in 1860, American Experience said. 

Rutherford Hayes
Hayes initially entered office in 1877 after one of the "most hostile, controversial campaigns in American history," said his presidential library. That controversy, in which several states alleged instances of electoral fraud, meant "legitimacy was never fully accepted by many Democrats," said Voice of America, likely making it easier for him to follow through on his pledge to serve only one term. 

Harry Truman
Truman first assumed the presidency in 1945 upon the in-office death of his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, before winning the position outright in the following election. Unlike his predecessors, Truman initially launched a reelection campaign, entering the 1952 New Hampshire primary, but was ultimately beaten by Tennessee Sen. Estes Kefauver. Two weeks later, he "affirmed his dedication to the Democratic Party and ended with the announcement that he 'shall not be a candidate for reelection,'" said the Kansas City Star. Notably, just one month earlier, "Truman's popularity rating fell to an all-time low of 22%," said Politico. 

Lyndon Johnson
Until Biden's announcement, the most recent president to opt out of a reelection campaign was Johnson, who shocked the country by declaring he would "not seek" his party's nomination at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. In addition to longstanding health concerns, Johnson "understood he was not likely to win" and had "lost his hold on public opinion because of the Vietnam War," said historian Robert Dallek to The Washington Post.

Football fans everywhere are grabbing their controllers, because EA Sports released "College Football 25" on July 19. It's the first NCAA-licensed college football video game in over a decade, and the return of the franchise, which was on hiatus since "College Football 14" in 2013, marks another major milestone in the ability of college athletes to earn money from their likenesses. 

Why did it take so long to make a new college football game? 
For years, NCAA players were not allowed to make money off their name, image and likeness (NIL), so to "comply with amateurism rules, college sports titles like the popular NCAA Football franchise long had to fill those rosters with thinly veiled stand-ins," said The New York Times. This practice "came under fire as the push to pay college athletes gained steam," and eventually EA decided to shelve the game. 

But in 2021, the Supreme Court upheld a decision that the "NCAA rules limiting education-related compensation violated [antitrust laws]," said the Harvard Law Review. The NCAA complied with this ruling, meaning that "college athletes were finally permitted to be paid for utilizing their [NIL]," which "allowed EA to compensate the players it profits from," said The Seattle Times. Work on "College Football 25" soon began. 

"Building the rosters for every Division I team from scratch was a technical challenge for EA Sports," The New York Times said. The studio "created a machine learning tool to build player likenesses and spent more than $6 million to secure athlete participation." 

What bigger implications could 'College Football 25' have?
Despite being dormant for years, the NCAA Football franchise has maintained a strong fandom. The new game could make college sports grow, as it will "help endear players from random schools everywhere to gamers," said The Athletic.

For a "certain kind of person — typically speaking, a sports-enjoying dude born between 1985 and 2000," the game is the "most highly anticipated media in ages," said Mashable. 

There's also a "level of interest from schools and administrators" that "view the game as an opportunity for brand exposure" among "future applicants," said The Washington Post.