The NCAA’s Consistency Problem Isn’t About Rules ...It’s About Logic

College basketball is in the middle of a massive transition. NIL, collectives, and global talent pipelines have changed how players move, earn, and compete. In response, the NCAA has tried to draw firmer lines around eligibility particularly when it comes to professional experience.

On the surface, the stance makes sense:
Once a player becomes a professional, returning to college basketball shouldn’t be an option.

We agree with that principle.

Where the confusion begins is how professionalism is defined and applied.

A player who competes professionally in the United States is deemed ineligible.
A player who competes professionally overseas may still be allowed to play college basketball.

Same profession.
Same compensation.
Same competitive advantage.

Different outcome.

This inconsistency doesn’t just affect one group it ripples across the entire ecosystem.

• Players are asked to make career decisions without knowing how experience will be interpreted later.
• Coaches are expected to build rosters and maintain balance while navigating rules that feel flexible.
• Boosters and collectives publicly emphasize integrity while privately feeling pressure to produce results.
• Parents are left trying to guide their children through a system where definitions shift year to year.

This isn’t about accusing the NCAA, collectives, or programs of bad intent. Most stakeholders are reacting to incentives placed in front of them. But when rules lack consistent logic, they create gray areas — and people are forced to operate within them.

The solution isn’t more regulations.
It’s clearer ones.

If professional experience is the disqualifier, it should be applied universally regardless of

geography. Consistency builds trust. And trust is the foundation college basketball needs as it enters its next era.