In a recent episode of "The Big Podcast with Shaq," Memphis men's basketball coach Penny Hardaway advocated for the establishment of a governing body to oversee Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals. His comments were driven by concerns over the volatility in college sports, where lucrative offers can lure top athletes away from their commitments.

Hardaway's perspective highlights a significant issue within the current collegiate athletic landscape. As he noted, donors and boosters are frustrated by the reality that a player they invest in can easily be swayed by a higher offer elsewhere. This “survival of the fittest” approach, as Hardaway described it, seems to be eroding the traditional values of loyalty and commitment in college sports.

However, this brings us to an interesting paradox. How different is this situation from when coaches leave an institution mid-contract for a better offer? Coaches, often seen as mentors and role models, frequently break their contracts to pursue more lucrative opportunities, setting a precedent that may very well trickle down to their players.

Coaches as Role Models: Teaching by Example

When a coach signs a contract with a college or university, there is an expectation of commitment and loyalty. Yet, it is not uncommon to see coaches leave for a more prestigious program or a more lucrative deal before their contract ends. This practice, while widely accepted in the professional realm, sends a mixed message to student-athletes.

If coaches prioritize career advancement and financial gain over loyalty and commitment, can we blame student-athletes for doing the same? The behavior exhibited by coaches in their career choices implicitly teaches athletes that it is acceptable to leave for a better opportunity. This learned behavior becomes evident in the way players handle their NIL opportunities.

The Call for Governance

Hardaway's call for a governing body to oversee NIL deals is rooted in a desire to restore some semblance of stability and fairness in college sports. He envisions a system where commitments are respected, and players are not constantly swayed by financial incentives. However, for this vision to be fully realized, the culture within coaching must also evolve.

Bridging the Gap

Creating a fair and balanced NIL governance system requires a multifaceted approach. Here are some steps that could be considered:

1. Standardized NIL Regulations: Implementing consistent rules across all institutions can help manage expectations and reduce the disparity caused by differing state laws and institutional policies.

2. Contractual Obligations: Both coaches and players should have clear contractual obligations regarding NIL deals, ensuring that commitments are honored and reducing the frequency of abrupt departures.

3. Education and Mentorship: Institutions should invest in educating both coaches and players about the long-term impacts of their decisions. Emphasizing values like loyalty and commitment can foster a healthier sports culture.

4. Transparency and Accountability: A governing body should ensure transparency in NIL deals and hold both players and coaches accountable for their commitments. This could involve penalties for breach of contract or incentives for honoring agreements.

Conclusion

Penny Hardaway's concerns about the current state of NIL in college sports are valid and reflect a need for structured governance. However, for any governance model to be effective, it must address the behavior and practices of both players and coaches. By promoting a culture of commitment and integrity from the top down, the collegiate sports world can navigate this new era of NIL with greater fairness and stability.

As we consider the future of NIL governance, it's crucial to remember that the lessons in loyalty and commitment start with the mentors. Coaches, as the primary role models for student-athletes, have a significant role to play in shaping the values and behaviors of the next generation.