Nearly a year ago, my co-editor, Micah Rodriguez, wrote an article which stated — correctly —  “NIL Has Changed March Madness for Good” (“The Oberlin Review,” April 4, 2025). An NIL deal, which stands for “Name, Image, and Likeness,” allows athletes to access monetized opportunities such as brand deals per the current legislation in their institution’s state. The deals have raised eyebrows since July 2021, when the policy was set in motion for all three NCAA divisions. 

Last year, it was clear to Rodriguez that March Madness wasn’t “mad” anymore. The death of the Cinderella story in college basketball and the disappointing Final Four lineup — which saw four No. 1 seeds advance to the semi-finals for only the second time in tournament history — showcased the damning effects of NIL in a spectator sport. This year, NIL madness has escalated to a new pitch, with much more complex issues to deal with. Yet another player contends that he can return from the pros to attend college — all while taking advantage of NIL opportunities. 

This year, the NCAA is facing intense legal action as both NBA players and draft picks from previous years attempt to regain NCAA eligibility and take advantage of NIL opportunities. According to major news sources, former UCLA Bruins men’s basketball guard Amari Bailey will explore what seems to be an impossible return to college sports, countering current NCAA bylaws with legal action in hopes it will allow him to return to collegiate athletics in a NIL climate. 

Bailey, who has logged NBA minutes with the Charlotte Hornets after being picked in the second round of the 2023 draft, is attempting to cross one of the NCAA’s most basic lines: after a player has debuted in the NBA, they may not attempt to regain NCAA eligibility. This attempt comes in the wake of the unsuccessful Charles Bediako lawsuit and the controversial addition of the No. 31 overall pick in the 2023 draft, James Nnaji, to the Baylor men’s basketball roster.

The line between college and pro players has been thinning. On Dec. 30, 2025, in response to Nnaji’s college basketball debut after spending a couple seasons playing in European pro leagues, President of the NCAA Charlie Baker made a statement. 

“The NCAA has not and will not grant eligibility to any prospective or returning student-athletes who have signed an NBA contract, including a two-way contract,” Baker said.

Nnaji had been drafted by the Detroit Pistons and later traded to both the Charlotte Hornets and the New York Knicks but never logged NBA minutes and was not under contract at the time of his return, placing him in a liminal space that drew criticism from many Big Ten coaches. 

Bailey’s attempt is even more surprising, as it comes less than a month after a similar case made headlines when Judge James Roberts recused himself from presiding over the Charles Bediako lawsuit, in which he also attempted — and failed — to sue the NCAA in an attempt to regain college eligibility. 

There is no gray area in the NCAA’s bylaws. If you have stepped onto an NBA court, you no longer possess NCAA eligibility. So why is Bailey still attempting this unprecedented move? The difference between Bailey’s ten games and relatively small number of logged minutes versus Nnaji’s status as an unsigned draft pick might look minimal to the casual observer. However, in a courtroom, and for the future of the NCAA, this distinction will be critical to determining the trajectory of college basketball and sports as a whole. 

The reason Bailey might attempt this change is purely fiscal. He argues that he will only make about as much through NIL as his rookie contract, which according to him was $565,000. This is a shortsighted and misleading remark. 

If Bailey wins the lawsuit, he will become not only the first NBA player, but the first professional athlete in history to return to the NCAA. That would boost his publicity exponentially and subsequently impact his NIL earning potential by generating demand and novelty. His NIL valuation would skyrocket not only due to on-court performance, but because he would become a walking headline as a symbol of the NCAA’s drastically changing attitude.

This reality is precisely why the NCAA’s next move will be critical. If Bailey somehow wins this suit, NBA players, G League contributors, and a much greater number of overseas professionals might view a return to college as a strategic rebrand with mass appeal: an opportunity to rebuild draft stock while capitalizing on NIL collectives. College basketball would no longer be a proving ground for future pros; it would become a revolving door. 

From here, it will be the NCAA’s job to respond conservatively, not only to protect what little is left of the integrity of American college basketball, but to protect the overall appeal of college basketball, its developmental identity, and the novelty that fuels March Madness. Rodriguez was right: NIL has changed March Madness for good. What once seemed like a debate over endorsements has whittled away the distinction between amateur and professional basketball, and it will be up to the NCAA to preserve this final safeguard against a wholesale sellout of college athletics.