Why “USC Needs to Get a Big” Isn’t as Simple as Fans Think
“Why didn’t USC get a big this season?”
“USC needs to make getting a big priority number one.”
“Just go get a post in the portal.”
I’ve seen all of it. In my comments, in my DMs, on social media, everywhere. And on the surface, I get why fans say it. When you watch certain games and you feel like the paint is a problem, the natural reaction is, go fix the paint. Simple, right? But what most people don’t see is that roster building right now isn’t just about basketball anymore. It’s about money, timing, market value, and a whole NIL system that, until very recently, didn’t really have any guardrails at all. And last offseason? That was the wildest version of it.
Going into last year, everybody in college sports knew change was coming. Revenue sharing was on the horizon. Schools knew some form of structure and limits were about to be put in place. Players knew it too. So what you had was basically a panic market on both sides. Players were thinking, this might be my last chance to really cash in, and schools were thinking, we have to fill needs right now before the rules change. That combination is exactly how you end up with inflated prices. Not because the players weren’t talented. Not because they didn’t deserve opportunities. But because when there are no real lanes, no cap, and no consistent structure, the market stops being about value and starts being about leverage. And last year, transfers had a lot of leverage. Now add in one more layer: Bigs are already a hot commodity.
There are only so many proven post players in the portal in any given year. Everybody needs rim protection. Everybody needs rebounding. Everybody wants someone who can hold up physically in conference play. So when even a decent-to-good post player pops up, the interest multiplies fast. And last offseason, when money was flying and restrictions weren’t really there yet, that demand pushed prices even higher.
So you had fewer bigs available, more schools chasing them, and more players aware that this was the moment to ask for top dollar. That’s how you get situations where mid-level production is being paid like star production. Again, that doesn’t mean those kids weren’t good players. It just means the market itself was inflated. That’s the part fans don’t always understand. It’s easy to say, “just go get a big,” but the real question last year wasn’t just who is available, it was who is available at a number that actually makes sense for your whole roster.
Because here’s the part nobody talks about: if you overpay one position, you don’t just feel that in one spot. You feel that across your entire team. Guards, depth, freshmen, future recruiting classes — all of it gets affected by one oversized deal if you don’t have any kind of structure holding things together. Last year, there really wasn’t much structure. Fast forward to now, and this is where things start to shift.
With revenue sharing coming into play and schools moving toward real internal salary structures, teams don’t have the same freedom to just throw bags around without thinking long term. Even if nobody is publicly calling it a “salary cap,” make no mistake — programs are budgeting now. They’re slotting money by position. They’re planning not just for this season, but for the next one too. Compliance is tighter. Deals are being looked at differently. The chaos phase is starting to settle down. Which is why I actually think this offseason is going to feel very different from last year. Instead of a seller’s market where players can name almost any price and wait for someone to bite, it’s starting to look more like a buyer’s market, where schools have more leverage again. Not because they don’t value players, but because the money finally has lanes. The days of panic spending are slowing down.
You can already see the sport trying to bring more order to all of this. It was just announced that the transfer portal for men’s and women’s basketball will now open after the NCAA championship game and only stay open for 15 days, instead of opening in the middle of the tournament and dragging on. That’s something coaches have been asking for, because the old system created rushed decisions, messy negotiations, and a lot of movement driven by panic instead of fit. A shorter, post-season window gives players time to finish their season, gives staffs a clearer picture of their rosters, and lines up much better with this new NIL and revenue-sharing structure where schools are actually budgeting and planning instead of reacting in real time. It doesn’t fix everything, but it does slow the chaos down — and that matters when money, agents, and long-term roster building are all part of the same conversation now. This is where another uncomfortable reality comes in.
You’re going to see a lot of players — guards and bigs — who got paid very well last year, and simply didn’t play to the level of what they were paid. They got the bag, but the production didn’t match the contract. And now, with tighter budgets and real roster math happening, those same players are either going to be asked to take less… or they’re going to be back in the portal. Not always because they’re bad players, but because the number no longer matches the role or the impact. Teams can’t afford to carry contracts that don’t align with production when there’s actual structure involved now. So you may start seeing some familiar names hit the portal again, not because they failed, but because last year’s market was inflated and this year’s market is correcting itself, and that matters a lot when we’re talking about bigs. Because now, teams aren’t just paying for height anymore. They’re paying for fit. Mobility. Defensive versatility. Can you run? Can you guard in space? Can you function in our system? Coaches aren’t just asking, are you tall, they’re asking, can you play our style of basketball — and does your price tag make sense within what we’re building? That part is huge for USC specifically.
USC doesn’t just need “a big.” USC needs the right type of big for how Coach Gottlieb wants to play — athletic, mobile, able to defend, able to function in actions, not just stand in the paint. And when you combine that with the market that was already overpriced last year, and then you add in JuJu getting hurt as well, that played a part too. It changes roster math, it changes urgency, it changes how much risk you’re willing to take financially in one offseason. When your cornerstone piece goes down, you don’t just throw money around hoping it fixes everything. You have to think longer term. It doesn’t just change roster math — it changes the entire dynamic of recruiting.
When you have a healthy superstar, you can sell stability. You can sell continuity. You can sell clearly defined roles around that star. But when that player is hurt, even temporarily, recruiting shifts into a different mode. Now you’re balancing short-term needs with long-term vision. You’re asking, do we plug holes for right now, or do we protect what we’re building for the next two or three years? Do we overspend in a weird market, or do we stay disciplined knowing the system is about to change? Sometimes that long-term thinking also means understanding timing — when it makes sense to chase short-term fixes, and when it makes more sense to protect future roster flexibility instead of overspending in a year where injuries, youth, or transition already affect what your realistic ceiling might be. Some programs choose to react to every immediate need. Others are more focused on keeping their options open so they can make the right moves when the roster, the market, and the fit all line up. That doesn’t mean you stop trying to win. It means you’re balancing today with tomorrow, instead of letting short-term pressure force decisions that could limit what you’re able to do a year from now.
There’s another layer that doesn’t get talked about enough in all of this: agents. This wasn’t just about players trying to secure the bag. It was also about agents trying to secure the bag for their clients — and for themselves. Because the higher the deal, the bigger the percentage the agent gets. In a system with no cap, no real structure, and no consistent valuation, last offseason was a perfect opportunity for agents to push numbers up, steer players toward the highest bidders, and take full advantage of a market that had no brakes on it. So when people talk about “overpaid” players, it’s not always just about a kid misjudging their own value. A lot of times it’s about an entire ecosystem — players, agents, collectives, schools — all operating in a moment where everyone knew the rules were about to change, and everybody was trying to maximize their position before they did. Now that structure is coming in, that dynamic changes too. Agents can’t just shop players to the highest bidder without considering roster budgets and positional value. Schools can’t just say yes to everything without hurting their long-term plans. And players are going to feel that shift, whether it’s through smaller offers, shorter deals, or being asked to re-enter the portal when production and contract don’t line up. And here’s another piece that fans don’t always factor in: locker room chemistry and culture still matter, even in the NIL era.
When you’re building for the future, you can’t just stack talent and hope it fits. You have to think about personalities, roles, buy-in, and how pieces actually work together day to day. Sometimes staffs are cautious about making a big portal splash not because they don’t want talent, but because they don’t want to disrupt what they’re trying to build culturally. Especially when you already have young players developing and you’re thinking about who this team needs to be two years from now, not just next month. That kind of decision never shows up on a stat sheet, and it never shows up in recruiting rankings, but it absolutely shows up in how teams grow, how players stay bought in, and how sustainable success actually gets built. And tied to that is another financial reality that’s starting to hit programs: multi-year NIL promises are risky.
When there was no structure, some deals weren’t just one-year commitments. Schools and collectives were making longer promises based on projections — projecting growth, projecting impact, projecting development. But basketball doesn’t always follow projections. Injuries happen. Roles change. Fit isn’t guaranteed. And now, programs are realizing that locking themselves into long financial commitments can limit flexibility when things don’t go exactly as planned. So now you’re seeing more caution. More short-term deals. More emphasis on flexibility instead of locking into big numbers too early. And that again feeds into why this offseason looks different from last year — because schools are protecting future options, not just chasing immediate fixes.
When you put all of that together — the inflated market, the lack of structure last year, the coming revenue-sharing rules, the reality of JuJu’s injury, how that shifts recruiting strategy, the role agents played in driving prices up, the importance of locker room chemistry, the risk of long-term NIL commitments, and now even changes to when and how the portal opens — it makes a lot more sense why certain moves didn’t happen. This isn’t fantasy basketball where you just plug in the tallest available name. This is real roster construction, real budgets, real development plans, and now real financial structure coming into the picture. So when people say, “USC should’ve just gone and got a big,” I think that skips over what last offseason really was — a market distorted by timing, fear of upcoming rules, and inflated expectations. And I think it skips over what this offseason is shaping up to be — more measured, more realistic, and way more about fit than flash.
Will USC look to add a post? Definitely. Definitely. But it won’t be because they wrote the biggest check. It’ll be because the basketball fit, the role, and the money all line up under a very different set of rules than what we saw a year ago. It’ll be about finding the right piece, not just the most expensive one. That’s the part of the conversation that keeps getting missed. And maybe that’s the hardest part for fans — learning that what feels urgent in the moment doesn’t always match what’s best for the program long term, and sometimes patience is part of building something that actually lasts.
