Menu
Opinion

New collegiate model would end one-size-fits-all approach

I was honored recently to participate on a panel at the Sept. 8 Knight Commission meeting. There, I risked proposing a radical model for intercollegiate athletics: Organize college sports into two groupings — spectator sports and participation sports — with different sets of rules and competition structures applying.

This model is designed to address the apparent recognition by many (if not most) in the public, media and courts that a select group of student athletes should be provided more for participating in sports that produce significant net revenue.

Many sports that have been cut in the past are Olympic sports. This country relies in large part on the college sports programs to help support U.S. Olympic teams. It was reported at the Knight Commission meeting that 65 percent of the medalists at the last Olympics honed their skills in the collegiate system. My desire is for that to continue, and even be enhanced, by implementation of this new model.

As we know, with few exceptions, FBS football and Division I men’s basketball produce net revenue at the highest levels. Although student athletes in all sports work just as hard as elite football and basketball players, the intensity and pressure brought on by the media and fans is not comparable in most cases. So, on the men’s side, I propose those two sports would be designated as “spectator sports.” Support for an equal number of opportunities in women’s sports would be required by Title IX and, therefore, some women’s sports also would be designated as spectator sports.

Spectator sports would be those that are funded at their current or higher level and have national competition. Student athletes in these sports would receive their current benefits and additional benefits that may be required as a result of new rules for high-resource conferences, state legislation and court mandates. Examples of these new benefits are lifetime educational grants, scholarships that cover cost-of-attendance expenses, and guaranteed coverage of medical care for a period of years after expiration of athletics eligibility. Coaches of those sports would continue to be full-time and could recruit off campus. In other words, these sports would operate pretty much as they are, albeit enhanced by internal and external changes.

All other intercollegiate sports offerings would be reformed so that student athletes in these “participation sports” would receive institutional aid that is academic- or need-based only. However, I suggest that the collegiate community work with the U.S. Olympic Committee to determine if it is feasible to then loosen the rules to allow elite Olympians in participation sports to receive funding from endorsements and for training benefits. The coaches of participation sports could be part-time with other responsibilities at the institution or community, and there would be no off-campus recruiting, although coaches could contact prospects to invite them to visit the campus. Any academic support and other nonmedical care services would be those provided to students in general from campus resources.

Instead of flying these student athletes around the country in the current conference configurations that are designed for football and men’s basketball, the collegiate and potentially the USOC’s national governing bodies could work together to form sports federations or alliances that enable quality competition on a local and regional basis. This major change to the competitive structure would be more financially responsible and would reduce the travel demands currently placed on athletes.

Under this model, the savings in participation sports in athletics grants, coaching costs, travel, recruiting and other current benefits could result in not only saving Olympic sports, but also enabling an expansion that would benefit even more collegiate youth. Many of the sports that have been cut can be added back, and other sports could be added based on interest and ability.

Perhaps it would look like this: FBS schools would have 200 full grants (100 for men and 100 for women) to provide in designated spectator sports. For schools in the Football Championship Subdivision, the total grants could be set at 150 (75 for each gender), and the number could be 60 grants for Division I schools without football. With the savings from the current operating expenses from the newly classified participation sports, the minimum number of sports required for Division I can be increased, and national financial incentives can be modified to more significantly reward schools for providing opportunities other than those in the spectator sports.

I anticipate the concepts I propose will be criticized by many who feel they will lose something, but I hope there is a realization that this model can increase the chances for athletics participation. Think of all the opportunities provided for our college students to continue their passion in athletics, an endeavor most believe provide additional educational and lifelong benefits. In addition, sports could be preserved and/or created to support our 48 Olympic national governing bodies.

I recognize that there are many other issues for both spectator sports and participation sports that should be addressed, including imposing a red-shirt year for those who are not adequately prepared academically, addressing time demands, whether to require multiyear scholarships, etc. Those certainly need attention.

But I also submit that consideration of different approaches, no matter how radical, is desperately needed instead of continuing to pursue a one-size-fits-all approach for college sports that is not working now and will not work in the future.

Dan Beebe (dan@danbeebegroup.com) is the president of Dan Beebe Group and former commissioner of the Big 12 Conference and the Ohio Valley Conference.

SBJ Morning Buzzcast: March 18, 2024

Sports Business Awards nominees unveiled; NWSL's historic opening weekend and takeaways from CFP deal

ESPN’s Jay Bilas, BTN’s Meghan McKeown, and a deep dive into AppleTV+’s The Dynasty

On this week’s Sports Media Podcast from the New York Post and Sports Business Journal, ESPN’s Jay Bilas talks all things NCAA. Big Ten Network’s Meghan McKeown shares her insight into the Caitlin Clark craze. The Boston Globe’s Chad Finn chats all things Bean Town. And SBJ’s Xavier Hunter drops in to share his findings on how the NWSL is making a social media push.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

SBJ I Factor: Nana-Yaw Asamoah

SBJ I Factor features an interview with AMB Sports and Entertainment Chief Commercial Office Nana-Yaw Asamoah. Asamoah, who moved over to AMBSE last year after 14 years at the NFL, talks with SBJ’s Ben Fischer about how his role model parents and older sisters pushed him to shrive, how the power of lifelong learning fuels successful people, and why AMBSE was an opportunity he could not pass up. Asamoah is 2021 SBJ Forty Under 40 honoree. SBJ I Factor is a monthly podcast offering interviews with sports executives who have been recipients of one of the magazine’s awards.

Shareable URL copied to clipboard!

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2014/10/20/Opinion/Dan-Beebe.aspx

Sorry, something went wrong with the copy but here is the link for you.

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2014/10/20/Opinion/Dan-Beebe.aspx

CLOSE