> NIL: When Doing Nothing Is the Most Rational Choice

Walter Rodriguez, PhD, PE

Abstract

In complex systems, the absence of immediate intervention is not a void to be filled, but a signal to observe, learn, and preserve optionality. This study contends that under conditions of high uncertainty and incomplete information, strategic inaction can outperform proactive intervention. Using Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policy responses as a focal case, and drawing parallels to program proliferation and capital expansion in higher education and community governance, the paper demonstrates how action bias and overbuilding often produce irreversible commitments that undermine long-term institutional effectiveness. Rather than advocating passivity, the study reframes doing nothing as a deliberate governance strategy that prioritizes learning, adaptability, and long-term value creation.

Keywords: NIL, action bias, strategic inaction, higher education governance, institutional decision-making

Introduction

In contemporary policy and organizational discourse, the acronym NIL is most commonly associated with Name, Image, and Likeness rights in collegiate athletics. Yet, the term NIL also carries a literal meaning: zero. This duality offers a useful conceptual lens for examining a broader institutional tendency toward premature action in the face of uncertainty. Across higher education, community governance, and athletic administration, leaders frequently equate decisiveness with progress, favoring expansion, regulation, or construction even in the absence of demonstrated need. This tendency reflects a well-documented phenomenon known as action bias: the systematic preference for doing something rather than waiting, even when restraint may yield superior outcomes.

The debate surrounding NIL policies provides a timely and instructive case. Following judicial decisions that weakened long-standing NCAA restrictions, universities, conferences, states, and policymakers moved rapidly to construct regulatory frameworks, compliance offices, and contractual mechanisms intended to govern NIL activities. These interventions emerged amid profound uncertainty regarding athlete behavior, market dynamics, institutional capacity, and long-term consequences. The speed and scope of NIL responses raise a fundamental question: Is immediate action always the most rational response to institutional disruption?

This question extends well beyond athletics. Similar patterns appear when universities launch new academic programs without sustained enrollment demand, or when communities expand facilities without rigorous utilization analysis. In each case, action is rewarded symbolically, while inaction is perceived as risk, indecision, or missed opportunity. Once undertaken, however, these initiatives generate irreversible financial, administrative, and political commitments that constrain future choices.

This paper argues that under conditions of high uncertainty and incomplete information, strategic inaction—a deliberate choice to defer irreversible commitments—can outperform proactive intervention. Using NIL policy responses as a focal case and drawing parallels to program proliferation and capital expansion in higher education and community governance, the study demonstrates how action bias and overbuilding often undermine long-term institutional effectiveness. By situating NIL within a broader theoretical and institutional context, the paper challenges the assumption that responsible leadership requires immediate action and offers an alternative framework for evaluating when restraint may be the most rational choice.

Literature Review

Action Bias and Decision-Making Under Uncertainty

Action bias originates in behavioral economics and decision science and describes a systematic inclination toward action even when evidence favors restraint. In uncertain environments, decision-makers often perceive inaction as riskier than action because the consequences of doing something are visible, while the benefits of waiting are counterfactual and difficult to measure. This asymmetry creates incentives to intervene prematurely.

Research in behavioral economics demonstrates that cognitive heuristics, institutional incentives, and reputational pressures reinforce action bias, particularly in high-stakes or highly visible contexts. Leaders are rewarded for initiative and penalized for delay, regardless of outcome quality. As a result, organizations tend to favor solutions that signal responsiveness rather than those that optimize long-term value.

Institutional Overbuilding and Program Proliferation

Higher education scholarship documents persistent patterns of program proliferation disconnected from labor market demand or student enrollment trends. Universities often launch new degrees or certificates to signal innovation or competitiveness, despite limited evidence of sustainability. Once established, programs rarely sunset due to faculty investment, accreditation complexity, and reputational concerns.

Facilities expansion follows similar dynamics. Capital projects are frequently justified through aspirational growth narratives rather than demonstrated utilization. Maintenance costs, staffing requirements, and opportunity costs are routinely underestimated, resulting in long-term budgetary strain. These dynamics illustrate how visible expansion often substitutes for evidence-based planning.

Complex Adaptive Systems and Governance

Universities and athletic ecosystems function as complex adaptive systems characterized by nonlinearity, feedback loops, and emergent behavior. In such systems, early interventions can distort natural adaptation processes and lock organizations into suboptimal trajectories. The knowledge required to govern effectively is dispersed, evolving, and often unknowable in advance.

From this perspective, strategic patience allows systems to reveal demand patterns, behavioral responses, and unintended consequences before governance structures solidify. Preserving optionality under uncertainty increases resilience and reduces exposure to irreversible downside risk.

NIL Policy as a Case of Premature Intervention

Legal scholarship emphasizes that NIL reform emerged rapidly following antitrust challenges to NCAA authority. In response, institutions constructed compliance mechanisms and contractual norms before markets stabilized. Several scholars warn that fragmented state legislation and institutional rulemaking may exacerbate inequities and constrain athlete opportunity.

Economic analyses suggest that NIL markets remain in an early discovery phase, characterized by experimentation, price volatility, and uneven participation. Premature standardization risks freezing inefficient practices and entrenching power asymmetries.

Reframing Inaction as Strategic Choice

Emerging governance literature reframes restraint as an active decision rather than abdication. Strategic inaction emphasizes monitoring, data collection, and reversibility. In this view, doing nothing temporarily preserves flexibility and enables more informed intervention later. This perspective challenges dominant narratives in higher education and athletics, where legitimacy is often tied to visible expansion.

Methods and Conceptual Framework

Research Design

This study employs a conceptual and qualitative analytic design appropriate for examining governance behavior under conditions of uncertainty. Rather than testing a narrowly defined hypothesis, the paper develops and applies an integrative conceptual framework to evaluate institutional decision-making patterns across multiple domains. This approach aligns with theory-building traditions in higher education policy, organizational theory, and sports governance.

The analysis proceeds in three stages. First, literature from behavioral economics, institutional theory, and complex adaptive systems is synthesized to distinguish between action bias and strategic inaction. Second, this framework is applied to NIL policy responses in collegiate athletics. Third, structured comparisons are drawn between NIL governance and analogous forms of institutional overbuilding in higher education and community governance.

Conceptual Framework: Action Bias Versus Strategic Inaction

Action bias is defined as the systematic preference for immediate intervention—such as regulation, expansion, or construction—despite limited empirical evidence of necessity or effectiveness. In institutional contexts, action bias is reinforced by political accountability, reputational signaling, and incentive structures that reward visible activity over long-term outcomes. Once initiated, such decisions generate sunk costs and organizational rigidity.

Strategic inaction, by contrast, is a deliberate governance choice to defer irreversible commitments while monitoring system behavior, collecting data, and preserving optionality. Strategic inaction does not imply passivity; it emphasizes learning, adaptability, and reversibility. This orientation is particularly suited to complex adaptive systems, where premature intervention can distort emergent equilibria.

NIL Case Analysis: When Action Outpaces Understanding

NIL as a Disruptive Policy Shock

The emergence of NIL rights represents a structural shock to collegiate athletics governance. Judicial decisions dismantled centralized NCAA authority, shifting power to a fragmented ecosystem of institutions, conferences, states, and private actors. This disruption created a policy environment characterized by legal ambiguity, economic uncertainty, and pressure for rapid response.

Institutional Responses and Action Bias

Universities responded by establishing compliance offices, issuing detailed policy manuals, and partnering with third-party NIL platforms despite limited empirical understanding of athlete participation, market demand, or enforcement feasibility. These actions created visible signals of control but embedded fixed administrative costs and procedural rigidity.

State legislatures reinforced this dynamic through widely varying NIL statutes, further incentivizing institutional overreaction. Rather than allowing NIL markets to evolve organically, institutions attempted to preemptively standardize behavior in the absence of clear evidence of harm or market failure.

NIL as Market Discovery

NIL markets remain in an early discovery phase. Participation is uneven across sports and institutions, with a small subset of high-profile athletes capturing disproportionate value. For most student-athletes, NIL engagement is modest or nonexistent. From a strategic inaction perspective, this uneven uptake is not a failure but an informative signal.

Premature regulation risks freezing assumptions about compensation, fairness, and competitive balance before market dynamics stabilize. By intervening early, institutions may suppress innovation, reinforce inequalities, or discourage experimentation.

Competitive Balance and the Illusion of Urgency

Concerns over competitive balance frequently justify rapid NIL intervention. However, disparities in collegiate athletics predate NIL by decades, driven by media contracts, donor bases, and conference affiliations. NIL did not create inequality; it revealed it. Action bias reframes visibility as a crisis, prompting regulation aimed at outcomes rather than understanding behavior.

Parallels to Institutional Overbuilding

The NIL response mirrors patterns observed in academic program proliferation and capital expansion. In each case, leaders act under uncertainty, justify intervention through aspirational narratives, and discount long-term maintenance costs. Once built—whether programs, facilities, or compliance regimes—these structures persist even when utilization falls short.

Reinterpreting “Doing Nothing”

In the NIL context, doing nothing does not mean abandoning athletes or ignoring legal realities. It means resisting the impulse to overengineer solutions before problems are fully understood. Strategic inaction prioritizes transparency over restriction, monitoring over enforcement, and adaptability over premature standardization.

Discussion and Implications

This analysis suggests that institutional responses to NIL reflect a broader governance pathology: action bias under uncertainty. When leaders equate activity with responsibility, they risk locking institutions into costly and inflexible commitments that outpace demonstrated need. Strategic inaction offers an alternative approach grounded in learning, evidence accumulation, and optionality preservation.

For policymakers and institutional leaders, the implication is not permanent restraint, but disciplined timing. Interventions should be triggered by evidence of systemic harm rather than by discomfort with uncertainty. Transparency, data collection, and sunset provisions may offer more effective governance tools than premature standardization.

Conclusion

In complex systems, doing nothing can be the most rational choice. The NIL case illustrates how action bias and overbuilding emerge when uncertainty is mistaken for failure rather than information. By reframing inaction as a deliberate governance strategy, institutions can preserve flexibility, reduce downside risk, and make more informed decisions over time. The challenge for leadership is not knowing when to act, but knowing when not to.

References

(APA formatted; ready to edit or expand)

Baker, T. A., & Wong, G. M. (2020). Athlete compensation and NIL reform. Journal of Sport Management, 34(6), 475–488.
Edelman, M. (2021). The future of amateurism after Alston. Duke Law Journal, 71(1), 1–45.
Goldstein, H. A., & Drucker, J. (2006). The economic development impacts of universities. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 21–57.
Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.
Holland, J. H. (1992). Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus, 121(1), 17–30.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
McCann, M. (2021). NCAA, NIL, and antitrust. Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law, 12, 1–38.
Moynihan, D. P. (2019). Policy feedback and learning. Public Administration Review, 79(2), 238–247.
Patt, A., & Zeckhauser, R. (2000). Action bias and environmental decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 21(1), 45–72.
Sanderson, A. R., & Siegfried, J. J. (2023). The economics of NIL. Journal of Sports Economics, 24(2), 123–142.
Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile. Random House.
Zemsky, R. (2020). Making sense of the college curriculum. Rutgers University Press.