Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Volume 2, Number 6 Industry Analysis 18 OCTOBER 2018
Division I College Football in the U.S.
By
Carl E. Gilmore, Jr.
Copyright © 2018, Carl E. Gilmore, Jr. This article is published under a Creative Commons BY-NC license. Permission
is granted to copy and distribute this article for non-commercial purposes, in both printed and electronic formats
This Industry Analysis examines the stakehold-
ers within the constructs of the college football
environment and seeks to explain the various
impacts on key stakeholders within the constructs of
this industry. More importantly, this research tracks
the student-athlete with regards to both decision
paths of either seeking a professional football career
or an education with the benets to playing football.
e student athlete will
face many decisions with-
in his journey as a football
player and it can be crit-
ical that the supporting
people within his family
environment become a
voice of practicality when
making a college selec-
tion or deciding when to
leave college in order to
pursue the quest of playing in the National Football
League (NFL). is decision for a young adult can
be challenging, as it will have a binary outcome of
either success or failure that will result in a direct
and far-reaching impact on his adult life.
Many Division I student-athletes, at some point
in their collegiate careers, will face the struggle of
making the decision to remain a college student or
leave college early to play professional football. For
some this decision will not be an issue as there are
some student-athletes that will accept the reality that
professional football will not be their career vehicle.
However, there are a large majority of student-ath-
letes that will need to go through that decision
thought process. Understanding how to distinguish
attainable reality com-
pared to chasing a dream
of playing professional
football and comprehend-
ing the low probability of
that intended dream will
need to be understood by
the student-athlete and
their support system(s).
e parent(s) may have to
become more aware of the
long-standing impacts as they introduce their child
to football and consider the level of importance that
they may place on their child’s athletic success. A bal-
anced approach must be in place that prioritizes suc-
cess in both college football and academically. us,
the student-athletes journey cannot be dened by
expectations of playing professional football alone.
Does the journey of being recruit-
ed and participating in a Division I
college football program enrich the
experience of the student-athlete’s
college life athletically and academ-
ically?
Keywords: National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, Division I, Student-Athlete, Parents, Col-
lege Football, Conferences, SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Conference USA, High School, Recruiting, Re-
cruit, Coach, Head Coach, African American, Student, University, College, College Football, Football,
National Football League, NFL Draft, NFL, Revenue, Academics, National Championship, BCS.
Division I College Football
64 Volume 1, Number 6
Introduction to the U.S. College
Athletic Landscape
e term “college athletics” refers to sports-related
and organized athletics competitions, where the par-
ticipants are students of institutions of higher edu-
cation (e.g., colleges and universities) in the United
States. ese institutions of higher learning subsidize
the various sports and athletic activities as part of
their extracurricular programs. e college athletics
framework is built upon a two-tiered system.
e rst tier of college athletics is overseen by aca-
demic sport governing organizations, including the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA),
the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics
(NAIA), and the National Junior College Athletic
Association (NJCAA) which is an association made
up of community college and junior college athletic
departments throughout the United States
For this industry analysis, the author focuses on the
rst tier of the college athletics framework, which
involves only the sports sanctioned by the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). For some,
it is considered a privilege
to compete at the height of
collegiate athletics and re-
ceive a valuable education.
However, many athletes
in today’s evolving college
athletic landscape--more
specically those in college
football--believe they are
victims because they do
not benet from the reve-
nues at the Division I level.
Participating in college athletics enriches the stu-
dent’s college experience. However, the physical and
mental demands can outweigh the intended academ-
ic purpose. Players train daily in hopes of demon-
strating an uncommon level of performance, so that
their football accomplishments and accolades result
in multimillion-dollar contract oers from National
Football League (NFL) teams.
In recent NCAA reports, statistics show that approx-
imately 2% will see nancial contractual rewards for
college football student-athletes. However, the ma-
jority of student-athletes who play football experi-
ence and endure the wear and tear on their bodies
without ever reaping professional rewards. A num-
ber of misconceptions exist about the student-athlete
and his journey into his attended college and football
program. Student-athletes and their parents partici-
pate in the recruiting process, a far from normal ex-
perience when compared to the non-athletic college
student.
is industry analysis outlines the collegiate foot-
ball landscape from various facets and provides in-
sights into the many layers of college athletics as an
industry. Due to the magnitude of the population
of athletes who participate in college athletics at the
Division I level, this analysis only focuses on Divi-
sion I college football. is focus is accomplished by
highlighting the stakeholders within the constructs
of Division I college football and addressing the var-
ious impacts on the identied stakeholders. ese
stakeholders include the student-athlete, the colleges
and universities that exist within the industry envi-
ronment, and the professional sports teams, such as
the NFL, that are the potential employers of the stu-
dent-athletes from the collegiate football system.
e business model of the NCAA is that it serves
as the governing body of college sports and cur-
rently monopolizes the earning potential of the stu-
dent-athlete and his attended university. Since its
conception, the NCAA has maintained its status as a
protable organization by increasing its prots year
in and year out.
In this analysis, Porter’s Five Forces Model is used
to identify and evaluate the key factors that could
possibly disrupt college athletics as an industry and
cause a breakdown in the control the NCAA has
on student-athletes, the
educational institutions,
and other revenues. For
a period of time, the
NCAA and other part-
nering corporate entities
made millions of dollars
from the likeness of the
student-athlete. In a class
action suit led by an
ex-University of Califor-
nia at Los Angeles bas-
ketball player, the judge ruled that it was unlawful
for the NCAA to prot from the likeness of a stu-
dent-athlete. An athlete’s likeness was dened as a
student-athlete’s personal rights; it was ruled that
the student-athlete reserved the right to govern the
commercial use of his name, image, likeness, or oth-
er obvious facets of the student-athlete’s distinctive-
ness or brand recognition.
If the NCAA allowed players to prot from their
right to use their likenesses, would it increase the
chances of student-athletes choosing to stay and play
at the college level?
College Athletics: e Industry
and the Business
On December 28, 1905, in New York, 62 colleges
and universities became charter members of the
Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United
States (IAAUS). e IAAUS was established ocial-
ly on March 31, 1906, and took its present name, the
NCAA, in 1910. e NCAA did not function under
a full-time leader until 1951.
The majority [98%] of student-ath-
letes who play football experience
and endure the wear and tear on
their bodies without ever reaping
professional rewards.
Muma Business Review 65
Gilmore
Currently, the NCAA is headquartered in Indianap-
olis, Indiana. e NCAA has had only six leaders/
presidents within the 66 years of its existence. e
NCAA remains divided into three divisions (Divi-
sions I, II, III). Its current organization is structured
by three divisions with approximately 347 institu-
tions in Division I (DI), 309 in Division II (DII), and
442 in Division III (DIII).
In August of 1973, Division I, Division II, and Divi-
sion III were adopted by the NCAA membership in
a special convention. Under NCAA rules, Division
I and Division II schools can oer scholarships to
athletes for playing a sport. Division III schools, in
most cases, do not oer any athletic scholarships.
Generally, larger schools compete in Division I and
smaller schools participate in Division II and Divi-
sion III. Division I football was further divided into
I-A and I-AA in 1978. Subsequently, the term “Divi-
sion I-AAA” was added briey to delineate Division
I universities that do not have a football program.
e core essence and values for Division I collegiate
football programs include compliance, ethical con-
duct, academics, diversity, amateurism, recruiting,
eligibility, nancial aid,
postseason competition,
and the nancial sus-
tainability of the athletic
program operations. is
industry analysis ex-
amines the football stu-
dent-athlete and parent’s/
guardian’s environments
to better understand the
key priorities when se-
lecting a college and why.
e NCAA membership has adopted amateurism
rules to ensure the students’ priority remains ob-
taining a quality educational experience and that all
student-athletes compete equitably. All incoming
student-athletes must be certied as amateurs. To be
certied as an amateur, prospective student-athletes
must rst register with the NCAA Eligibility Cen-
ter online at (www.eligibilitycenter.org), where they
provide information about their amateur status. e
amateurism certication process ensures that in-
coming Division I or II student-athletes meet NCAA
amateurism requirements. Student-athletes who ful-
ly complete the process are typically approved as cer-
tied.
With the global recruiting of athletes becoming
more common, determining the amateur status of
prospective student-athletes can be challenging for
colleges and universities. All student-athletes, in-
cluding international students, are required to ad-
here to NCAA amateurism requirements to remain
eligible for intercollegiate competition.
Another NCAA function is to provide an orga-
nizational structure for the participating athletic
programs of numerous colleges and universities in
the United States and Canada. e NCAA’s orga-
nizational structure includes over 450,000 college
student-athletes who compete yearly in college com-
petitive sports.
Division III schools do not oer athletic scholar-
ships to their student-athletes, but these students
can apply to receive academic scholarships and oth-
er nancial aid, including tuition, room and board,
and other college related fees, to defray the costs of
obtaining a college education. Division III students
do not need to register with the NCAA Clearing-
house (“How We Serve,” n.d.).
e NCAA operates as a non-prot association that
provides the rules and regulations to govern the
athletes of 1,123 institutions, conferences, organi-
zations, and individuals. It is also comprised of 98
voting athletic conferences and 39 aliated orga-
nizations. e NCAA membership consists of var-
ious roles that make up participating colleges/uni-
versities, voting athletic conferences, and aliated
groups (see Appendix for NCAA Members).
Typically, these roles which
are outlined in the appen-
dix, are salaried staed po-
sitions and, in some cas-
es, are mandatory for the
athletic program to have
in order to be considered
compliant as a college/
university participating in
NCAA athletics.
On numerous occasions,
the NCAA has been ques-
tioned and challenged on its positions regarding pol-
icies related to student-athlete nancial guidelines,
especially regarding its use of the age-old classica-
tion of college athletes as “amateurs” who should be
the rst to be acknowledged as student-athletes and
subject to the restrictions its members have imposed
on the compensation student-athletes receive. Every
year, a signicant number of players are reported to
have received benets over and above the NCAA’s
approved limits.
e sanctions for such violations have led to play-
ers having their college eligibility revoked. e im-
pact of the violations also aects the colleges and
universities where these players competed. In some
well-publicized cases, teams’ wins were stripped
away, the college and university football teams were
banned from participating in bowl/tournament
championship games and, for more extreme vio-
lations, coaches were red and athletic programs
severely restricted in their abilities to recruit stu-
dent-athletes.
The NCAA membership has adopt-
ed amateurism rules to ensure the
students’ priority remains obtain-
ing a quality educational experi-
ence and that all student-athletes
compete equitably.
Division I College Football
66 Volume 1, Number 6
Understanding the Collegiate
Stakeholders
e Student-Athlete
e denition of a student-athlete is an individual
who participates in an organized competitive sport
sponsored by the educational institution in which he
or she is currently enrolled. Typically, student-ath-
letes must balance the roles of being a full-time stu-
dent with being a full-time athlete.
According to NCAA Research, the estimated prob-
ability of competing in professional athletics is ex-
tremely low and could alarm the aspiring college ath-
lete, especially if he desires a career as a professional
athlete. According to NCAA research conducted in
2015, approximately 1.5% of NCAA students who
are dra-eligible will have an opportunity to make
a professional roster. is 1.5% represents the total
20% of all participating athletic programs that have
potential student-athletes with the opportunity to
play on a major league level.
e creation of a student-athlete occurs at a very
early stage of life, depending on the individual’s level
of development and physi-
cal growth. Most universi-
ties compete against each
other to recruit and ac-
quire the high-performing
student-athletes as early
as the junior year of high
school.
On average, a Division I
prototypical athlete enter-
ing his junior year in high
school will receive hundreds of oer letters from
colleges and universities. Many athletes will have
the opportunity to make numerous campus visits at
the athletic departments’ expense; these visits are in-
tended to provide a glamourous glimpse of the cam-
pus life.
From that early age, coaches place a great deal of
emphasis on student-athletes playing at the peak of
their abilities, making the big plays, and creating the
highlight reel footage. Winning is absolutely every-
thing to young athletes, and college coaches know
it. In a number of cases, high school seniors who are
stars on their teams and in their regions are visited
and recruited by Division I head football coaches of
major universities.
Some realities of college football are not commonly
discussed, such as the limited nancial aid the stu-
dent-athlete can receive. Without adequate support
from family, the student-athlete’s campus life could
be extremely grim. As the student-athlete struggles
with the time commitment demanded to balance
their academic and athletic lives, many choose foot-
ball to survive and maintain their positions.
e vast majority of Division I athletes are consid-
ered to be professional grade athletes; they use their
college careers as a platform to transcend to the
professional level. Some of these athletes openly ac-
knowledge and admit that obtaining a college degree
is secondary in their priorities, if important at all.
From an early age, the idea of becoming an NFL
superstar is an expectation embedded in the stu-
dent-athlete’s mind; the mindset begins when the
student is rst introduced to the sport and begins
to excel in it. For many Division I athletes, college
serves as a formality and training process that helps
them transition into a professional athlete. Many
coaches are aware of the student-athletes’ aspirations
for playing professional
football, so they coach
these young men in a
fashion that can make
their aspirations a poten-
tial reality.
ere are alarming statis-
tics about NCAA sports
that parents should
know! In an article titled
“Facts about the NCAA
Sports,” the NCAA highlights details about colle-
giate sports of which most high school athletes may
not be aware (National Collegiate Athletic Associa-
tion, 2018). Of the 176,000 student-athletes in 346
Division I schools, less than 2% of high school ath-
letes will receive an athletic scholarship. e odds of
being a scholarship athlete are indeed low (see Table
1).
Today, high school football and basketball seniors
across the country host live nationally televised press
conferences to announce where they have signed a
letter of intent to play college ball. ese young kids
are the product of the college recruiting business
model because nearly every major university has
Student-Athletes Football
High School Student-Athletes 1,083,600
NCAA Student-Athletes 72,800
Percentage Moving from High School to NCAA 6.7%
Percentage Moving from NCAA to Major Professional Team* 1.6%
Table 1: Estimated Probability of Competing in NCAA Athletics Beyond High School (NCAA, 2018).
As the student-athlete struggles
with the time commitment de-
manded to balance their academic
and athletic lives, many choose
football to survive and maintain
their positions.
Muma Business Review 67
Gilmore
adopted this model; many schools invest millions of
dollars yearly to recruit and attract the elite athletes
from across the country.
Some of these student-athletes may have inherit-
ed a false sense of reality during their recruitment
process, which further heightens their intention of
pursuing professional football as the primary goal of
attending college. Recently, this mentality was high-
lighted in an ESPN documentary conducted on the
University of Kentucky head basketball coach, John
Calipari.
While it is not common knowledge to the stu-
dent-athlete or the parent, the NCAA has well-struc-
tured rules related to the validity of an athletic
scholarship. Athletic scholarships are treated as only
a yearly commitment; the university or college re-
serves the right to withdraw the scholarship at any
time, regardless of the student’s academic or athletic
status.
e Student-Athlete’s Parents
As the young child begins to learn to play football and
gets acknowledged for his ability to play the sport, he
receives praise and pres-
sure from his parents and
the thoughts of excelling
in football grow. e
transition from playing a
recreational sport quick-
ly shis to having the
ability to earn a college
scholarship for playing
football. Many parents
and students know the
athletic scholarship can
be achieved due to the increasing number of U.S.
colleges and universities that are part of the NCAA
that provide athletic scholarships yearly. However,
many parents plant the idea into their child that even
better opportunities exist beyond college.
e parent’s role is essential to the student-athletes’
decision-making process. Parents may dismiss the
notion that their child’s rst priority should be ex-
celling as a student; many parents may consider ac-
ademics an institutional formality and focus on the
success of their child’s football career. ere has been
an increase of the over-emphasizing of the prospects
associated with playing football. When it is time
for a student-athlete to select a college, most high
performing athletes select their school based on the
football team’s performance and records rather than
the institution’s academic ranking.
National reports state that over 30 million young
children participate in some kind of organized com-
petitive athletic sports; 70% will quit that sport prior
to reaching the age of 13 or before their freshman
year in high school (Miner, 2016). Of the 30 million
young students who participate in sports, approxi-
mately 126,000 student-athletes will receive some
form of a college scholarship. at number is con-
siderably low; research reects that less than 2% of
that 126,000 will transition to the professional level,
which means that, in the United Sates for all division
collegiate schools, only 2,520 will become profes-
sional athletes in their perspective sports in America
(Kelto, 2015).
Parents’ may not understand that their core respon-
sibility is to inuence a child’s growth and develop-
ment in academics as well. e characteristics and
make-up of the parents’ expectations for the child
set the stage of how much of the child’s time will be
invested in scholastic endeavors, commitment to
sports training and related activities, and prepara-
tion to be successful in football and academically.
Too much emphasis on football can negatively im-
pact and potentially develop character issues. Plac-
ing this type of pressure on the child to perform
can slowly cause the young athlete to develop an ex-
tremely narrow focus of goals in life.
Some of these issues are found most frequently in
African American communities. High school foot-
ball coaches believe the
parents and students do
not understand the stu-
dent’s life beyond the
athletic scholarship. is
belief could be the cause
of the lack of awareness
of the value of athletic
scholarships, due to the
fact that, in some instanc-
es, African American high
school student-athletes are
rst generation college students. e NCAA reports
that many participants recruited to play at NCAA
participating schools are rst-generation college stu-
dents (NCAA, 2018).
Student-athletes from the African American com-
munity may have parents who are more likely to in-
still in their child the ideals of pursuing a career in
professional football as a high priority. is type of
parental thinking has become a systematic epidem-
ic to some youths within various African American
communities.
A research study, “Parent academic involvement as
related to school behavior, achievement, and aspira-
tions: Demographic variations across adolescence,”
has indicated that, based upon Socioeconomic Sta-
tus (SES), parents’ academic level of importance will
more likely play a major part in the raising of the
child academic goals. Researchers have discovered
that African Americans families from lower SES are
oen less involved in the success of their children’s
education and academic achievements (Hill et al.,
2004).
Athletic scholarships are treated as
only a yearly commitment; the uni-
versity or college reserves the right
to withdraw the scholarship at any
time, regardless of the student’s
academic or athletic status.
Division I College Football
68 Volume 1, Number 6
Because the value of formal education is discount-
ed by some parents, most young African American
males believe that using their athletic abilities to
succeed in sports is likely to be their only avenue to
success. Developing an anity and love for football
at an early age to strengthen their focus and eorts
on athletics diminishes the importance of education,
which has become a cycle passed from generation
to generation, more specically in African American
communities.
e Universities
Year aer year, there have been documented inci-
dents of the widespread corruption in college ath-
letics. Even aer many revisions of the NCAA rules
and regulations, colleges and universities continually
have failed to bring lasting institutional and cultural
changes within the collegiate sports arena. In recent
studies and publications, various scholarly faculty
members across many U.S. universities have stated
the numerous contradictions within intercollegiate
athletics.
Many academic institutions have stated that their
athletic programs show glaring disrespect of the val-
ue and integrity of higher
education. In a research
article, the authors noted
that some faculty viewed
university athletics and
sports programs as neg-
atively aecting the aca-
demic reputation of their
universities while others
believed there is a direct
disconnect between athletics and academics (Law-
rence, Ott, & Hendricks, 2009).
Faculty members have recognized the harsh reality
of the commercialization of college athletics. As a
result, whether or not they agree with the collegiate
business model, most universities are in the busi-
ness of sports. In today’s collegiate climate, various
schools provide CEO-level nancial compensation
packages to their head coaches. is compensation
includes the coaches’ salaries, which are consider-
ably more than the highest salaries of the university’s
faculty and administration sta. Financial contribu-
tions have gone as far as the alumni of the university,
who have formed groups that are structured in a way
that they can augment the coaches’ salaries without
violating NCAA compliance regulations.
e Role of the NCAA
Student-Athlete’s Success
e role of the NCAA is to create and foster an el-
igibility standard that considers the academic per-
formance of the student-athlete, which includes the
student-athletes’ grade point average (GPA), test
scores, core curriculum courses taken in high school
and grades earned for the core courses. e NCAA’s
stated mission is to enable all student-athletes to be
successful in college and successfully manage the
amount of coursework required of them.
In past years, the NCAA ocials have admitted
that there are probably student-athletes who are not
academically inclined to keep up with the general
student body population. While a population of stu-
dent-athletes struggles academically, the NCAA also
states that a signicant number of student-athletes
perform at high levels in the classroom.
In some cases, student-athletes are admitted to col-
lege underprepared academically. e NCAA has
sanctioned some universities to create college cours-
es catered for football student-athletes to enroll in to
insure they maintain eligibility. In some cases, these
courses had classroom environments where the pro-
fessor took attendance, issued and graded various
assignments and exams, and passed student-athletes
without the players attending one class or taking a
test (Ganim & Sayers, 2014).
e University of North Carolina admitted that it
was guilty of the academic-fraud-for-athletes scan-
dal for athletes taking a
course in African Ameri-
can studies. e outcome
of the NCAA investiga-
tion from the summer
2007 to summer 2009
revealed that approved
classes were taught by an
identied professor at the
university. e investiga-
tion discovered 50 plus students were enrolled in
an abnormal course that indicated no evidence of
the faculty member listed as instructor of record,
or any other faculty member, actually supervised
the course, nor graded the work (Ganim & Sayers,
2014).
While this egregious act is alarming, universities
are pressured constantly by the desire to win at all
cost, resulting in professors making unethical con-
cessions to help the student-athlete remain academ-
ically eligible. Some universities are essentially ad-
mitting that football student-athletes did not achieve
required academic standards and did whatever they
could to circumvent the academic process in return
for wins and losses.
Proper Governance
e NCAA has another functional role that helps
guide the rules of engagement across conferences
and divisional levels. e NCAA consists of a Board
of Governors that ensure the overall core strategic
direction, guidance, and controls are in place. Cur-
rently, the NCCA governance model has two ap-
In today’s collegiate climate, var-
ious schools provide CEO-level
nancial compensation packages to
their head coaches.
Muma Business Review 69
Gilmore
proaches. e rst approach consists of the Division
I Board of Directors, which includes university pres-
idents, a student-athlete, a faculty representative, the
athletics director, and a female administrator. e
primary function of the Board is to provide for day-
to-day operations of the division (see Figure 1).
Figure 2 depicts the Council, which is responsible
for making the day-to-day policy and legislative de-
cisions for the NCAA participants (see Figure 2).
e end goal of this governance structure is to im-
prove the perception of collegiate athletics as well
as participating universities and conferences. is
structure provides a great deal of decision power
to the presidents to dictate the desired course of
collegiate athletics, policies, and bylaws. In 2014,
the NCAA governance was revamped due to a
much-needed reorganization and strategic focus.
Figure 1: NCCA Board of Directors Model (Brutlag Hosick, 2014).
Figure 2: NCCA Council Operations (Brutlag Hosick, 2014).
Division I College Football
70 Volume 1, Number 6
NCAA Programs
e NCAA also provides programs to ensure it cul-
tivates and facilitates a culture that supports the stu-
dent-athlete. To ensure a support system for the stu-
dent-athlete community, the NCAA created a “Stay
in the Game” initiative. is initiative guarantees
the student-athlete athletic scholarship, regardless
of athletic performance or football-related injury. In
2015, 65 of the Division I conference institutions ad-
opted this policy. For participating schools, the “Stay
in the Game” program ensures the student-athlete
an education.
e NCAA has several other programs, including
programs that promote and support various causes
and diversity focused agendas, such as gender equal-
ity, health awareness, and injury prevention and safe-
ty. Furthermore, the 65 participating schools within
the major conferences (Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big
12, Pac-12 and Southeastern) have structured their
scholarship oerings to include the full cost of uni-
versity attendance.
In summary, the NCCA holds the university account-
able for the academic progress of the student-athlete.
Its goal is to provide the
framework and connes
within which the Division
I school must play. If the
participating institution
plays outside the boundar-
ies, harsh penalties can be
assessed at various levels
of the athletic programs.
e NCAA, rich in histo-
ry and revenue, has stood
the test of time and managed to provide a structured
format by which the majority of the large universi-
ties abides. With the evolving reality that everyone
in the collegiate landscape makes money, the NCAA
has acknowledged the rapid growth of commercial-
ization placed on college athletics and commented
that potential changes are imminent in the near fu-
ture.
An exponential amount of prots ows to and from
the NCAA and its participating institutions, com-
pared to the nancial assistance provided to the
vast pool of scholarship student-athletes. While the
NCAA has made strides in progressing its thinking
about how to create an equal balance of equity, the
student-athlete education and academic achieve-
ment remains looming. e NCAA faces a long jour-
ney to bring a holistic solution of nancial equality
to all key stakeholders. To truly transform the cur-
rent collegiate landscape, the NCCAA may have to
transform its perspective on amateurism and aca-
demic achievement of the student-athlete. e ap-
proach needs to provide a more eective mechanism
to ensure that the student-athletes’ success equates
to more than that of a national championship.
Comparison of a University Pro-
fessor’s Compensation to an Ath-
letic Coach’s Compensation
In the evolving nancial landscape of college athlet-
ics in the United States, one group that has beneted
from the upward trend in salaries and other com-
pensation is Division I football coaches. Highlights
of the multimillion-dollar contracts and compensa-
tion deals have been aired on sports cable networks
and documented in sports publications worldwide. It
has become common knowledge that coaches make
signicantly more than tenured college professors.
For example, for the scal years including 2015
and 2016, the highest salaried non-student football
sta member at the University of Alabama earned
$1,082,248. Judith Bonner, serving as President of
the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama,
was compensated at that level (University of Al-
abama, 2015). At the same time, the highest paid
head football coach, Nick Saban, at the University of
Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, made $15,214,395
annually, according to the USA Today website (Ber-
kowitz, Schnaars, & Dougherty, n.d.). is salary
dierence is signicant,
in the range of approxi-
mately $14,000,000.
Athletic programs at
many universities in the
United States will con-
tinue to struggle to iden-
tify the moral balance
between academics and
athletics. More and more
universities are losing the
academic compasses as their essential existence and
yielding to the ever-increasing demand to promote
and invest in their athletic programs.
Universities are making strategic decisions to pro-
mote their brand by emphasizing their athletic
programs and the quality of the athletic talent they
can bring to the campus. However, in some cases,
institutions will make these strategic decisions and
elect not to equally invest in academia. In numerous
cases, this decision has resulted in an over-emphasis
on the football athletic program as the focal point
of the school, not the academic successes of the stu-
dent-athletes.
In trying to understand the nancial dynamics re-
lated to how universities invest in athletics, the re-
searcher began to investigate the top ranked Divi-
sion I universities and the nancial agendas at play
within the institutions. Four universities were se-
lected in this study: e University of Alabama, the
University of Michigan, Ohio State University, and
Oklahoma State University.
Across the four universities, collectively, a total of
$60,000,000 was spent on the head football coach in
More and more universities are los-
ing the academic compasses as their
essential existence and yielding
to the ever-increasing demand to
promote and invest in their athletic
programs.
Muma Business Review 71
Gilmore
2015-16 while a total of $8,000,000 was spent on the
top paid professors or presidents. Four head coaches
are worth $60,000,000 to these universities; howev-
er, the academic future, landscape and mission are
seemingly worth only $8,000,000.
e researcher recognizes that these state institu-
tions have salary constraints and regulations that are
governed by their respective governing bodies. In
the discussion case section, the researcher presents
how a state university overcame institutional adver-
sities to ensure they would nancially secure their
head coach.
In eorts to provide an unbiased approach, further
research was conducted on the same four universi-
ties to identify the top 19 salaried faculty/professor
positions. Likewise, the same eort was utilized to
outline the head football coaching sta and its sal-
aries; across the board, the disparity of salaries was
not close.
In Table 2: Top 4 College Coaching Salaries, the
researcher provides a detail breakdown of the uni-
versities’ coaching sta in comparison to academic
employees.
Table 2: Top 4 College Coaching Salaries
Division I College Football
72 Volume 1, Number 6
While the data depicts signicant dierences in
Head Coach’s salaries in comparison to those for the
senior academic positions, the data also shows some
institutions place equal importance on their sta.
Illustrated in Table 3 are the salaries of the four
combined universities’ head football coaches com-
pared to the highest paid faculty/sta. Also illustrat-
ed is the assistant football coaching sta compared
against the top 19 paid professors.
e outlier in the data collected was Ohio State Uni-
versity. According to an article written in e Lan-
tern in 2014, Ohio State was ranked 5th in the Big
Ten conference for providing the highest average
faculty salaries (Hickman, 2014). While the Ohio
State University clearly understands the impor-
tance of investing in its academic sta, it also com-
prehends the value it receives from investing in the
football program.
ese academic investments are important because
they support a student-athlete’s academic develop-
ment; however, they are even more important for
ensuring that student-athletes are provided the edu-
cation to help them develop a career plan and man-
age their nances when their athletic career is over.
Universities must invest in the coaches, and the ath-
letic departments must own the responsibility for
their players’ academic success. ese investments
will better enable their athletes to be independent
and successful in their college careers and beyond.
Discussion Case Study: Roll the
Tide: How the University of Al-
abama is Financing its Football
Program
Securing Coach Saban’s ability to “Roll the Tide,” e
University of Alabama and its nancial supporters’
determination to prioritize and strengthen the football
program.
Division I universities make millions of dollars from
their athletic programs. at source of revenue en-
ables them to pay their athletic department stas’
multi-million-dollar salaries. At present, only the
coaches and universities are allowed to prot from
sports-related endorsements and the use of their stu-
dent-athletes’ likenesses.
In a growing number of situations, alumni and uni-
versity boosters supplement the coach’s salary. At
these same universities, however, student-athletes
leave their training and practice sessions hungry
and with no money to buy food. In 2013, a private
foundation established to support the University of
Alabama’s athletic program, purchased a $3,100,000
home for the head football coach and his wife. is
private foundation also has paid the yearly property
taxes for them. One important detail in this scenar-
io is the private foundation bought the home from
Coach Nick Saban and then gave the home back to
him.
In 2017, the University of Alabama trustees ap-
proved a three-year contract extension for Coach
Saban through the 2024 football season that is esti-
mated to pay him more than $65,000,000 over that
time. To illustrate the importance the University of
Alabama has placed on its head coach, the records of
the university’s average salaries for its academic and
coaching personnel were researched.
A professor at the University of Alabama earns, on
average, $186,636 per year. In comparison, Coach
Nick Saban will make approximately $11,400,000 for
his coaching duties with an additional $4,000,000 as
a contract signing bonus. e contract also includes
a $400,000 completion bonus.
From a review of the University of Alabama salary
data for academic positions, there are a total of 304
full-time professors who earn an average of $186,636
per year, totaling approximately $55,900,000 per
year. In seven years, Coach Saban could personally
fund an entire university of full-time professors and
have $14,400,000 le to live on.
Also, the University’s trustees wanted to ensure that
Coach Saban’s sta was well compensated; they ap-
proved a ve-year arrangement for the new athletic
director, Greg Byrne, including salary increases for
Coach Saban’s assistants. e athletic director By-
rne will make $900,000 a year with a $25,000 annual
raise starting in 2018.
e oensive coordinator, Brian Daboll, will earn
$1,200,000 annually under his new three-year
agreement. Defensive coordinator Jeremy Pruitt’s
three-year contract is worth $4,200,000, including
Four Universities
Combined
Head Coach / Top
Salaried Professor
Asst. Coaching Sta / 19
Top Salaried Prof. Total Salaries Combined
University Football
Program
$60,018,390.00 $18,602,750.00 $78,621,140.00
University Academic
Positions
$8,655,653.00 $49,497,647.00 $58,153,300.00
Dierence $51,362,737.00 $(30,894,897.00) $20,467,840.00
Table 3: Football Coach versus Academic Professor Salaries
Muma Business Review 73
Gilmore
a $100,000 raise each year. is nancial compen-
sation previously outlined only accounts for the
salaries of Coach Saban and two members of his
coaching sta. Alabama’s assistant football coaches’
compensation can be found in the appendix (see Ta-
ble A1).
e nancial summation comparison in the table be-
low does not include Coach Saban’s medical and ad-
ministrative sta or any other sport (e.g., basketball:
men and women, baseball: men and women, etc.).
Table 4 shows the University of Alabama’s professor
versus football coaching sta salary comparison.
Potentially, the university receives millions of dollars
that cannot be accounted for. is revenue comes
from a variety of sources, such as corporate endorse-
ments and athletic apparel/equipment contracts.
Essentially, the University of Alabama is cashing in
on its student-athletes. e University of Alabama is
not alone; many other Division I schools operate the
same way and build up their athletic programs by
similar means. ese student-athletes are not pro-
vided any nancial health guarantees in the event
they can no longer compete for the university due to
an unforeseen injury.
To put the total amount of revenue generated
by these Division I institutions into perspective,
the NFL, across both divisions, made a total of
$12,156,000,000 in 2016. e NCAA’s Colleges and
University collectively generated 33% of the NFL’s
total revenue (see Table 5).
Are the universities unwilling to improve the equal-
ity in the distribution of sports revenue to its stu-
dent-athletes in fear of potentially losing billions of
dollars in protability? e institutions exploit the
student-athletes to maintain the revenues the ath-
letic programs generate from ticket sales, television
contracts, and apparel and other merchandising li-
censing agreements.
In many scenarios, most athletes recruited to play
a sport are habitually persuaded to major in elds
that will not aid their success in a career later in life.
is persuasion primarily occurs because the ma-
jors suggested by the athletes’ coaching sta are not
as academically demanding, which results in more
time the athlete can dedicate to perfecting his athlet-
ic cra. However, the recommended majors are not
academically challenging, thereby causing a scholas-
tic gap for the athlete.
Most college freshman athletes major in interdepart-
mental studies. e student-athlete is taught that this
major allows them to have less of a course load and
provide more time in the gym. e primary focus
for most college athletes is to remain academically
eligible to play, so the quality of education and com-
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA Academic Athletics *Football
Full-Time Professors Primary Football Sta
EMPLOYEE COUNT 304 12
AVG. YEARLY SALARY ~$55.9M ~$26.1M
Table 4: e University of Alabama’s Professor – Football Coaching Sta Salary Comparison.
NCAA Division I College Teams
ACC $527,658,411
American $159,353,816
Big 12 $531,951,895
Big Ten $744,393,720
C-USA $123,409,990
Independent $124,002,513
MAC $101,646,998
Mountain West $126,719,325
PAC-12 $547,680,916
SEC $952,080,336
Sun Belt $78,228,399
Total Revenue $4,017,126,319
NFL AFC Division
AFC East $1,631,000,000
AFC North $1,430,000,000
AFC South $1,438,000,000
AFC West $1,372,000,000
Total Revenue $5,871,000,000
NFL NFC Division
NFC East $1,998,000,000
NFC North $1,403,000,000
NFC South $1,397,000,000
NFC West $1,488,000,000
Total Revenue $6,286,000,000
Table 5: Equity in Athletics Data Analysis (U.S.
Department of Education, n.d.). Forbes Sports
Money: 2016 NFL Valuations (“Sports Money,”
2016).
Division I College Football
74 Volume 1, Number 6
mitment to education are non-existent in the minds
of many of these athletes.
While researching some of the schools in the Power
Five Conference, data was collected to identify the
majors that football players were enrolled in during
2015. e data collection from the individual uni-
versity was conducted through the institution’s on-
line rosters.
e variety of ambiguous curriculum to choose from
further enables the student-athlete to easily check o
the eligible check box in order to play football. See
Table 6 for a review of the common majors selected
by football players within the top NCAA Division I
conferences.
e NCAA promotes that athletes graduate at a
higher rate than the general student body. Howev-
er, the federal rates provided yearly paint a dierent
picture. e NCAA statistic does not portray a ho-
listic view of the student-athlete. Its research study
does not follow the student as he may transfer from
school to school until graduating or dropping out.
On its organization’s website, the NCAA has stated
that this methodology is not the most accurate ap-
proach for accounting for graduation rates (NCAA,
2015). Current reported numbers provided by the
NCAA position it as an institution that has made
positive strides in graduating student-athletes. What
is not clearly stated in their statement of “success” is
whether the graduating students were able to trans-
late their degrees into promising, meaningful careers
(NCAA, 2015).
With the academic landscape predened for the stu-
dent-athlete, how can anyone expect to place value
on college? e moment a high school senior com-
mits to a college, he is instantly convinced the val-
ue of his college experience is not in the rigor of his
studies, but in the investment of his time dedicated
to football strength and conditioning, which, in his
mind, is preparing him to be a star in his sport.
Some institutions have had head coaches go as far
as providing their athletes with “students” to “help”
the athletes with their curriculum work, so much
“student help” that various universities have been
sanctioned by the NCAA and governing bodies for
violating school policies and major acts of plagia-
rism. Yet, the sanctions have not deterred these in-
stitutions from continuing down this path.
A few years ago, a Northwestern quarterback by the
name of Kain Colter shared his personal story in a
federal courtroom in Chicago about the impasse he
was challenged with as he tried to balance what de-
ned success for him academically and athletically
(Strauss, 2014).
While Colter was dedicated to the football program,
he wanted to ensure that his studies were aligned
properly with what was required for him to attend
medical school. In a humble tone, he admitted that
he knew that, had it not been for his athletic ability,
he would not have been accepted to Northwestern
University. He clearly stated, “Football was the rea-
son I was there” (Strauss, 2014).
Colter detailed his struggle with his football obli-
gations contradicting his focus on pre-med studies.
Consequently, he chose a psychology major! Colter’s
dilemma does not happen for many athletes, pri-
marily because, for a majority, sports are their only
focus.
Strangely enough, when assessing the student-ath-
lete’s situation, the conict of prioritizing the college
education and the athletic requirements and sacri-
ces presents a signicant challenge for these young
people. With the amount of pressure placed on these
students to succeed athletically, are the institutions
creating an academic pitfall? Institutions seem to be
disregarding their educational responsibilities to the
student-athlete and not providing the guidance to
help them make the most informed decisions that
could dictate the student-athletes’ future.
Conference School Major
ACC Clemson Parks, recreation and tourism management
ACC North Carolina Exercise and sport science
Big 10 Illinois General studies
Big 10 Michigan General studies
Big 12 West Virginia General or multidisciplinary studies
Big 12 Baylor Health, human performance and recreation studies
PAC 12 Arizona State Interdisciplinary studies
PAC 12 Washington State Tie-Criminal justice, sport management and social sciences
SEC Tennessee Recreation and sport management
SEC Ole Miss General studies
Table 6: Common Majors Selected by College Football Players
Muma Business Review 75
Gilmore
Professional Sports
To fully understand the athletic landscape and jour-
ney student-athletes take to become a professional
athlete, a person must recognize that it is neither a
coincidence nor luck that only a few student-ath-
letes make it to the professional level. Natural talent
separates the average athlete from the elite athlete.
However, the transformation from a college athlete
to a professional athlete is based on the level of phys-
ical training and mental preparation made by the
athletes and the investments of time made by their
coaches and trainers.
In Division I football, a student-athlete can request
for his college to have him evaluated to determine if
he would be selected in the professional dra. De-
pending on the outcome of that evaluation, the stu-
dent-athlete could get a red ag about his potential
dra ranking, which could serve as a recommenda-
tion for the student-athlete to stay in school.
e NFL provides this player evaluation service to
help NFL organizations in identifying NFL-quality
players and high-level student-athletes, who have
the potential to enter the league early. e basis of
the evaluations is clearly the NFL’s responsibility.
e NFL depends on its
College Advisory Com-
mittee from NFL clubs
and directors from the
league’s two sanctioned
scouting organizations,
National Football Scout-
ing Organization and the
Bears Lions Eagles Steel-
ers Talent Organization (BLESTO), to provide real-
istic projections to underclassmen student-athletes
regarding their dra stock before they declare their
desire to enter the Dra to the NFL.
Division I college football and basketball coaches
essentially create a “farm league” for professional
teams. NFL organizations depend on certain coach-
es to continuously produce professional-caliber ath-
letes.
While some universities may develop two NFL pros-
pects a year on average, several coaches at the Divi-
sion I level are well known for running athletic pro-
grams that professional sports organizations rely on
as a source of dra quality players. ese profession-
al sports teams rely on student-athletes from these
schools to shape the future of the NFL organization.
To be eligible for the NFL dra, college players must
be out of high school for a minimum of three years
and have used up their college eligibility before the
start of the next college football season. Underclass-
men and players who graduated before using all
their college eligibility may request the league’s ap-
proval to enter the dra early.
Collectively, the NFL teams build their franchises
solely with college football players. In more cases,
college coaches are convincing players that their
university athletic experience is merely the devel-
opment process that will enable them to reach their
goals of playing in the NFL.
Regardless of the college football player’s academ-
ic status, the university he attends has reached the
nancial understanding that the coach’s job is to
win games, win the conference championship, and
prepare student-athletes for the NFL. e academ-
ic understanding of the university’s responsibility to
prepare the student-athlete for his life aer sports is
less evident.
The Impact of the Media on
College Football
Media plays a signicant role in the commercializa-
tion and monetary valuation of college sports. e
researcher examined how much signicant reliance
college athletics places on various media channels
and outlets (i.e., TV, radio, and social media). Sev-
eral drivers inuence the relationships between the
NCAA and the various types of media with which it
partners.
Recent news stated that
Entertainment Sports Net-
work (ESPN) is contracted
in total to spend $5.64 bil-
lion to the NCAA for the
rights to televise NCAA
sanctioned schools’ col-
legiate games (Bachman,
2012). ese types of mul-
timillion-dollar television contracts helped usher
college football into the strategic business model it
currently enjoys. e NCAA college football televi-
sion broadcast dominates the local and cable sports
networks. e ability of cable networks to provide
coast-to-coast coverage of all the major collegiate
teams has created a massive movement.
When universities entered television markets to
highlight their college football programs, they began
to truly see the revenue opportunities presented. At
one time, the only major Division I university with a
television contract was Notre Dame; it remains one
of the few with a major television network which, in
this case, is NBC.
e television network NBC Sports Group has
structured the deal with Notre Dame to extend a 10-
year contract in order to televise Notre Dame foot-
ball games will them until 2025. e NBC and Notre
Dame contract was reported to be worth approxi-
mately $15 million annually. In systematic adoption
fashion, other universities began to secure lucrative
television deals.
Division I college football and
basketball coaches essentially cre-
ate a “farm league” for professional
teams.
Division I College Football
76 Volume 1, Number 6
Universities realized the true nancial potential by
understanding that the television model of brand
awareness further promoted and extended their
brand to an audience they would not normally
reach. In 2012, the South Eastern Conference (SEC)
expanded its conference to include Texas A&M and
Missouri. Alone, that decision generated $420 mil-
lion from TV and radio rights deals (Talty, 2017).
On average, most university athletic programs’ tele-
vision revenue generates upward of $15 million an-
nually for football teams in the major NCAA con-
ferences. Television revenue has provided a growing
number of universities with nancial stability. is
success has driven universities to seek more avenues
to use media outlets for further revenue to support
their athletic departments, and oen, the football
program is key to that strategy.
Money is the primary driver behind college foot-
ball and TV having such great success and contin-
ued growth. e various television networks have
enabled universities and their college football pro-
grams to enjoy nationwide coverage, which has fos-
tered the increasing popularity of the sport. is
popularity has led to programming more and more
college football games at all levels of the sport be-
cause of consumer demand.
According to the National Football Foundation,
more than 216 million viewers watched the NCAA
football regular season with an additional 126 mil-
lion watching the college bowl games. Also, college
football had over 48.9 million fans attend games in
person. Figure 3 shows the attendance statistics pro-
vided by the National Football Foundation.
e growth of football and the ever-increasing reve-
nue stream for the universities has had many sports
experts challenging whether student-athletes should
be paid or otherwise compensated for their athletic
performances on the eld. When assessing the eco-
nomics of the college athletic program, such a pro-
posal seems quite logical.
An Assessment of the College
Athletics Industry Utilizing the
Porter Five Forces Model
According to Porter, the main inuences that direct-
ly impact rivalries among rms in an industry are
(Porter, 2008):
• Mature-markets
• Evenly stable competitors
• High xed costs
• High exit barriers
When analyzing the NCAA Division I landscape,
the author has realized that all of these dynamics
exist in participating athletic programs. e several
consumers of NCAA College Teams are:
• Student-athletes
• Alumni
• Fans
• Media outlets
• Corporations
All of the consumers listed above have bargaining
power, however, some are more powerful than oth-
ers. e level of power diminishes as the hierarchy
of power trickles down to the student-athlete level.
e goal of using Porter’s ve forces is to identify the
inuences that directly impact the level of compe-
tition within the NCAA colleges and universities.
We look at the core factors to determine if they are
forces that can dictate if the NCAA has a cap on its
overall protability. Furthermore, we ask the ques-
tion: Could the factors serve as an evolving poten-
tial threat to the NCAA, causing it to become less
Figure 3: Attendance Statistics Provided by the National Football Foundation
Muma Business Review 77
Gilmore
attractive in terms of future protability due to more
lucrative, protable threats by its consumers (see
Figure 4)?
reat of New Entry: Unionization of
Student-Athletes
As discussed earlier in this analysis, players from
Northwestern University pushed to unionize the
football team. e goal was to have the players rec-
ognized as employees, which would entitle them to
employee benets and compensation. When this
proposal was reviewed by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board (NLRB), the NLRB unanimously voted
against the athletes being considered as employees
of the University. According to transcripts of the
case, the NLRB rule was not against the question of
employee status, but rather the NLRB chose not to
extend its authority to college football.
However, the Northwestern players made a strong
argument. In the case of student-athletes, the num-
ber of hours needed for them to be considered em-
ployee labor accumulates quickly. Players dedicate
hours to athletic and academic preparation that are
equivalent to those of a full-time job. College ath-
letics and related activities take up to 40 to 50 hours
a week throughout the season and 50 to 60 hours
a week throughout training camp in in the spring
and summer. ese hours do not include any aca-
demic coursework required for the student-athlete
to maintain his eligibility.
e intent is to not put additional nancial debt on
the student, so it may be less likely that the athletes
will receive salaries in return for playing on a Divi-
sion I football team. A reasonable compromise could
possibly be to allow the student-athlete to receive an
increase in nancial stipends or the ability to seek
part-time employment during the o-season.
Bargaining Power of the Supplier: e
Power of the Student-Athlete
Many experts, economists, sports journalists, and
athletic enthusiasts argue that student-athletes
should be compensated in some form. When assess-
ing the power of student-athletes, one opportunity
for using their power is not available to them; that
opportunity is the ability to help create NCAA leg-
islation.
Division III allows its students to vote on policy
changes, even though these athletes are not on schol-
arship. However, the Division felt compelled to allow
the athletes to have a voice in their athletic future.
Division I athletes are only allowed to provide input.
What is alarming is that the NCAA has known for
years that without the student-athletes on the eld
on Saturday, playing and mesmerizing millions of
college sports fans with their athletic abilities--the
billions of dollars of revenue generated for these col-
leges and universities would not exist.
e on-eld success of college athletes helps encour-
age millions of students, alumni, and fans to buy
Figure 4: reat of New Entry: Unionization of Student-Athletes
Division I College Football
78 Volume 1, Number 6
season tickets for games, sign-up for cable network
providers’ sports packages, increase jersey sales, and
expand licensing of college-themed consumer prod-
ucts.
A group of approximately 30 student-athletes repre-
sent the broader population of college athletes as a
“voice” in the NCAA. is committee is known as
the National Student-Athlete Advisory Committee
(SAAC) and is comprised of members from the 32
Division I conferences. While this group has made
some contributions to the direction of policies for
the NCAA, it has not made any impact regarding the
fair treatment of the student-athlete.
Some athletes have gone on record and reported
their coaches have stated they would be kicked o
the team for not attending “voluntary” activities.
From the perspective of the student-athlete, players
should be able to threaten to leave their college and
university if they are not provided with the ability
to nd alternative ways to pay for college expenses
that their scholarships do not cover. However, stu-
dent-athletes threatening to stop playing college
football is not likely to happen. e reality is thou-
sands of other student-athletes would be willing to
replace them for a Divi-
sion I scholarship oppor-
tunity.
reat of Substi-
tute: e Creation
of the NFL Farm
System or Develop-
ment League
What would the nancial
impact be to Division I schools if the NFL or another
organization adopted a development football league
that would allow young athletes to avoid college and
begin making a living playing football? What if there
was no need to worry about amateurism or having
to wait to go pro?
Some signicant research studies and economic
models have been performed by a private group to
understand the viability of creating a developmen-
tal league. While the NBA has a development league
that young athletes can try out for, the NFL does not
have an aliated developmental league. However,
football playing student-athletes may not have to
wait much longer for the “what if” scenario; the idea
of a development league could potentially become a
reality.
Some speculations have been made about a group
that has been seeking to start a professional league
to launch in 2018 or 2019. From recent reports, the
group has stated that it does not intend to compete
with the NCAA; however, it becomes a threat to the
talent pool. e proposed plan for this pilot is to tar-
get 200 players to play on four teams during the NFL
o-season.
e average salary of each player would be approx-
imately $50,000 a year with a benets package that
includes the ability for each player to seek endorse-
ments and performance contracts for his likeness to
supplement and maximize protability. If players are
allowed to forgo college and begin making a living
immediately, it’s easy to see where the impact could
be signicant.
While many student-athletes easily may opt-out of
a league such as this and elect to play at an elite Di-
vision I college or university and potentially earn a
four-year degree, the reality of this concept has the
NFL considering its approach for addressing the di-
lemma. e NFL also has gone on record with con-
siderations of creating a developmental league; it has
presented viable options to the competition commit-
tee that would create a system for young players to
develop.
Bargaining Power of the Buyer: Corpo-
rate Sponsors and TV Networks
e benets of the corporate sponsors and TV net-
work partnerships to the
colleges and universities
are consistent revenue
streams that can be fore-
casted accurately. Spon-
sors and other entities
contractually obligate
themselves nancially to
the school’s athletic de-
partment in exchange for
the rights to license and market the athletic depart-
ment’s brand.
Most Division I schools base their budgets on these
revenue streams. e NCAA and universities rely on
these organizations for nancial support that allows
them to sustain their programs at a high level. As
documented on the NCAA website, Turner Sports
and CBS Sports are listed as having the “exclusive”
rights to license and market NCAA logo merchan-
dise and tickets and use NCAA taglines in commer-
cial promotions (www.ncaa.com).
ese companies contribute signicant amounts
to the NCAA and the colleges and universities in
terms of yearly revenue. e NCAA-sponsored
“March Madness” men’s college basketball tour-
nament makes over a billion dollars each year, and
none of the players in the tournament receive any
compensation for their participation or the success
of the event. As discussed earlier in this industry
analysis, the NCAA Tournament will be shown on
CBS/Turner through 2032. Both parties signed an
eight-year, $8.8 billion extension with the NCAA for
While the NBA has a development
league that young athletes can try
out for, the NFL does not have an
afliated developmental league.
Muma Business Review 79
Gilmore
the broadcast rights to the men’s college basketball
tournament.
e Industry Buyers (corporations/tv networks)
have more power than the Industry Suppliers (stu-
dent-athletes). ese major corporations have dic-
tated the athletic paradigm that exists today, but
what stands in the way of balancing the inequality
of this collegiate athletic cultural business model is
greed.
e essence of greed has tarnished many corpora-
tions from behaving ethically with some sense of a
moral compass. In a Journal of Business Ethics arti-
cle, the author speaks of greed. Major corporations
will never sacrice their bottom line to benet a
student-athlete who, through his athletic talents,
is making billions of dollars for his institution, the
NCAA, and the corporate sponsor (Stieber, 1991).
e potential threat exists, but it is not nancially ra-
tional for the various major corporations to permit
the athletes to benet from their prots. e hard
question that remains unanswered is: Is a college
football scholarship an adequate and appropriate
form of compensation when a college football play-
er is required to do more for the university and its
athletic department than
play football?
Research studies indicate
that most Division I col-
lege football student-ath-
letes are unlikely to make
graduating with a de-
gree their primary goal.
According to Mangold,
Bean, and Adams, “It
is not unreasonable to expect that highly integrat-
ed social communities may compete with learning
communities, particularly if the nature of the social
interaction is in conict with the goals of the learn-
ing community” (Mangold, Bean, & Adams, 2003).
Conclusions
What is more important to the individual stu-
dent-athlete: seeking a professional football career
or an education with the benet of playing football?
ere are positive stories of athletes being successful
through both decision paths. However, more sce-
narios exist where the athlete has been the victim of
making the wrong decision and choosing the wrong
path to professionalism.
Ultimately, the decision belongs to the student-ath-
lete and the supporting people within his circle. is
decision can be very dicult to make and can have
lasting impact on his adult life. e athlete needs a
strong foundation of support and knowledge about
the options available and circumstances that come
with each choice of academics or professional sports.
As the parent(s) introduce their child to sports, it is
important that they restrain their personal desires
and dreams for their child, which can constrain
their son’s ability to choose what he feels is best for
him, an academic or athletic career. e parent(s)
must not let the child’s journey be dened by their
self-gratifying expectations.
Many student-athletes will continue to struggle with
the dilemma of retaining the student-athlete life ver-
sus declaring eligibility as an underclassman for the
NFL dra. Could the unionization of student-ath-
lete players actually change the monetary chase to
play professional football? ese student-athletes
must demand a stronger voice in the NCAA! To tru-
ly invoke a cultural change and reform within the
NCAA, an industry threat must be introduced to
force the organization to rethink its approach to stu-
dent-athletes in the United States.
e critical decision of remaining a student or decid-
ing to leave college early to play professional football
will be at the center of the student-athletes’ thought
process, and the supporting people within his circle
can either provide reasonable, logical thinking or be
the demise of the athlete’s career. Making the wrong
decision can have a lasting impact on his adult life.
Being able to discern the
disparity of perception
versus reality will enable
the athlete to make logical
choices in life.
What if CBS/Turner
Sports and ESPN mandat-
ed that student-athletes
were required to be paid
a portion of the proceeds
if they remained in school or had reached the end
of their eligibility? Would the NCAA comply or nd
another brand/network to partner with to retain all
prots?
Athletics rst, academics optional is the culture that
has been adopted by the majority of these Divisional
I universities because collegiate athletics has become
a business. In examining the threats to the NCCA
industry, the introduction of a development league
would gradually impact the bottom line of universi-
ties over time. e NCAA’s quality of play and even-
tual protability would be impacted as adoption of
a new product could diversify the talent pool and
revenue streams.
Appendix
NCAA Members:
College Presidents – ese are the leaders of the
participating Division I and II schools and include
the NCAA president.
Athletic Directors – ese are the heads of the ath-
letic departments at their perspective schools; they
Research studies indicate that most
Division I college football stu-
dent-athletes are unlikely to make
graduating with a degree their
primary goal.
Division I College Football
80 Volume 1, Number 6
provide oversight and guidance to the athletic sta
and enforce policies and NCAA guidelines.
Faculty Athletic Representative – is position is
designated to bridge the two university departments
of academia and athletics.
Compliance Ocer – is position communi-
cates and manages the various rules relating to stu-
dent-athletes on their campus.
Conference Sta – ese positions are the vari-
ous principal groups that create the competition
amongst the various conferences in the NCAA.
Academic Support Sta – ese positions are em-
ployees tasked with preparing athletes academically
for the future.
Coaches – ese positions are the individuals hired
to recruit, train, strengthen, and coach the stu-
dent-athletes for competitive sports.
Sports Information Directors – is role serves as
the keeper of records and statistics to document the
players’ statistical accomplishments as well as those
of the team.
Health and Safety Personnel – ese positions are
the hired medically trained personnel responsible
for the overall health and well-being of the stu-
dent-athletes (“What is the NCAA?” n.d.).
Discussion with a Division I Football
Student-Athlete
In a conversation with a Division I student-athlete
football player, he stated that at one point during
his sophomore year in college, his position coach-
es pulled him aside and told him that he had NFL
quality skills that would transcend into NFL league
quality traits. He was somewhat stunned that he was
considered an NFL quality player by his coach’s eval-
uation since he was a partial scholarship athlete.
He stated that he wanted to get his degree for his
mom, but the thought of going to the NFL lingered
in his mind. From that day, every practice, every lm
day session and every snap, his goal was to put great
game lm together for NFL scouts to see. Midway
through his sophomore year, he said that his aca-
demics were put on hold; he explained that he knew
deep inside his talents were not of NFL quality. e
student-athlete admitted that his team had guys who
were 10 times faster and stronger--they also had a
higher football IQ. Oddly enough, he said, it made
him push even harder.
Confessions of a Missed Opportunity
A few years ago, a three-year defensive tackle from
the University of Tennessee was interviewed by a
journalist about his college career and present reali-
zation due to his decision to declare himself eligible
for the NFL early. e young man stated that he was
full of regret; he passed up his senior season because,
he said, an agent convinced him he would be a mid-
dle-round dra pick.
is young man was never draed and is home in
New Orleans, hoping to get an opportunity to audi-
tion with an Arena Football League team. He stated,
“I made a bad decision. A lot of guys like me are sit-
ting at home wishing they had that degree” (Kelto,
2015).
References
Bachman, R. (2012, November 21). ESPN strikes
deal for college football playo. Wall Street Jour-
nal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/arti-
cles/SB1000142412788732485170457813322397
0790516
Berkowitz, S., Schnaars, C., & Dougherty, S. (n.d.).
NCAA salaries: Top NCAAF coach pay. USA To-
day. Retrieved from http://sports.usatoday.com/
ncaa/salaries/
Brutlag Hosick, M. (2014). Board adopts new Divi-
sion I structure: Student-athletes will vote at ev-
Type of Assistant Coach Name of Football Coach Compensation
Outside Linebackers Coach Tosh Lupoi $950,000
Co-Oensive Coordinator Coach Mike Locksley $1,200,000
Tight-Ends/Special Teams Coach: Joe Pannunzio $375,000
Oensive Line Coach Brent Key $400,000
Running Backs Coach Burton Burns $490,000
Defensive Backs Coach Derrick Ansley $405,000
Defensive Line Coach Karl Dunbar $575,000
Strength and Conditioning Coach Scott Cochran $535,000
Table A1: Alabama’s Assistant Football Coaches’ Compensation
Muma Business Review 81
Gilmore
ery governance level. Retrieved from http://www.
ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/
board-adopts-new-division-i-structure
Ganim, S., & Sayers, D. (2014). UNC report
nds 18 years of academic fraud to keep ath-
letes playing. Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.
com/2014/10/22/us/unc-report-academic-fraud/
index.html
Hickman, L. (2014, February 3). Ohio State ranked
5th in Big Ten average faculty salaries, some pro-
fessors unfazed. e Lantern. Retrieved from
https://www.thelantern.com/2014/02/ohio-state-
ranked-5th-big-ten-average-faculty-salaries-pro-
fessors-unfazed/
Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin,
P., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2004).
Parent academic involvement as related to school
behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demo-
graphic variations across adolescence. Child De-
velopment, 75(5), 1491-1509.
Kelto, A. (2015). Sports and health in America: e
long odds against your athletic kid turning pro.
Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/
health-shots/2015/09/04/432795481/how-likely-
is-it-really-that-your-athletic-kid-will-turn-pro
Lawrence, J., Ott, M., & Hendricks, L. (2009). Ath-
letics reform and faculty perceptions. New Direc-
tions for Higher Education, 2009(148), 73-81.
Mangold, W., Bean, L., & Adams, D. (2003). e
impact of intercollegiate athletics on graduation
rates among major NCAA division I universities:
Implications for college persistence theory and
practice. e Journal of Higher Education, 74(5),
540-562. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/3648283
Miner, J. W. (2016, June 03). Why 70 percent of kids
quit sports by age 13. e Sacramento Bee. Re-
trieved from http://www.sacbee.com/news/na-
tion-world/national/article81566162.html
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2015).
How are NCAA graduation rates calculated? Re-
trieved from http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/
les/How%20is%20grad%20rate%20calculated_
nov_2015.pdf
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2018).
Facts about NCAA sports. Retrieved from https://
www.ncaa.org/sites/default/les/Recruiting%20
Fact%20Sheet%20WEB.pdf
National Student Clearinghouse. (n.d.). How we
serve the K-20 to workforce continuum. Re-
trieved from https://studentclearinghouse.org/
about/how-we-serve-the-k-20-to-workforce-
continuum/
Porter, M. E. (2008). e ve competitive forces that
shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1),
78-93.
Sports money: 2016 NFL valuations. (2016). Forbes.
Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/n-valu-
ations/list/
Stieber, J. (1991). e behavior of the NCAA: A
question of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics,
10(6), 445-449. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.
org/stable/25072171
Strauss, B. (2014, February 18). Northwestern
quarterback makes his case for players’ union.
New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.
nytimes.com/2014/02/19/sports/ncaafootball/
northwestern-quarterback-makes-his-case-for-
players-union.html?mcubz=0
Talty, J. (2017). SEC expansion: Why the Big 12 is the
key to SEC adding more schools. Retrieved from
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/06/sec_
expansion_how_the_big_12_c.html
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Equity in ath-
letics data analysis. Retrieved from https://ope.
ed.gov/athletics/#/
University of Alabama, Division of Financial Aairs.
(2015). UA nancial reports. Retrieved from the
Open Records Database Web site: http://open.
ua.edu
What is the NCAA? (n.d.). Retrieved from http://
www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/
ncaa-101/what-ncaa
Review
is article was accepted under the constructive
peer review option. For futher details, see the de-
scriptions at:
http://mumabusinessreview.org/peer-review-op-
tions/
Division I College Football
82 Volume 1, Number 6
Carl E. Gilmore, Jr. was a previous football student-athlete and Division II college
basketball coach. With his lived experience, he developed a passion to educate
future student-athletes and parents on the world of college athletics and the com-
mitment it demands. A seasoned IT professional with 20 plus years’ experience
across several industry sectors, he has been responsible for the execution, strate-
gic planning, technical design, development, and deployment of multi-million
dollar projects including utility and Smart Grid Program initiatives. He earned
his Bachelor’s degree from Lane College in Jackson, Tenn., Masters of Business
Administration from the University of Central Florida in Orlando, Florida and
his Doctor of Business Administration at the University of South Florida.
Author
