Connect with us

NIL

Nabors Industries

BOARD GUIDELINES ON SIGNIFICANT CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ISSUES Management and the Board of Directors (“Board”) of Nabors Industries Ltd. (the “Company”) are committed to conducting business consistent with good corporate governance practice. In 2002 our Board established a Governance and Nominating Committee, now named the Environmental, Social, and Governance Committee, (the “Committee” or “ESG Committee”). All […]

Published

1 month ago

on

Nabors Industries

BOARD GUIDELINES ON SIGNIFICANT CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ISSUES

Management and the Board of Directors (“Board”) of Nabors Industries Ltd. (the “Company”) are committed to conducting business consistent with good corporate governance practice. In 2002 our Board established a Governance and Nominating Committee, now named the Environmental, Social, and Governance Committee, (the “Committee” or “ESG Committee”). All Committee members are required to be independent directors, as provided in these guidelines and the requirements of the New York Stock Exchange or other exchange on which the Company’s securities may be listed from time to time (the “Exchange”).

The Committee directed the preparation of these Corporate Governance Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), and the Board adopted them initially on July 17, 2002. The Committee and the Board will continue to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of these Guidelines, and changes to these Guidelines will be considered and made from time to time, as deemed appropriate by the Committee. The Guidelines, as updated from time to time, will be published in order to inform shareholders of the Board’s current thinking with respect to selected corporate governance issues. Compliance with the Guidelines is required of all directors and shall be reviewed at least annually in connection with the preparation of Nabors’ proxy statement. Each director will be asked to confirm his or her compliance with the Guidelines.

Board Mission & Objectives

Mission Statement

Nabors’ primary objective is to maximize long-term shareholder value while adhering to the laws of the jurisdictions in which it operates and at all times observing the highest ethical standards.

Corporate Authority & Responsibility

Unless reserved to the shareholders under applicable law, all corporate authority resides in the Board as the representative of the shareholders. Certain authority is delegated to management by the Board in order to implement the Company’s mission. Such delegated authority includes the authorization of spending limits and the authority to hire employees and terminate their services. The Board retains responsibility to recommend candidates to the shareholders for election to the Board of Directors. The Board retains responsibility for selection and evaluation of the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), oversight of the succession plan, determination of senior management compensation, approval of the annual budget and assurance of adequate systems, procedures and controls. Additionally, the Board provides advice and counsel to senior management.

Directors

Board Membership Criteria

The Committee is responsible for reviewing with the Board, on a periodic basis, the appropriate skills and characteristics desirable for new Board members in the context of the current composition of the Board. This assessment places primary emphasis on the following criteria:

  • Reputation, integrity and judgment;

  • Independence (for non-management directors);

  • Business or other relevant experience;

  • Diversity of viewpoints, backgrounds and experience, including a consideration of gender, race and age;

  • The extent to which the interplay of the nominee’s expertise, skills, knowledge and experience with that of the other members of the Board of Directors will result in an effective board that is responsive to the needs of the Company; and

  • For current directors, history of attendance at Board and committee meetings, as well as preparation for, participation in and contributions to the effectiveness of those meetings.

    Resignation

    Any director nominee who does not receive the affirmative vote of the majority of the shares voted in connection with his or her uncontested election shall promptly tender his or her conditional resignation from the Board. No such resignation shall take effect unless and until accepted by the Board. The Committee (excluding the director in question) will review the matter and make a recommendation to the Board whether or not to accept the resignation. The resignation will be accepted unless the Board determines that to accept the resignation would not be in the best interests of the Company, in which case the Board will announce its reasons for such determination.

    Change in Professional Responsibility

    When an individual’s professional responsibilities change, the Board shall consider whether the change directly or indirectly impacts that person’s ability to fulfill his or her directorship obligations. To facilitate the Board’s consideration, each director shall advise the Committee as a matter of course upon retirement, a change in employer, or other significant change in his or her professional roles and responsibilities, particularly where such change may impact the independence of an outside director. This duty to advise shall, for the avoidance of doubt, include a duty to advise the Board prior to accepting a seat on another board. The Committee should consult with the affected director, assess the director’s ability to continue to fulfill the responsibilities of Board membership, and make an appropriate recommendation to the Board.

    Former Chairman/Chief Executive Officer’s Board Membership

    The Board believes continued Board membership by a former Chairman or CEO is a matter to be decided in each individual instance. It is expected that when the Chairman or CEO is no longer employed by the Company in that capacity, he or she should tender his or her resignation from the Board at the same time. Whether the individual continues to serve on the Board is a matter for

    consideration at that time with the new Chairman or CEO and the Board. A former CEO or executive Chairman serving on the Board will not be considered an independent director for purposes of voting on matters of corporate governance until he or she satisfies the independence criteria established by the SEC and the Exchange.

    Identification and Recruitment of Board Members

    One of the tasks of the Committee is to identify and recruit candidates to serve on the Board. Candidates shall be presented to the Board for consideration, together with the Committee’s recommendations. The invitation to join the Board should be extended by the Board itself via the Chairman and CEO of the Company, together with an independent director, when appropriate.

    Independent Directors

    At least a majority of the Board of Directors shall be independent under applicable rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and the Exchange in effect from time to time. The Board has established the following guidelines to assist in determining director independence. A director generally will not be considered independent if he or she:

  • has been employed by the Company, or has an immediate family member who has been employed by the Company in an executive capacity, within the last three years;

  • has been employed by the Company’s independent auditor within the last three years;

  • is affiliated with a company that is an advisor or consultant to the Company or to a member of the Company’s senior management;

  • is affiliated with a significant customer or supplier of the Company (that is, a customer that accounts for more than 5% of the Company’s revenues or a supplier that receives more than 5% of its revenues from the Company);

  • has personal services contract(s) with the Company or a member of the Company’s senior management;

  • is affiliated with a not-for-profit entity that receives significant contributions from the Company;

  • within the last three years, has had any business relationship with the Company (other than service as a director) for which the Company has been required to make disclosure under Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K of the SEC as currently in effect (unless determined otherwise by the Committee after consideration of all the facts and circumstances);

  • is employed by a public company at which an executive officer of the Company serves as a director;

  • is a current employee, or has an immediate family member who is a current executive officer, of a company that has made payments to or received payments from the Company for property or services in an amount which, in any of the last three fiscal years, exceeds the greater of $1 million or 2% of such other company’s consolidated gross revenues, determined in accordance with applicable Exchange guidance;

  • has had any of the relationships described above with any affiliate of the Company, or

  • has been a member of the immediate family of any person who has had any of the relationships described above during the last three years.

The Committee shall annually review and make a determination of the independence of each director. The Committee shall also review and determine a director’s independence upon a change in the director’s professional responsibilities, a related-party transaction involving the director or any other changed circumstance warranting review by the Committee.

Related-Party Transactions

The Committee shall review and approve, in advance, any related-party transaction involving an officer or director of the Company. Any interested director shall abstain from the discussion and vote regarding the transaction, except to respond to questions from Committee members. In making its determination, the Committee shall consider the fairness of the transaction and the impact of the transaction on the director’s independence.

Outside Directorships

The CEO and senior management of Nabors should limit directorships (excluding non-profit) to no more than two public directorships. Directors that are not members of senior management should limit directorships (excluding non-profit) to no more than four public directorships. All directors should advise the Chairman of the Board and Chairman of the Committee in advance of accepting an invitation to serve on another board.

The ESG Committee shall ensure that all members of the Board have sufficient time to devote to Company matters, including by monitoring director capacity and reviewing the acceptability of outside directorships. The ESG Committee shall, at least annually, review the capacity of all members of the Board to confirm whether directors have capacity sufficient to meet the obligations of a Director of the Company. In connection with this review, the ESG Committee may consider factors including, but not limited to:

  • a director’s meeting attendance record;

  • whether a director is currently employed or retired from full-time employment;

  • the number of other boards of which a director is member and the time demands of such boards;

  • the role of a director on other boards;

  • any industry or other commonalities between outside boards that aid in the director’s efficiencies serving on such boards;

  • a director’s individual contributions at Board meeting and Board committee meetings;

  • a director’s general engagement, effectiveness, and preparedness; and

  • any other director commitments.

Attendance at Meetings

Directors are expected to attend all Board and committee meetings in person. Directors shall be prepared by reviewing in advance all materials and be present at the meeting in person until its adjournment.

Compensation of Directors

In order to align the interests of directors and shareholders, directors will be compensated in the form of cash and company equity, with equity constituting a substantial portion of the total. Furthermore, a director compensation policy limits each non-employee director’s individual compensation to a maximum of $750,000 per calendar year (the “Non-Employee Director Compensation Limitation”). Under the Non-Employee Director Compensation Limitation, the Board has the authority to make decisions with respect to director compensation within the

$750,000 limit. In other words, such compensation may consist of cash, equity grants or other amounts, but cannot in any event exceed $750,000 per non-employee director per calendar year. In the event the Board wishes to approve or provide compensation that exceeds the limitation, the Board is required to seek shareholder approval.

Direct Investment in the Company Stock by Directors

To better align the directors’ interests with that of the Company’s shareholders, the Board believes that each director should own Nabors common shares having a share value of at least five times the annual cash retainer paid to directors (exclusive of any portion of the retainer received as a member or chair of any Board committee). Share value for purposes of the guidelines is determined as of the date of grant for vested or unvested restricted share awards (including Restricted Stock Units) or, in the case of open market purchases, the date of acquisition. Each director has three years from the date of his or her first election to the Board by the shareholders to meet the ownership requirements of the guidelines and, once met, is deemed to be in compliance so long as his or her ownership does not fall below the amount established at the time he or she was first elected to the Board.

Service Limitations of Directors

The Board does not believe it should establish term limits. Although term limits could help ensure that there are fresh ideas and viewpoints available to the Board, they hold the disadvantage of losing the contribution of directors who have been able to develop, over a period of time, increasing insight into the Company and its operations and, therefore, provide an increasing contribution to the Board as a whole.

As an alternative to term limits, the Committee, in conjunction with the CEO, will formally review each director’s continuation on the Board every year. This will also allow each director the opportunity to confirm his or her desire to continue as a member of the Board.

In addition, the Board has an age limit of 75 for directors to be eligible for nomination, such that no director may run for reelection after attaining age 75 at the time of the next scheduled annual

4
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

NIL

How will the NCAA v. House settlement change college sports?

Dan LaForest was surprised as he sat in his office last week reviewing a new contract for a Name, Image and Likeness agreement from a university. It was one of the first contracts LaForest, the director of NIL for Influencer Counsel, reviewed since the House v. NCAA settlement officially paved the way for schools to […]

Published

55 minutes ago

on

June 26, 2025

By


Dan LaForest was surprised as he sat in his office last week reviewing a new contract for a Name, Image and Likeness agreement from a university.

It was one of the first contracts LaForest, the director of NIL for Influencer Counsel, reviewed since the House v. NCAA settlement officially paved the way for schools to pay student-athletes.

LaForest, a former Apopka and college quarterback, represents student-athletes at several Power 4 programs including Oregon, UCF, Florida State, Duke and Ole Miss.

Aside from the length of the contract — 19 pages, or four-to-five times the length of the standard NIL agreement players previously had with collectives — he was struck by some of the language in the deal.

“Before, you were looking at collective contracts that were built around NIL,” LaForest said. “We’re paying you to do something in return or post something on social media. Now, we have contracts directly from the universities because now the National Letter of Intent is gone. We’re talking about university lawyers putting things in contracts that are solely in place to protect the university.”

FAQs: What you need to know about evolving college sports landscape

The contract is one of many changes quickly coming to the college athletics landscape, as schools can begin revenue sharing up to $20.5 million to student-athletes as soon as July 1.

“We are really excited about it,” Florida State athletic director Michael Alford said. “It’s a changing environment in collegiate athletics. We have elected to be a part of it. We’re going to compensate, and are working on our budget to compensate our student-athletes at the highest, elitist level we can do to continue to compete for championships.”

The recent settlement left some schools scrambling to get signed agreements in place in just a few weeks.

“In all fairness, universities were waiting six months to find out what the specific language would be and now they were left with two to three weeks with a July 1 effective date, LaForest said. “Until the judge ruled on it, everybody had an idea. But I only saw one school that had a revenue share contract prior to a few weeks ago, and they revised the language on it.”

The USA Today Florida Network spoke to college athletic directors, high school athletic directors and coaches, athletes, lawyers, and agents to get answers to some of the biggest questions heading into July 1.

Will revenue sharing bring more parity to the NCAA?

Much of the conversation in recruiting over the past few years has revolved around which teams had the deepest pockets. Who could make the highest bid for a high school player or transfer portal player? While those kinds of things will still exist, athletic departments will be capped at spending $20.5 million across all sports. Theoretically, it should mean a more balanced playing field. Basically, Michigan couldn’t give freshman quarterback Bryce Underwood a $10 million NIL deal without it eating up a huge portion of its allotment.

“It’s the first step back to normalization,” said Jones coach Elijah Williams, who was a national championship at Florida in 1996. “By capping it, kids aren’t getting unlimited money anymore. Now, you get things back to the way college football should be. It’s going to even the playing field. Now, you have guys going to schools where they want to wear the colors, graduate, and be an alumni. These kids graduate and go to four different schools and now they can’t even get a sideline pass because they don’t know you. I believe in giving them something but capping it so it’s an even playing field for everybody. You have to stop buying championships. That’s not college sports.”

Have NCAA programs been spending more than $20.5 million?

For some, way more. According to Knox News, part of the USA TODAY Network, Texas Tech will reportedly pay its players $55 million among all its programs next year between revenue sharing and NIL.

Are high school seniors being offered less NIL money now than they were from collectives in previous years?

Yes. While values vary by player and position — a five-star quarterback and a three-star defensive back have different values — LaForest estimated that rising seniors he represents are being offered approximately 30 percent less than players in previous years.

“It’s way different and way less,” he said. “Only because they have to pay their starters first. Starters aren’t going to happy if a high school recruit who’s on the third team is getting more money than they are.”

What happened to pre-existing NIL deals? Are they still in place?

In some cases, contracts for the 2025-26 school year were written to be paid out before June 30, 2025. Any NIL deals after that are subject to scrutiny by NIL Go.

“Most of the collective contracts were front-loaded, which means the compensation has been paid, or will be paid prior to July 1,” said Mit Winter, an NIL expert and attorney at Kennyhertz Perry in Missouri. “Any collective contacts paid before July 1 don’t have to be disclosed and reviewed by NIL Go. Either contacts are already all paid out before July 1 or some of the payments have been accelerated. I know some examples of that. Some that could extend beyond July 1. But under the new rules they’re supposed to be disclosed to NIL Go and then be reviewed.”

How are college athletic departments splitting up the $20.5 million among their programs?

Multiple people interviewed made similar remarks that several Power 4 programs plan to earmark approximately 75 percent ($15.37 million) for football, 15 percent for men’s basketball (3.08 million), 5 ($1.03 million) percent for women’s basketball, and 5 percent (1.03 million to other sports). Those are approximate numbers and certainly will vary from program to program.

“Twenty point five million is what each school can use,” LaForest said. “Up to $20.5 million. Some schools may not be able to get there. And that is for all sports. Florida has a strong football team, but they just won a natty in basketball. If they say football gets $15 million, how much does basketball get? Three? Basketball is going to say they need more. It’s going to be interesting.”

If approximately 90 percent of the $20.5 million goes to football and men’s basketball, does that create a Title IX issue?

Most likely. And both sides are gearing up for a courtroom showdown.

Sportico reported in May that Arthur H. Bryant, a prominent Title IX attorney, was launching his own practice. “This is a period of golden opportunities for Title IX enforcement in America,” Bryant told Sportico. “The law is very clear that women athletes at colleges and universities are supposed to get equal opportunities to participate, equal financial aid, and equal treatment compared to men. And some schools are providing it. But many, many, many are not. And all it takes to hold them accountable is women being willing to sue.”

“There will definitely be Title IX lawsuits,” Winter said. “It’s a gray area right now. We know Tit IX applies. It will be up to a court to tell us what Title IX means and how it applies to NIL compensation.

“Schools know they’re going to get sued. They’re already building war chests.”

What’s the fallout going to be for non-revenue sports?

That remains to be seen, but there is reason to be concerned. Some Power 4 schools already have made drastic roster cuts to sports like swimming and track & field.

“Power 4 schools, they’ll maintain (the sport), but they may end up cutting some more or consolidating. What I mean by cutting is maybe cutting some athletes or consolidating,” Pine Forest High School track coach Richard Dix said. “You can look at what happened over at Washington State. They got rid of the throws and jumps program. They’re just going to be more of a track team, per se. And there’s going to be a little trickle down effect because in reality we don’t know how it’s going to work right now. You know it goes into effect July 1, but there’s still a lot of unknown of what this means for the state of NCAA and in their school, so I’m a little hesitant to promote my athletes to a point, where is that roster spot going to be there as far as track and field goes? … So, it’s really an unknown for a non-revenue generating sport from my perspective. I just don’t really know how this is going to turn out.”



Link

0
Continue Reading

NIL

How NIL money is reshaping the NBA draft: Fewer early entrants, more college stars staying put – Tar Heel Times

Posted Jun 26, 2025 It’s been four years since college athletes were permitted to profit off the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL), opening the door for athlete compensation that was once forbidden by NCAA rules. Next week marks the official start of revenue sharing where schools can […]

Published

59 minutes ago

on

June 26, 2025

By






Posted Jun 26, 2025

It’s been four years since college athletes were permitted to profit off the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL), opening the door for athlete compensation that was once forbidden by NCAA rules. Next week marks the official start of revenue sharing where schools can begin directly paying athletes following the $2.8 billion House antitrust settlement.
(Associated Press)

Related: Other News

A New World on July 1
The most well-known aspect of the House legal settlement, whose terms will become the college sports world’s revolutionary new framework on July 1, is that…
Wed Jun 25, 2025

Sources: NCAA close to decision on tournament expansion
A decision on whether or not to expand the NCAA men’s and women’s basketball tournaments will be made in the upcoming weeks, sources told ESPN…
Wed Jun 25, 2025

Wisconsin files suit against Miami for poaching Xavier Lucas while he was under contract with school
In a landmark moment in college athletics, one university has filed suit against another for the poaching of a college football player under contract. The…
Wed Jun 25, 2025

UNC, NC State set to collect share of sports betting tax revenue
North Carolina and NC State, the largest athletic departments in the UNC System, would receive less money from sports betting taxes under the House’s proposed…
Tue Jun 24, 2025

How NIL money is reshaping the NBA draft: Fewer early entrants, more college stars staying put




Link

0
Continue Reading

NIL

NCAA faces reckoning as college football analyst challenges ‘student-athlete’ myth in NIL era transformation

The Evolving Landscape of College Football In an era where college football has transformed into a lucrative enterprise, the question of identity looms large: Are athletes truly students, or have they transitioned into professionals? The advent of six-figure Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals has altered the dynamics of collegiate sports, prompting a critical examination […]

Published

2 hours ago

on

June 26, 2025

By


The Evolving Landscape of College Football

In an era where college football has transformed into a lucrative enterprise, the question of identity looms large: Are athletes truly students, or have they transitioned into professionals? The advent of six-figure Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals has altered the dynamics of collegiate sports, prompting a critical examination of the traditional “student-athlete” label.

As the NCAA grapples with these changes, the implications of NIL agreements have become a focal point in discussions about the future of college athletics. The financial landscape has shifted dramatically, with athletes now positioned to capitalize on their brand presence and marketability. This evolution raises fundamental questions about the role and responsibilities of athletes within the collegiate framework.

The Challenge to Tradition

A prominent college football analyst has taken a stand against the NCAA’s longstanding narrative, urging the organization to abandon the “student-athlete” moniker. This plea reflects a broader sentiment among many who believe that the NCAA is attempting to shield itself from accountability by clinging to outdated terminology. The reality is that with direct revenue sharing becoming part of the NIL framework, the distinction between student and professional is increasingly blurred.

The analyst’s challenge resonates deeply within the college football community, where the pressures to perform and secure lucrative endorsements can overshadow the educational experience. Athletes are now navigating a complex landscape that requires them to balance their academic responsibilities with their burgeoning professional careers. This duality not only affects their personal lives but also raises ethical questions about the true nature of their participation in collegiate sports.

The Impact of NIL on Collegiate Sports

The introduction of NIL has fundamentally altered the financial incentives for college athletes. No longer are they merely participants in an amateur system; they are now key players in a marketplace that values their skills and visibility. The financial rewards associated with NIL deals can be substantial, leading to a reevaluation of what it means to be a college athlete.

Moreover, this shift has implications for recruitment and team dynamics. Programs that can effectively leverage NIL opportunities may have a competitive edge in attracting top talent. As colleges and universities adapt to this new reality, the pressure to perform extends beyond the field, as athletes are now expected to cultivate their personal brands and engage with fans and sponsors.

A Call for Change

The call to rethink the “student-athlete” label is not merely a semantic debate; it represents a pivotal moment in the evolution of college sports. As the NCAA faces increasing scrutiny, the need for transparency and accountability has never been more pronounced. The organization must confront the realities of the current landscape and consider the implications of its policies on the lives of the athletes it governs.

As this conversation unfolds, it is essential to recognize the broader implications of these changes. The future of college athletics hinges on the ability to balance the pursuit of academic excellence with the realities of a professionalized sports environment. By acknowledging the dual roles that athletes play, the NCAA can begin to craft a more equitable framework that honors both the educational mission of its institutions and the professional aspirations of its athletes.

Reflecting on the Future of College Athletics

In conclusion, the transformation of college football in the NIL era presents both challenges and opportunities. As athletes navigate this new landscape, the need for a clear understanding of their roles becomes paramount. The NCAA stands at a crossroads, tasked with redefining its approach to ensure that the interests of athletes are prioritized. The journey ahead will require thoughtful dialogue and a willingness to embrace change, ultimately shaping the future of college athletics for generations to come.



Link

1
Continue Reading

NIL

Spurs pick Arizona’s Carter Bryant at No. 14 in NBA Draft

When the San Antonio Spurs made him the 14th pick in the NBA Draft on Wednesday, Arizona’s Carter Bryant walked onto some familiar turf. He became UA’s 17th lottery pick, and to exactly the same team as Arizona’s first lottery pick: Sean Elliott, who went No. 3 to the Spurs in 1989, became a two-time […]

Published

2 hours ago

on

June 26, 2025

By


When the San Antonio Spurs made him the 14th pick in the NBA Draft on Wednesday, Arizona’s Carter Bryant walked onto some familiar turf.

He became UA’s 17th lottery pick, and to exactly the same team as Arizona’s first lottery pick: Sean Elliott, who went No. 3 to the Spurs in 1989, became a two-time NBA all-star and then the team’s longtime television analyst.

“Wildcat to Spur – love to see it,” Elliott posted Wednesday. “Welcome to SA @carterdbryant! #beardown #gospursgo.”

Bryant also will be playing for the same team from which a basketball idol from his Riverside, California, hometown — Kawhi Leonard — turned into an NBA all-star.

“I think immediately the first guy I think of is Kawhi, just his defensive versatility, being able to guard multiple positions early on in his career,” Bryant said when asked during his post-draft interview to which former Spurs players his game compares.

People are also reading…

“He became one of the best players in the world, arguably a top three basketball player at a time when Kevin Durant, Steph Curry and LeBron were pretty much solidified to be the top three. He was really making a statement that he was one of the best players in the world as well.”

Bryant will also be following along to San Antonio with former Rutgers guard Dylan Harper, whom the Spurs picked at No. 2, just after Dallas picked Duke’s Cooper Flagg as expected to begin the draft.

“I’m looking forward to playing with my guy D Harp. It’s been a long time coming,” Bryant said, noting he got to know Harper after facing him in a club-ball game. “We had a lot of conversations throughout high school, whether that was trying to play together in college, just maybe playing together at some point. For him to be my draft buddy and being able to both go in the lottery and being able to represent San Antonio is dope.”

Becoming the No. 14 pick means Bryant will receive a two-year guaranteed contract worth about $10 million, but it will come with the pressure to answer a few questions.

The 6-8 Bryant was the least-used of Arizona’s lottery picks, averaging just 6.5 points while playing only 19.5 minutes per game on average as a freshman in 2024-25.

However, Bryant improved as his only college season went on and intrigued NBA scouts with his upside as a wing player. His 3-point shooting rose from 26.9% in nonconference play to 38.6% in Big 12 games — and to 45.5% between the Big 12 and NCAA tournaments.

Bryant also opened eyes at the May NBA Combine, when he showed off a 6-11.75 wingspan and recorded a maximum (running) vertical leap of 39.5 inches. 

“Prototypical 3-and-D, they call him,” analyst Bob Myers said during ESPN’s draft show. “Not a huge usage rate, didn’t handle the ball, but you can pencil him in and he can do those things, and those picks have tremendous value.

“He did a nice job on the wing. The question is, ‘Can he defend?’ Is that what he can do? But there’s a lot he can improve on, and this is the type of swing that you like to see at this time” in the draft.

During his ESPN interview as he walked off the draft podium, Bryant was asked how he felt to become an NBA Draft pick after a serious leg injury as a high school freshman that threatened his career.

“It just shows my mental fortitude, my grit, how strong I am mentally,” Bryant said, “showing that I’m ready to handle every obstacle that comes in front of me.”

Believed to be a 50-50 bet to stay in the draft when he entered it in April, Bryant rose through the predraft process to the point where he was projected to be taken between 10-15 in the first round of the NBA Draft on Wednesday.

After the deadline passed to withdraw from the draft for players intending to return to college basketball, Bryant officially acknowledged his departure from Arizona.

“From being an 8-year-old boy who always felt the magic of McKale as a fan, to playing in the most important games of my life thus far with Arizona on my chest, this journey has been all I could have imagined,” Bryant posted.






Carter Bryant poses for a photo with NBA commissioner Adam Silver after being selected 14th by the San Antonio Spurs in the first round of the NBA Draft, Wednesday, June 25, 2025, in New York. 









Carter Bryant walks off the stage after being selected 14th by the San Antonio Spurs in the first round of the NBA Draft, Wednesday, June 25, 2025, in New York. 




The second round of the NBA Draft will be held starting Thursday at 5 p.m. Former UA guard Caleb Love is expected to be taken with one of the final picks or sign a two-way contract as an undrafted free agent.

After Flagg and Harper were taken quickly off the board Wednesday, Baylor guard V.J. Edgecombe was picked third by the Philadelphia 76ers, then Charlotte took Duke forward Kon Knueppel with the No. 4 pick, and Utah took Rutgers forward Ace Bailey at No. 5.

For the second five picks, Washington took Texas guard Tre Johnson at No. 6, New Orleans took Oklahoma guard Jeremiah Fears with the No. 7 pick, Brooklyn chose BYU guard Egor Demin at No. 8, Toronto took South Carolina forward Collin Murray-Boyles at No. 9 and Houston chose Duke center Khaman Maluach at No. 10.

At No. 11, Washington State wing Cedric Coward went to the Portland Trail Blazers before he was traded to Memphis, and the Chicago Bulls picked French forward Noa Essengue at No. 12.

Atlanta then selected Maryland center Derik Queen at No. 13 before Bryant was selected, putting the former Wildcat forward on a young team featuring 2023 No. 1 pick Victor Wembanyama and 2024 No. 4 pick Stephon Castle.

“There’s so much room for growth for this team,” Bryant said of the Spurs. “I think you’re going to look up and we could definitely be one of those dynasties that you look back on and you go, man, this was a hell of a team.”

Contact sports reporter Bruce Pascoe at bpascoe@tucson.com. On X(Twitter): @brucepascoe



Link

1
Continue Reading

NIL

Ace Bailey, Dylan Harper could soon fund the team

Coach proud as Harper and Bailey prepare for NBA draft Coach Steve Pikiell shares pride as Dylan Harper and Ace Bailey head to the NBA after standout seasons. The email about Ace Bailey and Dylan Harper arrived a few hours before the NBA Draft, and it echoed the sentiments of more than a few Rutgers […]

Published

2 hours ago

on

June 26, 2025

By


play

The email about Ace Bailey and Dylan Harper arrived a few hours before the NBA Draft, and it echoed the sentiments of more than a few Rutgers basketball fans regarding this historic occasion for the Scarlet Knights.

“I don’t understand all the praise,” it read. “This season was an incredible embarrassment.”

“I don’t get it.”

Because their one season at Rutgers yielded a losing record, there seems to be a feeling of indifference or worse among the much of the faithful about these two teammates becoming top-five draft picks – an unprecedented achievement in New Jersey college basketball.

If you can’t separate the magnitude of that from the shocking disappointment of a 15-17 season, or appreciate the fact that these guys will only call Rutgers their alma mater in an age of incessant school-hopping, then here’s another thing to think about.

There are potentially $60 million reasons why Rutgers fans should get behind Ace Bailey’s and Dylan Harper’s fortunes.

One day, not too long from now, one or both of them could be bankrolling the basketball program’s roster.

Don’t scoff. Stuff like this is already happening elsewhere. Golden State Warriors superstar Stephen Curry is the assistant general manager for the men’s and women’s basketball programs at his alma mater, Davidson College.

Curry will “start an eight-figure fund for both the men and women’s programs,” ESPN reported earlier this year.

In March, Oklahoma hired alum and NBA All-Star Trae Young as an assistant general manager for its men’s basketball program and announced his $1 million donation to the program.

Last offseason, NBA star James Harden made what was reported as a “high six-figure” donation to help his alma mater Arizona State land forward Jayden Quaintance, who decommitted from Kentucky.

“I wanted to be a part of helping the team and the school get players,” Harden told Front Office Sports, “and if NIL is the problem, then I can help with that.”

The reporter who wrote the Harden story, Westfield native Alex Schiffer, thinks this could be the start of a trend – especially now that, unlike most current pros, Harper and Bailey benefitted from NIL during their time in college.

“With the way the NBA’s (salary) cap is going, it wouldn’t surprise me if either of those guys is making $60-million plus a year in a couple of years with their second contracts if they live up to the hype,” Schiffer said. “A month’s interest on that contract, a game check – they give that to Rutgers and that can go a really long way.”

Rutgers has to do its part, continuing to cultivate the relationships. That’s something head coach Steve Pikiell and his staff have been very good at. You see former players around the program all the time – at practices, at games, dropping by Pikiell’s office.

“Ron (Harper Jr.) is back all the time,” Pikiell said after the draft. “Caleb (McConnell) is coming back in a couple of weeks, which I love. Aundre Hyatt’s back right now; he’s going to play in France. These guys (Bailey and Dylan Harper) are part of our family, too. I’m looking forward to seeing them play a lot, which I will as much as I can, but I’m also looking forward to them coming back and sharing their lessons with our younger guys.”

Count on it, both players said before the draft.

“That’s home for me,” Dylan Harper said. “I’m tight with the coaching staff. I’ll definitely be returning.”

When Bailey threw out the first pitch before the New York Mets’ game June 24, he bought and signed Mets jerseys for Rutgers staffers who accompanied him to Citi Field. It’s a thoughtful gift, probably the first of many.

“I plan on going back and watching my fellow teammates and the new teammates there whenever I can,” he said.

Much has been said and written about Rutgers Athletics’ financial struggles, how it lags peers in the funding department. In this new pay-for-play era, the results on the court reflect that.

“Rutgers hasn’t exactly been on the cutting edge of NIL,” Pikiell said recently.

Bailey and Harper could change that with the stroke of a pen, and not 20 years from now, either.

“It’s the biggest gift that Ace Bailey and Dylan Harper can give Rutgers, given that it didn’t work out in their one year here,” Schiffer said. “If you’re Steve Pikiell and you’re the coach at Rutgers when these guys are getting paychecks like that, that’s the hope.”

After the draft Pikiell was asked about that possibility.

“They will be great – they’ll give back to their community,” he said. “Hope they sign many, many contracts. They’re generous people and good people – and that (the idea of them donating) is never anything I think about. Rutgers, though, really benefitted from these two guys being here. And I appreciate them.”

Given just how deep their pockets are going to be, Rutgers fans should appreciate them, too.

Jerry Carino has covered the New Jersey sports scene since 1996 and the college basketball beat since 2003. Contact him at jcarino@gannettnj.com.



Link

1
Continue Reading

NIL

Mississippi State baseball transfer portal intel

Go to On3 Home About On3AboutAdvertisersCareersContact SupportCustomer ServicePrivacy PolicyChildren’s Privacy PolicyTerms of Service On3 ConnectTwitterFacebookInstagram The On3 App for college sports fans: © 2025 On3 Media, Inc. All rights reserved. On3 is a registered trademark of On3 Media, Inc. 1

Published

3 hours ago

on

June 26, 2025

By

Mississippi State baseball transfer portal intel

Go to On3 Home
About On3AboutAdvertisersCareersContact
SupportCustomer ServicePrivacy PolicyChildren’s Privacy PolicyTerms of Service
On3 ConnectTwitterFacebookInstagram
The On3 App for college sports fans:

Apple Store LogoGoogle Play Logo

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

1
Continue Reading

Most Viewed Posts

Trending