The Evolution of College Basketball: NIL, Transfer Portal, and Professionalization

Lately, I’ve had many conversations about the rapidly changing landscape of college basketball. Between NIL, the transfer portal, and the growing role of agents, college basketball is evolving in ways we’ve never seen before. For college programs trying to adapt, this shift has created significant challenges—if not outright chaos.

Given my background as a former sports agent, my experience as an NBA Draft Analyst and scout, and everything else I’ve done in basketball, people have reached out—picking my brain about where I think this is all headed and even asking if I’d consider jumping to the college side now that front office positions are emerging.

No matter how you look at it, college basketball is undergoing a dramatic and seismic transformation.

After giving it a lot of thought, here’s where I see things going—both in terms of how college programs will function moving forward and, frankly, how they should.

There’s no other way to put it—college basketball is in its Wild West era. Roster turnover is at an all-time high, and many college programs struggle to balance the demands of NIL and the transfer portal. The landscape is unpredictable, unstructured, and constantly evolving, forcing programs to adapt on the fly—often with no clear blueprint.

Historically, head coaches have operated as the ultimate authority, micromanaging nearly every aspect of their program. While I believe head coaches should remain the central figure—serving as the face of the program and maintaining clear-cut authority—responsibilities must be better compartmentalized and more effectively delegated to maximize a program’s potential and long-term sustainability.

But let me be clear: the head coach should be the leader, the “general of the army.” While this philosophy should be utilized in the NBA, it especially applies to college, where the players are still in critical developmental years, even as programs age via the transfer portal. The head coach must be empowered, and their voice and influence must not be compromised, regardless of how player personnel decision protocols are established behind closed doors. 

However, at the same time, the operational approach needs to evolve significantly and fast.

College programs now face more challenges than ever before. And it’s not just a bandwidth issue—it’s about managing responsibilities that were once exclusive to the professional ranks. Contract negotiations, player market evaluations, agent relationships, and constant roster turnover have become central to the inner workings of the college game. 

And that’s just the beginning—layer in the financial and legal complexities of NIL, and the landscape becomes even more overwhelming. These aren’t just slight adjustments; it’s an entirely new world.

While NIL and the transfer portal have professionalized college basketball in many ways, the overall system remains largely unregulated, creating inconsistencies and uncertainty—an entirely different set of complex issues that I won’t dive into here.

That said, the current lack of organization won’t last forever. Eventually, more defined structures will emerge. Regardless of when or how that happens, the programs that adapt and build professionalized infrastructures will gain a significant competitive edge—both now and in the future.

Scouting protocols for college programs have long had room for significant improvement. But now, with the emergence of the transfer portal and subsequent roster reshuffling every year, coaches are stretched thin more than ever, magnifying those areas for improvement.

With NIL and the transfer portal creating a professional, free-agency-like environment, traditional college scouting and recruiting methods are no longer enough. Programs must approach roster-building with the same precision and attention to detail as professional teams.

First, programs need dedicated talent evaluators and a sophisticated scouting system to properly track and assess players, determine their market value, and streamline roster decisions. The margin for error in player evaluation is essentially nonexistent—programs must recruit players ready to contribute to winning from day one. There are no exceptions. Long-term development plans are a thing of the past. Maybe legitimate multi-year deals will emerge, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get there. 

Until then, players’ deals will function as one-year partnerships. The program provides X, Y, and Z; in return, the player must fill a specific role—and they should be recruited that way. This will be a significant adjustment for college coaches and a tough pill to swallow, but it’s necessary.

At the same time, player evaluation and roster construction cannot happen in a vacuum. Whoever leads scouting and personnel must communicate fluidly with the head coach and staff to ensure alignment with their vision—ultimately, it’s still the head coach’s team.

Scouting is just one piece of the equation, though—recruiting needs to evolve, too. 

For decades, many college basketball programs have structured their staffs similarly, regularly prioritizing the recruiting ability of many of their assistant coaches over their actual coaching. Programs should have dedicated recruiters. While talent evaluators may take on that role depending on their experience and skill set, recruiting shouldn’t fall solely on the coaching staff. Assistant coaches should still be involved in recruiting but should not be the driving force as they have for decades. That approach is outdated and increasingly counterproductive.

Recruiting was once dominated by relationships—who you knew and who could get you in the door with top players. While relationships still matter, the game has changed. Like it or not, college basketball is now a professional business driven by money, branding, and transactions. That’s the reality. And while under-the-table deals have always existed, the difference now is that most of the business is conducted above board—recruiting has become professionalized.

And this isn’t a knock on college coaches. Many are excellent recruiters and talent evaluators, and plenty would thrive in these roles. However, hiring coaches primarily for their recruiting ability is a flawed model. Instead, coaches should focus on player development, game strategy, and executing the responsibilities directly impacting on-court success. In other words, coaches should focus on coaching.

Programs should assign each staff member roles that fully utilize their strengths. This approach leads to better on-court results and enhances recruiting by showcasing a well-structured, professional system that prioritizes player development and team success.

While some overlap in roles is inevitable, the hiring approach should be straightforward: hire coaches to coach, recruiters to recruit, scouts to scout—and so on.

The conversation about more schools adding GM positions keeps gaining traction, but here’s the reality: One hire, GM or otherwise, isn’t enough—there’s simply too much to juggle.

There is a need for someone with a business background who can handle responsibilities like fundraising and business development while also possessing an agent-like skill set—someone who can recruit talent, work with agents, negotiate contracts, and navigate the complexities of the NIL landscape. 

As I mentioned, there is also a dire need for a sophisticated scouting model and someone dedicated to identifying the right players and accurately assessing their market value.

I’ve always viewed professional free agency as something like real estate. Imagine a beautiful home with everything you want—a great neighborhood, a top school district for your kids, and all the amenities. But even the perfect house has to be priced right. If it’s overvalued, it’s not a wise investment. The same principle applies to roster-building in college basketball, where recruiting and the transfer portal operate like professional free agency.

The question is simple: Can you build a winner within your program’s budget? Whether you’re today’s Dodgers with a seemingly limitless budget or Billy Beane’s A’s from Moneyball operating with a shoestring budget, success comes down to finding the right players at the right price.

Still, whether a program has the big budget to bring in a big-name GM, experienced staff, and pursue top-rated prospects or needs to be more resourceful, multiple new roles will likely be necessary. Even if someone has the right skills and experience to handle each of these new roles and responsibilities, it’s simply too much for one person to manage effectively. Therefore, a new multi-role front office, like a mini NBA front office, is the future. And that goes for the blue bloods and everyone else, too. It’s just a matter of time.

Some programs may argue, ‘Our program is winning, so why change anything?’—a classic ‘if it’s not broken, don’t fix it’ approach. Or I’m sure many will say, ‘We don’t have the budget for it.’ But consider this: North Carolina head coach Hubert Davis recently stated they’re looking to build a front office structure similar to what I’m describing. Veteran sports agent Jim Tanner and longtime NBA executive Buzz Peterson—both UNC alums—have been reported as likely candidates for key positions within that structure.

Will UNC be the only new program to explore these trends? Of course not—more schools will follow, and fast.

If a program doesn’t embrace this evolution, the road ahead will be tough—because the competition will only get stronger.

So, all in all, where is this headed? We’re seeing a level of professionalization in college basketball that no one expected. Coaches still need to be the “generals of their armies,” so to speak, and that’s important, but streamlining and professionalizing operations isn’t just a luxury—it’s a necessity to compete.

For those skeptical of these changes, hear me out: Imagine a world where college programs structure their staffs as I’ve suggested. In this system, programs could identify the right players, compensate them appropriately, and build more competitive, synergized rosters—all while allowing coaches to focus almost entirely on player development and preparing teams to compete at the highest level possible. 

We’re already seeing older, more carefully constructed teams find success, and this is just the beginning. College basketball is on the verge of becoming a much better product on an entirely new level—this transformation is happening.

I’m unsure whether I’ll jump to the college level myself, but I am interested. Either way, I’m excited about where the college game is headed. And given my well-rounded experience with various levels of basketball, I wanted to share my perspective on these changes.

I have plenty more thoughts to share, too, and a deeper dive might be necessary into topics such as contract structuring, potential multi-year deals, the impact on junior colleges and smaller schools, various new strategies for high school prospects and their parents, and so many more unique aspects stemming from all of the change.

But I’ll save all of that for another day. In the meantime, enjoy March Madness—I know I will.