What key areas would fall outside a College Football Commissioner's authority?
Athletics Veritas is a weekly series aimed at helping higher education executives, faculty, and other stakeholders stay tuned in on trending national issues impacting college athletics, especially NCAA Division I.
What key areas would fall outside a College Football Commissioner's authority?
Editor's Note: Last month, ESPN reported that the College Football Playoff Board of Managers had preliminary discussions about restructuring how college football is governed. These discussions would portend the possibility of college football being wholly removed from NCAA governance. The Playoff Board of Managers is composed of presidents and chancellors from ten FBS conferences as well as Notre Dame's President.
Two years ago, AV ran a three-part series on how college football could potentially benefit from a governance restructure that included the creation of a "college football commissioner" role. As this recent news about college football governance came to light and with the 2022 college football season nearing, we wanted to bring this three-part series back to the forefront for our readership.
Today's article is the final installment in a three-part series examining the viability of a College Football Commissioner (CFC).
A CFC wouldn’t have absolute power over college football. A CFC would not need to manage certain responsibilities that consume the time and attention of the NFL Commissioner and other pro sports commissioners. Specifically, collective bargaining with a players’ association would not be a role a CFC would need to finesse because Division I student-athletes are not employees, not unionized and not part of a players’ association. Keeping labor peace between owners and players at the pro level does not equate to the relationship between universities and student-athletes.
Although the NFL Commissioner has authority to negotiate and execute broadcast agreements on behalf of the NFL, the Power 5 conferences aren’t a single-entity, professional league. Financially speaking, college football already has its “haves and have-nots.” The Power 5 conferences would be strident in maintaining their exclusive authority over their member schools’ bundled broadcast rights, licensing agreements, and other marketing channels to promote their football programs and schools (and the revenue generated along the way).
The Board of Regents case remains as influential a legal precedent today as it did when it changed the pathway of college football on television in the mid-1980s. Absent a showing that combining all FBS institutions’ broadcast rights as one would be a pro-competitive move in the best interest of consumers (college football fans), the control over college football broadcasts will remain regional, conference-based matters. As it stands, the Power 5 conference in Division I brokered lucrative broadcast agreements in recent years and would be leary to forgoe those any time soon.
Aside from financial decisions related to managing the CFC office and the expenses tied to delivering on the predetermined functions noted above, the CFC’s role on financial matters impacting college football would be advisory rather than authoritative.
College Football Playoffs
The College Football Playoff (CFP) system for FBS schools is here. Four teams get selected by the CFP committee to play in football’s version of the Final Four. Although not perfect, many would agree that the four-team playoff model brings more fairness and definition to declaring a national champion on the field than the previous tradition of a hodgepodge slate of bowl games that rarely delivered a true national championship game. The big debate with the CFP is whether the field will grow to eight teams. The playoff field size debate is a fun one and any decision to change the field size would be led by the conference commissioners, the broadcast partners, and bowl operators, not a CFC. And the FCS subdivision already has a traditional "NCAA tournament" to deterimne its champion.
How far are we from a Czar?
Assuming consensus can be achieved on delegating some of the aforementioned roles and responsibilities to a CFC, who would actually pay for this? The CFC would need financial backing to hire a staff and develop a budget to administer the office’s role: education outreach, public relations, lobbying, research, player and coach discipline, meetings and reports, coordinating officials, and retaining outside counsel for navigating a very litigious world that can engulf college sports. The money is there, though. The interest in college football continues to swell as seen through the ballooning conference-network broadcast agreements. Live sports is a coveted commodity, and with it, there’s interest in protecting that valued enterprise.
The sand is shifting underneath college sports more than ever. Although the revenue streams from conference-based networks and broadcast partners would seem to stay within the conference power structure, will the advent of name-image-likeness (NIL) earning opportunities for student-athletes create new tensions needing a singular voice, mediator and protector like a CFC? Navigating the impacts of NIL on a student-athlete’s participation and enrollment would logically be managed by the university under the layers of NCAA rules, state or federal law, and university policy. In real world terms, if a student-athlete is taken advantage of by a third-party business entity in an NIL-based transaction, who is responsible to help protect the student-athlete? Universities may be seen as first option for education and advocacy on behalf of their student-athletes, but a CFC could serve as a thought-leader, if not activist, on behalf of football student-athletes to further their rights and well-being.
There may be valid hesitancy on the part of FBS and FCS conference commissioners and university presidents to relinquish too much power to create, and be governed by, a CFC. But there is an appetite for some version of a commissioner. Perhaps the role could be confined to predetermined, yet vital matters of national interest: health and safety, officiating, and the playing season.
If nothing else, a CFC could engage all college football stakeholders in developing a comprehensive plan to return to college football tjhis fall (or even the spring). A CFC building consensus and navigating the 200+ Division I FBS and FCS schools through the fog of uncertainty over the 2020 college football season would be a touchdown in its own right -- and worth the hire.
Athletics Veritas is presented for information purposes only and should not be considered advice or counsel on NCAA compliance matters. For guidance on NCAA rules and processes, always consult your university’s athletics compliance office, conference office, and/or the NCAA.
