Stephen A. Smith Is Very Worried About the Future of College Hoops After This Year’s Sweet 16
As the 2025 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament heads into its final rounds, it’s not just the teams left on the court that have been drawing attention. Stephen A. Smith, ESPN’s outspoken commentator and former player, has made his voice heard loud and clear about the state of college basketball following this year’s Sweet 16. The famed sports analyst, known for his passionate and sometimes controversial opinions, has expressed grave concern about the direction college hoops is heading.
While March Madness is typically a time of celebration for college basketball, with exciting games, buzzer-beaters, and emerging stars, this year, Smith’s worries have taken center stage. Smith, whose comments often reflect broader trends he sees in sports, has voiced concerns about the future of the game amid the ongoing changes in college basketball, including the growing influence of the transfer portal, the shift in recruiting dynamics, and the potential long-term effects of NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) deals.
A Shift in the Game
For decades, the NCAA tournament has been one of the most revered and unpredictable spectacles in American sports. However, Smith believes that the college basketball landscape is undergoing a transformation that could fundamentally alter the game as fans know it. He attributes much of this concern to the changing nature of how teams are built, how players enter the system, and how the business of college basketball is now more of a financial endeavor than ever before.
A major issue Smith points to is the increasing dominance of the transfer portal. What was once a tool for players to seek better opportunities has now evolved into a revolving door that some argue distorts the competitive balance of college basketball. This year’s Sweet 16 saw several teams filled with transfer portal players, some of whom have only been with their current teams for a few months.
“The whole point of college basketball is about developing players, building chemistry, and letting them grow as individuals and teammates. But now? Players are jumping from program to program, and that chemistry is suffering,” Smith said during a recent broadcast. He pointed to the fact that programs are no longer developing talent over time. Instead, they’re filling roster spots with players from other schools, potentially sacrificing the culture and continuity that college sports have historically provided.
This sentiment reflects a broader trend in college athletics, where the emphasis on “instant success” can overshadow the traditional role of college programs as developmental systems for young athletes. The quick turnaround has led to an imbalance in roster construction, making it harder for programs to maintain consistent success. For example, teams that have historically built their programs through high school recruiting and player development are now finding it more challenging to compete with programs that have embraced a “win-now” approach through the portal.
NIL: The New Wild West
Another significant factor contributing to Stephen A. Smith’s concerns about the future of college basketball is the rise of NIL deals. Since NIL rules were implemented, athletes in college sports have been able to profit from their name, image, and likeness. While this has been hailed as a victory for players, especially those who have long been underpaid for their athletic contributions, Smith argues that the impact of NIL could ultimately undermine the spirit of college sports.
“Let’s be clear,” Smith remarked, “NIL isn’t just about allowing players to make money. It’s about the influence of agents, boosters, and big-money programs that are now able to sway recruits with offers that have nothing to do with playing basketball or being a student-athlete.”
In Smith’s view, NIL deals have transformed college basketball into a more business-oriented venture, where schools with deep pockets can outbid one another for top recruits. This shift could lead to further inequality among programs, with smaller schools struggling to compete against the big-name programs that can afford to offer larger NIL incentives. Furthermore, Smith has pointed out that some players may now prioritize monetary gains over education and development, further changing the culture of college hoops.
“The integrity of the game is at risk,” Smith continued. “Players should want to go to college to improve their game, develop skills, and prepare for the next level. But now, too many of them are looking at it as a business transaction, and that’s troubling.”
The Decline of Traditional Programs
In addition to the portal and NIL, Smith is also concerned about how these changes are affecting the traditional powerhouses of college basketball. While teams like Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, and North Carolina have long been dominant in recruiting and tournament play, the landscape has shifted. Now, mid-major programs and teams that have historically been less successful are finding new avenues to compete, largely due to the flexibility offered by the transfer portal and the availability of star-level talent willing to join these programs.
While this democratization of talent might seem like a positive for the sport, Stephen A. Smith sees it as a potential issue. He argues that if every program is operating under a similar model—relying on one-and-done players, transfers, or immediate gratification—then there’s little room for the sustained success of traditional programs built on continuity, developing players over time, and long-term team culture.
“We’ve seen it in the past few years,” Smith explained. “Programs that traditionally dominated, like Kentucky or Duke, are no longer the automatic powerhouses. You’ve got teams like Miami and Auburn, who don’t have the same tradition, but are thriving because they’ve adapted to this new era faster.”
Smith’s concern is that with so much movement in and out of programs, we could be seeing the end of the era where college basketball teams consistently build identity and culture over the course of multiple seasons. The Sweet 16, a round typically dominated by well-established programs, saw a mix of familiar names and new faces—illustrating the shifting dynamics of the sport.
“We’re at a crossroads,” Smith continued. “The talent pool is diluted, and the game is starting to lose what made it so special—the connection to the players, the schools, and the fans. College basketball is now looking more like free agency every year, and that’s dangerous for the future of the sport.”
The Role of Coaches and Development
One of the hallmarks of successful college basketball programs has always been the strength of their coaching staff. Over the years, legends like Mike Krzyzewski, John Calipari, Bill Self, and Roy Williams have shaped the college basketball landscape, not just by winning championships, but by developing players and helping them mature both on and off the court. However, as Smith has pointed out, the rapid turnover of players due to the transfer portal and the increased influence of NIL deals is eroding the ability of coaches to nurture and develop talent in the way they once did.
“Coaching is no longer about development,” Smith said. “It’s about getting results right away. The focus is shifting to recruiting the right transfers, convincing high school players to come for a year, and putting together a roster that can compete now. There’s less emphasis on player growth and teaching them the game.”
This shift has also made it harder for mid-major programs to compete, as many coaches at smaller schools don’t have the resources or influence to offer NIL deals or aggressively pursue transfers. The result, according to Smith, is that smaller schools are being left behind as they try to build sustainable programs. The days of finding diamonds in the rough—like Gonzaga’s rise or Wichita State’s success—might soon be over, he worries.
A Call to Action
Stephen A. Smith’s concerns about the future of college basketball are not just critiques but a call for reflection and action. As the NCAA continues to evolve, it will need to address the growing influence of the transfer portal, the changing nature of recruitment, and the potentially damaging effects of NIL deals. While these developments have undeniably created new opportunities for players, they’ve also changed the very fabric of college hoops.
“If the NCAA doesn’t step in and find a balance, we could be looking at a future where college basketball no longer feels like the college game we grew up with,” Smith warned.
For fans, coaches, and administrators, the Sweet 16 may be a time to celebrate the triumphs of the players on the court, but it also offers a moment of reflection on the direction college basketball is headed. The stakes have never been higher, and Stephen A. Smith’s warnings serve as a reminder that the future of the sport could look vastly different unless the right steps are taken to preserve its traditions and integrity.
As college basketball faces these existential challenges, it will be up to the sport’s leaders to decide what kind of game they want to build for the next generation of athletes and fans. Will they return to the roots of player development and team continuity, or will they continue down a path where financial incentives and short-term success reign supreme? The future of college hoops depends on the decisions made today.