Has NIL Ruined March Madness?

With no mid-majors left in March Madness, is NIL widening the gap? Explore how the NIL deal could help reshape the transfer portal and reform college basketball.

We are officially headed to the second weekend of March Madness and the results for fans of non-power conference schools are bleak. No team from outside of the power four remains, sparking the question of “Has NIL ruined March Madness?”

The first round and the round of 32 provided some fun games despite the lack of upsets. UC San Diego came down to the wire against Michigan despite losing their star player in the second half. UNC Wilmington and High Point went toe-to-toe against Texas Tech and Purdue. Yale fell just short to Texas A&M, while McNeese picked up a first round win over Clemson. Drake took down Missouri and VCU kept it close against BYU. The most notable non-upset was Robert Morris giving Alabama a run for their money, including taking a lead late in the second half as a 15 seed. Colorado State of course won their first round over Memphis, but fell on a buzzer beater to Derik Queen of Maryland in the round of 32 despite leading for the majority of the game.

Now on the flip side, there were quite a few of large blowouts. The surprises were Utah State losing 72-47 to UCLA, Grand Canyon being non-competitive against Maryland while losing 81-49, and Liberty being blown out 81-52.

It’s reasonable to see where this narrative can come from. With the state of the transfer portal and NIL, players are moving teams left and right at lighting speed. The portal officially opened on Monday and there were immediately 500 players in the portal in mere hours. Just as recently as 5 years ago, this would’ve been mind blowing.

Do I think NIL is contributing to the large gap that’s growing between the power conferences and the non-power conferences? Absolutely. Do I think that it’s the main driver? No.

Photo: Utah State Athletics

---

Use the code “BracketBusters” when checking out at Crow’s Nest Coffee Roasters to receive 20% of your order! Want two bags of coffee shipped to your door every month? Sign up for a monthly subscription here and receive 25% off your monthly subscription!

Sign up for Bracket Busters’ Discord to discuss all things Mid-Major Basketball!

---

I believe that the transfer portal is a larger concern than NIL for non-power conference schools. The transfer portal lets players go to a school, collect a check, and then dip out at the end of the season to collect more cash at another university. This isn’t sustainable for anyone involved and here’s why:

1. Everyone is chasing the money.

Players are transferring up from lower conferences to the next level only to see their playing time diminish. Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of players that are transferring up and playing in meaningful roles or even staying as starters, but lets look at some examples from the Missouri Valley:

• Cade Tyson

  • 23-24: Belmont - 16.2 points, 5.9 rebounds, 1.6 assists (31.7 minutes)

  • 24-25: North Carolina - 2.6 points, 1.1 rebounds (7.9 minutes)

• Myles Foster

  • 23-24: Illinois State - 12.4 points, 8.1 rebounds, 1.7 assists (28.3 minutes)

  • 24-25: Clemson - 2.3 points, 1.5 rebounds (5.9 minutes)

• Bowen Born

  • 23-24: Northern Iowa - 13.3 points, 2.5 rebounds, 1.8 assists (27.5 minutes)

  • 24-25: Colorado State - 5 points, 1.3 rebounds, 1.4 assists (14.8 minutes)

I believe at some point in the near future, we are going to start to see players take a second look at whether or not they want to transfer up. In some cases, if the NIL pool is that large at the university recruiting the player, I understand not being able to pass up the opportunity. However, after speaking with individuals about real life cases, some players are leaving for increments of $10-20k more. Is it worth transferring, having your playing time slashed, all for a few extra dollars?

2. There are no rules.

With players chasing the money, there is nothing holding them back from entering the portal the next season and keep trying for more. Will the market match their expectations? For many, most likely not, but for others it will. That begs the question, how do you attempt to reign in the portal? Contracts.

I firmly believe that colleges need to adapt a standard contract when negotiating with athletes for NIL. For example, let’s say you sign a player incoming as a freshman. You offer them a two-year contract with the ability to opt-out if there is a coaching change or a buyout if they leave early. That does two things:

• You allow players to continue to develop. This is more beneficial for both the team that signed the player and the player themselves. Many younger players are falling into the “chase the money trap” by leaving a school where they could continue to start and develop to go to a larger school where they maybe earn ten minutes per game.

• It provides fanbases with more incentives to fund NIL programs. If you aren’t a power conference school with an impressive alumni base that you can pull in millions, you have to rely on your existing fanbase to support you. It’s hard for fans of smaller schools to buy merch, donate to collectives, etc. when your favorite players are going to be gone the next year.

If we move to this world, there are some strong considerations for everyone involved. No different than the MLB, you don’t want to sign a bad contract. Do you want to give a 35 year-old pitcher a seven year, $310 million contract? Probably not. You’re not going to want to give an unproven player a two-year $200k contract if you are an A-10 or AAC school. On the player’s end, you want to ensure that you are going to go somewhere that’s invested in you and your career. Are you going to sign a two or three year contract and risk sitting on the bench and wasting your eligibility?

Through doing these contracts, you are limiting the consistent turnover each year (which painfully occurs during the middle of the NCAA Tournament for some reason). You are allowing fanbases to reconnect with players, therefore enhancing the likelihood of financial contributions to their program. You are allowing players to develop more before seeking to jump to the next level before they are ready. You are allowing smaller schools the chance to earn more funds when you recruit a solid player and they leave via buyouts. You are giving more schools a fair shot to play, while also not necessarily hurting power conferences.

Through this proposed structure, power schools can secure players they want from their competition for longer. If you are Duke and you don’t want a player going to North Carolina, you could nab a freshman on a two-year contract to ensure they don’t go to UNC while giving yourself a development prospect. Do you have a star player that wants to go to the NBA? Have a buyout clause that the player has to pay to leave early.

It’s a win across the board for players, fans, large schools, and small schools.

What’s your opinion? Do you think NIL multi-year contracts could help alleviate the issue of the Transfer Portal? Let me know in the comments.