INDIANAPOLIS — This past weekend in Indianapolis, the Final Four was the anchor event, but it was far from the only thing happening. The NIT was there. The Division II and Division III championships were there. And just as important for the people who work in this world, the National Association of Basketball Coaches convention was there too.
That means everybody is in town. Agents. Search firms. Athletic directors. Assistants. Division III coaches breaking down BLOB actions in a hallway. The whole ecosystem, packed into one place, talking shop and leveraging next moves.
Here are a few notes and themes that kept coming up that I thought I’d share.
1. Why would John Groce leave Akron for the College of Charleston?
At first glance, it is a fair question. Why leave Akron for the College of Charleston?
I asked four Division I coaches about the move, spanning low-major, mid-major, and high-major levels. Three of the four applauded it. One common refrain was simple: he will not be the last one to make a similar move, especially over the next year or two.
Why?
In an era shaped by revenue sharing, being at a non-football school has its advantages.
Namely, you are the premier program. You are often the face of the department. And more importantly, you are more likely to command the bulk of the resources. Football remains a massive financial and structural beast at any school. At a place like Charleston, men’s basketball can operate as the flagship in a way that is harder to replicate at many football-playing schools.
There is also the league context to it all as well. Groce is stepping into a very winnable conference at a school that appears willing to invest at a higher level than many of its peers. Meanwhile, in the MAC, there is a growing sense that a line is forming between programs that are doubling down on men’s basketball and those that are not. As one MAC head coach put it, “There is a distinct line forming of those competing and those not in our league.”
And yes, I know the headline number. Groce reportedly landed roughly the same annual salary at Charleston, around $850,000, as he did at Akron. But salary alone does not tell the whole story.
Using Fiscal Year 2025 NCAA financial reporting data, Charleston appears to offer a meaningfully stronger operating environment. (Thanks to Extra Points.)
AKRON:
- Total Expenses: $4,065,757
- Salaries, Benefits, Bonuses: $1,825,458
- Travel: $429,365
- Recruiting: $48,379
COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON:
- Total Expenses: $5,199,977
- Salaries, Benefits, Bonuses: $1,953,352
- Travel: $828,363
- Recruiting: $112,142
That is roughly a $1 million difference in total operating expenses. In the grand scheme of college athletics, a seven-figure gap can matter quite a bit. It can change the kind of staff you build, how you travel, how aggressively you recruit, and how consistently you operate.
Charleston also looks different when placed against its peers. Its nearest public-school competitor in the league in total operating expenses is UNC Wilmington, and Charleston is still nearly $1.5 million ahead there.
Put another way, Charleston’s FY25 men’s basketball expense total would have ranked first in the MAC by nearly $700,000. Compare that to the spread among Buffalo, Akron, and Ohio, which is about $450,000 total. That is a much tighter pack.
So yes, Charleston is more of a destination city than Akron, and that does not hurt. But the more meaningful point may be structural: more resources, a league path that feels more navigable, and the chance to be the top priority inside your own department.
(And yes, I know FRS reporting are not an exact science, but they do help paint an appropriate picture.)
2. Bird Rights are no longer just an NBA concept in basketball conversations
Another idea that kept surfacing in Indianapolis was the concept of “Bird Rights” for college players.
Ben Portnoy wrote excellently about it a few weeks ago, and the story got people talking. The idea has been floating around since at least last summer, but it feels like it is quietly gaining momentum as administrators and league officials search for ways to slow roster churn.
In the NBA, Bird Rights allow teams to exceed the salary cap to re-sign their own free agents, creating a built-in incentive to retain them. The broader principle is simple: reward continuity and give teams at least a mechanism to keep the players they developed.
Now the question is whether some version of that concept can exist in college sports.
The Big Ten, according to multiple sources, has discussed a carveout within the $20.5 million revenue-sharing cap that could help schools retain players. This is not an NCAA-wide rule, at least not yet, but the concept is evolving.
Just as notable, the convention chatter was not limited to power conferences. There was also real discussion about how to protect low and mid-major programs that identify, recruit, and develop players, only to lose them after a breakout year. The goal, at least for some, is a more formal and universal buyout structure that compensates the school that gave the player his first real opportunity.
Whether that actually happens is another story. But the appetite for some sort of retention mechanism or development compensation model is very real.
3. The Campbell story is about much more than Campbell
One of the better pieces making the rounds in Indianapolis came from Mike Waddell and the North Carolina Sports Network. It centered on the Campbell situation, but the themes extend far beyond one school.
Really, it is not about several programs. It is about hundreds.
This line, in particular, hit home:
“At the mid-major level in 2026, the game behind the game is money. If you don’t have institutional alignment, if you don’t have any real NIL structure beyond a couple of T-shirts and a QR code, if your president and board aren’t prepared to fund basketball at something close to the league median, you’re not really building a program. You’re keeping one alive. You’re filling out a schedule. You’re hoping that once every decade, the stars line up and you steal a bid. Everyone in college athletics understands the difference between ‘existing’ and ‘competing.’ Most just prefer to talk around it.”
That gets to the heart of what many of the conversations in Indianapolis were really about.
If NIL and revenue sharing have done one useful thing beyond compensating athletes, it is this: they are forcing institutions to decide what they actually want to be.
That is the real conversation now. Who are we? What are we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to compete, or are we trying to maintain the appearance of competing?
Academics and athletics may live under the same umbrella, but they often operate with very different motives, incentives, and definitions of success. The current model is unsustainable for a huge chunk of Division I, even if everyone is technically still playing in the same sandbox. The trouble is, some schools brought a full toy chest and a blueprint for the sandcastle. Others showed up with a plastic shovel and hope.
