Nine home games in the Dean E. Smith Center, including a first-ever matchup in Chapel Hill against Kansas, highlight the non-conference portion of the 2025-26 University of North Carolina men’s basketball schedule.
 
The Tar Heels open regular-season play at home against Central Arkansas on November 3.
 
On November 7, the Tar Heels play host to the KU Jayhawks. This will be the 14th game all-time between the teams that have the second- and third-most wins in college basketball history. The Tar Heels and Jayhawks previously played in the state of North Carolina in Raleigh in 1959 and Charlotte in 1981 (in Michael Jordan’s first college game), but never in Chapel Hill.
 
UNC will also play host to Radford (November 11), NC Central (November 14), Navy (November 18), Georgetown (December 7), USC Upstate (December 13), ETSU (December 16) and ECU (Dec 22).
 
Carolina plays St. Bonaventure on November 25 and Michigan State on Thanksgiving Day, November 27, in Fort Myers, Fla., in the Skechers Fort Myers Tip-Off.
 
The Tar Heels play at Kentucky on December 2 in the ACC-SEC Challenge. It will be UNC’s first game against the Wildcats in Rupp Arena since Dec. 13, 2014.
 
The 12th edition of the CBS Sports Classic pairs UNC against Ohio State in Atlanta’s State Farm Arena on December 20. The Tar Heels are 7-4 in the CBS Sports Classic, including 3-0 vs. the Buckeyes.
 
The Tar Heels host Winston-Salem State in a preseason exhibition game on October 29. Information on another preseason game will be announced once details are finalized.

 

UNC’s 2025-26 Non-Conference Schedule

Oct 29 vs. Winston-Salem State (exhibition)

Nov 3 vs. Central Arkansas

Nov 7 vs. Kansas

Nov 11 vs. Radford

Nov 14 vs. NC Central

Nov 18 vs. Navy

Nov 25 vs. St. Bonaventure, Fort Myers, Fla. (Skechers Fort Myers Tip-Off)

Nov 27 vs. Michigan State, Fort Myers, Fla. (Skechers Fort Myers Tip-Off)

Dec 2 at Kentucky (ACC-SEC Challenge)

Dec 7 vs. Georgetown

Dec 13 vs. USC Upstate

Dec 16 vs. ETSU

Dec 20 vs. Ohio State, Atlanta, Ga. (CBS Sports Classic)

Dec 22 vs. ECU

 

Should there be on-court concerns about Ace Bailey at the next level? How do Tre Johnson and Jeremiah Fears translate in the NBA? Were Egor Demin and Cedric Coward deserving of lottery selections?

To answer some of the burning questions following the 2025 NBA draft, ESPN spoke to nearly a dozen college basketball coaches — the people who have watched and game-planned against these players for the past few years — about the biggest storylines and top prospects.

Jump to:
The top two picks
The next tier of picks
More first-round storylines
Other notable first-rounders
Second-round notes

Since Flagg announced in August 2023 that he planned to reclassify into the 2024 high school class, there has been very little question about the top of this class. Considered one of the best high school prospects in recent memory, Flagg had been the favorite to be selected No. 1 for the past two years, with the Dallas Mavericks making that official Wednesday. He was the best player in college basketball last season, winning the Wooden Award and leading Duke to the Final Four. He averaged 19.2 points, 7.5 rebounds and 4.2 assists, answering questions about his shooting by making 38.5% of his perimeter attempts.

Opposing college coaches have zero doubts about his ability to translate to the NBA level.

“He’s got a swagger to him, a toughness and he’s physically ready to make an impact,” one coach told ESPN. “For a young kid going to the NBA, if he’s never been in a situation where he’s been the guy, it’s hard to flip a switch. But he’s been in every single one of those situations. Playing off ball screens, coming off pindowns, rebounding and going. Showed his versatility all year long. He’s done all that stuff at the highest level of college basketball.”

Coming out of high school, Flagg’s shooting was something of a question, but the Maine native improved as his freshman season in Durham progressed. He shot 44% from behind the arc in ACC play, making multiple 3s in nine games.

“Early in the year, you could go under a ball screen against him. You weren’t doing that by the end of the year,” another coach said. “The NBA is a big isolation league. So when it comes to individual wiggle and being able to get by guys, he’ll have to figure those things out.”

Coaches also thought Flagg’s landing spot will be a positive for his development, mostly due to the fact he’ll be playing alongside Kyrie Irving and other veterans.

“I think he fits in well,” one coach said. “He won’t be keyed on as the main guy every single night. For a young guy, that can shake your confidence. I’m not worried about that with him.”

Even without being the Mavericks’ top offensive option, Flagg will be the heavy favorite for Rookie of the Year.

“[If he can] just be a well-rounded 15 points, 8 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 steals, a block [contributor] … he’ll win Rookie of the Year,” an ACC coach said, “because Dallas should be good, assuming health.”

Nearly every college coach we spoke with agreed that there was a gap after Flagg at No. 1 and Harper at No. 2 — each in classes of their own.

“[Harper is] as good a player as we’ve played against in the last 10 years, whether you’re going back to Markelle Fultz or talking about Paolo Banchero. He’s better than Jabari Smith. I’m super, super high on him. I think he’s closer to Flagg than No. 3 is to him,” one opposing coach said of the new San Antonio Spurs guard. “He’s a pick-and-roll maestro. It doesn’t matter what coverage you throw at him, it might take him a possession or two but he’ll find a way to beat it.”

“Flagg and Harper are the only two to me that have an All-NBA ceiling,” another coach added. “There’s such a big drop-off — it’s almost like those next guys are not Tier 3, it’s Tier 4. That’s how big I think the gap is between Dylan and everyone else.”

THE NEXT TIER

The biggest beneficiary of Bailey’s drop was Edgecombe. The Bahamas native showed off his impressive athleticism throughout his one season at Baylor, improving his offensive consistency and playmaking as the season progressed. Now, he’ll have the chance to join a talented backcourt featuring Tyrese Maxey and Jared McCain.

“Until I saw him in person, I was critical of him. ‘He’s a lock to be a top-five guy?'” one coach said. “And then we played him and he was just relentless. His athleticism, his shot got a lot better as the season went on. Started getting more consistent from the perimeter.”

“He has to be the most athletic player or prospect in the draft,” another added. “He’s a high-flyer, he plays bigger than what he is. He can defend 1 through 5, at least in college. He can probably do the same because the 5s are more mobile. Positional versatility, athleticism and just the way he defends.”

The fit alongside Maxey and McCain could be a concern, although multiple coaches said there could have been questions about his offensive role regardless of landing spot.

“Can he be a primary guy?” one Big 12 coach asked. “He’s not a guy where you can put the ball in his hands and say go get a bucket. He just isn’t that. He’s a slasher, a pick-and-roll guy, great in transition, offensive rebounding, does all the little things. But if there’s one negative, it’s just how is he going to score in the NBA.”

---

The second of three Duke players selected in the top 10, Knueppel skyrocketed in mock drafts last fall and maintained that position throughout the Blue Devils’ terrific season. While playing second fiddle to Flagg, Knueppel averaged 14.4 points and shot better than 40% from 3-point range — popping as a shotmaker late in the season and in the NCAA tournament. He was considered the best catch-and-shoot perimeter shooter in the draft. And he has a comfort level with not being a team’s primary offensive option, which could be appealing to Charlotte, where he will play alongside LaMelo Ball and Brandon Miller.

“He was such a difference-maker for Duke last season, being the Robin to Cooper Flagg’s Batman,” one coach said. “When you have a guy capable of dropping 30 in a game and isn’t the main guy on scouting reports, that’s dangerous. The NBA loves guys that can make shots, and if you can do that, you’ll be in the league for a long time.”

While Knueppel’s floor appears high, making him a safe bet for the Hornets, he might not possess the ceiling of the other players in this tier, opposing coaches said. The focus for him moving forward will come at the other end of the floor.

“Guys can get played off the floor [in the NBA],” one coach said. “Can Kon stay on the court guarding in one-on-one situations? He’s got the size and frame, but does he have the footspeed? That’s the one thing you don’t get to see against Duke, with how much they mask things, how much they’re helping. They don’t allow offensive teams a lot of space, so rarely did he have to guard in space. He has to prove he can do that.”

---

A year ago, it appeared that Bailey would be right in the mix with Flagg and Harper at the top of the board. Bailey showed flashes of that ability during his freshman season at Rutgers, but questions continued to pop up that precipitated a slight drop. He was listed at 6-foot-10 in college but measured at 6-7 1⁄2 at the combine. He was also the only U.S. prospect who didn’t visit an NBA team facility during the predraft process, canceling a scheduled one with the 76ers.

From an on-court perspective, coaches understandably loved his scoring ability.

“He’s versatile, he’s got size, he’s skilled like an off-guard,” one Big Ten coach said. “He’s the prototypical NBA wing. He’s a really tough cover. He can move. Not elite athleticism, but a good athlete. He can shoot over players and the ability to make contested shots adds value.”

But will all of that translate? And what about the other aspects of his game?

“If you’re [Kevin] Durant, sure, [relying on hard shots] can work,” one coach said. “But he’s 7-1. Ace isn’t going to be a stand-in-the-corner guy.”

“The knock on him, whether it was in high school or at Rutgers, is that he’s disengaged defensively,” another Big Ten coach said. “He doesn’t need to become an all-NBA defender. But you need to get buy-in from him defensively.”

---

Johnson’s offensive ability has kept him in the top half of the lottery conversation for much of the cycle. The former top-five recruit averaged 19.9 points and shot nearly 40% from 3 during his lone season at Texas

While he was the go-to guy offensively for the Longhorns, most opposing coaches think his best role in the NBA — assuming he’s not immediately Washington’s offensive focal point — is as a microwave scorer off the bench or a specialist catch-and-shoot option. The Wizards struggled mightily from the perimeter and just traded Jordan Poole, making Johnson an easy fit.

“He’s a scoring guard, period,” a coach said. “He’s one of the best shooters in the draft. He’ll have to learn that you don’t need to dribble the ball eight times before shooting, but he can be a borderline All-Star because of how well he shoots the ball. He can be a catch-and-shoot guy and shoot 50%.”

The questions about Johnson center around the rest of his game and whether he will contribute enough in other facets to impact winning at the highest level.

“He’s a great individual talent,” another coach added. “But if you’re not scoring, what other things are you doing that help winning? Inevitably the best players in the world are going to have off nights.”

---

The freshman out of Oklahoma was the biggest riser of the past 12 months — he wasn’t even in this draft class a year ago, but he opted to reclassify into 2024 and commit to Oklahoma, where he emerged as one of the most dynamic guards in the country despite not turning 18 until October.

“He’s wired to score,” one coach said. “I kind of compare him a little bit to [Nets guard] Cam Thomas. He’s a better playmaker than Thomas was coming out of college. He has the ability to make reads, you can double-team him or trap a ball screen, but he’ll read it perfectly, whereas other freshmen get rattled. He’s a sneaky athlete, too.”

What will determine his ceiling might be his perimeter shooting. He shot 28.4% from 3 on the season, making only 15 shots from 3 in 18 SEC games.

“He’s streaky, not a consistent shooter,” one opposing coach said. “He has to continue to build up his frame, but he’s a young kid, only 18 years old. As he matures physically as he gets older, he’ll be able to take a little bit greater command of the position, get into the paint, deal with physicality. “

MORE FIRST-ROUND STORYLINES

Egor Demin: Lottery’s biggest riser

Had the draft taken place around the start of last college basketball season, the former BYU guard being selected at No. 8 by the Brooklyn Nets wouldn’t have come as a surprise. The Russia native slotted in at No. 7 in ESPN’s November mock draft after generating significant buzz following his arrival from Real Madrid. But an uneven freshman season in Provo caused his stock to fluctuate, ending up at No. 13 in ESPN’s final predraft mock.

On Wednesday, however, Demin found his way back into the top 10.

Opposing coaches were mixed on his ability to contribute immediately at the next level.

“He’s huge,” one Big 12 coach said. “Ball pressure bothers him, he plays pretty upright, he’s methodical. But he can make every read out there. … He’s got a little bit of a burst just because he goes from slow to medium, it throws you off. He’s throwing it over the top of guards. You can say, ‘Oh, that’s college,’ but he’s taller than most guards in the NBA, too. His passing is elite. He’s a better shooter than his percentages. And I think he’ll get better with the space of the NBA.”

“I don’t think he shoots, I don’t think he really defends,” one coach countered. “But people see a big guard who can pass and it’s sort of intriguing.”

Demin was one of five first-round picks for the Nets, with three of them — Demin, Nolan Traore (No. 19) and Ben Saraf (No. 26) — possessing heavy international experience. It was a fascinating haul, given all three were projected in the lottery back in November. “[The Nets are] obviously committed to their international scouting team, taking three guys who were international players who most felt underachieved this year,” one coach said. “There was clearly a belief in who Demin was before he came [to the United States].”

---

After Flagg and Knueppel, there was a longer-than-expected wait to hear Maluach’s name, but the Suns ultimately selected him at No. 10. He didn’t have nearly the college production of the other players drafted in the top 10, but his 7-2 size, 9-6 standing reach and 7-6 ¾ wingspan, combined with his defensive potential, are incredibly intriguing to coaches.

“You can throw him out there and he’s going to be able to impact the game with his size and shot-blocking, his defensive and offensive rebounding,” one opposing coach said. “In the NBA game, you have to have a 5-man like that, but the young ones, it’s just going to take him time. He does have some skill, he banged in a 3 early in the year, he has the potential to step out and shoot 3s.”

Another opposing coach questioned how advanced that skill level really is, and whether the perceived ceiling is actually lower in reality.

“I think he’s a lob-catching big. He’s massive, but I don’t think he’s an unbelievable athlete,” the coach said. “He’s not Dereck Lively II, who was a different type of mover, different athlete, had more skill. Maluach is not as good in any of those categories. I don’t think he’s got that same ceiling.”

“He’s still going to be a project at the end of the day,” another coach said.

Phoenix will be able to be patient with Maluach, as the franchise also traded two first-rounders to Charlotte for veteran center Mark Williams. But at No. 10, some of the risk is mitigated.

“He’s the type of archetype that usually goes up the board as time goes on,” one coach said. “It remains to be seen whether the shot is something that’s translatable. It doesn’t look bad mechanically, but it hasn’t gotten to the point where he’s taking them or making them with any real consistency. But it wouldn’t shock me if that’s something he was able to do over time.

“I like the vertical threat he presents at the rim as a finisher, I love his shot blocking, the defensive versatility that he has. He has to rebound the ball better. But he’s not someone who is going to come into the league and take his foot off the gas.”

---

Coward was among the most fascinating storylines in the lead-up to the draft. Starting his college career at the Division III level with Willamette University in Oregon, Coward was barely on NBA draft boards at this time last year, having finished up his second season at Eastern Washington in the Big Sky Conference.

Coward transferred to Washington State, where he played just six games before missing the rest of the season because of a shoulder injury. But after emerging as one of the standouts from the combine, he cemented his status as a top-20 pick and opted to remain in the draft instead of playing his final college season at Duke, where he committed out of the portal.

On Wednesday, he was selected No. 11 by the Grizzlies, who traded up to pick him.

“The thing that stuck out to me with him was he got better every year,” one Big Sky coach said. “When he first came in as a D-III transfer, we didn’t really know who he was. [He was] a skinny kid with length, developing his offensive game. He played hard as hell, impacted winning. He started to shoot the ball a little bit better, to the point now where he shot it really well in the short span last year. He kept adding to his game. Little bit more polished, little bit more refined, little bit smoother every time we played him.”

Surrounded by Ja Morant and Jaren Jackson Jr., Coward isn’t going to be asked to shoulder huge offensive responsibility early on, but opposing coaches think he’ll have no problem being a high-end role player in the NBA.

“He has the ability to shoot, legitimately catch-and-shoot,” one coach said. “He’s got the in-between game, he killed us in the post. He can play with a face-up game. He’s a pretty good defender. Blocked a ton of shots. He does so much to impact winning. He doesn’t need to be a guy who carries the load offensively, and I don’t know if he ever will be.”

The big question: Was No. 11 too high for a player who started just eight career games against power-conference opponents?

“Seeing him this year, he looked like a pro. He took a massive jump physically,” said one coach, who added that Coward’s highest-end ceiling shares a lot of the same traits as Kawhi Leonard. “He’s going to help you win in some capacity. He can do a lot to really impact the game, whether it’s off the bench or if he develops into a starting-caliber player. He’s a guy you’re going to bet on.”

---

Carter Bryant: Most unproven lottery pick

When the 2024-25 college basketball season ended, Bryant seemed like he could go either way with his draft decision. He started just five games as a freshman at Arizona, scoring in double-figures just a handful of times.

As the spring went on, though, it became clear Bryant wasn’t going back to college. His stock steadily rose, from a lock first-rounder into the top 20 and ultimately to No. 14 with the Spurs.

At 6-6 ½ without shoes, Bryant shot nearly 39% from 3-point range in Big 12 play, making multiple 3-pointers in a game nine times after the calendar turned to 2025.

“He’s got the positional size, the athleticism, the shooting, the defensive versatility, with potential to get better,” one Big 12 coach said. “In small doses, he showed some things offensively, that maybe he can be a little bit of a playmaker, he can make some passes. It wasn’t showcased a ton, but he did it enough. Whether it was guarded or unguarded, he’s able to get his shot off. He has room to grow in that area, he needs to continue to speed up his shot, but the NBA loves big wings that can shoot it.”

The Spurs will have to be patient, though, as he’s only shown his ability in flashes.

---

Veterans become higher first-round priority

While the top half of the first round was predictably filled with freshmen — the first eight picks were all first-year college players, and 18 freshmen were selected in the first round — the trend of older players being drafted earlier continued this year.

Coward, Walter Clayton Jr., Nique Clifford, Danny Wolf and Yanic Konan Niederhauser all transferred at least once and played at least three years in college, with Clifford, Clayton and Niederhauser all at least 22. And older college players Ryan Kalkbrenner (No. 34), Johni Broome (No. 35) and Chaz Lanier (No. 37) were picked fairly early in the second round.

The trend really took shape last year, when Zach Edey, Devin Carter, Dalton Knecht, Dillon Jones, Baylor Scheierman and Terrence Shannon Jr. were selected in the first round.

Why is this happening? It’s primarily related to the increased money available to student-athletes at the college level, allowing more players to stay in college, while the increased prevalence of the transfer portal has allowed mid-major stars to shine at higher levels and increase their draft stock.

“Financially, they’re rewarded to stay. It allows them to be a little more ready and polished for the next level,” one coach said. “The high-end guys, the lottery guys, you’re drafting on upside. But if I’m a playoff team, a play-in team and still growing, getting an older, mature guy that you know can help you in a role, that’s a smart bet. You’re still getting a guy in the prime of his career. You get more bang for your buck in Year 1 or 2, maybe not Year 6 or 7.”

This might be one of the final years of the trend, however. A long list of borderline first-round picks opted to return to college at the withdrawal deadline this spring, including Michigan’s Yaxel Lendeborg, Florida’s Alex Condon, Auburn’s Tahaad Pettiford, Alabama’s Labaron Philon and NC State’s Darrion Williams. Duke’s Isaiah Evans, Texas Tech’s JT Toppin and UConn’s Alex Karaban didn’t even go through the draft process.

All of these players — and many others — were compensated handsomely for their decisions to stay in school, but with the House vs. NCAA settlement and salary caps potentially impacting players’ earnings potential in the new revenue-sharing era, will the money to return to college be enough to keep players out of the draft in the future?

“I think it’ll flip back the other way with rev share,” one high-major coach said. “You look at the rev share numbers, a lot of SEC schools are putting most of their money into football. Their rev share numbers are between $2 [million] to $3 million. This year, we had collectives, some of those teams had $10 [million] to $12 million. We had a couple on our team that came back because they’re going to make more money here than going in the second round. But with those numbers going down, those potential first-rounders or high-second rounders, I can see them going to the league instead.”

“I think this will be one of the last years of it,” another coach added. “There are a lot of really good players staying in college because of NIL. Once revenue share kicks into effect and the NIL market gets some stability, you’re going to see a lot more of these fringe first-rounders stay in the draft. It used to be where if you were top 40, 90% of those guys were staying in the draft. Now it’s shifted to where you need to be a top-20 player to stay in.”

One byproduct of all the aforementioned players staying in college as opposed to entering the draft was the lack of surefire hits in the second round. A coach pointed out that 14 second-round picks last year received guaranteed deals, with only two of the first 47 picks landing two-way deals.

That might not be the case this year.

“It’s one of the worst second rounds of all time. A huge part of that is because of NIL,” the coach said. “Go through all the guys that would’ve been late first, early second, it would’ve really moved things. It wasn’t a strong draft to begin with, but with all those guys going back, after No. 35 or so, I don’t know if I would give [many] of these guys a guaranteed deal.”

OTHER NOTABLE FIRST-ROUNDERS

First non-freshmen picked: Murray-Boyles has a truly unique profile. He measured at just 6-6 ½ without shoes, but he did nearly all of his offensive damage around the basket. He attempted just 39 3-pointers during his 60 games with South Carolina but was dominant in the paint.

Murray-Boyles was able to overcome his size issues in college, making an impact defensively and with his passing, but he’ll have to expand his skill set at the next level.

“He’s got sort of a unique game, and the NBA falls in love with guys who have a little bit of a lot of things,” one coach said. “He’s a guy who has a chance to be a very good defender. He doesn’t have great height, but he has good size in terms of measurements and strength. He can do a little bit of everything, he can pass, he can rebound, he’s not a very good shooter at this point. I think he’s a good player, but I think he’s a blend player. I don’t think, individually, he’s got unbelievable talent where he’s bringing something to the table right away. If he’s on a good team, he can help it function. But I don’t know if Toronto is that.”

---

Mixed reviews: Coaches were split on this trio of Big Ten picks.

Maryland’s Queen established himself as one of the most skilled bigs in college basketball last season, highlighted by his buzzer-beater to knock off Colorado State in the second round of the NCAA tournament. But there are questions about his maturity, and his lack of athleticism could cap his perceived upside.

“He’s so skilled,” one Big Ten coach said. “I love his passing ability. You watch him on film, you think he’s not athletic. But in person, it doesn’t matter. If he’s able to develop a motor, I really think he’s got a chance to be one hell of an NBA player.”

Michigan State’s Richardson saw his stock fluctuate throughout the past few months, rising into the first round and eventually the lottery after Tom Izzo moved him from the bench into the starting lineup in early February. But after measuring at just over 6 feet without shoes at the combine, Richardson’s spot in mocks dropped into the 20s — and he ultimately didn’t receive an invite to the green room.

Orlando bought the dip and selected him at No. 25.

“I like Jase Richardson. He would be a nightmare to coach against in college next year, but I don’t see it [in the NBA],” one Big Ten coach said. “He’s a 6-foot guard whose primary skill is scoring — not shooting, but scoring. He’s not a great defender, not a super dynamic playmaker for others. He’s got below-average size. So is he Trae Young? Is he T.J. McConnell? Is he Davion Mitchell?”

Michigan’s Wolf had one of the more interesting roles in the Big Ten last season, with Dusty May using the 6-11 Yale transfer as a playmaker with the ball in his hands because of his decision-making out of ball screens and passing ability. But there are questions on how it will translate to the next level.

“He can play in pick-and-roll, as a big man he can make incredible passes,” one coach said. “But he’s a high-turnover guy. With his role in the NBA, you’re not going to be able to make an incredible pass and then two bad passes. An NBA team is not going to let him just roll through his turnovers.”

“Part of his beauty is that he can do so many things, but none of it he’s excellent at,” another added. “Will a team try to make him elite at something, or are they OK with the buffet?”

---

NCAA tournament impact: Clayton’s rise to No. 18 on the heels of an incredible NCAA tournament run was highlighted by one coach. Clayton was unbelievable during Florida’s march to a national championship, averaging 24.6 points in the Gators’ first five tournament games, including 34 points in the Final Four against Auburn and 30 points against Texas Tech.

“He’s a great example of what winning does for a player’s stock,” the coach said. “He went from a mid-to-late second-round pick to a late first-round pick. Florida going on a run, him being able to be on that platform and showcase his talents. That right there made the kid millions and millions of dollars.”

---

Biggest slides of opening night: Illinois’ Jakucionis was ranked No. 10 on Jonathan Givony’s Big Board and projected at No. 11 in ESPN’s final predraft mock, while UConn’s McNeeley was No. 17 on Givony’s board and mocked at No. 20, each falling notably below their evaluations. Multiple coaches thought the two could be tremendous values for the teams that landed them.

Jakucionis looked like a legitimate All-American in nonconference play, averaging 16.4 points, 5.6 rebounds and 5.4 assists through 14 games, headlined by a stretch of 20-point outings against Arkansas, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Tennessee and Missouri.

While one Big Ten coach agreed this landing spot was good value for the Heat and a potentially good fit for Jakucionis, alongside Tyler Herro in the backcourt, he also understood the slide.

“He’s a three-level scorer,” the coach said. “He played with a great change of pace. As the season went on and as teams scouted him, he kind of came back down to earth. But he plays with a toughness. He’s not an elite athlete. His stats tailed off the second half of Big Ten play, and he’s someone you could go at and isolate on defense.”

McNeeley was a five-star recruit coming out of high school but was hampered by an injury during the middle part of his freshman campaign in Storrs. He’s a shotmaker with size and had some of the best individual performances of any freshman last season: 26 points and eight rebounds against Gonzaga, plus 38 points and 10 rebounds against Creighton.

One Big East coach thought McNeeley’s ankle injury that caused him to miss eight games during conference play impacted his efficiency and effectiveness at both ends of the floor, which might have contributed to his slide.

“I don’t think he’s the 29th-best player in the draft,” he said. “He’s 6-8 and he’s a much better shooter than his percentages suggest. He’s really competitive. I think he’s a little bit better [overall] basketball player than he gets credit for, in terms of his ability to drive the ball and pass the ball.”

---

Surprise pick: The North Carolina wing was something of a surprise at No. 22, with the Nets using their third first-round selection on the former five-star recruit. He had an inconsistent role as a freshman for the Tar Heels with 7.4 points per game but tested as arguably the best athlete at the combine, pacing the player pool in both max vertical leap and standing vertical leap.

Can he help Brooklyn immediately? Opposing coaches have questions.

“He fits the prototype of that 3-and-D guy, but is he really good enough at either of those to actually fit that profile?” one ACC coach asked.

“A lot of what people thought about Powell dates back to some of the enthusiasm at the end of his high school career, when people saw a guy who wasn’t a good shooter but had size and versatility. Good passer, some feel, good athlete, maybe the potential to be a big point guard,” one coach added. “And then he gets to North Carolina, and he becomes a full-time wing player with real limitations offensively.”

---

Made the cut: The Penn State big man capped his meteoric rise by seeing his name taken with the last pick of the first round.

Niederhauser raised his stock as much as anyone during the predraft process, working his way from averaging 12.9 points last season for the Nittany Lions to the G League Elite camp and then earning an invite to the NBA draft combine. Remember, this is a player who averaged 7.3 points at Northern Illinois just two seasons ago.

“He’s just scratching the surface. He’s somebody that can be like a Dereck Lively type in the NBA,” one coach said. “I think if he came back to college, he would’ve been a lottery pick next year.”

SECOND-ROUND NOTES

Auburn’s Broome, Stanford’s Raynaud, West Virginia’s Small and Wisconsin’s Tonje stood out to coaches as values. Two pointed out that the gap between Broome — a consensus first-team All-American and the perceived runner-up to Flagg for Player of the Year honors — and first-round big men such as Murray-Boyles shouldn’t have been that wide.

“He’s a player that is limited athletically. There’s probably more things people can say about him, age, all this stuff,” one coach said. “But he got Player of the Year in the best league in the country, he went to the Final Four. Some of that has to have some substance at the next level. He did everything that everyone asked. And he produced every night. What else is he supposed to do? He had a historic year in a conference that was historically one of the best ever.”

Raynaud was also one of the most productive players in college basketball last season, averaging 20.2 points and 10.6 rebounds while shooting nearly 35% from 3 at 7-foot-1.

“I like Raynaud. He’s big and can shoot. He can pick and pop. He rebounds,” one coach said. “What can he do defensively? He’s not switchable, he’s not a rim protector, so what does that look like? But offensively he’ll be able to play. He’s a plug-and-play role player.”

Of the group, Tonje had the most circuitous route to the draft. He spent four years at Colorado State, played sparingly at Missouri before suffering an injury, then transferred again to Wisconsin, where he emerged as a consensus first-team All-Big Ten selection.

“His shotmaking is real,” a Big Ten coach said. “I don’t know why people don’t like him.”

Finally, one coach compared Small to former Houston guard Jamal Shead, who made an impact at both ends of the floor for the Raptors in a key bench role as a rookie.

“He’s the consummate backup NBA point guard,” the coach said. “Experience, size, shotmaking ability. Pick-and-roll passer. He should be a better defender, but he’s a good rebounder for a guard.”

---

Two ACC wings, James from Duke and Watkins from Florida State, drew praise as second-round picks.

“James’ physicality is on another level,” one coach said. “He’s going to have the defensive part. He can go play defensively in a playoff game right now. He can guard different guys, he can switch. Is he going to be a good enough shooter to hang in the corner and make enough 3s where guys have to guard him?”

“I like Jamir Watkins,” an ACC coach said. “He’s big, he can guard multiple positions, he can make some plays. I think he’s a good enough shooter, some people don’t trust the shooting. But watch the playoffs. He fits that prototype of a future role player. He’ll be able to switch 1 through 4 and hold his own. I think he can fit that 3-and-D profile better than, like, Will Riley and Drake Powell.”

Associated Press

Johni Broome was a college basketball headliner at Auburn, the Associated Press first-team All-American an undeniable force powering the Tigers to the Final Four.

His NBA journey is coming with less fanfare.

The fifth-year big man went to the Philadelphia 76ers with the No. 35 pick in Thursday’s second round of the draft. If offered an example of how elite college production doesn’t always equate to high-end NBA potential or draft status, particularly when it comes to an older player deemed more of a finished product compared to the youngster with rising upside.

Still, the player ESPN college basketball analyst Jay Bilas described simply as a winner is tough, tested and eager to start his pro pursuit all the same.

“I think what he said was right,” Broome said of Bilas during Thursday’s ESPN broadcast. ”I’m a winner. I get things done, offensively and defensively, so the Sixers got a good one.”

The 6-foot-9, 249-pound Broome — who started his career as an unheralded recruit for two years at Morehead State — averaged 18.6 points, 10.8 rebounds and 2.1 blocks last year for Auburn, which started the year at No. 11 in the AP Top 25 poll but immediately climbed to a top-5 status it wouldn’t yield for the rest of the year behind Broome’s brilliance. That included eight straight weeks ranked at No. 1 from mid-January to early March.

Broome stuffed box scores so thoroughly that he was the player of the year in a rugged Southeastern Conference, which was hands down the nation’s top conference and produced a record 14 bids to the NCAA Tournament. And he finished as runner-up for AP national player of the year to Duke freshman and eventual No. 1 overall draft pick Cooper Flagg in what was a true two-man spotlight this season, with Broome collecting a third of the vote as the only other player named on a ballot.

He pushed the Tigers program to only its second trip to college basketball’s biggest stage, grinding through an elbow injury suffered during the Elite Eight win against Michigan State and then being hampered by it during the loss to eventual champion Florida in the national semifinals a week later.

That all seemingly had him positioned to be a first-round prospect who led Auburn to 59 wins in the past two years alone.

NBA evaluations, however, are different.

Broome lacks elite athleticism. His testing and measurements at the combine didn’t help his first-round chances; he had a 28-inch max vertical leap, tied for second worst at the combine, while only six players posted a lower standing vertical leap (24.0). He also finished tied for fourth-worst in the shuttle run (3.23 seconds) designed to test agility.

Numbers aren’t everything, of course. Maryland big man Derik Queen tied Broome for the second-worst max vertical and still went on to go late in the lottery (No. 13). But Queen is the still-developing prospect growing into his upside at 20 years old and with just 36 games of college experience, compared to Broome being the as-is prospect who turns 23 on July 19 after playing 168 college games.

When it comes to his game, he plays more below the rim and lacks the defense-stretching range essential in today’s game built around floor-spacing.

His jumper is rated as “below average” in Synergy’s analytics rankings, with him making 27.1% to rank in the 25th percentile — with most of those attempts coming in catch-and-shoot situations. That underlying data aligns with his outside-shooting statistics, where Broome made just 31.4% of his 3-point attempts (53 of 169) over the last two seasons and had at least two made 3s in just 15 of 71 games.

He was at his best in post-ups, as a cutter, working as the roll man in pick-and-rolls and attacking the offensive glass, ranking “good” to “very good” in all of those categories in Synergy. He also ranked as “very good” in finishing layups and dunks at the rim, converting 65.9% of those attempts to rank in the 81st percentile.

Metrics aside, there’s a place in the NBA for guys who can rebound and defend with toughness. He’s already proven he can, along with putting in the work going back to being a three-star signee with Morehead State.

“He may not be an above-the-rim big guy, but he carves out space and he gets things done,” Bilas said during the broadcast. “A really productive player that has been overlooked before and has come through.”

___

AP Sports Writer Steve Reed contributed to this report.

___

AP NBA: https://apnews.com/nba

---

What’s in a name?

The NIL legislation allows college athletes to monetize their personal brands, and players like Caitlin Clark, Angel Reese, and Cameron Brink were quick to seize the opportunity. Clark, in particular, is absolutely nasty (gen Z translation: insanely good) on the court. Her generational talent and aggressive style are riveting. When she and Reese went head-to-head, it wasn’t just a game. It was a cultural moment that sold tickets and sparked nationwide conversation.

Past pushes for equity in women’s sports, like Megan Rapinoe’s advocacy in soccer, laid crucial groundwork. But social justice messaging alone doesn’t fill arenas. Equity matters, but entertainment gets butts in seats. Clark and Reese’s rivalry delivered both: raw talent and emotional stakes. And thanks to NIL, players can build brands as students, cementing cultural relevance early and extending influence beyond the court. Clark translated her dominance into off-court star power, securing partnerships with Nike, Gatorade, State Farm, Buick, and more. Her social media boasts over 2.29 million followers across Instagram and TikTok.

The next wave is already in motion. USC’s JuJu Watkins checks the traditional boxes of athlete superstardom, like a major Nike deal, but she’s also expanding what that looks like. As the face of NYX’s ‘Make Them Look’ campaign, she brings beauty and basketball into the same frame.

Then there’s Flau’jae Johnson, the ultimate multi-hyphenate. She balances a rap career under JAY-Z’s Roc Nation with deals from Puma, JBL, Meta, and Taco Bell. Her ability to merge sports and music made her the top NIL earner in women’s college basketball, with an estimated $1.5m in deals.

UConn’s Paige Bueckers has carved out her own brand path, combining big-name sponsorships with purpose-driven work. She’s promoted financial literacy with Intuit and helped launch a free grocery store in partnership with Chegg.

These athletes aren’t waiting to go pro; they’re building brands in real time with fans following every phase of their lives.

The playbook

TikTok has been a major amplifier, turning athletes into influencers. The NCAA Women’s Basketball TikTok channel alone features over 74m posts. Players share highlights, but also personality, style, and everyday life. For gen Z, who wants the full story – not just the final score – this builds real emotional investment.

It’s translating to real-world impact: WNBA attendance is up 48%, while ESPN viewership rose 170%. The Indiana Fever, led by rookie Caitlin Clark, averaged 17,000 fans per game (a 320% surge). While the NWSL also saw record highs with 11,250 fans per match (a 6% increase), the WNBA is operating on an entirely different level.

What does this mean for brands? Firstly, don’t just think of players; think of protagonists. This means, don’t just get in early, get in smart. Look for athletes with talent and a strong narrative. Angel Reese isn’t just a baller; she’s a cultural magnet. Her rivalry with Clark drove national attention and sold out arenas. She flexed this momentum into attending the MET Gala and fronting campaigns for Thom Browne and Coach. That’s not just influence, that’s impact.

Secondly, give athletes creative freedom. Not to be too gen-Z slangy, but “let them cook.” The most resonant content happens when brands step back and let players shape the story. Whether it’s showing off off-court passions or posting raw, unscripted moments, it builds real trust. Gen Z is hyper-aware; they know what’s real and what’s brand-safe filler.

Lastly, be mindful. Remember that with influence comes responsibility. As brands align with younger athletes, there’s a duty of care to consider. These players are still growing on the court and in life. Brands can offer mentorship by pairing athletes with more seasoned ambassadors, or providing access to financial advisors, legal experts, or performance coaches. Even outside the sports world, brands can tailor support – like Intuit helping Paige Bueckers navigate NIL taxes – to match their industry strengths. That’s how you build healthier, longer-lasting partnerships rooted in real care.

Brand-builders

The evolution of NIL laws hasn’t just transformed college basketball. It’s spotlighting young women as some of the most dynamic brand-builders in culture today. These athletes are confident, multidimensional, and deeply connected to their audiences. They move seamlessly between courts, red carpets, and social feeds, bringing their communities with them. Aligning with these emerging stars isn’t just about sports. It’s about staying culturally fluent, emotionally resonant, and ahead of where attention is going next.

May 2024 marked a brand new chapter in the history of Arizona State athletics, with the hiring of alumnus Graham Rossini as the university’s newest athletic director following the departure of Ray Anderson, who served in that capacity for roughly a decade.

Year one brought a whirlwind of unanticipated success for Sun Devil athletics as the school transitioned from its former home in the Pac-12 Conference to the Big 12 Conference in the vast majority of its sports. Despite this significant period of change, many Sun Devil programs saw significant success over the last nine months, winning four conference championships (football, volleyball, men’s, and women’s swimming).

On Thursday morning, Rossini held a press conference, which, among other topics, reviewed the first full sports year for ASU in their new conference.

“26 sports, 15 of them finished in the top 25,” Rossini noted in his opening remarks. “This last year, we had 10 combined first or second-place conference finishes, four Big 12 championships, which led the Big 12, and four Big 12 runners-up as well.

“I think the nation has started to really understand what we’re capable of accomplishing at Arizona State University. We want to win, we talk about Operation: Rings and Banners all the time, we want to compete at the highest level.”

Rossini credits a large portion of the success of the 2024–25 athletic year to the connectivity of the coaching staff across the department that has worked amongst themselves to foster growth at ASU. Rossini noted that the university coaching tree at ASU feels more intertwined now than it did back in May 2024.

“We no longer have these 26 sports that operate largely like independent contractors,” Rossini noted. “They’re connected, they’re collaborating, they’re pushing each other in ways that are healthy and competitive.”

With the additional success comes added fandom and excitement in the Valley toward Sun Devil football. Much of Rossini’s remarks looking ahead to the 2025–26 athletic year were related to the boom of popularity and resources ASU has earned heading into the fall, starting with football, as the ASU craze has made Tempe the new hotspot for Saturday afternoons in the Phoenix metropolitan.

“Seven thousand new season tickets for next football season as of today,” Rossini stated. “We expect to exceed 7,500 new season tickets by the start of the season. That puts us at the most total season tickets in well over a decade.”

As the rapidly changing environment of collegiate athletics continues, the Sun Devils feel comfortable in their foundation to this point. Revenue for the university has seen exponential growth starting in August 2023, when Sun Devil Stadium, the home of ASU football, agreed to a naming rights deal with Mountain America Credit Union worth over $50 million at the time.

“I think it’s still the largest investment in college football history. That really started our evolution of building out a better business within Sun Devil Athletics,” Rossini remarked. “That’s continued with the partnerships that we’ve started to create. We have a number of new partners coming in at seven-figure levels, really focused on ticket selling and fundraising.”

As money flows through the veins of college athletics, changes in NCAA rules, regulations, and guidelines for NIL and other compensation for college athletes continue. The summer of 2025 is no different than many in years past, as the NCAA settles on new financial decisions meant to aid in monetary regulation.

This time around, the NCAA has settled upon a maximum of $20.5 million that each university can supply in revenue sharing for its student-athletes. This decision is based on the percentage of the school’s commercial-driven revenue through athletics. Due to the fact that Arizona State is expanding its number of scholarship athletes across its sports to meet the max numbers, it will actually have roughly $18 million this year to distribute in revenue share funds to all of its scholarship student-athletes. This figure is expected to increase by 4% annually to keep pace with rising living costs.

It is essential to note that this is not a salary cap on the amount a collegiate athlete can receive through NIL contracts. However, it does impose a restriction on the amount of money that can be received directly from the university. For Rossini, this was an anticipated step in the direction of college athlete compensation, as the NCAA continues to look for a permanent solution to the chaos surrounding name, image, and likeness (NIL).

“I think the overall benefit is that there are steps toward uniform guidelines,” Rossini commented. “And at least in terms of rev share and NIL and roster caps, we understand that environment. I think we’ve got a long way to go as an industry in terms of officiating and some of the sport-specific rules that need to be unified at a Division I level or an NCAA level. I don’t think each conference should have different interpretations of competitive rules. I think we need to really focus on balancing out that landscape.”

The balance of the landscape is set for now, but the NCAA doesn’t regulate where each school spends its annual revenue share funds. Proposed distribution models across the country for colleges that have a football program suggest that roughly 75% of the annual revenue share funds will be allocated to football. The majority of the remaining 25% will be allocated to men’s basketball, with the remaining funds distributed to the rest of the collegiate athletes at any given university.

Ultimately, Rossini stayed far away from floating numbers or percentage points on Thursday, and no figures were implied on how much ASU will spend per program. The monetary structure is centered on scholarship growth while unifying the athletic department and all 600 student-athletes at Arizona State, ensuring they are adequately compensated.

“We’ll be spending off about $18 million on the rev share,” Rossini said. “So, the available dollars are $20.5 million. If you follow the documents, there are two separate deduct categories. There’s up to $2.5 million in additional scholarship. We’ve blown beyond that number, adding 200-plus, so we hit that threshold no problem.

“We are discontinuing the Alston program (education-related financial awards provided directly by universities for academic-related expenses) that we’ve had for the last three or four years, which allows us to maintain $18 million going into rev share. Again, our scholarship investment is significant, but we’re convinced that it’s the right way to put our dollars into our department.”

Rossini’s long-term vision for the athletic department differs from that of the majority of Power Four programs. Fourteen of ASU’s 26 athletic programs are women’s sports, and the school is focused on building a culture that uplifts every team in the athletic department.

It was announced in May 2025 that multiple Division I universities, including UTEP and Cal Poly, would be dropping women’s tennis, along with swimming and diving. In the Valley, Grand Canyon’s men’s volleyball team is also on the chopping block, with monetary reasoning at the forefront of the unprecedented waters that athletic departments now have to navigate.

Arizona State’s 26 sports tops all Big 12 teams, and the conference has only two other teams exceeding 20 sports (Arizona at 22 and TCU at 21). It’s possible that this new college sports landscape could ultimately force some schools in this league to go through a program attrition process, yet that does not appear to be an even remote possibility in Tempe.

“We’ve added scholarships to all 26 (sports),” Rossini proudly stated. “There are a lot of schools that are maybe incrementally adding a small number or pulling scholarships out of sports, giving them to football to go from 85 to 105, or giving these two extra men’s basketball scholarships. I’d be nervous if I were at that school. If I’m a sport that’s not a big revenue driver and it is a cost center, you better have some incremental value to the university. So, we’re looking at ways to just resource our programs.

“There’s a pathway where eventually every athlete at ASU could be on some form of athletic aid. And we’ve added operational budget to all 26 sports. So, we’re continuing to invest in all 26. This isn’t an isolation around football and men’s basketball. They’re certainly heavily involved in the rev share distribution, but all 26 have a place at the university, and we really try to be as diligent and aggressive in resourcing all of them as best we can.”

Every NIL deal an ASU student-athlete earns will need to be approved by the university before it can become official—a process that is already in place but with slight variations for future use.

“Our athletes are used to disclosing their NIL deals,” Rossini remarked. “There have been different tools that we’ve used for that, but we’ve always encouraged that. It’s been part of our process. Where it benefits moving forward is the new NIL Go (a Deloitte-run clearinghouse) process that we’ll be using. Deloitte is involved in managing that. And again, a lot of people are maybe skeptical about the reality of holding up to these new guidelines.”

Deloitte’s NIL Go system is becoming the newest standard in NIL structure. The accounting giant launched the program on June 11, 2025, and numerous Division I programs will use it entering the new athletic cycle. It requires all students to submit NIL deals worth $600 or more for review by a third party, in order to streamline the regulatory process.

An ASU athlete who will likely utilize NIL Go frequently is Sun Devil quarterback Sam Leavitt. The redshirt sophomore enters his second year in Tempe as a player in the upper echelon of collegiate quarterbacks, with Heisman Trophy potential being floated by analysts. Perhaps more remarkable than his playmaking on the field is his selflessness off it. While other universities tangle in bidding wars for their star signal-callers, Leavitt donated his 2024 season earnings back to the Sun Angel NIL Collective, along with $15,000 donation to the Pat Tillman Foundation.

At the head of Rossini’s vision for ASU athletics is a team leader such as Leavitt who is willing, able, and excited to replant fruitful seeds in the program for others to benefit from.

“I love the kids who are in our department. Sam Leavitt is really taking on massive leadership at ASU, not just for football, but for all of ASU,” Rossini said. “I think when you see a check like this where he’s donating his NIL money back to the Pat Tillman Foundation, it just tells me that they understand the legacy of our institution. They understand what it’s like to be a Sun Devil. They understand the spirit of giving back, and that’s what NIL is for.

“I think college has historically been very selfish. It’s ‘help us because we’re inefficient at running the industry ourselves. We need a handout for people to come and give us resources.’ We want to give that back. We want to build a better business, but we want to be very community-oriented, where we’re affecting causes that are important in the Valley.”

ASU’s 2024 football campaign is forever ingrained in the history of Sun Devil football, finishing with the second-highest win total in program history. However, Thursday marked an incredible day for the team that still holds the all-time record. Led by legendary head coach Frank Kush, the 1975 ASU football team finished the season 12–0, culminating in a Fiesta Bowl victory over Nebraska, marking the only undefeated season in school history.

It was announced Thursday that the 1975 team would be inducted into the Sun Devil Athletics Hall of Fame, 50 years removed from its unforgettable run.

“We knew that this 50th anniversary was significant, and they’re going to be a member of the Hall of Fame class this fall, which is also the 50th anniversary of the Sun Devil Athletics Hall of Fame,” Rossini noted. “So, we only have two other teams that have ever been inducted into the Hall of Fame. The ’75 football team will be the first football team, and it very well deserves to come in.”