Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The funny thing is that the NCAA fought against players unionizing, and now the players would be stupid to unionize

The funny thing is that the NCAA fought against players unionizing, and now the players would be stupid to unionize

It’s also a bit funny that some folks held on too long to the idea the players weren’t worth much. Played themselves. 

The funny thing is that the NCAA fought against players unionizing, and now the players would be stupid to unionize

As is often the case, the players at the top would be stupid to unionize. There are a lot of guys in the middle and bottom who would do better in a union. Probably easier in basketball than in football, where there are just so many players at such dramatically different levels. BUT...the other issue is medical care and access to education: those are things that even the higher paid guys should want, and that only a union is likely to deliver in a meaningful way. On the other hand, if you're making 7 figures for a couple of years, maybe you just don't care. Especially at age 20.

A good agent would turn down a few extra dollars to get longer term (lifetime?) and better medical, particularly where a blown ACL could bring the whole house of cards down on a 20-year old's head. Maybe that's already happening?

And they get it.  Whether they take advantage of it is a different question.  I don't see how players at the bottom would do better.  They just wouldn't do worse

Now would non revenue athletes do better?  Probably, but why would football and basketball players unionize with female divers

Ask an 18 y/o that question.

So, I’ve heard that as an American sporting event, the NCAA Tournament draws the second highest viewership (and betting) among “casual viewers” (meaning non-sports fans), behind only the Super Bowl.

There seem to be two major viewership draws to the Tournament: 1) A loaded Final Four – meaning matchups between the heavyweights: Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, UCLA, North Carolina… AND 2) Upsets.

Pertaining to the 2nd, there are two kinds of upsets: 1) The always rare first round wins by seeds #13/14/15/16:

There were none in 2025 and again none in 2026.

I personally do not believe the very recent lack of upsets by #13/14/15/16 seeds has that much to do with the impact of the TP/NIL. We’re still only a few seasons removed from a #1 Purdue and #2 Arizona going down in Round One. Yes, it’s probably more difficult now, and I might be contradicting myself later in this post, but #13/14/15/16 seeds were already so far removed from realistically being able to win, that the way upsets play out, most often by little regard for the favored team’s massive talent advantage, that by definition, these upsets should still be happening the way they did before. I just think the last two seasons have been a sort of statistical reset, and that soon enough we’ll see more wins by a #15 or #14. FWIW, #3 Virginia looked prone for the upsetting by their #14 opponent this season.

What I think the TP/NIL era chokes off is the second kind of upset we’re used to – the later round upsets often strung together by midrange seeds that allow for a memorable run to the Final Four (or even Elite Eight): #11 George Mason 2006, #11 Butler 2011, #11 VCU 2011, #9 Wichita State 2013, #11 Loyola-Chicago 2018. Their path included major upsets – think a #8 Wisconsin beating #1 Villanova in 2017.

To think this through we must pick a working cutoff between the TP/NIL Haves and Have-nots. I am going to go with a cutoff of sixteen Haves on any given year. This means seeds #1/2/3/4 now have an increased advantage over the rest of the field thanks to the TP/NIL. This would make it that much more difficult for a #8/9 over #1, #7/#10 over #2, or #11 over #6/3 to occur.

In other words, the talent gap between the #1/2/3/4 meaningfully increased over seeds #6/7/8/9/10/11. (I’m treating #5 & #12 like wildcards.) IMO, this increase has more effect than the #1/2/3/4 increasing their talent over their given first round opponents (#13/14/15/16), because their talent advantage over their First Round opponents was and still is too great for a greater increase to be as applicable on court.

However, statistics from the past two tournaments don’t fully support my claim:
-There were no big 1st Round upsets in 2025 and again none in 2026
-#9 Iowa and #11 Texas reached the Elite Eight (2026)

Other points to consider (from 2026 Tournament):
-No mid-majors reached the Sweet 16
-An uncommonly high number of schools in the Sweet 16 also reached last season’s Sweet 16 (can’t remember exact number, but it supports the idea of the Haves sustaining their advantage)
-Three teams were built entirely through the TP: St. John’s, Texas and Michigan

TL; DR: TP/NIL Era increases the advantage for seeds #1/2/3/4, but the effect this has on upsets will be greater against #6/7/8/9/10/11 seeds than #13/14/15/16 seeds.

edit: Texas reached S16

What I think the TP/NIL era chokes off is the second kind of upset we’re used to – the later round upsets often strung together by midrange seeds that allow for a memorable run to the Final Four (or even Elite Eight): #11 George Mason 2006, #11 Butler 2011, #11 VCU 2011, #9 Wichita State 2013, #11 Loyola-Chicago 2018. Their path included major upsets – think a #8 Wisconsin beating #1 Villanova in 2017.

To think this through we must pick a working cutoff between the TP/NIL Haves and Have-nots. I am going to go with a cutoff of sixteen Haves on any given year. This means seeds #1/2/3/4 now have an increased advantage over the rest of the field thanks to the TP/NIL. This would make it that much more difficult for a #8/9 over #1, #7/#10 over #2, or #11 over #6/3 to occur.

In other words, the talent gap between the #1/2/3/4 meaningfully increased over seeds #6/7/8/9/10/11. (I’m treating #5 & #12 like wildcards.) IMO, this increase has more effect than the #1/2/3/4 increasing their talent over their given first round opponents (#13/14/15/16), because their talent advantage over their First Round opponents was and still is too great for a greater increase to be as applicable on court.

However, statistics from the past two tournaments don’t fully support my claim:
-There were no big 1st Round upsets in 2025 and again none in 2026
-#9 Iowa and #11 Texas reached the Elite Eight (2026)

Other points to consider (from 2026 Tournament):
-No mid-majors reached the Sweet 16
-An uncommonly high number of schools in the Sweet 16 also reached last season’s Sweet 16 (can’t remember exact number, but it supports the idea of the Haves sustaining their advantage)
-Three teams were built entirely through the TP: St. John’s, Texas and Michigan

This is an interesting concept and I don't have enough organized data to test it but it wouldn't be all that hard to put it together.  I'm thinking something like a tracking of the number of each seed in the E8.  Then a rolling average over 3, 5, 10, and 15 years because a one-year outlier isn't proof of any change, outliers happen.  However, if the number of say 5+ seeds to make the E8 is meaningfully dropping then that would back up your theory.  

On the surface what you are saying makes sense to me.  For the top teams the TP/NIL is an unmitigated good.  They gain and don't lose.  Think Dook grabbing the guy from Wisconsin or Michigan building a team entirely from the TP as you stated.  I *THINK* that somewhere in the middle there are teams for whom the TP/NIL is basically a wash.  They'll lose a few really high end guys to teams like Dook/M but they'll also fill in some gaps by grabbing guys from lower-level schools.  Then there are the schools at the bottom for whom TP/NIL is an unmitigated bad.  They lose and don't gain.  

Things move fast. Only 71 people in the NBA draft, down from 363 five years ago. Cash is king.

Also, why I don't get too excited about making changes based on that. Eventually Congress or somebody will try to regulate the market.

That number is, in part, good and in large part is just reflective of the more open transfer situation.