Imagine a world where college basketball could operate without the chaos of teams hastily signing players from European professional leagues mid-season. Wouldn’t it be ideal if a team's roster was set in stone by November 1st? This concept isn’t far-fetched; after all, professional leagues like the NBA and NFL have established trade deadlines and signing windows to maintain order. So, why not implement a rule that prohibits players from participating in college basketball after they enter the NBA draft?
However, this structure hasn’t materialized. By the late 2010s, it would have been wise for the NCAA and the higher-ups in college sports—including conference commissioners, influential athletic directors, and well-known coaches—to acknowledge that the landscape was shifting and to start strategizing accordingly. Instead, they chose to resist change, engaging in complaints and futile attempts to assert control, particularly over financial matters, while allowing confusion to take root.
This convoluted situation led to Baylor University making headlines on Christmas Eve by announcing the signing of James Nnaji, a towering 7-foot center who, at 21 years old, had been picked 31st overall in the 2023 NBA Draft. Initially selected by the Detroit Pistons, he was subsequently traded to the Charlotte Hornets and later to the New York Knicks. Although Nnaji has yet to make an appearance in an official NBA game (aside from summer league activities), he has been playing professionally in Europe since 2020. Amazingly, he still possesses four years of eligibility to play college basketball. It raises the question: How is that even possible?
Nnaji is anticipated to hit the court with the Baylor Bears soon, right in time for their Big 12 matchups. Connecticut's coach Dan Hurley humorously remarked on social media about Santa delivering mid-season talent acquisitions. Meanwhile, Baylor's coach Scott Drew stated, "I just know they told us he can play, so I'm happy," highlighting the absurdity of the current system. It's essential to remember that Drew is merely working within the existing framework—he is bound to provide his players and institution with the strongest team possible.
Baylor isn't alone in this practice; other teams are also acquiring professional talent from Europe mid-season. Oklahoma recently signed a center from Russia, while Dayton, BYU, and even the Kansas State women's basketball team have made similar moves. While these developments may feel unsettling, they do not spell doom for collegiate athletics. For context, Nnaji, despite his past accolades, averaged only 3.4 points per game during his professional career. With proper organization, allowing players like him to join college teams could actually benefit the sport—after all, college hockey frequently features NHL draft picks.
Yet, the current approach raises eyebrows. As Coach Hurley put it, "This s--- is crazy!!" And many would agree that it certainly feels that way. The blame for this chaotic scenario lies heavily with the leadership of college sports. For decades, they clung to the outdated notion of amateurism, a concept that has increasingly become untenable, especially with ongoing legal challenges.
One pivotal moment occurred back in 2009 when Ed O'Bannon, a former UCLA basketball player, filed a lawsuit against the NCAA, arguing that the organization was profiting from his name, image, and likeness through a video game. In 2014, a judge ruled in favor of O'Bannon, affirming that the NCAA had indeed violated antitrust laws. This case marked a significant shift in public opinion against the NCAA, which failed to adapt to the new reality.
Rather than embrace necessary changes, the NCAA doubled down, opting to cancel the lucrative video game rather than share its profits with athletes. The organization took a hardline stance, investing millions in misguided legal battles and hiring lobbyists to persuade Congress to intervene on their behalf. In fact, the NCAA argued before the Supreme Court that the Sherman Antitrust Act should not apply to college athletics, claiming that fan engagement would suffer if athletes received any form of compensation—even for academic achievements or legitimate endorsements. This reasoning seemed flawed, especially considering how Caitlin Clark’s commercial for State Farm contributed positively to women's basketball rather than threatening its existence.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh sharply criticized the NCAA's stance, stating in a 2021 concurring opinion that no other business in America is allowed to collude to keep employee wages below market rates under the guise of maintaining a certain product identity.
As legal challenges mounted against them, the NCAA shifted its focus to Congress, hoping for antitrust exemptions. They employed lobbyists, courted influential senators, and staged hearings, yet their efforts yielded no substantial legislative progress—a predictable outcome that ultimately squandered time and resources.
O'Bannon's pursuit was simple: he sought fair compensation. Yet the NCAA's opposition to the Sherman Antitrust Act, established in 1890, has left them vulnerable in various eligibility disputes, fundamentally altering how games are played today. In essence, the NCAA cannot prevent individuals from earning a living, which complicates their ability to restrict who can participate in college sports.
This reality has led to a surge in immediate eligibility for transfer students, rendered junior college seasons irrelevant, populated rosters with older graduate students, and yes, even allowed a former NBA draftee and professional player from Europe to join a college team in January.
Rather than continue down this outdated legal path, the NCAA could have recognized athletes as employees and engaged in negotiations with what would likely have been a weakened union. If necessary, they could have sought reasonable, bipartisan antitrust exemptions from Congress, paving the way for potential compromises regarding matters such as the transfer portal or post-draft eligibility.
Baylor’s coach Drew aptly noted, "To me, until we get to collective bargaining, there's not going to be a solution." His insight underscores a reality that has been evident for years. Unfortunately, the traditionalists in college sports seemed unwilling to accept this evolution, opting instead for a rigid adherence to the status quo.
Consequently, lawyers and lobbyists benefitted financially while college basketball grappled with the implications of mid-season signings from European leagues.
