SAN ANTONIO – The NABC held its annual meeting of Division I head coaches on Friday at the NABC Convention, offering coaches from the across the country the opportunity to voice perspective on issues impacting the sport.
Below are key takeaways from the meeting.
Coaches vs. Cancer
Illinois coach Brad Underwood, who chairs the Coaches vs. Cancer Council, highlighted the impact coaches continue to make in the fight against cancer. Now in its third decade, Coaches vs. Cancer is nearing $200 million raised for cancer patients and support programs.
NCAA Basketball Issues
With senior NCAA leaders in attendance, coaches voiced a variety of perspectives regarding the ongoing review of potential expansion of the NCAA Tournament. Coaches also provided feedback to the NCAA on a recent Men’s Basketball Oversight proposal that would change the number of permissible games and adjust multi-team event rules for the 2026-27 season.
Coaches raised concern to NCAA leadership that while Division I men’s basketball remains the primary revenue source for the NCAA, those revenues are often not invested back into growing the sport. And coaches added input on the state-of-play and potential playing rules adjustments heading into a rule change year.
NCAA Legislative Issues
Coaches expressed to NCAA leaders the need for a collaborative relationship between the NCAA and NABC, but raised concern that coach feedback is often not valued as significant legislative and policy adjustments take shape at the national level.
Coaches received an update from the NCAA on NCAA-led engagement with elected officials. Coaches stressed that the NCAA’s pursuit of federal action on college sports must balance appropriate flexibility and accommodations for athletes with basic program needs and the game’s overall wellbeing.
Lastly, coaches shared feedback and practical advice with colleagues on how programs are preparing to navigate the revenue-sharing structure of the potential post-House settlement era in college sports. Coaches noted that many details on the potential post-House revenue-sharing and NIL model – specifically those regarding the third-party process for evaluating fair market value of NIL deals – remain a significant unknown for coaches and their programs.
