Candid Coaches: After more than a year, does name, photo, and example help or harm college athletics?

CBS Sports college basketball writers Gary Parrish and Matt Norlander surveyed nearly 100 coaches for the annual Candid Coaches series. They surveyed everyone from head coaches in elite programs to assistants at some of the smallest Division I schools. In exchange for complete anonymity, the coaches offered complete honesty on a number of topics. Over the next few weeks, we will publish the results of the questions asked.

A world in which student-mathematicians are able to make use of their name, image, and example (like all other students) is something some of us have been constantly discussing in the years before it becomes a reality. Reasonable minds might disagree about the impact it will one day have on college sports, including men’s basketball. But now, a little over a year into this new way of doing things, it’s undeniably a big deal that has reshaped how athletic managers and coaches do their jobs. With this as background, we have asked nearly 100 college basketball coaches the following question:

Over a year later, does name, photo, and example help or harm college athletics?

Quotes that popped


  • “Maybe it’s too early to tell, but I think it helps the college basketball product. I’ve seen some really good players come back to college because of the financial implications.”
  • “We keep more players in college basketball and really good players in each program are more likely to stay in their school than transfer.”
  • “Overall, NIL helps college athletes -[but]needs some roadblocks. Even professional athletes have salary limits. It has made training more difficult because there is an expectation of getting a deal in a jiffy.”
  • “I love NIL – I don’t think it’s managed properly. Some of the money that’s in there right now, I don’t understand or see how it can be sustainable. I definitely think NIL should be an option for college athletes, it should be managed somewhat better. It’s out of scope. control right now. I don’t understand where all this money is coming from and how it could be sustainable. It’s good for a place like my school because we’d never cheat, and now it allows us to give something to our players in a legal way. It’s good for college basketball, but definitely needs in a way What to manage it a little bit better because it’s a little out of control right now.”


  • “There has been an increase in the number of ways people are using to transfer money to players, healers, and families that have nothing to do with NIL but can fall under the guise of it. Pay to play is bolder than ever.
    There are no teeth in any legislation that you don’t feel the proper lawyers have been unable to resolve.”
  • “Recruitment has become a silent auction for the recruits who bid the highest. It is not a matter of niche anymore, style of play, role, development, etc. for the future of the recruit.”
  • “I think the NIL has wiped out ‘total’ athletics, and a lot of this is due to a lack of progressive thinking by the leadership in the NCAA. They had many years and opportunities to find ways to allow players to profit from the real NIL. After the decline, they were supported in like This is the corner where they’ve basically opened the doors – not for players who take advantage of the name, image, and example, (but) pay for legitimate play. I think the market is correcting itself in the coming years. I think fewer people will be interested in giving money on the front side.”
  • Overall, I think the combination of NIL and Gateway Transfer has hurt college athletics. I think both would be fine, but when you put the two together you have poison. Big Medium Farm Teams. High level collusion and free agency without contracts. At least in the NBA there is a salary cap and contracts with penalties.”


After polling nearly 100 college basketball coaches, and having various conversations with them over the past year, I think the consensus is that most are great with student-athletes making money NIL but less exciting than the lack of guidance that has turned many hirings into no-nonsense. Nothing more than bidding for wars.

I understand that.

But, the truth is, the chances are nil Always It would instantly turn into recruiting temptations that affected where players registered, which is why it was absurd for the NCAA to pretend otherwise. I remember being on the first conference call after the NCAA announced that it was developing a system where student-athletes would have NIL rights. When it was my turn to speak, I politely asked how the board plans to prevent the use of NIL in recruitment. Unsurprisingly, the people tasked with developing this system didn’t have an answer to that question because – and I knew that before I even asked it; You just asked to clarify a point – there is absolutely no answer to this question. It has always been impossible to develop a system – at least one that would withstand legal scrutiny – where the NIL does not affect employment. Which is why I don’t really understand how there were coaches who expected anything other than what exactly happens now once NIL gets into college athletics.

It is, as they say, what it is.

All that said, I sympathize with the idea that zero rights became a reality, somehow at the same time that one-time transfers became a reality, was a real shock to the system. Suddenly, coaches who have been doing this for decades are being forced to do their jobs in new, complex, and challenging ways. So I understand the frustration and why the majority of them think NIL is currently doing more harm than helping. Frankly, I do. But what I don’t understand is when coaches bemoan the fact that some recruits choose schools mostly for financial reasons when coaches have chosen schools for decades also mostly for financial reasons. Money has always dictated where coaches work – so what’s so bad about it sometimes dictating where players play? And for those of you who don’t like the idea of ​​major programs buying proficient and proven players from top mid-tier universities, I would just like to remind you that major programs buy complete and proven software. coaches Off the main average campus forever. If you are in agreement with the latter, you must be in agreement with the former. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.

Bottom line, regulations that many coaches want to stabilize the market and clean up the gray areas probably won’t be enforced until student-athletes are allowed to union and collective bargaining. Most agree that this is where this is headed. When exactly, who knows? But, most agree that’s where this is headed – someday. In the meantime, schools with the most enthusiastic boosters and organized groups will thrive when it comes to recruiting high school prospects and transfers. But — and that’s something I’ve always expected it would be — these schools are going to be pretty much the same schools that were thriving before zero. In other words, the idea that any of this changes the order of things is simply unfounded – evidence that blue-blooded Kansas just played North Carolina in an NCAA championship game, and that only the blue-blooded Duke entered the nation’s highest-ranked employment class. .

Leave a Comment