Sconnies Speak

Category: column

  • The Effect of the Transfer Portal and NIL on March Madness

    By: Jack Kohr

    The NCAA Tournament has always been full of surprises. However, this year, the surprise was, coincidentally, the lack of surprises. For the first time since 2008, and only the second time in the history of the NCAA Tournament, all four No. 1 seeds made it to the Final Four. This raises the question: What made the top teams this year so dominant? 

    The answer: The transfer portal and NIL. 

    The transfer portal was introduced in 2018 as a new system for NCAA athletes to declare their intent to transfer and receive contact from other programs. From 2018 to 2021, however, transfer players were required to sit out for one year after transferring before they could play for their new school.

    In 2021, transfer portal rules were updated so that first-time transfer athletes were granted eligibility to play for their new school immediately. This updated eligibility requirement, in addition to the change allowing student-athletes to profit off of their name, image, and likeness, made recruiting, particularly in basketball and football, a “pay-for-play” environment. 

    In 2024, portal rules were updated again, removing the limit on the number of times athletes can transfer during their career without penalty. Although college athletes have essentially become quasi-professional athletes today, NIL deals in tandem with transfer portal rules that allow players to jump from school to school every year give big programs a major advantage. 

    In addition to all four No. 1 seeds making the Final Four, the effect of the transfer portal and NIL was visible in the Sweet Sixteen. Other than No. 10 seed Arkansas, an SEC school with a Hall-of-Fame college basketball coach in John Calipari, all teams were, at worst, a No. 6 seed. 

    Then, the favorites in all Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight games proceeded to go 12-0. By giving players the ability to transfer without limitations and schools the power to lure them in with NIL money, we may have just taken the madness out of March Madness. 

    The NCAA tournament coined its name of March Madness because it has been a tournament where truly anything can happen. Low-seeded schools from mid-major conferences like UMBC, St. Peter’s, FAU, Loyola Chicago, and others had the chance to shock the world and put their name on the map. 

    Now, basketball powerhouses can poach the best players from mid-major conferences with the promise of money and the opportunity to play on the biggest stage all season long. This not only leads to mid-major schools being less competitive come tournament time, but also adds firepower to the blue bloods. Take the NCAA Tournament Champion Florida Gators, for example. 

    Florida’s two leading scorers all year, Walter Clayton Jr. and Alijah Martin, were transfers. And guess from where? Mid-major schools. Clayton Jr., the 2025 NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player, transferred from Iona. Alijah Martin helped lead the beloved cinderella No. 9 seed FAU Owls to the Final Four during his sophomore season in 2023 before transferring to the Gators prior to the 2025 season. These are two prime examples of how the transfer portal and NIL are impacting college basketball. 

    While we only have one year of data points, there are certainly concerns for fans who cherish the unpredictability and possibility that is March Madness. If outcomes in the coming years are similar to this year’s tournament, the NCAA may need to rethink the current rules surrounding the transfer portal and NIL.

  • Is it time for the Milwaukee Bucks to rebuild?

    By: Mark Buerger

    Just like clockwork, the Milwaukee Bucks’ routine of being eliminated in the first round continued last month. To make matters worse, it was the Indiana Pacers who remained a thorn in the Bucks’ side, eliminating them in five games in the opening round of the 2025 playoffs.

    It was the second consecutive year that Indiana eliminated Milwaukee in the first round of the playoffs, and the third straight year that the Bucks were sent home packing after just one series.

    As the years pass from Milwaukee’s illustrious 2020 championship run, it feels like Father Time is finally kicking in for the Bucks.

    Star forward Giannis Antetokounmpo and guard Damian Lillard are only getting older, with the former being 30 years old, while the latter is 34 and now facing an extensive recovery for a torn Achilles injury.

    With two stars only getting older and the surrounding pieces not coming together for the Milwaukee Bucks, is it time to press the ‘rebuild button’ on the franchise?

    It all begins with the draft.

    “It takes seven years for negative information to disappear from a credit report. Start the clock for the Milwaukee Bucks. They owe picks or swaps on each of their first-round picks until 2031, which means winning the draft lottery would only benefit their former trade partners,” Fansided’s D.J. Dunson wrote following the team’s first-round exit.

    Without owning the rights to their first-round until 2031, the Bucks currently have no future to build around Antetokounmpo and Lillard. The fact that the Bucks have to “owe or swap” first-round picks for the next seven years shows that creating a future around their two stars is nearly impossible.

    While younger talent could help offset Milwaukee’s depth and financial woes, there doesn’t seem to be a direct avenue to achieving that path in the near future without the requisite draft capital.

    So, how did we get to this stage of repeated first-round exits for the Bucks?

    Things kicked off with a major trade prior to the 2023-24 season, as Milwaukee made a massive move for Lillard, moving fellow point guard Jrue Holiday, a future first-round pick, and two future first-round pick swaps in return.

    While the move brought a second star to Milwaukee, it further sent them away from the vision that won them a championship back in 2021.

    The move depleted the team’s draft capital, making it tougher to improve the roster in other ways, and eventually forced the team’s hand in trading forward Khris Middleton for Kyle Kuzma to gain salary-cap flexibility.

    However, the team’s roster decisions haven’t been the only consequential moves for Milwaukee. Instead, it’s been the revolving door of coaches that has really set the team up for repeated failures in the playoffs.

    First, the Bucks fired championship coach Mike Budenholzer, replacing him with former Toronto Raptors assistant Adrian Griffin. That move initially seemed to pay off for Milwaukee, which started the 2023-24 season with a 30-13 record.

    However, after the promising start to the 2023-24 season, Griffin was fired in a shocking move and was replaced by longtime veteran coach Doc Rivers, who had served as an informal consultant to Griffin midway through the year.

    Since Rivers’s hire, the lack of success cannot be a Milwaukee has been through back-to-back first-round exits in the playoffs, raising questions not only about the team’s future, but also that of star Giannis Antetokounmpo.

    The Bucks’ roster is aging. Not only are Lillard and Antetokounmpo continuing to age, but starting center Brook Lopez is 37, and rotational pieces Bobby Portis, Taurean Price, and Pat Connaughton are all at least 30.

    Therefore, given the lack of draft control and lack of a true identity, it is time for the Milwaukee Bucks to dismantle the roster and head towards a rebuild. By trading Lillard and Antetokounmpo, the Bucks can free up cap space and get much-needed draft capital in return that they can use to build their new future. 

    After back-to-back first-round exits, it may not be the future that Bucks fans envisioned, but it might be a necessary one, given the team’s struggles with the current roster.

  • Don’t Mess with March: The NCAA Tournament Is Just Fine at 68

    By: Joseph Herrmann

    Every year, March Madness is a huge success. It’s the most beautiful type of chaos – the buzzer beaters, the Cinderella stories, the brackets busted by noon on Thursday. And somehow, right when it feels like we’ve collectively nailed the formula for a perfect tournament, someone in charge wants to mess with it.

    Lately, there’s been noise – too much noise – about expanding the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament beyond the current 68 teams. The NCAA Transformation Committee opened the door last year, and now we’ve got administrators and conference commissioners hinting that more teams might be “good for the game.” But let’s face it, it’s not a good idea to expand the competition.

    Now, I get it. On paper, more teams sounds like more fun. More games, more players getting the spotlight, more “meaningful basketball.” But here’s the thing: the tournament isn’t broken. It doesn’t need fixing. In fact, the charm of March Madness is that it’s exclusive enough to make the stakes feel high and the upsets feel electric. Each season, teams vie for a coveted spot and a chance to bring their school a national championship. With only 68 teams making the cut, every regular season and conference tournament game carries weight. Expanding it risks turning something special into just another bloated bracket.

    One of the biggest arguments for expansion is that it would give more “deserving” teams a shot. But let’s be honest—if you’re on the bubble and didn’t make the cut, there’s probably a reason. You either didn’t win enough, didn’t play anybody, or just didn’t get it done when it mattered. That’s sports.

    And let’s not pretend like the Selection Committee has been stingy. With 68 spots already, that’s nearly 20% of Division I teams making the tournament. You want in? Win some games. Win your conference. Don’t lose to a bottom-feeder in January and then act shocked when you’re left out in March.

    Bubble teams getting snubbed actually fuels some of the best conversations in sports. It gives Selection Sunday real tension. If you let in everyone who’s close, the bubble loses all its drama, which makes up a good chunk of the fun.

    Do we really need to see the 10th-best team in a power conference sneak in with a 17–15 record? Do we want to reward .500 squads just because they play in big TV markets? That’s exactly what expansion would do.

    This season, for example, the bubble was as weak as we’ve seen in years. Yet somehow, historically strong programs like North Carolina still made the tournament, even though they stumbled to a 1–12 record in Quad 1 games, the very metric the selection committee claims to value most. Expansion wouldn’t raise the level of competition, it would just let in more underwhelming teams riding name recognition and conference clout. Instead of sharpening the field, it would water it down.

    Adding more teams dilutes the product. It rewards mediocrity. One of the best parts of March Madness is seeing a red-hot mid-major knock off a flawed major conference team. If we expand the field, we risk crowding out those mid-majors with more middle-of-the-road Power Five squads who had their chance and blew it.

    Let’s also talk about logistics. If you expand to 80 or 96 teams, how does the schedule even work? Are we adding more days? More play-in games? Cramming even more into an already-packed four-day opening weekend?

    Part of what makes the tournament so watchable is that it ends. The first weekend is a sprint, and by the time we get to the Final Four, we’re emotionally spent—in a good way. Stretch it out too long or add too many teams, and people start to tune out. That’s not good for anybody.

    At the end of the day, the push for expansion isn’t about the game. It’s about the money. More games mean more TV slots, more ad revenue, and more opportunities to squeeze dollars out of viewers and sponsors. But just because there’s more cash to grab doesn’t mean it’s better for the sport. In fact, it might hurt the product in the long term. If people start to feel like the tournament is just another cash grab, the magic wears off. And once you lose that magic, you don’t get it back.

    We’ve got a great thing going. A 68-team bracket that balances opportunity with exclusivity, madness with merit. It’s big enough to include surprises but small enough to make those surprises feel meaningful. Expanding the tournament won’t make March better. It’ll make it messier, longer, and less special. Sometimes, the best move is to leave a good thing alone.

    So, NCAA, if you’re listening, don’t mess with March. You’ve already got the best postseason event in American sports. No need to overthink it.

  • New Faces in Madison: Breaking Down the Badgers’ Transfer Trio

    By David Giardino

    After a rollercoaster 2024 campaign, the Wisconsin Badgers entered the offseason at a crossroads. In many ways, the team had turned a corner — reinventing its offensive identity and averaging over 80 points per game for the first time in recent memory. But despite the dramatic improvements on the offensive end, Wisconsin’s season came to an abrupt end with a second-round NCAA Tournament exit at the hands of BYU.

    The loss marked more than just the end of the season — it signaled the closing of a chapter. The Badgers were set to graduate three starters: leading scorer John Tonje, who provided much-needed shot creation and all-around play; Max Klesmit, the emotional heartbeat of the team and a 3 and D stalwart; and Steven Crowl, the versatile big man whose presence impacted both ends of the floor. Alongside them, veterans Carter Gilmore and Kamari McGhee — both key depth pieces — graduated, stripping the roster of experience.

    What was once one of the oldest teams in college basketball suddenly got a lot younger.

    Wisconsin, however, didn’t blink. With Tonje, Klesmit and McGhee all being successful transfer additions in the past, the blueprint was clear — rebuild through the portal. But before looking outward, the first task was retention. Within weeks of the season’s end, the staff locked in the team’s two most promising young stars: Nolan Winter, a stretch big with athletic upside and John Blackwell, a dynamic wing with scoring potential and a high motor. Add in the return of intriguing bench piece Jack Janicki, and the Badgers had their foundation.

    From there, the focus shifted. Wisconsin needed experience, versatility and scoring — and they turned to the portal to find it. What followed was a calculated effort to reshape the roster with three key additions who bring a mix of talent, maturity and upside.

    Wisconsin’s first move in the transfer portal wasn’t just about roster fit — it was about making a statement. By landing Andrew Rohde, a Madison native, the Badgers not only filled a key positional need but reclaimed one of the state’s most talented products. After initially slipping through the cracks out of high school, Rohde returns home with a well-developed skill set and the chance to make a major impact. Just as importantly, Wisconsin secured Rohde’s services by beating out Iowa State, a program that’s made a habit of poaching top Wisconsin talent in recent years.

    Rohde’s game is built around his shooting. He’s an elite-level marksman with a lightning-quick release, able to knock down shots off the catch, coming off movement, or pulling up off the dribble. On a team that thrived offensively last season by spacing the floor and hunting mismatches, Rohde’s shooting gravity is a perfect addition. He brings a similar offensive profile to the departing Max Klesmit, but with even more polish and scoring versatility.

    Beyond the jumper, Rohde brings a well-rounded offensive game. He’s comfortable operating in the pick-and-roll, shows solid decision-making as a secondary playmaker and has the size and craft to finish on both sides of the rim. He may not be an elite ball handler, but he doesn’t need to be — his ability to attack off closeouts, read help and keep the ball moving will mesh well with returning creators like John Blackwell and Nolan Winter.

    Defensively, Rohde likely won’t be asked to hound opposing guards the way Klesmit did. But having spent last season in Virginia’s system, he enters Madison with a strong understanding of team defense principles. Wisconsin, like Virginia, relies on communication, help-side awareness and positional discipline — and Rohde’s experience in a similarly demanding scheme should ease his transition. While he might not be an elite individual stopper, his buy-in and length will keep him serviceable on that end, especially in a system that doesn’t leave defenders on islands.

    Rohde represents both a present-day contributor and a symbolic win for the program. He fills a glaring need left by Klesmit’s departure, brings elite shooting to a team that just lost three starters and reclaims local talent that might have otherwise gone elsewhere. Whether he starts or plays a high-usage bench role, Rohde’s return to Madison gives the Badgers a reliable weapon heading into next season.

    Wisconsin’s frontcourt transformation took a modern turn with the addition of Austin Rapp, a 6’10” big man from the University of Portland. Rapp chose the Badgers over a push from Oregon, a win on the recruiting trail that reinforces Wisconsin’s growing appeal among top-tier portal talent. And with three years of eligibility remaining, he’s not just a short-term piece — he’s a player the staff can develop and integrate into the core of the next era.

    Rapp’s value is clear: he can really shoot the ball. At Portland, he took nearly eight threes per game as a freshman, a remarkable number for a player his size, knocking them down at a solid 35% clip. He was a true stretch five in the WCC, spacing the floor and forcing defenses to pick their poison on pick-and-pops. While it’s unlikely he’ll take that kind of volume in Madison, his shooting gravity will still be a major weapon, especially in a system that increasingly values pace and space.

    But Rapp isn’t just a standstill shooter. He moves fluidly for his size, can attack closeouts off the dribble and makes good decisions in space. Pairing him with Nolan Winter, who also brings perimeter skill and shooting touch, gives Wisconsin a pair of bigs who can both roll or pop, and both make plays on the move. It’s a versatile, modern frontcourt that should open up driving lanes and diversify the offense even further.

    The biggest question mark is on the defensive end. Rapp averaged 1.5 blocks per game last season and shows decent timing as a rim protector. But the WCC and the Big Ten are different animals. Rapp will need to adjust to a league where opposing forwards are stronger, faster and far more physical. He’ll likely start as a power forward, shifting to the five in certain lineups, and his ability to defend that 4 spot — from post-ups to switches — will determine how heavy his minutes can be.

    Still, the upside is clear. Rapp brings skill, floor spacing and long-term potential. If he can hold his own defensively and adapt to the speed and strength of Big Ten play, he could become a cornerstone piece for this new-look Wisconsin team.

    Wisconsin’s final major portal addition of the offseason came in the form of Nick Boyd. Boyd is a seasoned 5th-year senior who spent last season at San Diego State after starting his college career with two impactful years at Florida Atlantic, including a pivotal role in their run to the Final Four in 2023.

    Boyd’s commitment marked a major win on the recruiting trail — the Badgers beat out North Carolina for the combo guard, a strong signal that Wisconsin’s recent rise is resonating beyond the Big Ten. For a team that lost multiple starters and will be leaning on younger pieces this season, landing a veteran like Boyd, who’s played deep into March, brings needed maturity, toughness, and poise.

    On the court, Boyd is a lefty combo guard with the ability to both score and facilitate. His efficiency numbers won’t jump off the page, but his skill set fits exceptionally well in Greg Gard’s swing offense. Historically, Wisconsin’s offense can stall when players are forced to attack off screens going to their weak hand. But with Boyd and John Blackwell both capable of getting downhill with their dominant hands, the Badgers can now create multiple strong-side actions within one possession — something that will stress defenses more than in years past.

    Spacing will be key, and Boyd stands to benefit from it. With shooters like Rohde around him and a frontcourt that can pull defenders out of the paint, Boyd should have more clean looks than he’s ever had before. His crafty handle, strong first step and ability to finish with his left should translate well in an offense that’s built to flow and reset — especially with a defense already shifting.

    Defensively, Boyd does come with some limitations. At 6’3″, he’ll be one of the smaller guards on the floor in Big Ten play. But he competes on that end and brings a noticeable motor — the kind of veteran energy and grit that should mesh well with Wisconsin’s team-first defensive philosophy.

    For a team getting noticeably younger, Boyd is a crucial counterbalance. He’s played on the biggest stages, knows how to win close games and should bring stability and leadership to a retooled Badger backcourt. If he can shoot it at a respectable clip and stay aggressive downhill, he has a chance to be one of the more impactful late-offseason additions in the conference.

    With the additions of Boyd, Rohde and Rapp, the Badgers’ projected starting five looks just about set: Boyd, Blackwell, Rohde, Rapp and Winter give Wisconsin a versatile, high-IQ and offensively dynamic group. The pieces fit — multiple ball handlers, capable shooters and bigs who can both pop and roll — and for a team that averaged over 80 points per game last season, the bar for offensive production has officially been raised.

    But while the starting lineup may be settled, the depth chart still has major question marks. Veterans Kamari McGhee and Carter Gilmore graduated and forward Xavier Amos recently entered the portal. That leaves Jack Janicki and Zach Kinziger as the likely primary backup guards — a solid duo, but the frontcourt rotation is far from complete.

    What’s encouraging is the timing and tone of this offseason. All three portal additions committed early — well ahead of Wisconsin’s first portal get last year — which signals both increased NIL funding and a sense of urgency from Greg Gard and the program. With plenty of offseason still ahead, the expectation is that more moves are coming.

    The top priority remains adding a true center — an athletic, rim-running big who can protect the paint and finish above the rim. Ideally, that move would allow Rapp to shift into a sixth man role, where his shooting and offensive versatility could be even more dangerous against second units. The challenge is that the center market is top-heavy and Wisconsin may need to dig deep to find the right fit.

    If that kind of player doesn’t materialize, then the focus could shift toward finding a power forward capable of soaking up backup minutes at both big spots, allowing Rapp to slide to the 5 in smaller lineups. Either way, adding frontcourt depth is crucial for a team that will rely heavily on Winter and Rapp to anchor its defensive presence.

    Beyond that, there’s also a need for a defensive-minded wing — someone in the 3-4 positional range who can give them quality minutes off the bench and spell the starters in key matchups. Versatility and athleticism on the defensive end are still lacking in the second unit and addressing that would go a long way in raising this team’s ceiling.

    The Wisconsin men’s basketball program has clearly shifted its approach in recent years, and the 2024/2025 offseason marks a key turning point. With the additions of Nick Boyd, Andrew Rohde and Austin Rapp, the Badgers have brought in a blend of experience, versatility and offensive firepower that should make this team one of the most well-rounded in recent memory. The starting lineup is set and it’s built for both short-term success and long-term development, with Boyd’s leadership and Rohde’s shooting being immediate impact pieces.

    However, the job is far from finished. With some depth issues still to address, particularly in the frontcourt and at wing, the portal remains a crucial avenue for Gard to explore. Wisconsin is in a better position than ever to attract high-level talent, thanks to increased program funding and early commitment timelines. The next step is to find the right pieces to round out the roster — specifically a rim-protecting center and a more athletic wing — and if Gard can successfully address those needs, this team could be poised for a deep run come March.

    As the Badgers continue to build off last year’s offensive strides, this season offers the perfect opportunity for them to reclaim their place among the Big Ten’s elite. The future of Wisconsin basketball has never looked brighter, and with the strong foundation they’ve laid, it’s safe to say the program is heading in the right direction.

  • Why Do We Reward Foul Baiting?

    By Brandon Epstein

    Since when has acting become such a huge part of the NBA? Do fans enjoy watching SGA throw his head back every time he gets touched to try and bait the refs into calling a foul? What about when somebody breathes on Joel Embiid a little too hard and the 300-pounder all the sudden goes flying to the ground and chucks the ball up at the last second to get free throws. If this isn’t enough to get fans riled up, what about when Jalen Brunson catches a defender on his back and decides to do the classic stop dribbling and jump backwards while flailing your legs out into the defender to draw a foul? None of these moves are basketball moves and are just bullshit tactics to get the refs to blow their whistle.

    As more players are starting to use foul-baiting tactics to their advantage fans are becoming frustrated with the number of free throws in games. These free throws are due to foul-baiting and how much it slows the game down. Players used to have to earn their buckets, and when they got fouled, it was very obvious contact. Now, players will emphasize any slight contact to get a foul call, and this has to change.

    The NBA has stood against foul-baiting in the past, with the creation of a rule to counteract one of the most common ways players would foul-bait, known as “The Harden Rule”. James Harden was one of the best players in the NBA and pretty much created a new strategy where he would launch himself into nearby defenders to draw contact with them as he was shooting to draw a foul. This is the definition of foul baiting, as a player would normally never do this if they were trying to make the shot in the first place. The Harden Rule was implemented so that players could not lean into a defender or use unnatural or non-basketball moves to draw a foul. This rule has certainly helped with the foul-baiting issue, but players are still finding new ways to exploit the refs. The same superstars are constantly doing this to get to the free-throw line at an absurd rate.

    Not only has the foul baiting issue caused frustration to fans for constantly having “soft” foul calls by players flopping a but it has also slowed the game down tremendously. It is very boring for fans to watch the same players take free throws 20 times a game. 

    While the actual length of games has not increased that significantly, since the 2016-2017 season there has been an increase in stoppages. A major part of stoppages is due to more fouls being called, which gives fans the perception that the game has slowed down.

    The NBA has shown that it knows there is a foul-baiting issue and has commented on this matter in the past. Previous exploitations have resulted in rule changes that have bettered the game, it’s time for a change to address foul baiting as well.

  • Are NIL Deals Going to Ruin the “Purity” of High School Athletics?

    By Maddy Schuetz

    On April 25th, the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association held its annual meeting, with one of the largest and most controversial topics in high school sports up for a vote. The WIAA was once again discussing the Name, Image, and Likeness amendment, also known as NIL. Despite being shot down the first time around, the NIL amendment finally passed with an overwhelming vote of 293-108 from the member schools of the WIAA.

    Despite the vote passing, many people, including Jeremy Schlitz, are still under the belief that this amendment is harmful to high school athletics. The Madison Metropolitan School District Athletic Director, Schlitz, does not see many positives to bringing money into high school sports. “When we bring money and other private interests into education-based athletics, it kind of sullies the purity of education-based athletics,” Schlitz said. However, Schlitz, like most others who are against this amendment, may lack a concrete understanding of the new amendment. An amendment that is not as scary as Schiltz and others have made it out to be.

    The new NIL amendment has many precautions in place to ensure that many of the concerns from the first amendment proposal are addressed. Students who choose to partake in any NIL deals have restrictions on how they act and who they can work with. Student athletes can not enter into any NIL opportunities that are associated with their school, team, conference, or the WIAA. They can not wear their jersey or any school/team branding in their advertisements. Don’t worry, there won’t be any 16-year-olds supporting Busch Light in their high school football jersey. It is also prohibited for student athletes to work with industries relating to gambling, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, weapons, or any offensive subject matter. The WIAA has also addressed one of the biggest problems with NCAA NIL deals, the transfer portal. Specific athletic eligibility restrictions prohibit athletes from transferring for better NIL opportunities. These restrictions are in place not only to protect the student athletes, but also the schools that they play for.

    This amendment is expected to be implemented at the end of May. Coaches, athletic directors, parents, and fans are all on the edge of their seats waiting to see how this will impact high school athletes and athletics. Many are questioning the importance of this amendment as it will only drastically impact 1% of Wisconsin student athletes. Is it worth the risk of disrupting the current way high school sports operate? Although it may not have huge impacts on all athletes, the amendment provides an opportunity for student-athletes to make some money from their success. It also allows these athletes to familiarize themselves with the NIL process that they will experience if they choose to continue and play at the next level.

    Name, Image, and Likeness opportunities are the current way of sports, whether people like it or not. It is not a surprise that over 40 states have now implemented NIL opportunities at the high school level. The WIAA is still working to ensure that fairness, sportsmanship, and the integrity of the game are not lost. People should not be worried about losing the “purity” of high school athletics. They should instead be excited about the opportunities that this amendment provides for young student athletes across the state of Wisconsin. Is there really something so impure about 14-18-year-old student-athletes making money off their own name and image?

  • If the NCAA is Going to be Paying Athletes like Professionals, then they Should Start Treating them like Professionals 

    By Trey Kenas

    If there’s three guarantees in life, it’s death, taxes, and the NCAA struggling to ensure that their policies don’t contain loopholes. The newest example of the NCAA’s mishaps resides in the NIL landscape, where collegiate athletes are allowed to transfer schools as many times as they please, without repercussions. The NCAA must institute (minimally) 2-year contracts between players and their respective programs, as well as a one-time transfer rule, to eliminate the recklessness that is the transfer portal and take college sports away from becoming a bidding war.

    To gain some perspective on this matter, flashback to 2024, where in that year over 1,000 players in Division 1 alone were in the transfer portal. In the 2023/2024 college football season, the transfer portal saw over 11,000 players across all divisions put their names in. How are coaches able to handle this wild goat rodeo, all while focusing on their team in the present? The answer: They’re not.

    When asked about the current landscape of NIL and men’s college hoops on “The Swing” podcast, Wisconsin Men’s Basketball Head Coach Greg Gard said, “You are more of a CEO than you are a coach.” Gard followed this up by adding,“In regards to recruiting, you spend a lot of time future casting how your roster needs. We used to do it in three to four year snapshots… Now you’re looking at one-year snapshots.”

    While some coaches are attempting to manage the sails on the choppy waters, some coaches have opted to step away from the dance floor. Legendary coaches such as Alabama football’s Nick Saban, Virginia men’s basketball Tony Bennett, and Miami men’s basketball Jim Larranaga have left their respective games largely impart to the ever changing landscape.

    “The game and college athletics is not in a healthy spot”, Tony Bennett said, in an interview this past fall with Fox Sports. “I think I was equipped to do the job here the old way… Now I came to the realization that I can’t do this,” Bennett said.

    Saban and Larranaga both agreed that the game had changed, and they were not willing to stick it out. They believed the foundational pieces of what makes the college game so great have drifted away, and thus, the bidding war has begun.

    These coaches are correct. The game has changed, and in many cases not for the better. As a coach who is currently coaching at the high school level, it’s a grind like no other. The countless hours put in day in and day out, all for the tiny window of opportunity to do something special at the end of the season that only one team gets to celebrate. Adding in that extra element of paying players with no boundaries, with an already taxing and stressful job, coaches are left with a mountain in front of them that’s too steep to climb. Many collegiate coaches have stayed in college and not pursued the professional side of things, doing so largely impart to not having to deal with players and their monetary desires. So simply put, if we’re going to start paying athletes at the collegiate level like professionals, we must implement rules to start treating them like professionals.

    Enter in player contracts, where each player is required to sign a minimum two-year contract with their respective university. This contract can be for more than two-years, obviously with monetary compensation in play. However, within the contract they are allowed to leave the school during their contract to pursue further athletic endeavors on three occasions. One; that they are going to play professionally, and are going to be out of the college game for good. Two; one of the head or assistant coaches on staff left for another job. Three; there is a family matter that requires them to transfer back closer to home. This way, coaches aren’t dealing with as much turnover within the zoo that is the transfer portal, and players are treated at the same level of coaches. If they committed to something, they are required to stick it out, save the three exceptions.

    The final layer lies in the amount of times a player is allowed to transfer. This would be limited to a one-time transfer opportunity, to eliminate the number of players jumping town to chase the bag. Players make a commitment to a program and sometimes it doesn’t work out. It happens for whatever reason that may be. They are given a chance t for a fresh start. If they desire to transfer on any further occasions, they will be required to sit out a year in the process and therefore lose a year of eligibility. This regulation keeps players from continuing to leave school year after year in pursuit of a “better opportunity” when in reality they are seeing who can cut them the biggest check.

    Ultimately, collegiate athletes should be entitled to as much money as they are worth, however it shouldn’t be at the expense of coaches and programs having to rebuild their teams each year. By implementing these guidelines, players will be able to obtain financial compensation for their abilities, and coaches will be able to coach, not act as a CEO.

  • Why College Football Needs a Trade System Like the NFL

    By Bryan Sanborn

    College football has changed. Rivals and traditions still exist, but it’s becoming more and more like a business. NIL deals, conference realignment, and the explosion of the transfer portal have turned the sport into a chaotic marketplace. While player freedom is a good thing, the current transfer system is too unstructured to work long-term. That’s why it’s time for something bold: a trade system for college football. 

    Right now, the transfer portal looks a lot like NFL free agency, except with even fewer rules. Players can hop from school to school, often without sitting out, and schools lose talent without getting anything in return. Coaches are constantly re-recruiting their players, and fans must re-learn half the roster every offseason. It’s hard to build continuity when you’re never sure who’s sticking around. 

    A trading system wouldn’t stop players from transferring; it would add structure. 

    If a player at a Power Four school wants to leave, you should allow the school to try to trade to get someone in return. The player gets a new opportunity, and the school doesn’t lose out completely. 

    This isn’t about punishing players for transferring. It’s about giving schools a way to manage their rosters more effectively—and protect themselves from being gutted every December. Like in the NFL, trade deals could include added value beyond player-for-player swaps. NIL packages could be factored into negotiations, or academic perks could be part of the deal, like getting into a grad program. 

    People will argue that this would make college football “too professional,” but let’s not pretend it isn’t already. The money is massive, the coaching salaries are crazy, and the media deals are billions. The difference is that NFL teams have rules like contracts, salary caps, and trade deadlines that bring stability. College football is trying to play a pro-level game with backyard rules. 

    In 2022, Pitt lost star receiver Jordan Addison to USC via the portal. The move was legal, but Pitt got nothing in return. That’s a top player walking out the door with zero compensation. Under a trading system, maybe Pitt gets a starting player in return and some NIL consideration in exchange. The roster stays balanced, the player receives his move, and the sport avoids more offseason chaos. 

    Would there be kinks to work out? Absolutely. Compliance, academic eligibility, and power dynamics between big and small schools would need control. 

    However, the NCAA has shown it’s willing to change. We can figure out how to allow structured trades if we already have early signing periods, NIL collectives, and a 12-team playoff. Other sports, like college baseball, already have more transfer restrictions. Football can do this, too.

    The fans of these teams also want consistency from the players. They want to buy jerseys and know the player will be around for over one season. A trading system gives more transparency and could make the offseason more exciting. Imagine ESPN trade trackers in college football—deadline day drama, last-minute swaps, and strategic roster-building. It sounds wild, but so did NIL deals a few years ago.

    At the end of the day, college football is only going to get more unpredictable. With TV deals and player empowerment growing yearly, we need systems that protect the sport’s competitive balance. A trading system wouldn’t take away player rights—it would give players and schools more clarity, structure, and fairness. 

    It’s time for college football to start being like the NFL. A trading system won’t fix everything, but it’s a step toward construction in a sport that is getting crazier and crazier every day.

  • Greg Gard has his First Real Mind-boggling Portal Add, Leaving Fans Confused

    Cameron Wilhorn

    Just hours after landing a commitment from Lithuanian, big man Aleksas Bieliauskas, Greg Gard nabbed a pledge from Tulsa on Thursday, transfer Braeden Carrington.

    Carrington spent his first two collegiate seasons at Minnesota before transferring to Tulsa. He started in 19 of 29 appearances with the Golden Hurricanes and averaged 7.4 points, 4.8 rebounds, 1.7 assists and 1.1 steals across 26.8 minutes per game.

    The 6-foot-4 wing primarily plays off-ball and has shot 34.2 percent from the field and 30.5 percent from beyond the arc across his career. He’s slated to contend with Jack Janicki and incoming freshmen, Zach Kinzinger and Hayden Jones, for backcourt minutes off the bench. While there is no denying Carrington is a strong defender and provides plenty of effort, I have plenty of qualms with his fit in Madison.

    Before I dig into why I’m not sold on Carrington in Cardinal and White, I’d like to note it’s not meant to be a knock on the former Golden Gopher — I think he can provide value and is certainly a Big 10 caliber player.

    Braeden Carrington is a perplexing fit for the Wisconsin Badgers, but in Greg Gard we trust

    To begin, Carrington and Janicki’s strengths and weaknesses overlap far too much. Both are not only inefficient scorers and off-ball players, but are also solid rebounders and do many of the little things that can lead to victories.

    Who will be able to score or create for others off the bench? I don’t think there’s an answer. Perhaps Gard will keep one of Boyd, Blackwell, or Rohde on the floor for all 40 minutes. Or, maybe they expect one of Kinzinger or Jones to step into a key role early.

    Even if Carrington takes a step forward offensively — and there’s been no indication this will be the case — I don’t feel comfortable with the backcourt depth. Heck, I don’t feel comfortable with the depth at any position.

    Before Carrington’s commitment, Wisconsin had two open roster spots and plenty of question marks behind the anticipated starting lineup of Nick Boyd, John Blackwell, Andrew Rohde, Austin Rapp, and Nolan Winter. Unfortunately, the addition of Carrington has not erased any of those concerns.

    I doubt Gard would go 10 deep with this group, but that second unit would likely be Kinzinger, Carrington, Janicki, Bieliauskas, and Riccardo Greppi.

    Is that enough to compete in the Big 10? Or possibly make the second weekend of the NCAA Tournament? I’m not sure. 

    Considering Gard’s intent is to have only 13 scholarship players and two walk-ons, I don’t know if getting an instant impact player for the 15th roster spot is possible.

    At this point, it’s unclear if the Badgers’ final roster spot is for a walk-on or a scholarship. Isaac Gard is the only guaranteed walk-on and it’s possible Janicki hasn’t shed his walk-on status. If there isn’t a scholarship remaining, then I’m going to have to just have blind faith in Greg Gard, because I truly don’t see his vision.

  • Home Run Hype: New Torpedo Bats are Taking the MLB by Storm

    By Matt Kane

    With the start of the 2025 MLB season underway, the biggest story surrounding the sport is unsurprisingly centered around the New York Yankees and their newest invention – the torpedo bat.

    This so-called “torpedo bat” is taking the baseball world by storm early in the season, as several Yankees have decided to start hitting with these unusually shaped bats. 

    So, what makes a torpedo bat different from the standard MLB bat? Well, torpedo bats are unique in that, the thickest part of the bat barrel is closer to the handle than “normal”, creating a noticeable bowling-pin shape. 

    These torpedo bats are yet again another new addition to the MLB, further contributing to the League’s evolution over the past few years. Advancements such as the pitch clock and base runners in extra innings have made the game more watchable for the vast majority of fans. That being said, the recent increase in pressure on sports to prioritize viewership has caused a significant amount of buzz regarding torpedo bats and their legality and lifespan.

    Yankees’ team analyst, Aaron Learnhardt, is the mastermind behind these bats. Learnhardt is a former University of Michigan physics teacher with a Ph.d. from MIT. His past experiences, knowledge, and expertise in the field of science helped him craft these game-altering creations. The craziest part? These new bats technically stay within the rules of the game, with the rulebook stating that bats must conform within a 2.61 inch diameter. 

    Moreover, these bats are referred to as “torpedo bats” because they are designed with more mass towards the label, aka – the “sweet spot” of the bat, giving them a torpedo-like shape.

    The reason why torpedo bats have become so wildly popular is because of one team and one team only – the New York Yankees. 

    Over their first three games of the 2025 season, the Yankees knocked 15 balls over the fence, with nine of them being hit courtesy of a torpedo bat.

    Yankee center fielder, Jazz Chisholm, is among many on the team who are experimenting with the new design. As a result, Chisholm has already recorded four home runs and nine hits using the beefed-up bat. 

    While the torpedo bat feels like any ordinary bat, it also “gives you that extra confidence in your head to be able to go out there and hit anything,” Chisholm said.

    As someone who is typically on the opposing side to most rule changes, I want to hate the idea of these potential power bats. However, I ultimately believe that they will benefit the sport in the end.

    With other players around the League starting to test out the torpedo shape, such as Reds phenom Elly De La Cruz, it will be interesting to see how the MLB responds over the course of the season. 

    Overall, although it pains me and many others to see the Yankees off to a hot start, it is way too early to tell if their success in the Bronx is simply due to new tech in the dugout, or their strong team performance. 

    In the future, I am curious to see how pitchers will respond to the new bats. Nevertheless, for the time being, any publicity is good publicity for baseball and makes me excited to see how torpedo bats will further impact the game.