‘Time To Look At The Whole Thing’, Said Coach K. Here’s What That Could Look Like.

With only 4 months left until their self-imposed deadline of August 1, the NCAA Division I Transformation Committee is coming down to the “fish or cut bait” moment. How should DI operate? How much power should be reassigned to the conferences? How much control should the runaway train called NIL have on decision making?

A project like this reminds me of building a house. Do you want one story or two? Do you want four bedrooms or 10? How many bathrooms? What style-Cape Cod, Ranch or split-level? And then there are the really hard choices, like what color to paint the walls?

But most homeowners would tell you the most important part of a house are the “bones”—does your house have a strong foundation, a good roof and windows? Has it been well-maintained with annual repairs and maintenance attended to? And, most importantly, can it survive the changing weather patterns and major storms that are inevitable?

If you take that analogy and apply it to Division I athletics as they currently exists, one could draw the conclusion that the house is falling apart. The organizational structure that long ago worked for men’s athletics has not worked for women’s. The structure has not stemmed the tide of unethical and illegal behavior in programs who have decided that breaking the rules is just the cost of doing business. It has been found in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and despite the fact that the vast majority of institutions at all levels are consistently out of Federal compliance with Title IX, there is no incentive to do the right thing. Taking it one step further, L&I has shown up and is saying ‘tear the house down”.

If this is truly the moment in time to rethink the entire existence of the governance of NCAA college sports, then we may need to take the house down to the foundation and rebuild it.

Many smart, thoughtful people and groups have offered up a number of relevant suggestions to improve the entire experience for college athletes, coaches, and staff. In fact, in 2020, the Knight Commission provided a review of all the governance, finance and student-athlete welfare issues that have been made in the last decade. You can view that document here. (Disclaimer: I was the lead researcher on the project).

Additionally, the American Council on Education (ACE), an influential national organization that supports all levels of colleges and universities, describes itself as “a membership organization that mobilizes the higher education community to shape effective public policy and foster innovative, high-quality practice.”

In 2016, ACE convened a Roundtable on student-athlete welfare. The group consisted of college/university presidents and chancellors, athletic directors and coaches, conference officials, student-athletes and faculty athletics representatives, and was co-chaired by (then) President Molly Corbett Broad and Georgetown University (DC) President John J. DeGioia, chair of the ACE Board of Directors.

They reached consensus on the following items:

• Intercollegiate athletics programs at all levels must respect the primacy of the academic enterprise and remain firmly grounded in it;
• Intercollegiate athletics provides a significant educational opportunity when aligned with the mission of the institution. Institutions must enable their student-athletes to have access to the same range and quality of academic pursuits as other students;
• Academic integrity cannot be compromised by our colleges and universities, or by members of their campus communities.

That’s Not Nearly Enough

Higher education and Division I college athletics can no longer operate as if they are two different planets circling each other. In this moment, all of higher education needs to be engaged in the heavy lifting of what’s next. Here are some recommendations:

• In keeping with the “building a house” theme, start with the foundation. Align the NCAA, the ACE and other key associations closer together to bring some of Division I athletics inside the tent of higher education. Having the NCAA function as a stand-alone entity has been successful in running post-season events and generating billions of dollars in media and marketing efforts, but unsuccessful when it comes to many other issues, including those listed by the ACE Roundtable.
• Tie institutional accreditation to compliance with both Title IV and Title IX. Institutional accreditation is required every 10 years, and is conducted by one of six regional agencies. It requires significant self-study by the institution along with an external peer review. A report is drafted, and stakeholders (the President and the Trustees, among others) review the report and look for areas in which the institution can improve. Each regional agency requires slightly different standards, but they all carry the Department of Education’s imprimatur, and potentially could shut down an institution through the denial of Federal funds (including student loans). In the mid-1990s and early 2000s, the NCAA established a similar Division I self-study process that took a deep look into how athletic departments are run. Like regional accreditation, it was a requirement to retain Division I membership. Unfortunately, the mandate lasted less than a decade; rumor has it that many presidents did not like what they saw, and disbanded the process. There is nothing close to this currently in place.
• It is surprising that, despite the public availability of nearly every institution’s Equity in Athletics Disclosure Report (EADA) on the Department of Education’s (DOE) website, the regional agencies are not required to evaluate a school’s Title IX compliance, despite also being an arm of the DOE. In an off the record conversation, an employee of an accrediting organization told me there are significant issues with assessing Title IX compliance—not only from a gender equity perspective, but also from a sexual harassment/assault perspective. The Biden administration is scheduled to release new guidelines in May.
• Colleges must be accountable for complying with Federal laws, especially those that apply to college athletics. It has been fascinating to watch Dr. Mark Emmert, the President of the NCAA, actively seek intervention from Congress with regards to a national NIL standard (while also seeking protections from further antitrust lawsuits). Why would the NCAA leadership not also use this opportunity to advocate for stronger Title IX incentives tied to a university’s accreditation?
• Not every Division I program can live under the same roof. It has become painfully obvious to almost everyone that there are many institutions who cannot be competitive in Division I (other than in basketball and some Olympic sports). Yet, more are eager to join. Why? Among other things, it’s a quick fix for a university that needs a morale boost and perhaps some capital funding to improve facilities. Schools like Lindenwood University and the University of Southern Indiana are great examples-they both have announced the jump to Division I from Division II. Other small schools are under pressure to do the same.

Commercial vs Educational Model

One of the final solutions to all of this is for Division I to separate into two completely different entities, a commercial enterprise and an educational enterprise. This idea has been around for awhile. A school that elects to align with the educational enterprise assumes complete responsibility for athlete welfare issues, providing a balanced program that includes respect for the academic demands placed on students to graduate and start a career, and commits to ethical conduct.

Those that choose the path of a commercial entity should be fully immersed in the capitalistic markets of media dollars, NIL inducements to sign players, massive facility upgrades, and paying coaching staffs more money than the NFL. By making this choice, they may have to deal with losing their non-profit status. This is no small trade-off.

There are no easy answers for these Division I institutions, but the time for choosing is now. We have to build a new house with a stronger foundation that ties deeply to the mission of higher education. It’s not only the job for college presidents to figure this out-we need leaders throughout higher education to help decide what the future should look like. These suggestions may provide a good place to begin.