College Sports Business News - The Publication for College Sports Administrators

The role of the college president in athletics has become much more prominent in recent years. Presidents’ names appear in sports sections more often than ever before, especially in the last year with presidents taking on a leadership role in conference realignment. The question is, is this a good thing? At one time some thought it was the best option. 

The Knight Commission has historically asked that presidents be involved in college athletics, however I am not sure the Commission was asking presidents to get involved so much so that they are aggressively pursuing ventures such as television contracts and conference realignment.  In reviewing the Commission’s efforts starting in the 1990s and continuing through the early 21^st century, their message has been clear: presidents can affect real reform.  Perhaps one of the most striking examples of presidential involvement early on was when in 1995 the Knight Commission was just starting to lead academic reform efforts. Members of the Commission called upon presidents and chancellors to “personally attend” the 1995 NCAA Convention which was a perfect platform for presidents to get involved and affect academic reform.  Since that time presidential involvement gained great momentum and in 1996 the NCAA changed the governance authority of college athletics from the athletics directors to the presidents.  All appeared to be headed in the right direction, or so we thought. 

Fast forward to 2011 and now one of the founding members of the Knight Commission and president emeritus of the University of North Carolina system, Dr. William Friday, seems to have a different message.  In a widely read series from the Chronicle of Higher Education, Dr. Friday is no longer writing to presidents encouraging them to get involved and affect reform, rather he hints at the idea that current university leaders are to blame for being part of the problems associated with college athletics.  In one of his strongest statements in the series, Dr. Friday writes to university officials that it is time to “bring an immediate end to the shameful exploitation and abuse now so destructive of these worthy and essential institutions.”   

The logical thinking years ago was to have presidents become more involved in the NCAA and at each member institution because they would have more authority to make decisions in the best interest of the schools and perhaps act more responsibly than athletic directors and coaches in the past.  Essentially, giving power to those “outside” of athletics would help control the problems within college athletics.  However, by calling for the involvement of more people (including not just presidents and chancellors but boards of trustees, faculty members and conference commissioners) we have taken authority away from the position that could have the most influence and knowledge of such decisions – the athletic director.  Those that are critical of such a thought assume that the athletic director would act only in the best interest of athletics, not the institution.  However, since the mid 1990s when presidents became more involved in college athletics, have things changed that much? Certainly there has been progress, but has presidential involvement really helped?

Such a question is difficult to answer and far be it from me to criticize the position of college presidents.  I have the luxury of not needing to make the final decision on finding the balance between athletics and academics.  The pressure that exists at the presidential level is something most people cannot fathom.  Numerous writings have highlighted the challenges presidents and chancellors have in trying to manage both the internal and external interests in higher education, including college athletics.  College Sports Business News’ Editor Tim O’Brien offered excellent suggestions to presidents in his December 2011 column that outlined how leaders can gain better perspective on the issues facing athletic departments.  However, even those presidents that are involved in the daily minutia of college athletics, as well as those tackling the larger issues at the NCAA level, seem to have been struggling for years.

Take for example this article written by Douglas Lederman that appeared in USA Today in 2004 where he listed examples of how presidents were “helpless.”  President after president, including those that served on the Knight Commission, had become part of the Division I problem, not part of the solution.  Now, as talk of the presidents continuing to lead conversations about conference realignment persists, one has to wonder if presidents have given up efforts to reform college athletics, and are turning their efforts to surviving the transitions. Certainly, the need for survival changes perspective and will have an impact on the decision-making process.  This was highlighted in a Connecticut Post article on January 5^th, written by Ken Dixon.  Dixon recapped UConn’s position in conference realignment by citing email exchanges between administrators.  In September, UConn’s President Susan Herbst highlighted in one sentence the lack of athletic directors (ADs) present in conference realignment discussions when she wrote: "In general, at this point at least, ADs are not running the discussion around the country and a lot is happening."  Around the same time President Herbst sent her email to UConn’s interim athletic director, Paul Pendergast, it was becoming painfully apparent nationwide athletic directors were not running the discussion.  In fact, some athletic directors were completely left in the dark.  The athletic directors’ silence and confusion throughout this past fall and the presidents, boards and curators' quotes and explanations gave a strong indication that some of the most important decisions being made regarding college athletics were being made by people above the athletic director, the person with, possibly, the greatest perspective.

But dig a little deeper and you’ll find that this is not a 21^st century issue, rather it became an issue as soon as presidents were introduced to conference championships and television money.  In a 1995 Sporting News article written by former NCAA president Walter Byers, the problem of presidential control was questioned even then.  It is a fascinating article with statements that capture today’s current landscape.  For example, in the most powerful paragraphs, Byers wrote:

“Unfortunately, the much-publicized presidential reform movement of the past 10 years has been little more than a public-relations venture. Presidents speak nationally of reform and student welfare, but then return to the campus to recruit new colleges for their major league conferences. They want more TV negotiating muscle and more of their teams in bowl games and tournaments. At the national level, presidents gravely cut the number of grants-in-aid, then return to campus to generate more revenue for the campus supervisors and overseer.

“The new Big 12 Conference has been taking bids for a football championship game. Thus far, six cities have filed bids ranging from offers of $6.88 to $8.21 million to host the event. One of the reform-minded presidents of the Big 12 told the Kansas City Star on October 1: ‘It all comes down to money. Whatever generates the most money is what we're interested in doing.’”

Perhaps one issue that needs to be readdressed is the concept of presidential control.  Certainly, the trustees and the presidents have every right to exert their power over athletics, but do they understand the impact of their decisions when they step in?  Are presidents capable of leading a Division I athletic department, all while dealing with other major institutional issues?  Should decisions that will impact the future of college athletics be lead by presidents or should we reconsider the role of the Division I athletic director at the NCAA, conference and even institutional level?  Byers’ 1995 editorial in the Sporting News, and Lederman’s 2004 article suggested a warning that presidential involvement was not working then and Dr. Friday’s article suggests it is not working now.  As written in Lederman’s article, former Arkansas athletics director Frank Broyles said, "I haven't seen presidents do anything different or better than the people who were running the show beforehand — to the contrary, actually."  Perhaps it is time for a new perspective. 

#  #  #

Tony Weaver is an Assistant Professor for Sport and Event Management at Elon University in Elon, North Carolina. He currently serves on numerous advisory boards for local, regional and national organizations within the sport and event industry, and is an active member of the National Association of Collegiate Marketing Administrators (NACMA), North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM) and the College Sports Research Institute (CSRI). Tony’s writings related to college athletics have been featured in the Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, the Knowledge Collaborative and Ultimate Sports Insider.com. Tony served almost 10 years in Division I college athletics administration at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Siena College, Iona College and the University of Connecticut. He coached college and high school basketball and gained practical experience in financial organizations before moving into administration. Tony holds a B.S. from Siena College; an M.A. from the University of Connecticut; and a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. He became an assistant professor at Elon in 2007. He can be reached at tweaver@elon.edu

Please login to post your comments.