Go to On3 Home

About On3AboutAdvertisersCareersContact

SupportCustomer ServicePrivacy PolicyChildren’s Privacy PolicyTerms of Service

On3 ConnectTwitterFacebookInstagram

Publishing Data Powered bySpiny AI

The On3 App for college sports fans:

© 2025 On3 Media, Inc. All rights reserved. On3 is a registered trademark of On3 Media, Inc.

Seyfarth Synopsis: The proposed House v. NCAA settlement introduces a first-of-its-kind enforcement regime for college athlete compensation, shifting oversight from the NCAA to the power conferences. It establishes a 12-factor fair market value review—administered by Deloitte—for third-party NIL deals over $600, with binding arbitration available to resolve disputes. While school-funded revenue sharing is subject to separate oversight, the framework reflects a blueprint for how compliance in college sports may evolve.

The proposed settlement in House v. NCAA, currently pending before Judge Claudia Wilken in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, marks a potential sea change in college sports. The plaintiffs challenge the NCAA’s and power conferences’ historical restrictions on both athlete NIL earnings and athletic revenue sharing, seeking damages and structural reform. The settlement outlines billions in potential backpay for athletes and proposes a new revenue-sharing model that would allow schools to pay up to approximately $20 million annually directly to athletes. Whether the court grants approval or the case proceeds to trial, House is reshaping how schools, conferences, and athletes prepare for the future of college athlete compensation.

The enforcement and oversight structure set forth in the current version of the settlement reveals a radical departure from business as usual in college sports—and a glimpse into what the future may look like.

Power Conferences Take the Helm: A Decentralized Enforcement Model

Unlike traditional NCAA regulations, the House settlement will not be enforced by the NCAA itself. Instead, the task of overseeing compliance will fall to the five power conferences—the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), the Big Ten Conference, the Big 12 Conference, the Pac-12 Conference, and the Southeastern Conference (SEC)—through a newly created Settlement Enforcement Committee. This committee will be responsible for implementing the agreement’s prospective terms, including:

• A cap of approximately $20 million per year, per school, on direct, school-funded athlete compensation under the settlement’s revenue-sharing model;
• A regulatory structure for third-party NIL agreements;
• Periodic reporting and compliance certifications.

This marks a significant shift from centralized rulemaking to a decentralized, conference-driven enforcement model. It reflects growing skepticism of the NCAA’s role and recognition that member institutions may be better equipped—or at least more politically willing—to oversee this new compensation regime.

Deloitte’s NIL Clearinghouse: The 12-Factor FMV Review

To ensure that NIL payments made by third parties (e.g., collectives, brands, or boosters) are not used to circumvent the cap or mask pay-for-play schemes, the settlement introduces a detailed fair market value (FMV) review process for all third-party NIL deals valued over $600 (note, institutionally-provided revenue sharing through the House settlement will be reported by the institution through a different process.) This FMV review process of third-party NIL deals valued over $600 will be administered by Deloitte, serving as the independent NIL Clearinghouse.

Deloitte will evaluate third-party NIL deals using a 12-factor analysis, including:

1. Athlete’s individual marketability and social media reach
2. Athletic performance and public profile
3. Type and scope of deliverables (appearances, content, etc.)
4. Geographic market size and demand
5. Deal duration
6. Exclusivity clauses
7. Renewability or extension terms
8. Comparable market benchmarks
9. Involvement of donors or booster entities
10. Timing of the deal (relative to recruiting, transfers, etc.)
11. Quality and completeness of documentation
12. Red flags suggesting illegitimacy or inducement

Each deal will be reviewed to assess whether the compensation reasonably aligns with what the athlete could command in an open and competitive market.

When There’s a Dispute: Arbitration as the Final Word

If Deloitte determines that a third-party NIL deal does not reflect FMV under the settlement’s 12-factor analysis, the athlete, the payor (e.g., collective or brand), or the institution may dispute that finding through independent arbitration. This arbitration process is designed to resolve FMV disputes efficiently and confidentially, outside the NCAA’s traditional penalty structure or formal litigation.

The arbitrator’s role will not be to renegotiate deals, but rather to decide whether the rejected NIL agreement in fact complies with the FMV standards established by the House settlement. The arbitrator’s decision will be final and binding.

While this provides a path for challenging Deloitte’s determinations, it also introduces potential friction: athletes and payors must weigh the time and cost of contesting a valuation, particularly during sensitive periods such as recruiting, eligibility certification, or transfer windows.

Why This Matters: Compliance Risk, Athlete Autonomy, and Market Friction

The implications are sweeping. For schools, the new framework demands robust internal NIL compliance systems that can communicate with Deloitte, assist athletes with documentation, and remain in compliance with the remaining terms of the House settlement (assuming it is approved), including the institution’s own reporting requirements.

For athletes, the marketplace becomes more formalized—and more scrutinized. Deals that might have quietly proceeded under the old system will now be subject to documentation requirements and FMV reviews.

For third-party payors, including donor-funded collectives, this will be the first time that NIL transactions have faced compliance pressures. The combination of FMV scrutiny and the possibility of binding arbitration may deter high-dollar or loosely structured deals—especially those with timing or terms that raise red flags related to recruitment or inducement.

Finally, the Settlement Enforcement Committee, composed of representatives from the five power conferences, replaces the NCAA as the primary compliance body. How consistently and aggressively this committee enforces the rules remains to be seen—and will likely vary across conferences with different institutional priorities, resources, and cultures.

Looking Ahead: Contingent Compliance Amid Judicial Review

The entire system hinges on final court approval, which is not yet assured. Still, institutions are moving forward as if the framework will be approved—drafting policies, establishing compliance infrastructure, and preparing for a post-House landscape. For now, the best approach is proactive: prepare as if implementation is coming, while keeping a close eye on the court’s ruling.

Why This Matters: Compliance Obligations and Strategic Decisions for Schools

If approved, the member institutions in the Power 5 conferences—the ACC, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference, and SEC—will be automatically bound by the House settlement terms and must prepare now for the rollout of capped revenue-sharing, Deloitte’s FMV reviews, and the associated arbitration framework.

For other Division I institutions, the decision is more complex: they have until June 15, 2025 to choose whether to opt into the settlement to access its liability shield and participate in the revenue-sharing structure. But opting in also brings the same compliance responsibilities—and potential costs. Schools weighing that choice must evaluate whether the long-term exposure of continued litigation outweighs the administrative and financial demands of settlement participation.

In either case, schools should begin building internal NIL review infrastructure, aligning legal and compliance teams, and preparing for a more formalized athlete compensation environment. Even before final approval, the settlement is setting new expectations—and competitive standards—for how institutions engage with NIL and revenue sharing.

With the NBA draft lottery (hello, Dallas Mavericks) and draft combine over, teams and prospects now turn their attention to pro days and mostly private workouts where even more impressions are made.

Those impressions lead to decisions at the June 25-26 NBA draft. Maybe it makes the difference between getting selected 16th or 13th.

Also, per NCAA rules, underclassmen have until Wednesday, May 28, to withdraw from the draft and retain NCAA eligibility. Among potential first-round picks who are weighing the decision to remain in the draft or return to college are Alex Condon, who won a title with Florida in April; Tahaad Pettiford, who helped Auburn reach the Final Four; and Yaxel Lendeborg, who played for UAB in 2024-25 but has pledged to play at Michigan next season if he returns to college.

MORE: NIL is giving college basketball players the power. Should the NBA draft wait?

MORE: Why Cooper Flagg was ‘surprised’ when Mavericks got No. 1 pick in NBA draft

Here’s a look at USA TODAY’s post-combine NBA mock draft:

(Age listed is age at time of the draft; for U.S. college players, height (without shoes) and weight taken at NBA draft combine)

2025 NBA mock draft

1. Dallas Mavericks: Cooper Flagg, Duke

• Freshman, guard-forward, 6-7¾ , 221, 18 years old
• 2024-25 stats: 19.2 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 4.2 apg, 1.4 spg, 1.4 bpg, 48.1% FG, 38.5% 3PT, 84% FT

The do-it-all young star led the Blue Devils in scoring, rebounding, assists and steals. Flagg has outstanding footwork, especially in the low post. He can use either hand on shots in the paint, knows how to run plays, can hit catch-and-shoot 3s and is an active weakside defender. Flagg, who added more muscle since the start of the year, is a physical player who initiates contact, is confident and plays with force when necessary. He led Duke to an impressive season, which includes the ACC regular-season title, ACC tournament title and Final Four appearance. He had 30 points, seven assists and six rebounds in a regional semifinal victory against Arizona and 16 points and nine rebounds in a regional final against Alabama. Flagg had 27 points, seven rebounds, three blocks and two steals in a Final Four loss to Houston.

2. San Antonio Spurs: Dylan Harper, Rutgers

• Freshman, guard, 6-4½ , 213, 19
• 2024-25 stats: 19.4 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 4.0 apg, 1.4 spg, 48.4% FG, 33.3% 3PT, 75% FT

The lefty stroke will remind some of Jalen Brunson, but Harper has far more size at 6-6 and tremendous length with a wingspan of 6-foot-10. Harper’s best asset at the next level might be his versatility to run point and play off the ball. In Rutgers’ lone Big Ten tournament game, Harper had 27 points (9-for-21 shooting), eight rebounds, eight assists, two steals and two blocks in a double-overtime loss to Southern California.

3. Philadelphia 76ers: Ace Bailey, Rutgers

• Freshman, guard-forward, 6-7½ , 202, 18
• 2024-25 stats: 17.6 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 1.3 apg, 1.3 bpg, 46% FG, 34.6% 3PT, 69.2% FT

Bailey is a hyper-athletic wing with length and size coming into a league that prioritizes players built exactly the way he is with exactly the skill set he has: an effortless and reliable shot and an attack-first mentality with an ability to finish at the rim. Needs to improve as a playmaker on the pass and free throws. But even when offense isn’t easy, he remains active on defense. He had 17 points, seven rebounds, three steals and one block in season-ending loss to USC.

4. Charlotte Hornets: VJ Edgecombe, Baylor

• Freshman, guard, 6-4, 193, 19
• 2024-25 stats: 15.0 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.1 spg, 43.6% FG, 34% 3PT, 78.2% FT

The Bahamian native has displayed his athleticism, has shown he can be explosive and has an elite knack for steals. He will be able to contribute at the NBA level and can be aggressive at the point of attack. The freshman is a high-level off-ball scorer but can improve when it comes to on-ball scoring. Edgecombe logged significant minutes at the end of the season. He had 16 points, six rebounds and one steal in a NCAA Tournament second-round loss to Duke.

5. Utah Jazz: Tre Johnson, Texas

• Freshman, guard, 6-4¾, 190, 19
• 2024-25 stats: 19.9 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 2.7 apg, 42.7% FG, 39.7% 3PT, 87.1% FT

Johnson is a natural shooter and scorer. He does well when scoring on the move and is a decent playmaker for his size. He still needs to work on his ability to make plays for others. He must also work on his strength and his explosiveness in order to assert himself as a finisher at the rim. He had three 30-point games in the past two months, including 39 against Arkansas on Feb. 26. He had 23 points and six rebounds in an NCAA Tournament loss to Xavier.

6. Washington Wizards: Jeremiah Fears, Oklahoma

• Freshman, guard, 6-2½, 180, 18
• 2024-25 stats: 17.1 ppg, 4.1 apg, 4.1 rpg, 1.6 spg, 43.4% FG, 28.4% 3PT, 85.1% FT

Solid start to his freshman season; quick on the dribble; has strength going to the rim and can finish; operates well in the pick-and-roll as a scorer and passer; needs to improve his 3-point shot but potential is there. Fears scored a season-high 31 points and added five assists and four rebounds in a win against ranked Missouri. Fears had a strong SEC tournament, producing 29 points, six rebounds and five steals plus five turnovers in a victory against Georgia and 28 points, five assists, four rebounds and three steals (just one turnover) in a loss to Kentucky. He generated 20 points, five rebounds and four assists in a NCAA Tournament first-round loss to UConn.

7. New Orleans Pelicans: Kon Knueppel, Duke

• Freshman, guard-forward, 6-5, 219, 19
• 2024-25 stats: 14.4 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 2.7 apg, 47.9% FG, 40.6% 3PT, 91.4% FT

He can ignite an offense with his 3-point shot, thanks to an efficient motion, seemingly always ready to receive the ball in his shooting pocket. He can also lace shots from midrange, take care of the ball and is money on free throws. In the ACC tournament, Knueppel averaged 21 points (28 against Georgia Tech) and shot 48.6% from the field, stepping up with Flagg injured. He averaged 20.5 points and shot 11-for-22 from the field (4-for-6 on 3s) in two regional games. He had 21 points, five rebounds and five assists in an Elite Eight victory against Alabama, and 16 points and seven rebounds in a Final Four loss to Houston.

8. Brooklyn Nets: Khaman Maluach, Duke

• Freshman, center, 7-0½, 253, 18
• 2024-25 stats: 8.6 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.3 bpg, 71.2% FG, 76.6% FT

Playing about 20 minutes per game, Maluach is a mobile big who excels in pick-and-rolls and has the hands to catch lobs for easy dunks; soft touch at the rim; shot-blocker/rim protector; active on the offensive glass; will get stronger and has a great aptitude for the game, learning concepts quickly. In four NCAA Tournament games, Maluach, who played for South Sudan at the 2024 Paris Olympics, averages 11.5 points, 4.2 rebounds, 2.0 blocks and shoots 86.9% from the field (20-for-23) and had 14 points and nine rebounds in Elite Eight victory against Alabama. He struggled to make an impact in the Final Four loss to Houston with just six points and no rebounds.

9. Toronto Raptors: Kasparas Jakucionis, Illinois

• Freshman, guard, 6-4¾, 205, 19
• 2024-25 stats: 15.0 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 4.7 apg, 44% FG, 31.8% 3PT, 84.5% FT

Jakucionis is a playmaker – a scorer and passer. He has range with a nice 3-ball, can shoot off the dribble from deep, including on step-back 3s, and looks for an open teammate when he draws multiple defenders. Jakucionis sees the court well with savvy passes and likes to get to the rim for layups. But he can be turnover-prone. He struggled offensively at the end of the season, shooting 32.5% from the field and committing 24 turnovers in the final four games. He had 16 points, 10 assists and nine rebounds in a first-round NCAA Tournament victory against Xavier.

10. Houston Rockets: Collin Murray-Boyles, South Carolina

• Sophomore, forward, 6-6½, 239, 20
• 2024-25 stats: 16.8 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 2.4 agp, 1.5 spg, 1.3 bpg, 58.6% FG, 26.5% 3PT, 70.7% FT

Although he’s a bit undersized for a power forward, Murray-Boyles plays with intense effort and determination, which will very quickly please his NBA coaches. He also has plenty of strength to finish at the rim and was the SEC’s No. 3 rebounder. Murray-Boyles had 35 points and seven rebounds against Arkansas late in the regular season and had 20 points and 12 rebounds in a loss to Arkansas in the SEC tournament.

11. Portland Trail Blazers: Derik Queen, Maryland

• Freshman, center, 6-9¼, 248, 20
• 2024-25 stats: 16.5 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 1.9 apg, 1.1 spg, 1.1 bpg, 52.6% FG, 76.6% FT

An active, physical big man, Queen has a soft touch around the rim with either hand but has a power game, too. He can run the court and handle the basketball well for a power forward-center. He is another potential first-round pick with good hands and footwork and has the mechanics to become a shooter who can stretch the floor. Queen had 27 points, five rebounds and two steals in a Sweet 16 loss to eventual champion Florida.

12. Chicago Bulls: Noa Essengue, Ratiopharm Ulm (Germany)

• Forward, 6-10, 198, 18
• 2024-25 stats: 10.8 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 1.1 apg, 51.6% FG, 27% 3PT, 70.5% FT

The next forward with elite finishing ability to come out of France, Essengue figures to be more of a developmental prospect, but his size, instincts at the rim and plus-defensive ability could make him a star if he bulks up.

13. Atlanta Hawks: Egor Demin, BYU

• Freshman, forward, 6-8¼, 199, 19
• 2024-25 stats: 10.3 ppg, 5.4 apg, 3.8 rpg, 1.2 spg, 41% FG, 27.1% 3PT, 67.5% FT

The Russian is a playmaker who can make quick decisions and facilitate for others. Demin is the size of a wing player but has guard-like skills. On defense, he uses his length to his advantage while forcing turnovers and being active in passing lanes. His shooting efficiency is a concern. Demin had difficulty with his offense as the season progressed. He had just three points with four turnovers, three assists and three rebounds in a Big 12 conference tournament victory against Iowa State and six points on 2-for-9 shooting (1-for-7 on 3s) with four assists and five turnovers in a conference tournament loss to Houston. In three NCAA tournament games, he averaged 13.7 points, 5.7 assists and 4.7 rebounds and was 15-for-35 from the field.

14. San Antonio Spurs: Carter Bryant, Arizona

• Freshman, forward, 6-6½, 215, 19
• 2024-25 stats: 6.5 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 1.0 apg, 1.0 bpg, 46% FG, 37.1% 3PT, 69.5% FT

The athletic forward provides a solid combination of strength and fluidity. He has lateral quickness to stay in front of the ball and the ability to block shots. He can still improve on his technique as a finisher and in scoring efficiency. He will get an increased opportunity to impress scouts and executives at the draft combine if he enters the draft. Bryant scored 12 points and collected five rebounds and three blocks in 20 minutes in a victory against Akron in the NCAA Tournament.

15. Oklahoma City Thunder: Asa Newell, Georgia

• Freshman, forward, 6-9, 224, 19
• 2024-25 stats: 15.4 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 1.0 spg, 1.0 bpg, 54.3% FG, 29.2% 3PT, 74.8% FT

Based off of his size, Newell wouldn’t appear to be as quick and fluid as he is, which should make him an instant threat in pick-and-roll situations. He was one of the lone bright spots for the Bulldogs in a loss against No. 1 Auburn with a team-high 20 points. His scoring dipped at the end of the regular season, however, he had 20 points and eight rebounds in a first-round NCAA Tournament loss to Gonzaga.

16. Orlando Magic: Jase Richardson, Michigan State

• Freshman, guard, 6-0½, 178, 19
• 2024-25 stats: 12.1 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 1.9 apg, 49.3% FG, 41.2% 3PT, 83.6% FT

Richardson improved as the season progressed and turned into the Spartans’ steady hand with the basketball as a shooter (inside and out) and facilitator. He is an active defender with surprising bouts of athleticism. He also has a knack for collecting rebounds, big plays and poise under pressure. He had an up-and-down NCAA Tournament in four games – 5-for-11 shooting and 15 points against Bryant, 1-for-10 shooting against New Mexico, 20 points on 6-for-8 shooting against Ole Miss, and 4-for-13 shooting against Auburn.

17. Minnesota Timberwolves: Danny Wolf, Michigan

• Junior, forward-center, 6-10½, 252, 21
• 2024-25 stats: 13.2 ppg, 9.7 rpg, 3.6 apg, 1.4 bpg, 49.7% FG, 33.6% 3PT, 59.4% FT

The Yale transfer is shooting up draft boards thanks to his fluid scoring and play-making portfolio in the package of a 7-foot stretch big. Wolf played point guard at times this season for the Wolverines just like he played center. His handles make him a threat as the initiator in pick-and-roll actions and his range should translate to the NBA. Wolf had 21 points and 14 rebounds against Maryland in the Big Ten tournament semifinals and shot 52.9% from the field as the Wolverines won the conference tourney. He had 20 points and six rebounds in a NCAA regional semifinals loss to Auburn.

18. Washington Wizards: Liam McNeeley, UConn

• Freshman, forward, 6-6¾, 215, 19
• 2024-25 stats: 14.5 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 2.3 apg, 38.1% FG, 31.7% 3PT, 86.6% FT

What McNeeley may lack in fluid athleticism, he more than makes up for with a smooth, natural shot and knack for drawing fouls and getting to the free throw line. He also has a quick release and plenty of range to suggest that he should get early minutes. He bounced back since suffering an ankle injury New Year’s Day that had sidelined him for a few weeks. McNeeley struggled with his shot at times down the stretch. In a Big East tournament loss to Creighton, McNeeley had 13 points on 6-for-20 shooting (0-for-5 on 3-pointers), and in his final eight games before the NCAA Tournament, he shot 34.1% from the field and 28.2% on 3s. In two NCAA Tournament games, he was 8-for-29 from the field, including 3-of-16 on 3s.

19. Brooklyn Nets: Nolan Traore, Saint-Quentin (France)

• Guard, 6-4, 175, 19
• 2024-25 stats: 12 ppg, 4.8 apg, 1.9 rpg, 40.9% FG, 31.4% 3PT, 72.8% FT

Traore is a point guard who can score and pass and has court awareness but also a propensity for bad turnovers. He’s quick, can get to the rim and is comfortable taking his defender off the dribble. Needs to work on his shooting efficiency, especially on 3s. His brother, Armel, was on a two-way contract with the Los Angeles and South Bay Lakers before being waived in February.

20. Miami Heat: Thomas Sorber, Georgetown

• Freshman, forward-center, 6-9¼, 263, 19
• 2024-25 stats: 14.5 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 2.4 apg, 2.0 spg, 53.2% FG, 72.4% FT

The standout freshman required surgery to repair a foot injury suffered Feb. 15 and missed the rest of the season. That could alter his plans for the draft, but Sorber is a stellar inside threat who’s just as comfortable cutting to the basket on pick-and-rolls as he is backing down opponents. His rebounding and rim protection will make him an asset, as he continues to grow into his frame.

21. Utah Jazz: Joan Beringer, KK Cedevita (Adriatic League)

• Forward-center, 6-10, 230, 18
• 2024-25 stats: 5.0 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 1.4 bpg, 61.5% FG, 58.4% FT

Beringer has gained traction among NBA scouts and executives as a mobile big man who can run the pick-and-roll as a screener on offense and guard the pick-and-roll. He doesn’t have a lot of experience but his potential, especially as a rim protector, has made him a first-round prospect. Another player who has improved throughout the season.

22. Atlanta Hawks: Nique Clifford, Colorado State

• Fifth-year graduate season, guard, 6-5¼, 202, 23
• 2024-25 stats: 18.9 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 4.4 apg, 1.2 spg, 49.6% FG, 37.7% 3PT, 77.7% FT

Clifford is a versatile wing who does a lot of things – scoring, rebounding, passing and defending. He has a quick burst on drives to the basket and can finish with force or finesse. He logged big minutes for Colorado State and was excellent in the Rams’ final six games before the NCAA tournament, posting 25.3 points, 7.8 rebounds, 5.2 assists and 1.5 steals and shooting 60% from the field, including 54.8% on 3s. He had 36 points against Boise State at the end of the regular season and recorded two double-doubles in the Mountain West tournament. Clifford had 21 points, seven rebounds, six assists and two blocks in an NCAA tournament second-round loss to Maryland.

23. Indiana Pacers: Will Riley, Illinois

Freshman, forward, 6-8¼, 186, 19

2024-25 stats: 12.6 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 2.2 apg, 43.2% FG, 32.6% 3PT, 72.4% FT

Great size for a shooting guard who can make 3s and find open teammates. Like many, looks for offensive rebounds. His shot is a work in progress but the mechanics are there and he improved as a shooter and scorer as the season progressed. He shot 37-for-72 (51.4%) from the field and averaged 16.3 points in the Illini’s final six games.

24. Oklahoma City Thunder: Rasheer Fleming, Saint Joseph’s

• Junior, forward, 6-8¼, 232, 20
• 2024-25 stats: 14.75 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 1.5 bpg, 1.4 spg, 1.3 apg, 53.1% FG, 39% 3PT, 74.3% FT

Fleming is a mobile forward who plays a physical game and has strong footwork to finesse his way around defenders. He likes to get easy buckets in transition, his 3-point percentage in nearly five attempts per game is encouraging and he is valuable in pick-and-rolls as the screener. Defensively, he deflects passes and can protect the rim. Fleming averaged 18.8 points and 7.7 rebounds and shot 58.9% in the last six regular-season Atlantic 10 Conference contests.

25. Orlando Magic: Ben Saraf, Ratiopharm Ulm (Germany)

• Guard, 6-6, 200, 19
• 2024-25 stats: 12.2 ppg, 4.3 apg, 2.6 rpg, 1.2 spg, 45.5% FG, 28.6% 3PT, 72.7% FT

He’s just as comfortable knocking down a step-back jumper, finding creases in the paint and dishing the ball with excellent vision. He may need some time to develop as he adjusts to NBA athletes, but his length and size at point guard will make him an intriguing prospect.

26. Brooklyn Nets: Yaxel Lendeborg, UAB

• Senior, forward, 6-8½, 235, 22
• 2024-25 stats: 17.7 ppg, 11.4 rpg, 4.2 apg, 52.2% FG, 35.7% 3PT, 75.7% FT

Lendeborg is active defensively, likes to attack in transition, is active in the paint and cuts to the rim and looks for the ball. Possesses good size and strength for his position and initiates contact. His shooting percentage inside and outside the 3-point line (specifically as catch-and-shoot on 3s) are good signs for the forward from Puerto Rico. Depending on his draft evaluation, Lendeborg, the 2024-25 American Athletic Conference player of the year, could end up at Michigan for another season of college basketball.

27. Brooklyn Nets: Hugo Gonzalez, Real Madrid (Spain)

• Guard-forward, 6-7, 207, 19
• 2024-25 stats: 3.2 ppg, 1.7 rpg, 41% FG, 28.1% 3PT, 73.9% FT

One of Europe’s top young NBA prospects, Gonzalez is a versatile wing with the ability to score inside and out. He can handle the basketball, pass and is a surprising shot-blocker. He’s still raw.

28. Boston Celtics: Walter Clayton Jr., Florida

• Senior, guard, 6-2, 199, 22
• 2024-25 stats: 18.3 ppg, 4.2 apg, 3.7 rpg, 1.2 spg, 44.8% FG, 38.6% 3PT, 85.7% FT

Named the Most Outstanding Player of the Final Four, Clayton had 34 points in the national semifinals against Auburn and 11 points, seven assists and five rebounds in the championship victory against Houston. He also scored 30 points in a regional final against Texas Tech and was 21-for-42 from the field in the Gators’ final three games. Has range on 3-point shots and can shoot off the dribble or pass but needs to improve as a playmaker and defender.

29. Phoenix Suns: Noah Penda, Le Mans (France)

• Forward, 6-8, 225, 20
• 2024-25 stats: 10.2 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 2.7 apg, 1.3 spg, 45.8% FG, 34.7% 3PT, 67.9% FT

A solidly-built wing, Penda may not be the most explosive athlete, but he has flashed excellent footwork in the low block, has steady enough ball-handling abilities and can knock down 3s with relative efficiency. Penda has also shown that he can move well without the ball, often slashing through a defense on cuts for easy buckets. Improved as a shooter and scorer as the season progressed.

30. Los Angeles Clippers: Drake Powell, North Carolina

• Freshman, guard-forward, 6-5¼, 200, 19
• 2024-25 stats: 7.4 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 1.1 apg, 48.3% FG, 37.9% 3PT, 64.8% FT

Active on both ends of the court as a shot-blocker and physical and versatile defender, and as a player who likes to run the court, launch catch-and-shoot 3s and go one-on-one in the halfcourt. Playing on a deep team, especially on the perimeter, Powell doesn’t possess eye-popping offensive stats but his shooting stats reveal his potential. Was an efficient scorer in limited opportunities and can be a solid rebounder from the perimeter.

Link

Link

Link

What sports are being discontinued and how was that determined?
– Baseball and softball are being discontinued. The decision to eliminate both sports was necessitated by university-wide budget cuts totaling $6 million, consideration of necessary future investments for both sports including the facilities, and a complex evolving NCAA landscape.

What other cost saving measures were considered before deciding to discontinue baseball and softball?
– Staff member positions were eliminated as part of the university’s budget cuts. Further cuts across the board to all sports and several units in athletics, instead of eliminating baseball and softball, were fully considered and analyzed. However, it was determined after a painstaking review that this course of action was the best path to ensure PFW’s overall success at the NCAA Division I level. 
 
Why is this being done now?
– There is no good time to make a decision of this nature. However, implementing these steps now will allow student-athletes as much time as possible to consider their academic and athletic options. The softball transfer portal is open now, and baseball’s window will open on June 2. Additionally, the window will stay open longer for Purdue Fort Wayne baseball and softball student-athletes looking to transfer due to the programs being discontinued.
 
Will scholarships be honored for impacted student-athletes?
– Yes, current baseball and softball student-athletes and committed incoming student-athletes will have their scholarships honored through the completion of their degree.
 
Will Purdue Fort Wayne assist student-athletes who desire to transfer?
– Yes. Student-athletes should contact the Athletics Compliance Office if they would like to enter the NCAA transfer portal.
 
How many individuals are directly affected by this decision?
– 56 student-athletes (36 baseball, 20 softball) and 3 full-time coaches

Could private donations or fundraising reinstate baseball or softball?
– No, they could not, due to the annual costs associated with fully addressing the financial challenges to properly support our student-athletes.  
 
How will Purdue Fort Wayne engage donors to honor their wishes regarding gifts to the baseball and softball programs?
– The Office of Development and Alumni Engagement will assist all donors regarding affected gifts.

What are the financial savings for the university from discontinuing baseball and softball?
– It is estimated the university will save upwards of $1 million annually following the elimination both sports.
 
Will discontinuing these sports impact Purdue Fort Wayne’s Horizon League or NCAA Division I affiliation?
– No, Purdue Fort Wayne still has the required 14 sponsored sports for NCAA Division I affiliation.
 
Is the university considering the discontinuation of other programs?
– No, Purdue Fort Wayne is committed to facilitating the growth and success of an NCAA Division I athletic department, which requires 14 sports. 

Will Purdue Fort Wayne’s Title IX compliance be impacted by the elimination of baseball and softball?
– Purdue Fort Wayne’s Title IX compliance will not be impacted.