Why Mid-Major Programs Face A Growing Financial Gap In The NIL Era

College basketball recruiting used to revolve around a fairly simple question: How good is the player? However, the ongoing NIL era has made that question considerably more complicated.

A player’s value now exists in several places at once. There is what he or she can produce on the court, the size and quality of the audience that follows them, the market where they play, their personality, their professional potential and, increasingly, how much a school needs that particular skill set. That is why two players with similar statistics can have dramatically different NIL valuations.

On3’s valuation models have become one of the most visible ways of putting a number on an athlete’s potential market value, while companies such as Opendorse work with actual NIL contracts and institutions. Those numbers should not be treated as identical measurements because they are based on different methodologies. Opendorse’s data, for example, comes from NIL contracts submitted by Power 4 institutions, while On3 uses its own valuation model.

The distinction matters when trying to understand what makes a college basketball player valuable. Performance remains the foundation. A player who scores efficiently, defends at a high level, creates shots for teammates or fills a scarce position is going to attract attention from programs and brands.

But the NIL market does not stop at the box score. The most valuable players can offer something that extends beyond basketball: an audience that brands can reach.

The easiest way to understand NIL value is to start with what happens during games. College basketball programs are willing to commit substantial resources to proven production because productive players can change the outcome of a season. The transfer portal has made that especially obvious, with programs shopping for players who can step into major roles without needing several years of development. Position also influences the market.

One 2025 portal analysis found that coaches viewed proven centers as particularly expensive because of their scarcity. One A-10 coach described a proven center as costing at least $600,000, while an SEC coach expected schools to spend more than $1 million for a quality big man. An ACC coach put the potential range for elite big men between $1.5 million and $2 million.

Point guards command attention for a different reason. “The point guard is the most important player on the floor. You can get a good one for maybe $700k,” one former Big 12 coach said.

Another SEC coach separated the two ideas, arguing that point guards can be more important to a team’s structure while big men can be more expensive because there are fewer proven ones available. That scarcity is one reason a player’s role can affect his value beyond his raw statistics.

A 6-foot-10 center who can protect the rim, rebound and score efficiently may be more difficult to replace than a comparable scorer at a deeper position. A lead guard who can reliably create offense may have similar value because of the difficulty of finding that skill set in the portal.

Production also creates leverage. A player who has already performed against high-level competition gives programs something they cannot get from a recruit’s high school résumé: evidence that the production can translate to college basketball. That is particularly valuable in a portal where programs are often making decisions on short timelines.

The same principle applies to consistency. A player who produces every night is easier for a coaching staff to build around than someone whose value depends on a narrow role. Then there is the part of NIL value that cannot be measured by points, rebounds or assists.

NIL stands for name, image and likeness, which means the athlete’s identity outside the basketball court can carry real financial value. Social media is a major part of that equation.

Research examining Division I athletes has found a positive relationship between Instagram followers and NIL value, while other research has examined how athletes use social platforms to build their brands. The difference between having 10,000 followers and having several million can be enormous for a brand trying to reach consumers.

Olivia Dunne provides one of the clearest examples. The LSU gymnast had an estimated 13.6 million social media followers and an NIL valuation of around $4 million, despite competing in a sport that does not generate the same direct athletic revenue as men’s basketball or football. College basketball has produced similar examples.

Paige Bueckers built an enormous audience during her time at UConn while also becoming one of the most recognizable players in the sport. Her partnerships with Nike, Gatorade and other major brands showed how basketball performance and personal branding can reinforce each other. The audience itself can become an asset.

A player who has strong engagement with followers can offer a brand something beyond a jersey number. That athlete can appear in campaigns, create sponsored content, attend events and introduce a product to a specific demographic. That is why follower count alone does not tell the entire story.

Engagement, audience demographics, content quality and the athlete’s ability to connect with followers can influence whether a large following actually translates into commercial value. A player with 500,000 highly engaged followers in a desirable market may be more attractive to a brand than someone with twice as many followers who rarely interacts with them.

Geography also plays a role. A player at a national brand such as Duke, Kansas or UConn can have immediate exposure that a similarly productive player at a smaller school may struggle to generate. That exposure can increase opportunities with national companies, while a player at a school with strong regional loyalty may have considerable value to businesses in that market.

The player’s story matters, too. Family background, personality, fashion, interests, community involvement and professional potential can all contribute to the overall picture. A player does not have to be the best basketball player in the country to be commercially valuable.

The most valuable college basketball players increasingly occupy both spaces. They produce on the court, and they give people a reason to follow them when the game is over.

The market is still young enough that there is no single formula for determining exactly what an athlete should be worth. Actual contracts can differ significantly from public valuation models, and even those deals can change quickly as a player’s performance, team, audience or transfer destination changes. That uncertainty is part of the NIL landscape.

A player who combines high-level production with a strong personal brand has more ways to create value. A player with elite production but little commercial reach can still command significant compensation through roster-related payments. Someone with a massive audience can attract brands even without being a star on the court.

In the current college basketball economy, the most valuable player is therefore not defined by one statistic or one follower count. The market is looking at the entire package: what the player does, who watches, where he or she plays, what position they fill and what they can offer when the basketball stops.

This article was originally published on Forbes.com