Update: With the tournament complete, this article has been updated to reflect Michigan’s national title, how the championship roster was built, and what March Madness 2026 ultimately revealed about NIL and modern roster construction.
What the Final Four Actually Says About NIL
Now that the tournament is wrapped up, the biggest takeaway is not that every Final Four team was built exactly the same way. It is that the programs that made it to Indianapolis were all resource-rich and structurally advantaged, even if they got there through different roster-building models.
Michigan is the clearest portal-heavy example of the group. Arizona is the strongest continuity counterexample, with a more homegrown core. Illinois looks like a hybrid built through elite international scouting, size, and selective transfer usage. UConn looks more like institutional power and continuity with targeted portal reinforcement.
The 2026 Final Four does not prove that one NIL blueprint has taken over college basketball. It shows that the schools still standing are the ones with the resources, infrastructure, and roster flexibility to adapt fastest in this new era.
Final Four Teams: Roster Construction, Portal Usage, and the Numbers
Michigan
Michigan is the clearest proof point for the transfer-portal version of this story. AP explicitly contrasted Arizona’s more homegrown core with Michigan’s transfer-heavy lineup, and key transfers like Yaxel Lendeborg, Elliot Cadeau, and Aday Mara have driven this run. Michigan reached the Final Four by beating Tennessee 95-62, with Lendeborg scoring 27 points and Cadeau adding 10 assists.
Arizona
Arizona is the strongest counterexample to the idea that every Final Four team was built through portal churn. AP reported that four Arizona starters were recruited as freshmen, making the Wildcats the most continuity-driven team left in the field. Arizona beat Purdue 79-64 to reach the Final Four, with Koa Peat scoring 20 points.
Illinois
Illinois looks more like a hybrid model. The Illini reached the Final Four with a mix of size, international talent, and selective transfer help. In the Elite Eight win over Iowa, Illinois won 71-59 behind 25 points from Keaton Wagler, 17 from Andrej Stojakovic, 13 from Tomislav Ivisic, and 12 rebounds from David Mirkovic. Broader reporting has also highlighted Illinois’ unusually aggressive European scouting operation.
UConn
UConn looks less like a pure portal build and more like a blue-blood program using continuity plus targeted transfer reinforcement. In the Elite Eight, UConn beat Duke 73-72 behind 26 points from Tarris Reed Jr., a transfer from Michigan, and a game-winner from Braylon Mullins.
How Michigan Built a National Title Team
Michigan gave this article its clearest proof point. Dusty May won a national championship in just his second season by building a roster almost entirely through the transfer portal. AP noted that Michigan started five transfers in the title game, and the Wall Street Journal reported the roster was built with roughly $10 million in NIL backing.
The core contributors came from all over the country. Elliot Cadeau transferred from North Carolina and finished the title game with 19 points, earning Final Four Most Outstanding Player honors. Yaxel Lendeborg came from UAB and became the centerpiece of Michigan’s frontcourt after reportedly choosing Michigan over larger NIL offers elsewhere. Aday Mara arrived from UCLA. Nimari Burnett had previously played at Texas Tech and Alabama before settling in at Michigan. The result was a championship roster built not through multi-year continuity, but through portal evaluation, NIL support, and rapid roster assembly.
That doesn’t prove that spending alone guarantees a title. It does show that in the current version of college basketball, the portal has become one of the clearest paths to building a championship team fast.
The Final Four Doesn’t Prove One Model — It Proves the Resource Era
The clearest lesson from this Final Four is not that one roster-building model has taken over college basketball. It is that the teams still alive all have the resources, infrastructure, and adaptability to compete in the sport’s new professionalized environment.
Michigan got here with a transfer-heavy roster. Arizona got here with more continuity. Illinois got here through a modern hybrid of scouting, size, and selective portal use. UConn got here through institutional strength and targeted additions. Different paths, same reality: in 2026, the programs still standing are the ones best equipped to operate in the resource era.
A New OS for a New Era of College Basketball
The 2026 NCAA Tournament is complete, and for the first time, it played out under a completely new financial operating system. The House v. NCAA settlement — approved in June 2025 — didn’t just change the rules. It rebuilt the game from the foundation up. Schools can now pay athletes directly. NIL collectives still exist, but with new oversight. A $20.5 million annual cap per school is supposed to bring order to the chaos.
It hasn’t.
What’s happened instead is that programs adapted before the ink dried, and collectives frontloaded deals ahead of the new cap. The spending gap between the richest programs and everyone else has widened, not narrowed. Kentucky reportedly spent $22 million on its basketball roster this season — the most of any program in the country. Meanwhile, the field heading into March is again dominated by programs with the deepest pockets, the most aggressive collectives, and the best access to the transfer portal.
Here’s what’s actually driving the 2026 tournament — and what it tells us about where college basketball is heading.
The New Stars: A Different Kind of NIL Era
Last year, it was Cooper Flagg — a once-in-a-generation talent who signed over $28 million in NIL contracts during a single college season. He’s now in the NBA. The financial escalation he helped normalize? That’s here to stay.
AJ Dybantsa is this season’s headliner, and his story might be the most telling NIL moment yet. The consensus No. 1 recruit in the 2025 class didn’t choose Duke, Kansas, or North Carolina — the traditional programs that have dominated recruiting for decades. He chose BYU. In Provo, Utah. Reports from insiders pegged his NIL package at close to $7 million, with his “asking price” reportedly set at $5 million — a figure that multiple programs, including North Carolina and Alabama, are said to have matched. His business advisor publicly pushed back on the money-first narrative, insisting the decision came down to culture and fit. But the market had already spoken: the No. 1 player in the country demonstrated that any school willing to pay can become a destination program.
On the court, Dybantsa delivered. He’s leading the nation in scoring at 25.1 points per game, adding 6.8 rebounds and 3.8 assists. His On3 NIL valuation sits at $4.2 million, second only to Texas quarterback Arch Manning among all college athletes. BYU’s season still showed how NIL can expand the recruiting map, even if it didn’t end in a Final Four run. That was not imaginable five years ago.
Cameron Boozer represents the other side — traditional pedigree meeting new money. The son of two-time NBA All-Star Carlos Boozer, Cameron chose Duke alongside twin brother Cayden, and has averaged 22.7 points, 10.1 rebounds, and 4.0 assists as a freshman. His NIL valuation is $2.2 million. Duke’s season showed how traditional powers can pair recruiting pedigree with aggressive NIL-era roster building. The program used NIL to hold its recruiting prestige while becoming more aggressive in the transfer portal — old-school brand, new-school execution.
JT Toppin at Texas Tech chose to return for his junior season after turning down the 2025 NBA Draft, backed by a reported $4 million NIL package from the Red Raiders. He was averaging 21.8 points and 10.8 rebounds when his season ended in February with a torn ACL at Arizona State. His story is still significant — he’s proof that the right NIL deal can outcompete early professional money — but his absence reshapes Texas Tech’s tournament ceiling significantly.
On the women’s side, Flau’jae Johnson is the most complete NIL athlete in college basketball, and it’s not close. The LSU senior has 20-plus active brand deals spanning Powerade, Amazon, Doritos, Puma, JBL, Apple Cash, and more, while maintaining a Roc Nation-signed music career. She’s disclosed her total deals “amount to about $4.5 million.” She holds equity in the Unrivaled professional league — only the second college athlete ever to land an ownership stake through NIL. She won a gold medal with Team USA at the 2025 FIBA Women’s AmeriCup. And she’s still in school, in her senior year at LSU, competing for a national title. That combination of athlete, entertainer, and entrepreneur is what NIL was theoretically designed to enable.
Aaliyah Chavez at Oklahoma came in as the No. 1 recruit in the women’s class of 2025 with a seven-figure collective deal already in place. A custom Jordan jersey with her name was available before she played her first college game. The commercial machine moves that fast now.
How the Transfer Portal Built This Tournament Field
The 2026 bracket doesn’t make sense without the transfer portal. Even when teams were not built the same way, portal movement remained central to how contenders were assembled.
Michigan entered as one of the favorites at 27-2. Coach Dusty May built his roster through aggressive portal recruiting backed by a reported NIL budget that ranks among the top three in college basketball. Yaxel Lendeborg, who transferred from UAB and turned down the 2025 NBA Draft for a reported $3 million NIL package, anchors the frontcourt. Michigan’s defensive identity is built on acquired experience — players who’ve proven themselves elsewhere and were specifically recruited to fit May’s system. This isn’t a program that developed its stars from scratch. It’s a program that identified and acquired them.
Florida, last year’s champion and still in the mix at 23-6, built its title run on that same model. Five of six key rotation players were transfers from mid-major programs. They won it all ranked 77th in NIL spending. That blueprint is widely referenced — but it’s getting harder to replicate as mid-majors get more aggressive about keeping their own players.
Houston continues to thrive under Kelvin Sampson with a guard trio of Kingston Flemings, Emanuel Sharp, and Milos Uzan that ranks among the best in the country. Iowa State, Arizona, Illinois, Connecticut, Michigan State — the rest of the top ten is a who’s-who of programs that figured out how to pair coaching with portal and NIL execution. The common thread isn’t any single approach. It’s resources and strategy working together.
What’s largely absent again: mid-major programs with real upset potential. Every standout player from a smaller conference is a portal target the moment their season ends — sometimes before. Coaches at that level now openly describe their jobs as player development for someone else’s roster. This Final Four is telling much the same story it told last year.
Are Universities Actually Getting a Return?
Here’s the question nobody in college athletics wants to answer honestly: is this working financially?
The House settlement established a $20.5 million annual cap on direct school payments to athletes, rising 4% each year and reaching an estimated $32.9 million by 2034-35. Power conference schools are all in. What happened almost immediately was that collectives continued operating alongside the new system — frontloading deals and structuring agreements around the new compliance timeline — so total roster costs at elite programs still routinely exceed the official cap figure.
Under the settlement, third-party NIL deals valued at $600 or more must be reported through Deloitte’s NIL Go platform for review. Early guidance from the College Sports Commission raised questions about whether many collective-related deals would meet the “valid business purpose” standard. Later clarification indicated that some collective-related deals could qualify depending on structure and substance.
Collectives continue to operate alongside the revenue-sharing system rather than being replaced by it, meaning third-party NIL remains a major parallel channel for athlete compensation.
There is growing frustration among top coaches about NIL inflation, with many believing that the current cost of building a roster doesn’t translate into championship results. The consensus is that teams are overpaying for talent that simply isn’t worth the investment.
The data support that skepticism. Research consistently fails to find a clean correlation between NIL spending and wins. Kentucky has the most expensive roster in the sport at a reported $22 million — and is currently a bubble team. Last year’s champion, Florida, spent a fraction of that. Spending matters. It’s just not the only thing that matters, and it may not even be the most important thing.
The indirect returns are harder to measure but arguably more significant — ticket revenue, alumni engagement, merchandise, and the enrollment spike that tends to follow tournament success. The so-called Flutie Effect is real. (The “Flutie Effect” refers to the significant surge in university applications and national visibility that often follows a major athletic success, named after Doug Flutie’s 1984 “Hail Mary” pass for Boston College. This phenomenon demonstrates how high-profile sports victories act as a powerful marketing tool, often leading to increased enrollment, alumni giving, and academic prestige.) St. John’s sold out Madison Square Garden four straight times last year, thanks to NIL-fueled recruiting and a reinvigorated program. That energy has economic value, even if it doesn’t appear on a cost-benefit spreadsheet.
The sustainability question is the one that keeps athletic directors up at night. Donor fatigue is real and accelerating. When a handful of wealthy alumni fund a collective that funds a roster, the whole structure depends on those donors staying engaged year after year. When the big donors stop writing checks — or when a player leaves for a better offer despite the investment — the relationship between booster and program can sour fast.
What the 2026 season has made clear is that this is no longer a question of whether college basketball has professionalized. It has. The question is what kind of professional model it’s building toward.
What the Final Four Clarified
A few NIL-specific storylines came into sharper focus when the Final Four was set:
NIL can expand the circle — but it still hasn’t broken the power structure. BYU landing AJ Dybantsa was a real NIL-era statement, but the Final Four is still Illinois, UConn, Michigan, and Arizona — four resource-rich programs with major infrastructure, deep support, and proven roster-building advantages. The takeaway is not that NIL changed nothing. It’s that one headline recruit still isn’t enough to override the broader power structure of college basketball.
Michigan answered the biggest portal-era question with a title. A full transfer-built starting lineup didn’t just hold together under pressure — it won the national championship.
The competitive-balance question is still unresolved, but the Final Four leans toward the same answer. Another year without a true mid-major breakthrough this deep in the tournament reinforces the idea that the sport is tilting toward programs with the most resources, roster flexibility, and access to talent. The remaining field was built through different models, but not by programs operating without power-conference-level advantages.
The commercial side still moves faster than the basketball. March remains one of the clearest windows for quick-turn NIL activity, with breakout performances, viral moments, and brand-ready storylines creating immediate opportunities. Even as the tournament narrows, the broader point holds: the business around March Madness reacts in real time, and brands are now built to move on that speed.
And now watch what happens after the Final Four. The transfer portal opens immediately when the last game ends. The real NIL action — the signing period, the bidding wars, the decisions — begins the moment the nets come down.
That’s college basketball in 2026. The madness never really stops.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who are the top NIL earners in the 2026 NCAA Tournament?
BYU freshman AJ Dybantsa leads men’s college basketball with a $4.2 million On3 NIL valuation, followed by Texas Tech’s JT Toppin at $4 million (though Toppin is out for the season with a torn ACL) and Duke’s Cameron Boozer at $2.2 million. On the women’s side, LSU’s Flau’jae Johnson leads with over 20 active brand deals and has disclosed her total arrangements amount to approximately $4.5 million.
What is the House v. NCAA settlement and how does it affect the 2026 tournament?
The House v. NCAA settlement, approved in June 2025, allows schools to pay athletes directly for the first time — up to $20.5 million per school annually, rising 4% per year. It also created a new compliance body, the College Sports Commission, to oversee NIL deals. In practice, direct school payments now sit within a formal cap, but third-party NIL activity and collective-related deal structures mean top-end athlete compensation has not disappeared or become simple. The settlement brought more structure, but not a clean end to outside spending.
Does spending more on NIL guarantee tournament success?
No — and this season is a clear example. Kentucky has the most expensive roster in college basketball at a reported $22 million and is currently a bubble team. Last year’s champion, Florida, ranked 77th in NIL spending. Academic research consistently fails to find a strong correlation between roster cost and wins. Strategy, coaching, and roster fit matter as much as, if not more than, raw spending.
How has the transfer portal changed the way tournament rosters are built?
Almost every contender in the 2026 field was built primarily through the transfer portal. Players now move programs with the same frequency and financial motivation as professional free agents. Mid-major programs serve as developmental pipelines for bigger schools — their standout players are portal targets before the season ends, often while it’s still going. This cycle has effectively eliminated mid-major Cinderella runs from the upper rounds.
Can smaller schools realistically compete with power programs in the NIL era?
It’s becoming more difficult. The Dybantsa story at BYU shows that a well-funded mid-major or non-power school can attract elite talent — but BYU is an outlier with unusually strong institutional and donor support. For most smaller programs, the structural disadvantage in NIL resources and collective funding makes sustained competitiveness at the top level increasingly hard to achieve.
Which Final Four team best reflects the transfer portal era?
Michigan is the clearest portal-heavy example. AP’s Final Four coverage specifically contrasted Arizona’s homegrown core with Michigan’s transfer-heavy lineup, and major transfers like Yaxel Lendeborg, Elliot Cadeau, and Aday Mara have been central to the Wolverines’ run.
Is every 2026 Final Four team built the same way?
No. Arizona is the strongest continuity model, Michigan is the most portal-heavy, and Illinois and UConn are better described as hybrid builds. The remaining field reflects the same resource-heavy era, but not one single blueprint.
How did Michigan build its 2026 national championship roster?
Michigan built the core of its title team through the transfer portal. AP noted that the Wolverines started five transfers in the championship game, and reporting from the Wall Street Journal pegged the roster at roughly $10 million in NIL support. Key contributors included Elliot Cadeau (North Carolina), Yaxel Lendeborg (UAB), Aday Mara (UCLA), and Nimari Burnett (Texas Tech/Alabama before Michigan). Michigan’s title run became the clearest example of how quickly a coach can rebuild through portal additions, NIL funding, and strong roster fit.
How much NIL money is in men’s college basketball right now?
On3 reported estimated 2025–26 college basketball NIL spending at $932.5 million, based on Opendorse data. That supports the idea that spending has remained massive even under the post-House structure.
Editor’s note: This article was updated for clarity regarding NIL Go reporting requirements and guidance from the College Sports Commission.
—
Stay current on NIL, athlete business, and the evolving economics of college sports. Subscribe to the SportsEpreneur newsletter — analysis like this, delivered straight to your inbox.
Want your brand featured in content like this? SportsEpreneur reaches an audience of coaches, athletic department decision-makers, athletes, and sports business professionals across search and social. Learn about sponsorship and editorial placement opportunities.
SportsEpreneur covers NIL, athlete entrepreneurship, and the business of college sports.
More College Sports & NIL Content by SportsEpreneur
College Coaches Against Name Image Likeness: The System They Built Is Slipping Away
Mid-Majors Are College Basketball’s Developmental League
How College Athletes’ Rights Are Quietly Destroying the WNBA’s Talent Pipeline
Name, Image, Likeness Pros and Cons | The College Game Is Changed Forever (2026 Update)
The New NIL Executive Order, Explained
How NIL Is Reshaping March Madness 2026
The 2026 NCAA Tournament is over. The money, roster construction, and portal movement behind this year’s champion tell you everything about what college basketball has become.
TLDR:
The 2026 NCAA Tournament played out under the first full season of the House v. NCAA settlement — but the $20.5M spending cap didn’t slow anyone down. Programs adapted quickly, collectives frontloaded deals, and the talent gap between rich programs and everyone else got wider. BYU’s AJ Dybantsa ($4.2M NIL valuation) and Duke’s Cameron Boozer ($2.2M) headlined a tournament field shaped by the transfer portal, NIL money, and widening resource advantages. Kentucky spent $22M on its roster and was on the bubble. Florida won last year spending a fraction of that. The ROI math still doesn’t add up — but the spending isn’t stopping.
The tournament ended with Michigan cutting down the nets, but the broader point held all the way through the Final Four. Illinois, UConn, Michigan, and Arizona still reflected the power-program era, just not through one single model. Michigan was the clearest portal-heavy build. Arizona was the strongest continuity counterexample. Illinois and UConn sat somewhere in the middle.
The money story has not cooled off. On3 reported estimated 2025–26 college basketball NIL spending at $932.5 million, reinforcing the broader point that the House-era structure brought more rules, not less spending.
Michigan’s title became the clearest proof point of the portal era: a coach in his second season, a transfer-built starting lineup, and a championship assembled fast through roster turnover, NIL support, and fit.
Update: With the tournament complete, this article has been updated to reflect Michigan’s national title, how the championship roster was built, and what March Madness 2026 ultimately revealed about NIL and modern roster construction.
What the Final Four Actually Says About NIL
Now that the tournament is wrapped up, the biggest takeaway is not that every Final Four team was built exactly the same way. It is that the programs that made it to Indianapolis were all resource-rich and structurally advantaged, even if they got there through different roster-building models.
Michigan is the clearest portal-heavy example of the group. Arizona is the strongest continuity counterexample, with a more homegrown core. Illinois looks like a hybrid built through elite international scouting, size, and selective transfer usage. UConn looks more like institutional power and continuity with targeted portal reinforcement.
The 2026 Final Four does not prove that one NIL blueprint has taken over college basketball. It shows that the schools still standing are the ones with the resources, infrastructure, and roster flexibility to adapt fastest in this new era.
Final Four Teams: Roster Construction, Portal Usage, and the Numbers
Michigan
Michigan is the clearest proof point for the transfer-portal version of this story. AP explicitly contrasted Arizona’s more homegrown core with Michigan’s transfer-heavy lineup, and key transfers like Yaxel Lendeborg, Elliot Cadeau, and Aday Mara have driven this run. Michigan reached the Final Four by beating Tennessee 95-62, with Lendeborg scoring 27 points and Cadeau adding 10 assists.
Arizona
Arizona is the strongest counterexample to the idea that every Final Four team was built through portal churn. AP reported that four Arizona starters were recruited as freshmen, making the Wildcats the most continuity-driven team left in the field. Arizona beat Purdue 79-64 to reach the Final Four, with Koa Peat scoring 20 points.
Illinois
Illinois looks more like a hybrid model. The Illini reached the Final Four with a mix of size, international talent, and selective transfer help. In the Elite Eight win over Iowa, Illinois won 71-59 behind 25 points from Keaton Wagler, 17 from Andrej Stojakovic, 13 from Tomislav Ivisic, and 12 rebounds from David Mirkovic. Broader reporting has also highlighted Illinois’ unusually aggressive European scouting operation.
UConn
UConn looks less like a pure portal build and more like a blue-blood program using continuity plus targeted transfer reinforcement. In the Elite Eight, UConn beat Duke 73-72 behind 26 points from Tarris Reed Jr., a transfer from Michigan, and a game-winner from Braylon Mullins.
How Michigan Built a National Title Team
Michigan gave this article its clearest proof point. Dusty May won a national championship in just his second season by building a roster almost entirely through the transfer portal. AP noted that Michigan started five transfers in the title game, and the Wall Street Journal reported the roster was built with roughly $10 million in NIL backing.
The core contributors came from all over the country. Elliot Cadeau transferred from North Carolina and finished the title game with 19 points, earning Final Four Most Outstanding Player honors. Yaxel Lendeborg came from UAB and became the centerpiece of Michigan’s frontcourt after reportedly choosing Michigan over larger NIL offers elsewhere. Aday Mara arrived from UCLA. Nimari Burnett had previously played at Texas Tech and Alabama before settling in at Michigan. The result was a championship roster built not through multi-year continuity, but through portal evaluation, NIL support, and rapid roster assembly.
That doesn’t prove that spending alone guarantees a title. It does show that in the current version of college basketball, the portal has become one of the clearest paths to building a championship team fast.
The Final Four Doesn’t Prove One Model — It Proves the Resource Era
The clearest lesson from this Final Four is not that one roster-building model has taken over college basketball. It is that the teams still alive all have the resources, infrastructure, and adaptability to compete in the sport’s new professionalized environment.
Michigan got here with a transfer-heavy roster. Arizona got here with more continuity. Illinois got here through a modern hybrid of scouting, size, and selective portal use. UConn got here through institutional strength and targeted additions. Different paths, same reality: in 2026, the programs still standing are the ones best equipped to operate in the resource era.
A New OS for a New Era of College Basketball
The 2026 NCAA Tournament is complete, and for the first time, it played out under a completely new financial operating system. The House v. NCAA settlement — approved in June 2025 — didn’t just change the rules. It rebuilt the game from the foundation up. Schools can now pay athletes directly. NIL collectives still exist, but with new oversight. A $20.5 million annual cap per school is supposed to bring order to the chaos.
It hasn’t.
What’s happened instead is that programs adapted before the ink dried, and collectives frontloaded deals ahead of the new cap. The spending gap between the richest programs and everyone else has widened, not narrowed. Kentucky reportedly spent $22 million on its basketball roster this season — the most of any program in the country. Meanwhile, the field heading into March is again dominated by programs with the deepest pockets, the most aggressive collectives, and the best access to the transfer portal.
Here’s what’s actually driving the 2026 tournament — and what it tells us about where college basketball is heading.
The New Stars: A Different Kind of NIL Era
Last year, it was Cooper Flagg — a once-in-a-generation talent who signed over $28 million in NIL contracts during a single college season. He’s now in the NBA. The financial escalation he helped normalize? That’s here to stay.
AJ Dybantsa is this season’s headliner, and his story might be the most telling NIL moment yet. The consensus No. 1 recruit in the 2025 class didn’t choose Duke, Kansas, or North Carolina — the traditional programs that have dominated recruiting for decades. He chose BYU. In Provo, Utah. Reports from insiders pegged his NIL package at close to $7 million, with his “asking price” reportedly set at $5 million — a figure that multiple programs, including North Carolina and Alabama, are said to have matched. His business advisor publicly pushed back on the money-first narrative, insisting the decision came down to culture and fit. But the market had already spoken: the No. 1 player in the country demonstrated that any school willing to pay can become a destination program.
On the court, Dybantsa delivered. He’s leading the nation in scoring at 25.1 points per game, adding 6.8 rebounds and 3.8 assists. His On3 NIL valuation sits at $4.2 million, second only to Texas quarterback Arch Manning among all college athletes. BYU’s season still showed how NIL can expand the recruiting map, even if it didn’t end in a Final Four run. That was not imaginable five years ago.
Cameron Boozer represents the other side — traditional pedigree meeting new money. The son of two-time NBA All-Star Carlos Boozer, Cameron chose Duke alongside twin brother Cayden, and has averaged 22.7 points, 10.1 rebounds, and 4.0 assists as a freshman. His NIL valuation is $2.2 million. Duke’s season showed how traditional powers can pair recruiting pedigree with aggressive NIL-era roster building. The program used NIL to hold its recruiting prestige while becoming more aggressive in the transfer portal — old-school brand, new-school execution.
JT Toppin at Texas Tech chose to return for his junior season after turning down the 2025 NBA Draft, backed by a reported $4 million NIL package from the Red Raiders. He was averaging 21.8 points and 10.8 rebounds when his season ended in February with a torn ACL at Arizona State. His story is still significant — he’s proof that the right NIL deal can outcompete early professional money — but his absence reshapes Texas Tech’s tournament ceiling significantly.
On the women’s side, Flau’jae Johnson is the most complete NIL athlete in college basketball, and it’s not close. The LSU senior has 20-plus active brand deals spanning Powerade, Amazon, Doritos, Puma, JBL, Apple Cash, and more, while maintaining a Roc Nation-signed music career. She’s disclosed her total deals “amount to about $4.5 million.” She holds equity in the Unrivaled professional league — only the second college athlete ever to land an ownership stake through NIL. She won a gold medal with Team USA at the 2025 FIBA Women’s AmeriCup. And she’s still in school, in her senior year at LSU, competing for a national title. That combination of athlete, entertainer, and entrepreneur is what NIL was theoretically designed to enable.
Aaliyah Chavez at Oklahoma came in as the No. 1 recruit in the women’s class of 2025 with a seven-figure collective deal already in place. A custom Jordan jersey with her name was available before she played her first college game. The commercial machine moves that fast now.
How the Transfer Portal Built This Tournament Field
The 2026 bracket doesn’t make sense without the transfer portal. Even when teams were not built the same way, portal movement remained central to how contenders were assembled.
Michigan entered as one of the favorites at 27-2. Coach Dusty May built his roster through aggressive portal recruiting backed by a reported NIL budget that ranks among the top three in college basketball. Yaxel Lendeborg, who transferred from UAB and turned down the 2025 NBA Draft for a reported $3 million NIL package, anchors the frontcourt. Michigan’s defensive identity is built on acquired experience — players who’ve proven themselves elsewhere and were specifically recruited to fit May’s system. This isn’t a program that developed its stars from scratch. It’s a program that identified and acquired them.
Florida, last year’s champion and still in the mix at 23-6, built its title run on that same model. Five of six key rotation players were transfers from mid-major programs. They won it all ranked 77th in NIL spending. That blueprint is widely referenced — but it’s getting harder to replicate as mid-majors get more aggressive about keeping their own players.
Houston continues to thrive under Kelvin Sampson with a guard trio of Kingston Flemings, Emanuel Sharp, and Milos Uzan that ranks among the best in the country. Iowa State, Arizona, Illinois, Connecticut, Michigan State — the rest of the top ten is a who’s-who of programs that figured out how to pair coaching with portal and NIL execution. The common thread isn’t any single approach. It’s resources and strategy working together.
What’s largely absent again: mid-major programs with real upset potential. Every standout player from a smaller conference is a portal target the moment their season ends — sometimes before. Coaches at that level now openly describe their jobs as player development for someone else’s roster. This Final Four is telling much the same story it told last year.
Are Universities Actually Getting a Return?
Here’s the question nobody in college athletics wants to answer honestly: is this working financially?
The House settlement established a $20.5 million annual cap on direct school payments to athletes, rising 4% each year and reaching an estimated $32.9 million by 2034-35. Power conference schools are all in. What happened almost immediately was that collectives continued operating alongside the new system — frontloading deals and structuring agreements around the new compliance timeline — so total roster costs at elite programs still routinely exceed the official cap figure.
Under the settlement, third-party NIL deals valued at $600 or more must be reported through Deloitte’s NIL Go platform for review. Early guidance from the College Sports Commission raised questions about whether many collective-related deals would meet the “valid business purpose” standard. Later clarification indicated that some collective-related deals could qualify depending on structure and substance.
Collectives continue to operate alongside the revenue-sharing system rather than being replaced by it, meaning third-party NIL remains a major parallel channel for athlete compensation.
There is growing frustration among top coaches about NIL inflation, with many believing that the current cost of building a roster doesn’t translate into championship results. The consensus is that teams are overpaying for talent that simply isn’t worth the investment.
The data support that skepticism. Research consistently fails to find a clean correlation between NIL spending and wins. Kentucky has the most expensive roster in the sport at a reported $22 million — and is currently a bubble team. Last year’s champion, Florida, spent a fraction of that. Spending matters. It’s just not the only thing that matters, and it may not even be the most important thing.
The indirect returns are harder to measure but arguably more significant — ticket revenue, alumni engagement, merchandise, and the enrollment spike that tends to follow tournament success. The so-called Flutie Effect is real. (The “Flutie Effect” refers to the significant surge in university applications and national visibility that often follows a major athletic success, named after Doug Flutie’s 1984 “Hail Mary” pass for Boston College. This phenomenon demonstrates how high-profile sports victories act as a powerful marketing tool, often leading to increased enrollment, alumni giving, and academic prestige.) St. John’s sold out Madison Square Garden four straight times last year, thanks to NIL-fueled recruiting and a reinvigorated program. That energy has economic value, even if it doesn’t appear on a cost-benefit spreadsheet.
The sustainability question is the one that keeps athletic directors up at night. Donor fatigue is real and accelerating. When a handful of wealthy alumni fund a collective that funds a roster, the whole structure depends on those donors staying engaged year after year. When the big donors stop writing checks — or when a player leaves for a better offer despite the investment — the relationship between booster and program can sour fast.
What the 2026 season has made clear is that this is no longer a question of whether college basketball has professionalized. It has. The question is what kind of professional model it’s building toward.
What the Final Four Clarified
A few NIL-specific storylines came into sharper focus when the Final Four was set:
NIL can expand the circle — but it still hasn’t broken the power structure. BYU landing AJ Dybantsa was a real NIL-era statement, but the Final Four is still Illinois, UConn, Michigan, and Arizona — four resource-rich programs with major infrastructure, deep support, and proven roster-building advantages. The takeaway is not that NIL changed nothing. It’s that one headline recruit still isn’t enough to override the broader power structure of college basketball.
Michigan answered the biggest portal-era question with a title. A full transfer-built starting lineup didn’t just hold together under pressure — it won the national championship.
The competitive-balance question is still unresolved, but the Final Four leans toward the same answer. Another year without a true mid-major breakthrough this deep in the tournament reinforces the idea that the sport is tilting toward programs with the most resources, roster flexibility, and access to talent. The remaining field was built through different models, but not by programs operating without power-conference-level advantages.
The commercial side still moves faster than the basketball. March remains one of the clearest windows for quick-turn NIL activity, with breakout performances, viral moments, and brand-ready storylines creating immediate opportunities. Even as the tournament narrows, the broader point holds: the business around March Madness reacts in real time, and brands are now built to move on that speed.
And now watch what happens after the Final Four. The transfer portal opens immediately when the last game ends. The real NIL action — the signing period, the bidding wars, the decisions — begins the moment the nets come down.
That’s college basketball in 2026. The madness never really stops.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who are the top NIL earners in the 2026 NCAA Tournament?
BYU freshman AJ Dybantsa leads men’s college basketball with a $4.2 million On3 NIL valuation, followed by Texas Tech’s JT Toppin at $4 million (though Toppin is out for the season with a torn ACL) and Duke’s Cameron Boozer at $2.2 million. On the women’s side, LSU’s Flau’jae Johnson leads with over 20 active brand deals and has disclosed her total arrangements amount to approximately $4.5 million.
What is the House v. NCAA settlement and how does it affect the 2026 tournament?
The House v. NCAA settlement, approved in June 2025, allows schools to pay athletes directly for the first time — up to $20.5 million per school annually, rising 4% per year. It also created a new compliance body, the College Sports Commission, to oversee NIL deals. In practice, direct school payments now sit within a formal cap, but third-party NIL activity and collective-related deal structures mean top-end athlete compensation has not disappeared or become simple. The settlement brought more structure, but not a clean end to outside spending.
Does spending more on NIL guarantee tournament success?
No — and this season is a clear example. Kentucky has the most expensive roster in college basketball at a reported $22 million and is currently a bubble team. Last year’s champion, Florida, ranked 77th in NIL spending. Academic research consistently fails to find a strong correlation between roster cost and wins. Strategy, coaching, and roster fit matter as much as, if not more than, raw spending.
How has the transfer portal changed the way tournament rosters are built?
Almost every contender in the 2026 field was built primarily through the transfer portal. Players now move programs with the same frequency and financial motivation as professional free agents. Mid-major programs serve as developmental pipelines for bigger schools — their standout players are portal targets before the season ends, often while it’s still going. This cycle has effectively eliminated mid-major Cinderella runs from the upper rounds.
Can smaller schools realistically compete with power programs in the NIL era?
It’s becoming more difficult. The Dybantsa story at BYU shows that a well-funded mid-major or non-power school can attract elite talent — but BYU is an outlier with unusually strong institutional and donor support. For most smaller programs, the structural disadvantage in NIL resources and collective funding makes sustained competitiveness at the top level increasingly hard to achieve.
Which Final Four team best reflects the transfer portal era?
Michigan is the clearest portal-heavy example. AP’s Final Four coverage specifically contrasted Arizona’s homegrown core with Michigan’s transfer-heavy lineup, and major transfers like Yaxel Lendeborg, Elliot Cadeau, and Aday Mara have been central to the Wolverines’ run.
Is every 2026 Final Four team built the same way?
No. Arizona is the strongest continuity model, Michigan is the most portal-heavy, and Illinois and UConn are better described as hybrid builds. The remaining field reflects the same resource-heavy era, but not one single blueprint.
How did Michigan build its 2026 national championship roster?
Michigan built the core of its title team through the transfer portal. AP noted that the Wolverines started five transfers in the championship game, and reporting from the Wall Street Journal pegged the roster at roughly $10 million in NIL support. Key contributors included Elliot Cadeau (North Carolina), Yaxel Lendeborg (UAB), Aday Mara (UCLA), and Nimari Burnett (Texas Tech/Alabama before Michigan). Michigan’s title run became the clearest example of how quickly a coach can rebuild through portal additions, NIL funding, and strong roster fit.
How much NIL money is in men’s college basketball right now?
On3 reported estimated 2025–26 college basketball NIL spending at $932.5 million, based on Opendorse data. That supports the idea that spending has remained massive even under the post-House structure.
Editor’s note: This article was updated for clarity regarding NIL Go reporting requirements and guidance from the College Sports Commission.
—
Stay current on NIL, athlete business, and the evolving economics of college sports. Subscribe to the SportsEpreneur newsletter — analysis like this, delivered straight to your inbox.
Want your brand featured in content like this? SportsEpreneur reaches an audience of coaches, athletic department decision-makers, athletes, and sports business professionals across search and social. Learn about sponsorship and editorial placement opportunities.
SportsEpreneur covers NIL, athlete entrepreneurship, and the business of college sports.
More College Sports & NIL Content by SportsEpreneur
College Coaches Against Name Image Likeness: The System They Built Is Slipping Away
Mid-Majors Are College Basketball’s Developmental League
How College Athletes’ Rights Are Quietly Destroying the WNBA’s Talent Pipeline
Name, Image, Likeness Pros and Cons | The College Game Is Changed Forever (2026 Update)
The New NIL Executive Order, Explained
Eric Kasimov is the founder of SportsEpreneur, part of the KazSource media network. Since launching the platform in 2015, he has hosted over 500 podcast episodes, written and published more than 1,500 articles, and advised business leaders, founders, and creators on building authority through media strategy.
Through his brands — KazSource, KazCM, SportsEpreneur, and QuietLoud Studios — Eric leads teams that produce podcasts, develop brand platforms, and help companies grow through modern content ecosystems. He also scaled KazSource Insurance into a seven-figure boutique agency, providing the foundation for the broader media network he operates today.
His work has been featured in Forbes, Axios, and Front Office Sports, and his podcasts have included conversations with top founders, investors, and athletes turned entrepreneurs.