Amateur Collegiate Sports Is Dead... Act Accordingly
The college athletics landscape has entered an era of sudden changes. Student-athletes can now get paid, the transfer portal has become a de facto free agency pool, and the costs to maintain a competitive program have never been higher and continue to accelerate rapidly. But the most recent and most disruptive development is the sudden momentum behind conference realignment. Driven by an influx of cash from skyrocketing media deals, the revenue disparity between conferences continues to compound and is now out of reach. Universities are looking to join the highest-earning conferences to improve their athletic performance and their institutions. The days of amateur sports at the Power 5 college level sports are dead and gone; the age of the commercialization of college sports has arrived and is here to stay. We have entered an era where athletic department decisions should be made and evaluated through the lens of making good business decisions above all else. And today, the best business decision is now inherently what is in the best interest of the university and its entire student body.
Most recently, there has been much criticism of universities who have fled the crumbling Pac-12: Washington and Oregon left to join the Big Ten while Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah departed for the Big XII. But while venturing off to a different conference is a bold new step in a university's trajectory, staying put would have been the much riskier decision. To have not capitalized on the opportunity to join a stronger conference would have been akin to asking coaches and players to fight with one arm behind their backs. Presidents, athletic directors, and Board of Trustees have a fiduciary responsibility to look out for the best interest of the university they serve, and that is precisely what these university leaders did by deciding to leave the Pac-12 in favor of opportunities that afforded their athletic departments more resources and stability. Simply put, it was a wise business decision.
If not, would it be fair to assume that teams outside the Big Ten and SEC can compete when they have a half-billion-dollar revenue gap to overcome?
As we progress in the new wave of disproportionate television deals, every conference outside the Big Ten and SEC will start behind the eight ball. The tv and conference distribution alone will create a $500 million dollar+ delta between what the BIG10 and SEC make over the next 15 years and what every other conference earns. This financial disparity means that those programs will slowly but surely fall behind and eventually not be competitive. Their facilities will not be competitive, their support for student-athletes will not be competitive, their ability to pay coaches will not be competitive, and last and perhaps most impactful, their collectives' ability to pay players will not be competitive. Every college needs to look in the mirror and ask themselves a fundamental question, the same question we asked ourselves at Florida State University: "Do we want to play games moving forward or compete for championships?"
If the latter, your university cannot afford not to (1) get into the Big Ten or SEC, (2) merge with another conference to close the revenue gap or (3) explore ways to generate more revenue to close the gap. The third point is essential regardless of current conference affiliation. The competitive arms race for facilities and talent acquisition will only increase moving forward; there is no turning back.
In light of these changes, it is essential to recognize that realignment's implications do not just impact revenue-generating sports (e.g., football and basketball). The competitive and financial dynamics behind conference affiliation will affect a university's ability or inability to compete long-term in all men's and women's athletics. If this monumental revenue gap persists, athletic directors will be forced to over-allocate their budget to revenue-generating sports, severely limiting the amount left to invest in non-revenue-generating sports. The Big Ten and SEC will be able to attract and pay both the best football and basketball players and athletes from every other sport. These dynamics will lead to a world where the "Super Two" conferences dominate all sports at the collegiate level, effectively redefining what it means to be a D1 program. Let's not fool ourselves: the momentum for a pair of "Super Two" conferences has snowballed for quite some time now. Since the BCS was implemented in the last 25 years, the (now) SEC and Big Ten schools have won 20 of the 25 National Championships (All others are from the ACC: Clemson 2, FSU 2, and Miami 1).
Conference realignment also will have consequences beyond the athletic department. If the implications of the realignment question solely pertained to athletics, then this issue would be more straightforward. But the simple fact is that success in sports does not just impact the student-athletes, coaches, and the athletic department; it also wields the power to positively impact the entire institution.
The data behind student application patterns at schools with successful athletics speaks for itself - better brand perception spills over to the academics and drives interest in a university. Take schools that appeared in a College Football Playoff national championship game, for example. LSU (won), Ohio State (runner-up), and Alabama (runner-up) each appeared in the title game in 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively. The universities' respective applicant increases in the following years were 18%, 19%, and 27% (1). More applications lead to higher achieving students and greater resources, leading to more academic funding.
Conference realignment is a necessary, once-in-a-generation phenomenon that universities must embrace in the best interest of all their stakeholders. Athletic programs will and should continue to commercialize and monetize their business and make every effort to attach themselves to a higher-earning conference or risk falling behind the competition. Realignment means the opportunity to double, triple, or even quadruple their conference distribution payout almost instantaneously. Whether we like it or not, the landscape has changed, and we are no longer able to rest on the laurels of the traditions of what amateur collegiate athletics once was. Instead, we should celebrate that collectively, universities have incubated and built what has become a multi-billion-dollar national treasure, and they owe it to themselves to commercialize the asset for the greater benefit of their stakeholders.
One hundred fifty-four years ago, in 1869, the first college football game was played between Rutgers University and the College of New Jersey (now known as Princeton University). The game resulted in a 6-4 victory for Rutgers and attracted around 100 spectators. There were 25 players on the field for both teams, and the rules were based on the London Football Association, which did not allow players to either pick up or throw the ball (2). The game resembled a form of soccer or rugby — if viewed in the context of football today, it would look like one extended fumble with players trying to kick or hit the ball across the opposing team's goal line.
A lot has changed since that game and will continue to change. We can all be sure of that. However, this beautiful game we call football is now more exciting and enjoyable than ever. We shouldn't be afraid of continued progress, but we should be fearful of what side of history the universities we love end up on. Will your university evolve with the contenders looking to compete for championships, or remain on the outside looking in, pretending to have a chance?
-Drew Weatherford, Founding Partner