I don't know if anyone listens to Colin, I know a lot of people don't care for him, which could really apply to anyone on tv/radio today.
More interestingly, there is a statistic that says 49% of NBA players have an "elite" athlete in their family. Elite meaning they played professionally, internationally, or D1. The NFL and MLB is significantly lower, at less than 20%. So when it comes to nepotism, from an athletic standpoint, do you think it is better genes or better exposure/opportunities, or both? Does it depend on the sport?
Also of interest, the average NBA player is 11 inches taller (6'6) than the average American, which would obviously suggest it is more genetic.
I'm not a big person at all, 6'1, 160 lbs soaking wet, ran a 4'5 forty at age 33 (and lost by a half step to Da'Shawn Hand who was 6'4 280 at the time. ) Da'shawn's dad is 6'3 and maybe 185ish, but was an all-conference receiver in high school. I just assumed my kid would be a D1 level talent, because I would encourage him to start at a good age, I would put him in the right position form the start, I would hold him back a year if necessary as I was a late bloomer, and I have a good friend who is well-respected and connected coach. I'm also aware that part of this is wishful thinking and Al Bundy type reminiscing, but I can't be the only person who thought or thinks this...right?
(Also, Colin is still making nice with Harbaugh, so he is defending Harbaugh vs Saban, pointing out Saban complains about what he doesn't like eg. Chip Kelly's no huddle offense as being "bad for the kids" as well as pointing out his lack of Harbaugh-level success at MSU and in the NFL)