I'm inclined to agree.
The other side of NIL is that we keep some fine players longer. Maybe not the future NBA stars, but excellent collage players like Armando and RJ. Without NIL some of these guys would enter the draft and, if not drafted, would be playing overseas.
Most top NIL players are still going OAD if they can, I assume, but the pressure to move on is lower knowing they can earn a whole lot if they stick around. A decade ago, sticking around got them an education. Today it can get them 5 figures, maybe more.
Roy often seemed to land high-rated players who needed development. Whereas coaches like K and Cal often ended up with players who were only in college because the NBA wasn't drafting straight from HS. So top UK and Duke players were soon in the NBA, while our top guys would join them a couple of years later.
I think that distinction still exists. There are the top players who are NBA-ready and top players who need development. The NBA read ones are the ones getting the obscene NIL deals.
If Roy could win with unpaid guys who stuck around for a few years, surely Hubert can win with well-paid guys who stick around for a few years.
Which is to say that I don't think we need the players who command these absurd NIL payoffs.
The big difference from the Roy era is that Roy would sometimes get the OAD. Because why not? If the guy wanted to play here, absolutely welcome him on board. But these days even if the guy wants to play here, if he can get double the money elsewhere he's unlikely to pick us.