It’s been a while since I wrote on the topic of intercollegiate athletics – and when I last did, I focused more on the student-athlete recruitment process as it relates to my own kids. I recently attended a conference with colleagues where we discussed the topic. It feels to me like there are three major themes on the subject. Conference realignment at the NCAA Division One level, the transfer portal, and Name Image and Likeness (NIL). This post will address all three from my perspective as a former college coach, a parent with a student-athlete participating in intercollegiate athletics, and as a higher education administrator involved in NCAA Athletics.
First, from a biased perspective, I am a sports person. I truly believe in the value of athletics given my personal experiences. I believe in the power of athletics as it relates to character development, goal setting, and a work ethic mindset. As an aside, I would add that the value of the fine arts meaningfully intersects each of these items.
Relative to conference realignment, unless I am missing a meaningful piece, this is all about money and revenue. Why else would institutions on the west coast align with institutions on the east coast, increasing the costs associated with travel budgets and the increased time student-athletes spend outside of the classroom traversing the country to attend competitions? Interestingly, a quick google search revealed only 18 institutions end up revenue positive in NCAA Division One Athletics (out of 363 total institutions) – about five percent.
Regarding the transfer portal, to me, there are both pro’s and con’s for a student and institution. From the student perspective, for student-athletes who committed to an institution that later realize they will never have the opportunity to participate in competition, transferring to an institution where he/she can compete is a real pro. For students who committed to an institution and experienced a toxic culture, the ability to transfer is also a pro. That said, there is something to be said about committing to an institution interested in cultivating and growing the student-athlete where the student has some level of patience and understanding knowing that competing may take a year or two versus the instant gratification that comes with competing immediately. Tom Brady comes to mind who, while frustrated with a lack of playing time early in his career, remained committed to the institution, practiced and prepared to hone his skills, and ultimately achieved success.
From an institutional perspective, the transfer portal serves as an opportunity to onboard more experienced student-athletes who are competition ready. These student-athletes may instantaneously fill a talent gap that allows for a more desirable performance outcome. That said, those student-athletes who remain at the institution may suddenly find their opportunity to compete diminished. One could argue, athletics is a competition and transfer or not, those who are most ready to compete will ultimately have the opportunity. Part of building a successful athletic organization involves cultivating and developing a growth mindset culture. It feels trickier to me to build such a culture if a particular organization is importing a majority of transfer student-athletes to achieve a quicker short term desirable performance outcome versus cultivating student-athletes who commit to the institution out of high school.
Relative to NIL, from a student-athlete perspective, while a full grant in aid scholarship to attend college is certainly meaningful, and a potential life-changing experience, many institutions are generating multi millions of dollars in revenue resulting from a student-athlete’s performance. From this perspective, it does feel right that a student-athlete should be able to earn something beyond a full or partial grant in aid scholarship. How much is the real question? Millions of dollars? That seems extreme, and based on my quick research, is more of an outlier.
On the other hand, from an institutional or purely academic perspective, the money awarded to a student-athlete in NIL compensation could be otherwise used to enhance an institution’s academic programs or overall student experience, should it be contributed in this manner. From this perspective, it feels like more students would benefit from this type of financial outlay.
So where does that leave us? What conclusions can I draw? Ultimately, it feels like major NCAA Division One Athletics is meaningfully unregulated today with regard to conference realignment, the transfer portal, and NIL. It feels like student-athletes are benefitting, to some degree, while institutions are also realizing some benefit. It feels like there are some egregious cases that result in negative experiences tied to the transfer portal and extraneous spending tied to NIL. However, at the NCAA Division Three level and at some lower-level high academic achieving NCAA Division One conferences, the student-athlete model is still alive.
All that said, my last concluding point is that the trajectory of conference realignment, transfer portal movement, and NIL spending is on an unsustainable path that will require increased regulation at some point in the near future.
Comments