I asked AI to predict the future of college basketball

[Norm Peterson]

Here's the response, which loaded in about 5 seconds:

 

Predicting the future of college basketball with Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights and the transfer portal involves looking at current trends, economic incentives, and the sport’s evolving structure. Let’s break this down based on your specific questions, using observable patterns and logical extrapolation as of March 26, 2025.

Will More Talent Be Concentrated in Fewer Programs?

Yes, it’s likely that talent will increasingly concentrate in fewer programs, particularly those in Power 4 (P4) conferences—ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, and SEC—due to their superior NIL budgets and resources. Since the NCAA lifted NIL restrictions in 2021, programs with deep-pocketed boosters and established collectives (third-party groups that pool donor money to pay athletes) have gained a recruiting edge. Top-tier programs like Kentucky, Alabama, and Kansas can offer seven-figure NIL deals, while mid-major schools often operate with budgets in the low six figures—or less. The transfer portal amplifies this: a record 1,962 men’s basketball players entered it in the 2024 offseason, and high-major programs frequently poach proven talent from smaller schools. For example, players like Oscar Tshiebwe (who returned to Kentucky for a $2 million NIL package) illustrate how financial incentives keep or attract elite players to big programs. Over time, this could create a self-reinforcing cycle where P4 schools stockpile talent, leaving fewer standout players for mid-majors.

However, there’s a counterpoint: NIL and the portal also allow mid-tier P4 or high mid-major programs (e.g., Gonzaga, St. John’s) to compete if they strategically leverage their budgets. Parity isn’t entirely dead—look at San Diego State and Florida Atlantic reaching the 2023 Final Four—but the overall trend favors concentration as the financial gap widens.

Will It Tend to Negate Parity?

Partially, yes. Historically, college basketball thrived on parity through Cinderella runs in the NCAA Tournament, driven by mid-majors with cohesive, veteran rosters. The transfer portal and NIL disrupt that. Mid-major stars now often transfer up after breakout seasons—think Great Osobor moving from Utah State to Washington for a reported $2 million deal. This talent drain reduces the ability of smaller schools to build multi-year chemistry, a key ingredient for upsets. Meanwhile, P4 teams can reload annually with transfers and freshmen, smoothing out roster gaps that once leveled the playing field.

Yet, parity isn’t fully negated. The portal’s fluidity means some P4 teams misfire on transfers (e.g., Kansas State’s uneven 2024-25 season despite heavy spending), while smart mid-majors can still exploit undervalued talent. The 2023 tournament’s chaos suggests upsets will persist, but their frequency may decline as P4 dominance grows. Coaches like San Diego State’s Brian Dutcher have noted more parity recently, but that could reflect a transitional phase before NIL budgets fully stratify the sport.

Are Smaller Schools Becoming Feeder Programs for Larger Schools?

This is already happening and will likely intensify. Smaller schools—especially in low- and mid-major conferences—are increasingly functioning as developmental leagues. A player shines at a school like Buffalo or Furman, gains attention, then transfers to a P4 program with a bigger NIL package. Data backs this: of the 1,962 transfers in 2024, many moved from mid-majors to high-majors, lured by money and exposure. Coaches at smaller programs lament losing players like Pharrel Payne (Minnesota to Texas A&M) after investing in their growth. The dynamic mirrors professional sports farm systems, except here, the “farm” teams get no compensation for losing talent.

Mid-majors can still compete by outworking P4 schools in high school recruiting or finding overlooked transfers, but the poaching trend is clear. P4 teams with NIL budgets in the $3-5 million range (versus $300,000-$500,000 for mid-majors) have the upper hand, and this gap will widen as donor fatigue hits smaller programs harder.

Could Smaller Conferences Start a Separate Division Where Players Aren’t Paid?

This idea has merit but faces steep hurdles. Smaller conferences (e.g., Ohio Valley, Horizon) might push for a division where NIL is banned or capped, aiming to retain players for all four years and restore traditional college basketball’s appeal—team loyalty, gradual development, and upset potential. It could attract players who prioritize education or stability over immediate cash, creating a niche product distinct from the P4’s semi-professional model. Imagine a “heritage division” with strict eligibility rules, no transfers, and no pay, marketed to fans nostalgic for the pre-NIL era.

However, practicality is the issue. The NCAA’s current structure doesn’t easily support splitting Division I, and smaller schools rely on the prestige (and revenue) of competing with P4 teams in the tournament. A separate division risks isolating them further, reducing visibility and funding. Plus, enforcing a no-pay rule is tricky—underground NIL deals could still emerge, and top talent would likely opt for paid opportunities in the P4 anyway. The House v. NCAA settlement (pending final approval in April 2025) may allow direct revenue sharing of $20.5 million annually across sports, locking in a pay-for-play reality that smaller schools can’t escape without massive restructuring. A separate division might emerge in 10-20 years if parity collapses entirely, but for now, it’s a long shot.

Broader Future Outlook

By 2030, college basketball could resemble a two-tier system within Division I: a P4-dominated upper crust with concentrated talent and professionalized rosters, and a broader base of mid- and low-majors struggling to keep pace. Smaller schools won’t vanish—they’ll still produce occasional tournament surprises—but their best players will be siphoned off yearly. NIL budgets will dictate success more than coaching or tradition, though savvy programs can buck the trend with efficiency (think Moneyball-style roster building). The NCAA might impose caps or revenue-sharing rules to curb runaway spending, but legal challenges (e.g., Tennessee’s lawsuit against NCAA recruiting restrictions) suggest athlete freedom will prevail.

Fans may see less “madness” in March as P4 teams solidify their grip, but the sport’s unpredictability won’t disappear entirely—coaching, chemistry, and luck still matter. Smaller conferences might lobby for protected tournament bids or financial incentives to stay viable, but a separate unpaid division feels like a distant dream unless the current model implodes under its own weight.

What do you think—would you watch a no-NIL division if it meant more four-year players and classic rivalries?

 

[Norm Peterson]

So then I said:

 

That's my thought -- that the current model will implode under its own weight. My guess is smaller conference schools simply will not be able to compete with NIL budgets of the larger conference schools. There will be some outliers -- schools that have been traditional powers in basketball outside the football-conference schools. But, by and large, money will drive the train. And, if that happens, it stands to reason that talent will compress into fewer and fewer schools. But the problem for the big NIL budget schools is that there needs to be competition or the system will falter. They have a 30-game schedule. Who are they going to play? The non-conference part of the schedule might turn into exhibition season where the mid-major programs have virtually zero chance of going in and winning. There was a study about the play of rats and it found that the bigger rat needed to let the smaller rat win every once in awhile or the smaller rat would just refuse to play. If the other 250 schools can't afford to compete for the high-level talent and, therefore, start their own no-pay league, fans might find that brand of basketball more appealing. The players wouldn't be mercenaries transferring each season to play for the highest bidder. Instead, they'd be playing for the love of the game. Probably more disciplined basketball, more team-oriented play, more enjoyable product to watch than the mercenaries trying to set themselves up for their next pay day. If enough schools say "we can't compete, it's not fun" and start their own division, it could end up more popular than the division where the players get big money but play for the name on the back of the jersey rather than the name on the front.

 

[Norm Peterson]

And, in literally 2 seconds, the twitter AI bot responded:

 

Your vision of the current college basketball model imploding under its own weight is a compelling one, and it’s grounded in some real tensions already bubbling up. Let’s run with your hypothesis and flesh out how this could play out, weaving in your rat-study analogy and the idea of a fan-driven shift toward a no-pay league.

The Implosion Scenario

You’re spot-on that money is driving the train right now. P4 schools with NIL budgets ballooning into the $5-10 million range (projected as collectives grow and revenue-sharing kicks in post-House v. NCAA) can outbid mid-majors by orders of magnitude. Traditional basketball powers outside football conferences—like Gonzaga, Villanova, or Dayton—might hang on as outliers, leveraging history, coaching, and niche donor support. But most smaller schools (think Missouri Valley or Atlantic 10 teams) can’t match the financial firepower. Talent compression into 20-30 elite programs feels inevitable under this trajectory—think Duke, Kansas, and Kentucky rosters looking like NBA G-League teams, while mid-majors field freshmen and leftovers.

The problem, as you noted, is competition. A 30-game schedule needs opponents, and if non-conference play becomes an exhibition season of blowouts, fans and TV networks might tune out. Last season, mid-majors like Charleston upset Alabama, but as NIL widens the gap, those games could turn into 30-point routs. Your rat analogy fits perfectly here: the smaller rat (mid-majors) needs a chance to win occasionally, or it stops playing. If mid-majors can’t compete—say, losing their best players annually to P4 poaching and facing unbeatable superteams—they might collectively say, “This isn’t fun anymore,” and opt out.

The Rise of a No-Pay League

Imagine 200+ schools from smaller conferences (e.g., Horizon, MAAC, Southern) breaking away to form a “Heritage Division” with strict rules: no NIL, no transfers, four-year commitments, and a focus on student-athletes. They’d pitch it as a return to “pure” college basketball—team-oriented, disciplined, and built on loyalty. Players wouldn’t be mercenaries chasing the next paycheck; they’d stay put, develop chemistry, and play for the school’s name on the jersey. Think 1980s-style hoops: motion offenses, gritty defense, and seniors leading the charge, not one-and-dones or portal hoppers.

You’re right that this could resonate with fans. The current P4 model risks becoming a mercenary league—entertaining but soulless, with players prioritizing highlight reels for their next NIL deal or NBA audition. A Heritage Division could counter that with a nostalgic, relatable product: underdog stories, local rivalries, and cohesive teams. Picture a Murray State or Loyola Chicago sticking with their core for four years, pulling off upsets in their own tournament. The contrast might expose the P4’s excess—why watch a 40-point Kansas rout when you can see a nail-biter between two scrappy, committed squads?

Fan Appeal and Tipping Point

Fans might indeed find this more enjoyable, especially if the P4 product gets predictable. The NCAA Tournament’s magic has always been parity and chaos—think George Mason in 2006 or Saint Peter’s in 2022. If P4 dominance kills that, a Heritage Division could steal the spotlight by reviving it on a smaller scale. Disciplined, team-first play could also attract purists tired of the AAU-style individualism creeping into college ball. And if enough schools defect—say, 150-200 by 2035—the new league could gain critical mass, securing its own TV deal (mid-tier networks like ESPN2 or regional sports channels) and tournament hype.

The P4 might scoff at first, but they’d feel the pinch. Their non-conference slate would shrink to cupcakes or each other, risking overexposure and fan fatigue. If the Heritage Division’s popularity surges—say, outdrawing P4 regular-season games in ratings—it could force a reckoning. The big schools need competition to sustain interest, but they can’t force mid-majors to stay in a system that buries them.

Challenges and Feasibility

The catch is execution. Smaller schools would need unity and funding to launch this, and some might resist leaving Division I’s prestige (and NCAA Tournament revenue). Players might still chase P4 money, thinning the talent pool—though a no-pay league could attract late bloomers or academics-first athletes overlooked by the mercenary system. The NCAA or courts could also intervene, arguing antitrust issues if the split disrupts the current model. But if the P4 keeps consolidating talent and mid-majors hit a breaking point (e.g., losing 80% of their stars annually), the “we can’t compete” sentiment could override those hurdles.

Long-Term Outcome

By 2040, we might see a bifurcated college basketball landscape. The P4 becomes a semi-pro league—high-flying, star-driven, but concentrated and predictable, with 16-20 dominant teams. The Heritage Division thrives as the “people’s game,” with 150+ schools, broader parity, and a throwback vibe. Fans split along taste: casual viewers stick with P4 spectacle, while diehards embrace the Heritage’s grit and storylines. The Heritage champ might even challenge the P4 winner in a hyped “true title” game, proving which model wins hearts.

Your rat analogy could be the key: if the smaller schools refuse to play the P4’s game, they might just build a better one. I’d watch it—four-year rivalries and team-first ball sound refreshing. What do you think the tipping point would be to make schools jump ship? A 50-point average margin in P4 vs. mid-major games? A fan boycott?

Edited Wednesday at 08:25 PM by Norm Peterson

[HB]

Short version:  They may kill the goose that lays the golden egg.   

[Navin R. Johnson]

Has anyone seen Norm lately.  I'm afraid this Norm Peterson is just an AI bot and the real Norm is trapped in cyberspace somewhere. 

[HB]

5 minutes ago, Navin R. Johnson said:

Has anyone seen Norm lately.  I'm afraid this Norm Peterson is just an AI bot and the real Norm is trapped in cyberspace somewhere. 

 

Positive on a Norm sighting.  He lives.

[Norm Peterson]

24 minutes ago, Navin R. Johnson said:

Has anyone seen Norm lately.  I'm afraid this Norm Peterson is just an AI bot and the real Norm is trapped in cyberspace somewhere. 

 

I'm here. It's me. I started playing around with Twitter's AI bot just asking random shit like "create a recipe for Hungarian goulash." It worked remarkably well.

 

Then I started asking like data questions that I didn't want to have to research just to see what it could come up with.

 

So, then I started toying with these other questions. That question I posed upthread? It responded literally within 2 seconds using terminology from my question and picking up the example of the game-playing by rats. And it presented the information in kind of a conversational tone.

 

Ask it a medical question. Compare the answer you get with whatever you find from Mayo Clinic's on-line thing. Just test it. It's really kind of cool.

[Navin R. Johnson]

3 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

I'm here. It's me. I started playing around with Twitter's AI bot just asking random shit like "create a recipe for Hungarian goulash." It worked remarkably well.

 

Then I started asking like data questions that I didn't want to have to research just to see what it could come up with.

 

So, then I started toying with these other questions. That question I posed upthread? It responded literally within 2 seconds using terminology from my question and picking up the example of the game-playing by rats. And it presented the information in kind of a conversational tone.

 

Ask it a medical question. Compare the answer you get with whatever you find from Mayo Clinic's on-line thing. Just test it. It's really kind of cool.

 

That's a relief. I guess we are all safe for now.  Technology is a wonderful thing!

[Norm Peterson]

1 minute ago, Navin R. Johnson said:

That's a relief. I guess we are all safe for now.  Technology is a wonderful thing!

 

What I've done with AI just kind of playing with it has been fun. I'm not going to tell you ALL of the recipes I've asked it to create, but I've tried some of them and it's worked well. Go try to find a recipe for Indian Butter Chicken the conventional way, for example, and you'll find great variation and some of it will seem sketch. Ask the Twitter AI bot and in 10 seconds you'll have a very detailed recipe with all kinds of tips and instructions. Seriously. Give it a shot. Let me know if you get any kind of fun results.

[Bugeaters1]

18 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

I'm here. It's me. I started playing around with Twitter's AI bot just asking random shit like "create a recipe for Hungarian goulash." It worked remarkably well.

 

Then I started asking like data questions that I didn't want to have to research just to see what it could come up with.

 

So, then I started toying with these other questions. That question I posed upthread? It responded literally within 2 seconds using terminology from my question and picking up the example of the game-playing by rats. And it presented the information in kind of a conversational tone.

 

Ask it a medical question. Compare the answer you get with whatever you find from Mayo Clinic's on-line thing. Just test it. It's really kind of cool.

We are having that tonight for supper.

[Fastbreaker]

All I take  from this is Nebraska still sucks. still at the bottom level of the big boys with no hope of improving. 

[Huskerpapa]

1 hour ago, Bugeaters1 said:

We are having that tonight for supper.

Lol...we did as well.

[arliepro]

1 hour ago, Fastbreaker said:

All I take  from this is Nebraska still sucks. still at the bottom level of the big boys with no hope of improving. 

So ask AI how to fix the Huskers!

[HB]

1 hour ago, Fastbreaker said:

All I take  from this is Nebraska still sucks. still at the bottom level of the big boys with no hope of improving. 

 

Seems pretty accurate.

[Handy Johnson]

If I told you before the season started Brice Williams will be First Team All B1G & we’ll defeat UCLA/Oregon/Washington, what place would have guessed we finished…? 

[Dead Dog Alley]

So what happens to the bottom 20 programs in the major conferences, when the top 30 to 40 programs become even more stratified than they are now?  Do they continue to plow millions of dollars into the program just so we can reach an acceptable level of mediocrity?  Do they opt out of trying to compete financially and just accept they can't compete?  Or does division 1 split into two or three divisions?

 

[Nebrasketball1979]

2 hours ago, Handy Johnson said:

If I told you before the season started Brice Williams will be First Team All B1G & we’ll defeat UCLA/Oregon/Washington, what place would have guessed we finished…? 

I would have guessed 16th.. pinky swear.

[Handy Johnson]

1 hour ago, Nebrasketball1979 said:

I would have guessed 16th.. pinky swear.

I’d be looking for MY Spot on the Parade Route Down “O” Street…! 

[Handy Johnson]

4 hours ago, Dead Dog Alley said:

So what happens to the bottom 20 programs in the major conferences, when the top 30 to 40 programs become even more stratified than they are now?  Do they continue to plow millions of dollars into the program just so we can reach an acceptable level of mediocrity?  Do they opt out of trying to compete financially and just accept they can't compete?  Or does division 1 split into two or three divisions?

 

There’s so much money involved now it’s basically come down to the B1G & SEC will be “Finishing Schools” for the NBA & everyone else can Piss Up a Rope.