Once again, CBS Sports presents our annual Candid Coaches series, focusing on significant issues in men’s college basketball. In recent weeks, Gary Parrish and Matt Norlander surveyed around 100 coaches on various topics, ensuring anonymity for unfiltered opinions. This is part two of our 2025 survey.

The House Settlement, which took effect this summer, generated considerable funds for attorneys and reinstated somewhat of a recruiting regulation framework for college sports. Each Division I athletic department supposedly has up to $20.5 million to allocate for athletes as it sees fit. Supposedly, name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements that were virtually unlimited previously are now meant to be monitored, with anything resembling pay-for-play being prohibited.

This implies the return of rules in recruiting.

The previous days of coaches colluding with boosters to funnel money to prospects in exchange for their commitments should be a thing of the past. But is it really?

Matt Norlander and I decided to ask over 100 college coaches: Given that there is now essentially a salary cap in college sports, do you trust that your rivals will adhere to the rules?

• No: 89%
• Yes: 11%

Noteworthy Quotes

From coaches who said No:

• “I do not trust that most high-level competitors will stay within the rules. There is too much at stake.”
• “No. That has never happened.”
• “Absolutely not. I don’t think there’s a single coach who will say they are going to follow the NCAA constitution; get out of here.”

From coaches who said Yes:

• “I think you have to [follow the rules now]. It’s not like it was 5-10 years ago when programs had to figure out how to hide $10,000 to $50,000 payments. Now, you’re talking about hiding hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe even millions.”
• “I believe many at the low/mid-major level will adhere to the rules due to limited resources.”
• “Do I believe 51% of coaches will follow these rules? Yes. Do I think 80%? That’s pushing it.”

Conclusion

The findings illustrate a point I’ve consistently made since before the House Settlement became reality: a salary cap in college basketball will not function effectively as currently designed. Cheating has pervaded recruiting for decades; thus, the likelihood of a change seems low.

In a landscape where hard caps exist, the same coaches who previously breached them will likely continue to do so, as the potential rewards (wins, championships, contract extensions) often outweigh the perceived risks. The response from the surveyed coaches indicates a widespread sentiment of distrust towards adherence to the new rules.