College Basketball GM State of the Union

Part III: Different Schools, Different Builds

Thank you for a tremendous response to the College Basketball GM State of the Union series. To all of my new and existing subscribers, thank you for your readership and support.

If this is the first installment you are reading, you can check out Part I and Part II, where I explored multi-year contracts, buyouts, and where GMs are going to exploit the strategic advantages in the new structuring of college basketball.

Without further ado…

Part III: Different Schools, Different Builds

The NBA is a case study in market constraints. Every franchise operates under the same rules: a salary cap and floor, minimum and maximum contracts, a regulated free agency system, trade restrictions, Bird Rights, mid-level exceptions, rookie scale contracts, and a luxury tax. These mechanisms compress the feasible set of roster choices available to GMs and homogenize NBA front-office strategy.

The dominant roster optimization is bimodal: maximize your bites at the apple for outsized production by stacking rookie-scale and other low-cost, high-upside contracts, while devoting a large share of the budget to securing and retaining two veteran star-level players. With less freedom to innovate, strategies converge, making optimizing an NBA team about execution inside a narrow band of choices.

College basketball is a study in variance. There are widely divergent budgets within the NCAA, no mandated contract structures, a much larger talent pool, and a lack of transparency in player value, which creates a broader set of potential strategies. Some programs invest heavily in five-star recruiting, others prioritize the transfer portal, and still others lean on continuity and player development.

The main restraints in college are a finite player eligibility window and a department-wide revenue-share cap of $20.5 million this season. How those dollars get divided depends on institutional priorities. At football-first schools, basketball spending is inherently constrained; at basketball-first schools, it takes center stage. Clemson and Duke share a conference in the ACC, but their budget allocations are likely quite divergent.

For anyone who enjoys microeconomics, strategy, or game theory, the relative lack of regulation makes the current state of college basketball compelling. For every program that attempts to replicate the NBA model of star-driven roster building, another emphasizes depth and continuity, and lesser-resourced schools may mix and match based on what talent is ultimately available to them. The result is a patchwork of competing philosophies, each with its own risks and rewards.

Information asymmetry in player payments, differing institutional priorities, program desirability, and coaching legacy make the “right” strategy in Lincoln, East Lansing, Columbus, and Piscataway all look a bit different.

I. Spending:

The 2024-25 season operated with an unrestricted NIL payment market, and as a consequence, there was significant variance in teams' payrolls — even between schools in the same conference. In the upcoming landscape of capped revenue sharing and, likely, an enforceable NIL-payment auditing arm, roster spending within a conference like the Big Ten will tighten. However, differences in budget allocation between football and basketball, as well as the availability of “over the cap” NIL money, will still provide impactful budget disparities between programs.

Although revenue sharing has begun, the 2026-27 season will mark the first year of capped revenue sharing without the complications of schools “frontloading” contracts — tendering large lump-sum payments to athletes before NIL auditing and the House v. NCAA settlement cap took effect. In that environment, Big Ten programs are expected to spend between $4 million and $7 million on their rosters, a $3 million spread equal to 55% of the midpoint ($5.5 million).

While the scales are drastically different, spending discrepancies within the Big Ten during the rev-share era will mirror those of the NBA quite closely. Last season, NBA salary cap allocations ranged from approximately $142 million (Pistons) to $237 million (Timberwolves), a $95 million spread, roughly 50% of the midpoint ($189.5 million). In both the Big Ten and the NBA, the range around the midpoint is similar, meaning the spending gap between the top and bottom is proportionate.

The picture shifts dramatically outside the power conferences. Amongst mid-majors, you can find programs spending as little as $1 million, while top-end Big East schools are investing closer to $8 million. That creates a $7 million spread on a midpoint of $4.5 million: a range more than 150% of the midpoint.

Unlike the Big Ten or any Power 4 conference, in the broader NCAA landscape, gaps in spending are much more vast and closer to the range of budgets found in Euroleague basketball. In the 2024-25 season, Euroleague total player and coach compensation ranged from $4.1 million (ALBA) to $20.5 million (Real Madrid, Panathinaikos, Olympiacos), a range of 133% relative to the midpoint.

For an American context, the NCAA as a whole seems to look closer to the capless MLB system, where total payroll allocations range from $67 million (Marlins) to $349 million (Dodgers), a 136% spread from the mid-point that is almost identical to Euroleague basketball.

II. Roster Construction:

So what does the blueprint for success look like? More than anything, it depends on a team’s budget. High-major programs with total team budgets of $4 million or more can compete for five-star recruits and elite transfers; still, winning on the margins is about depth and roster spending strategy. The flashiest signings still matter, but without efficient deals for role players and creative scouting elsewhere on the team, many programs will struggle to have the resources available to land star talent consistently.

Teams at the lower end of the payment range will need to rely more heavily on scouting slept-on talent domestically and overseas for depth, and create retention strategies to keep players that develop well within their programs. Teams on the higher end of payment will have an easier time purchasing ready-made talent, but will still greatly benefit from finding production from cheap players.

College basketball offers far more roster flexibility than the NBA. What is compatible between the two leagues is the core logic: every team wants to secure team-friendly depth while investing heavily in top-tier players.

What does not carry over are the structural assumptions baked into the NBA’s collective bargaining agreement. NBA stars consume 30–35% of cap space, and more importantly, even the 11th–15th roster spots are heavily compensated, given minimum salary requirements.

In college, there is no obligation to pay for unproductive depth, and there is no mandated slice of the budget that must go to stars. With bottom-of-the-rotation players contributing very little to in-game production, allocating even 1.5% of a roster budget to a deep bench piece — the rough equivalent of an NBA veteran minimum cap hit — is almost certainly overspending. We will discuss walk-on philosophy in greater depth in Part IV of the series.

Where schools often diverge is in deciding who deserves the big dollars. Do you chase a top-10 scholastic prospect? Pay for an all-conference mid-major star? Or invest in a proven high-major role player seeking a better fit and more usage? These decisions can create friction between head coaches and GMs.

The expensive players are only one side of the equation; finding valuable production on team-friendly deals is crucial. Without it, spending at the top of the roster has little depth to round out the rotation. At the high-major level, value usually comes from three places:

• Scholastic recruits outside the top echelon

• High-major transfers without meaningful minutes

• Returning players who are often willing to stay at a discount compared to comparable transfer talent

Without binding mechanisms to keep players beyond a single season, where programs go to find their bites of the apple changes depending on institutional structure and program vision. Some schools treat high-upside athletes transactionally as rental assets; others invest in development projects with a multi-year vision. Institutional brand and coaching reputation can impact this calculus significantly.

Playing for Rick Barnes, Mick Cronin, or Bill Self still carries value — just as the prestige of wearing a UNC team-issued quarter zip still has meaning to many prospective players. Even in a payment-driven marketplace, culture and reputation remain levers that can tilt player acquisition cost in a school’s favor. Schools and coaches with these reputations have the advantage of attracting players without high demand at a lower cost, retaining them at a lower price, and negotiating multi-year deals that focus on development and potential red-shirt opportunities.

III. Big Ten Case Studies:

Last year’s Rutgers team offers a convenient example of what we have learned does not work. Am I cherry-picking here? Absolutely. A more robust roster survey will come in time (hopefully with the help of a student assistant), but Rutgers’ season is too instructive to ignore.

The Scarlet Knights assembled one of the most surprising recruiting classes in recent college basketball memory, landing five-stars Ace Bailey and Dylan Harper, the No. 2 and No. 3 prospects in the 2024 prep rankings. Both became NBA lottery picks, yet Rutgers stumbled to a losing conference record and missed the NCAA Tournament.

Across the Big Ten last season, 111 players logged at least 40% of their team’s total minutes in conference play. Rutgers leaned on seven of them — when stacked up against Illinois, Michigan State, and a more top-heavy Maryland, the gaps in roster construction are easy to see. Using Bart Torvik’s PRPG! as the baseline metric, here’s how Rutgers’ rotation compared.

Rutgers 8-12 Conf. Record

Even with two lottery picks, the Scarlet Knights collapsed under the weight of a shallow rotation. The team was built for headlines, not for March: stars alone can’t carry a roster without complementary depth.

Illinois 12-8 Conf. Record (NCAA R32):­

Illinois leaned into European recruiting heavily. In the upcoming season, Coach Underwood has expanded the Euro pipeline with two incoming recruits from Serbia and the addition of a Croatian transfer by way of Arkansas. While Illini Euro-prospects have been evaluated positively, many others feel that less explored European leagues are a means to find mispriced talent. Through connections to European agents and investments in specialized scouting services, many programs believe that deeper value can be found across the pond.

Illinois operates as a modern and forward-thinking program with a substantial budget, heavily leveraging the transfer portal and exploiting foreign markets for value. In 2024-25, that led to a well-balanced program with a deep and effective rotation.

Maryland 14-6 Conf. Record (NCAA Sweet Sixteen)

Maryland opted for a team of transfer mercenaries. With tremendous top-end talent, the now Villanova head coach Kevin Willard, prioritized a tight rotation of talented two-way players, narrowing his main rotation to five players as compared to the seven players seen in all of the other teams looked at. The result was a team that had a fighting chance at an NCAA championship, being bested by eventual champions Florida in the Sweet Sixteen.

I do not know Willard’s budget or the individual player payment allocations. What I can tell you is that nobody in that five-player rotation was cheap. It is evident when examining the rest of the team that roster spending was heavily concentrated at the top, and that players outside of the top five regressed significantly.

Willard’s top-heavy spending philosophy requires several key elements to be effective: players with exceptional cardiovascular endurance, immediate production from freshmen and mid-major transfers, and good fortune in avoiding injuries. If one player in the top 5 were to go down, it would be hard to project the team being able to continue to compete at an elite level.

Michigan State: 17-3 Conf. Record (NCAA Elite Eight)

Michigan State did not have a transfer player in its main rotation. Coach Izzo still designed his team around the old college model of retention and development. When you have a legendary coach and talent evaluator at the helm, this is still a viable strategy. The draw to being a Spartan is far greater than the rev-share contract: it is a proven NBA development pipeline, a lifelong association with a historic program, a passionate fan base, and a legitimate shot at title contention.

Very few schools possess the same cache and infrastructure as MSU. Coach Izzo has a knack for finding athletes like Jase Richardson (an undervalued four-star one-and-done) who can shine amongst a team of well-established system players. But even Coach Izzo’s philosophy is evolving. This season, he will pair two four-star freshmen with two standout MM transfers (both with previous HM experience) and one HM transfer.

IV. My Optimal Program - Purdue:

My family ties are to Indiana. I’ve been wearing Pacers gear since I came out of the womb, and my earliest childhood memory is the disappointment of the 2000 NBA Finals against the Lakers when I was two years old. Like any Indiana family, our college basketball loyalties run deep — in our case, to the Hoosiers.

While it jeopardizes my relationship with several family members, when I take an objective look at college basketball, it’s Purdue and Matt Painter that best resemble the optimal college basketball system in the modern era.

If there is any coach who consistently defies prep recruiting rankings and finds and develops talent, it is him. In almost two decades of leading the Boilermakers, Painter has only recruited one McDonald's All-American to his program; in the same time span, Purdue has the highest winning percentage of any Big Ten team.

Here is a list of collegiate All-Americans during his tenure, where they were ranked in high school recruiting, and where they hail from:

Under Painter, the Boilermakers have thrived on undervalued players who developed into stars. Before NIL, that edge allowed Purdue to beat blue-bloods chasing one-and-dones. During NIL, the same edge has kept pace against bigger spenders.

As revenue-sharing caps narrow total roster spending, talent evaluation and development are the most significant strategic advantages to spending money efficiently. The value of Matt Painter’s eye for talent, fit, and coachability in the new system of college basketball can not be emphasized enough.

Retaining talent is almost always less expensive than replacing it through the transfer portal or the top of prep-recruiting. Meaningful production from a freshman or retained sophomore from outside the top-100 in prep recruiting is the meta when it comes to sourcing team-friendly deals.

The state of Indiana being a recruiting hotbed gives Painter more bites at the apple than most, and when those players develop — as they reliably do — Purdue has the resources to keep them. The result is a virtuous cycle: roster continuity, spending efficiency, and sustainability.

In my eyes, Painter’s system is the blueprint.

Noah Henderson is the Director of the Sport Management Program and a Clinical Instructor at Loyola University Chicago’s Quinlan School of Business. His work explores the intersection of law, economics, and the social consequences of college athletics, particularly in the areas of name, image, and likeness (NIL), athlete labor rights, and sports gambling.

Henderson helped amend Illinois’ NIL legislation and played a direct role in establishing early frameworks that facilitated the legal payment of college athletes at Student Athlete NIL. He continues to advise athletic departments, brands, and sports agents nationwide on NIL policy, legal compliance, and best practices.

He contributed extensively to Sports Illustrated’s NIL Daily, where his reporting and commentary helped shape public understanding of the evolving business of college athletics. His insights have been featured by ESPN, NPR, CNN, PBS, Sportico, the Chicago Tribune, and others.

Henderson holds a Juris Doctor from the University of Illinois College of Law and a degree in Economics from Saint Joseph’s University, where he was a four-year letter winner on the golf team.