This fall, millions of Americans will gather on campuses to participate in the pageantry and tradition of college football. The level of fan dedication football inspires, and the amount of money it generates, is unmatched, making it unique among intercollegiate sports.
In recent years, that pre-eminence has created a troubling imbalance in college sports. There are about 1,100 schools in the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the largest governing body for college sports, and more than 660 have football teams. But the clout lies with only a few dozen: the 68 schools that belong to the four conferences known as the Power Four. These conferences — the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Southeastern Conference, the Big Ten and the Big 12 — are so dominant that they effectively control the N.C.A.A., forcing it to shape its policies and protocols to meet their needs, to the disadvantage of smaller sports programs.
As a university president and former vice chair of Division I athletics at the N.C.A.A., I have witnessed how this inequity has mushroomed, and it is clear to me that nothing less than a fundamental reordering is required: The football programs in the four major conferences should withdraw from the N.C.A.A. entirely and create a stand-alone association. That would allow these programs to reap the benefits of their popularity while not setting the course for the rest of the member schools, like a tanker pulling a line of rowboats.
Why is this drastic step necessary? Consider one common misconception about major college football — that it generates much of the funding for lower-level football programs and for other sports. In reality, the massive revenue that the top football conferences generate from TV deals goes directly back to them. The rest of the N.C.A.A. membership relies almost exclusively on the revenue from the Division I men’s basketball tournament, known as March Madness.
Yet the wider Division I membership shares the burden of paying for the lawsuit settlements that the Power Four schools either largely created or would benefit the most from. For example, it is expected that the biggest winners in the recent $2.8 billion settlement reached as part of the House v. N.C.A.A. lawsuit — which compensated former players and paved the way for universities to make direct payments to athletes — will be football stars from the big four conferences. However, all N.C.A.A. Division I members had to contribute to the settlement.
And the Power Four dominance continues to grow out of control. This summer, the N.C.A.A. set up a new weighted governance structure that gives 65 percent of the major voting authority to the big football schools — a structure that favors those colleges. The reason? These schools invest a significant amount of money in the collegiate sports system, especially football, enhancing the attraction of all college sports, so they claim they should get to see the benefits of their investment by shaping what happens within the N.C.A.A.
The problem this new structure presents is that the N.C.A.A. will now be even more focused on the demands of football and less on other sports. This could damage smaller schools’ sports programs and will most likely diminish opportunities for women and players in Olympic sports such as golf, tennis and volleyball.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The post Boot Big Football From the N.C.A.A. appeared first on New York Times.
