At the NCAA basketball level, the impact of constant roster turnover is becoming more obvious every season. Long term development as a team is becoming a rarity, as teams are forced more into short term reset, which makes it difficult to build identity, leadership and chemistry. This trend has been reinforced by the rapid growth of the transfer portal, where thousands of Division I athletes enter each year, signaling a clear increase in player movement.
According to USA Today, 1,600 Division l basketball players entered the portal following the NCAA tournament. Players have become less patient, with their roles becoming less stable, while long term development takes a backseat to immediate results. The Michigan Wolverines, who won the National Championship this year, are the first team ever to win with a starting five of transfers.
From my position working daily as a team manager for the USF men’s basketball team, I’ve realised that questions like “Who’s staying next year?” have become completely normal in everyday conversations. This reflects how expected this level of instability has become.
Furthermore, the Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) market has grown rapidly into a billion dollar space, increasing competition and encouraging players to constantly seek better opportunities. According to the Opendorse annual NIL report, the market has expanded significantly in just a few years, reaching well over $1 Billion and continuing to grow.
NIL has also shifted player’s mindsets, as they are increasingly viewing themselves as individual brands. Compensation has also started to affect how players view authority within the program. When athletes are earning a significant amount of money, there can be a subtle shift in mindset where they feel less obligated to fully listen to their coaches. It turns into, “I make $1 million dollars a year while you make $75,000 a year. Why should I listen to you?” This type of mindset shift can create tension, especially when effort and accountability are not consistent across the team. The traditional structure between coaches and players becomes harder to maintain, not because it disappears, but because it is no longer reinforced in the same way.
To address the growing lack of player commitment in the NIL era, the solution is not to regulate how much athletes earn, but to change what they are being rewarded for. The issue is not NIL itself, but the way it currently incentivizes movement over commitment. There is no such thing as a player buying into a program. Some argue that stricter rules or limitations on NIL could solve this issue, but I feel those approaches are unrealistic and fail to address the root of the problem. What if the NCAA restructured NIL in a way that rewards players for staying?
A loyalty based NIL plan would address this issue by changing the underlying incentive. If players are placed in multi-year deals that increase in value over time, leaving a program no longer represents a clear upgrade. Instead, it becomes a decision that carries real financial consequences. A shift like this is bound to force players to think differently. Rather than thinking about what program is willing to offer more money if entering the portal, they begin to weigh what they are giving up by leaving. Over time, this creates a more stable environment where players are more likely to invest in their development and buy into a program. It allows programs to build continuity, something that has become increasingly difficult in the current format. Teams such as the 2025-26 Men’s Baylor team had to hit the reset button on their entire team, after losing their roster to transfers, graduation and the NBA draft.
Trying to solve this issue by making things more strict and regulated is just not realistic especially if the NCAA wants to grow. NIL operates through collectives and third-party relationships that are not easily controlled, and any attempt to limit earnings or standardize deals would likely be bypassed. Athletes will still transfer for playing time, exposure or better situations. As a result, regulation does not solve the issue of commitment, but only attempts to control the financial side of it.
Restructuring NIL deals at the program level is both practical and immediately actionable. Programs have a lot of influence on how opportunities are structured for athletes. If multi-year agreements, retention based incentives and compensation over time are incorporated, programs can work within the existing system instead of trying to fight it. This approach does not rely on outside enforcement or policy changes. It is something that can be implemented directly and adjusted based on what works best for the program.
