Jay Bilas reveals how NIL creates more, not less, equity in college sports

With nearly a full calendar year since NIL has been implemented throughout college athletics, it has completely shifted the way recruits and coaches go about their day-to-day evaluation of each talent/program.

ESPN analyst Jay Bilas believes NIL has done away with how blue-chip prospects handle their recruitment, and yet another hurdle for coaches to overcome en route to landing the recruits they’re targeting.

“An early fear among critics of NIL was that talent would be concentrated among the best and richest programs, and that competitive balance would be compromised. Early returns seem to show that is not the case,” Bilas explained. “Principles of economics dictate that compensation for athletes is more likely to spread talent out among more schools than to concentrate talent among the very few.

“In fact, talent was more concentrated when athletes’ decisions were limited to best coach, best facilities, most exposure and the like. Now, just like for everyone else, money can be a factor in an athlete’s decision — but it is not the only factor.”

Alabama head coach Nick Saban’s recent comments about Texas A&M and Jimbo Fisher that they had “bought” recruits and that without money being a factor, some of those players would have committed to Alabama. Saban’s fears seem to lie in the fact that teams like Jackson State (who he called out as well) will choose program marketability rather than the program’s prestige.

What that indicates is top recruits are in play for more destinations rather than fewer. If competitive balance is what everyone has been seeking, shouldn’t recruiting equity across the board be a positive?

“The truth is, limiting athletes always benefited the chosen few schools and meant that the highest-spending schools were in better position to attract top recruits than the lesser-spending schools,” Bilas said. “NIL helps level that very uneven playing field. College sports has never had parity or competitive balance in any real way, and likely never will. The very idea that the only thing that leads to competitive balance is athletes remaining unpaid was, and is, absurd.

“If the NCAA and its members really cared about competitive balance, they would have revenue-sharing. They don’t. College sports is about a lot of different things to a lot of different people. But, it is undeniable that one of the things college sports is really about is money.”