At least one longtime Power 5 president believes so and says the commissioner can start by figuring out the return of college football.
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. Athletics Veritas is created by senior DI athletic administrators around the nation.
Is the time right for Division I Presidents & Chancellors to hire a ‘College Football Commissioner’?
At least one longtime Power 5 president believes so and says the commissioner
can start by figuring out the return of college football.
College football is one sport in Division I that is not exclusively beholden to the NCAA bureaucracy. Although NCAA rules govern some football matters such as the length of the playing season, number of games, number of coaches, and recruiting rules, the football bowl subdivision (FBS) -- which is the Division I football subdivision with the most high profile and marketable college football programs nationwide -- is not wholly controlled by the NCAA.
When it comes to the bigger gridiron picture -- including broadcast agreements, college football playoffs, and the modern day bowl game structure -- those powers and purviews fundamentally rest with each FBS conference, their respective commissioners and school presidents, and the broadcast partners and bowl operators. The football championship subdivision -- or FCS -- is the other Division I football subdivision whose postseason tournament structure, broadcast rights and all other facets remain within the exclusive control of the NCAA.
One of the underlying strengths and challenges of college football -- depending on the chair you sit in -- is the fragmentation of the sport’s governance and decision-making.
The fissures between the NCAA and its member institutions’ tug-of-war for control of college football dates back decades. The landmark Supreme Court case in 1984 between the member schools and the NCAA, however, is considered by legal pundits and industry historians alike as the pivotal juncture when the NCAA relinquished exclusive control over college football.
In that case, the Supreme Court found the NCAA violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act over its artificial restraints of the distribution of college football games to television networks. In the lawsuit, the individual member schools (including named plaintiffs University of Oklahoma and University of Georgia) sought the ability to partner with another television network (NBC) to produce more college football games (and, in turn, more revenue) than the current television agreements the NCAA national office maintained with the other two major networks, ABC and CBS. (Remember when there were only three television networks?)
In Justice John Paul Stevens’ majority opinion, he cited several rationales on how the NCAA failed to articulate any pro-competitive effects of its restraint on expanding the number of college football games that could be televised. Justice Stevens specifically found that “there is no evidence that such restriction produces any greater measure of equality throughout the NCAA than would a restriction on alumni donations, tuition rates, or any other revenue-producing activity. Moreover, the District Court's well-supported finding that many more games would be televised in a free market than under the NCAA plan is a compelling demonstration that the plan's controls do not serve any legitimate procompetitive purpose.”
President Gee offered a unique perspective on the college football governance landscape as a university president with experience at not just one -- but three -- Power 5 FBS institutions (Vanderbilt, Ohio State and West Virginia) as well as an FCS university (Brown).
When asked about the oscillating headlines, data, and conjecture about college football’s start date and the associated geographic fragmenting that exists within the sport along conference fault lines, Gee remarked: “We probably need to have a football czar to make those kinds of decisions.”
In fact, an unnamed Power 5 Athletic Director also said to Yahoo Sports, “The fact that we’re not assured of a single nationalized approach to this reflects one of our biggest challenges.”
The case for a college football commissioner, or as Gee puts it -- czar -- is not novel. As the FBS conferences in recent years plunged headfirst into the broadcasting business’ deep-end by developing their own conference-branded television networks and campaigns, the universality and connectedness of the sport has remained stout. Coaches, administrators, fans, and university leadership continue to encounter shared challenges and issues (e.g., concussions; equipment; satellite camps; playoff access) facing college football. The common ground stitches the FBS conferences and its member Division I schools closer together than any provincial chasms.
Stanford Head Football Coach David Shaw indicated to ESPN in 2016 the need for a football committee and, ultimately, a college football commissioner because all FBS schools and conferences feed into the same system. TCU Head Football Coach Gary Patterson noted to ESPN how the optics of fragmentation can erode college football’s credibility: "Somebody could finally say, 'Well, I listened to everybody, but here's what we need,'" Patterson said. "When you have one voice, it just helps you. Instead of, 'The Big 12 says they want this,’ and then the SEC [says], ‘Nah, we hate that.’ And the Pac-12 says [something else]. We don't make ourselves look too intelligent, to be honest with you, because we don't have one common message coming out."
In Spring 2020, the college football decision-making center stage is a crowded space. The college football governance landscape is a patchwork of stakeholder groups and niche directors: there is a Division I Football Oversight Committee operating within the NCAA governance structure as well as the College Football Playoff Selection Committee (which includes a faculty member) selecting the four teams to participate in the College Football Playoff (CFP). The CFP has an executive director whose role has been focused in recent years in the development and delivery of the college football playoff emerging out of the traditional, if not outdated, bowl system.
The American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) represents the interests and development of football coaches and has an executive director. The AFCA has its own set of committees and governance structure that feeds into, in an advisory capacity, the NCAA legislative and governance framework. None of these committees or executive directors’ authority reach the heights of a true commissioner.
To date, there is no College Football Commissioner (CFC), but if there were one, what could that position’s responsibilities entail? We’ll examine that next week.
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.
