Former AD: Maybe it's time to split up D-I athletics

Good morning, and thanks for spending part of your day with Extra Points.

I love publishing freelance reporting and commentary to supplement what I write on Extra Points. And I’d also like to pass the mic over to more folks in and around the college athletics industry, who may have perspectives I lack as a reporter.

I’m happy to do that today. Brian Barrio, a former athletic director at two America East schools, has the mic for today’s newsletter. Here, he proposes a very different vision for what NCAA Division I, and national championship events, could look like. I don’t want to say I personally endorse every single thing he proposes here, but I do think it is useful to debate the merits of these ideas … both among fans and students here, and among industry leaders on campuses.

I’ll turn the time over to him:

by Brian Barrio

If you consume college sports news, every day you read boom or bust predictions from power conference commissioners and athletic directors. You also hear from media members, almost exclusively speaking from the perspective of those power conference institutions. Each has his or her favored solution to set college athletics on a golden path to sustainability and growth — or a pet gripe about NIL, tampering or access to championships.

Those voices and opinions represent the perspectives of about 65 of the 365 Division I institutions — to be charitable, let’s say 20 percent of D-I membership. But what is going on with the other 80 percent of athletic directors and commissioners? Over many years working as an athletic director at two D-I schools and as a senior administrator at three others, I have been a part of the latter group, and recently, I’ve spent a great deal of time talking and listening to others among that 80 percent. 

So why haven’t their voices been part of the wider discourse? 

There are many potential reasons: Leaders may have simply checked out of the conversation after years being marginalized and ignored. Or they may be holding out hope to someday work in an FBS conference and afraid of rocking that boat. Or they may find the issues increasingly complex and feel out of their depth in discussions. 

I can’t pinpoint the exact reason why these mid- and low-major ADs are remaining quiet — but I will tell you it is definitely NOT because everything at that level is going well. The approximately 80 percent of D-I programs that do not have multi-million dollar media deals or a taste of College Football Playoff revenue are in a state of crisis that is getting worse each year. Putting aside a small number of outliers — a few top Big East and A-10 basketball programs — these departments are hemorrhaging money after more than a decade of significant cost increases brought on by rule changes aimed (unsuccessfully) at deflecting student-athlete lawsuits. 

Division I members now are under pressure to provide a level of services, scholarships and, as of this year, cash — expenses that ADs, if they could speak candidly, would say are out of tune with their programs’ revenue potential. The system is unsustainable over even the medium term. Most schools have only negligible meat left on the bone in terms of ticket and corporate sponsorship revenue, and NIL fundraising asks have tested their relationships with donors.  

While wealthy supporters can be tapped repeatedly for decades to put their names on new facilities, their patience is much shorter for gifts of cash to 19-year-old athletes in one-bid basketball leagues. Relationships are challenged even more by the near-certainty that any breakout star will depart for greener pastures. 

Additionally, the cost of being in Division I has gone up in a straight line since about 2012, yet the reward, the NCAA men’s basketball tournament bid every school dreams will spark an explosive increase in applications and donations, still only goes to one conference member per year. In these leagues, 10 to 14 schools compete for that prize, but the ticket to play costs three times what it did 15 years ago. 

I don’t think it’s controversial to estimate that there are at least 200 D-I schools that would be better off financially if they eliminated all scholarships and joined Division III. 

After all, the power conferences operating in a completely different manner than the rest of Division I. So as the demographic cliff looms and the financial vise tightens for non-power conference schools, it would be wise to build a system that doesn’t require the two divergent groups to pretend they are the same. Low- and mid-major programs must take control of their futures, acknowledge financial realities and reemphasize the things that make their programs worth the investment.

Let me emphasize: This is not about demonizing the power conferences. They have opportunities and challenges on a completely different scale from the low- and mid-majors. They generate massive revenue, provide a great experience to athletes and fans and meet a national demand for top-notch live entertainment. The goal should not be to return to a past when smaller schools voted against rule changes that would have provided financial flexibility to SEC and Big Ten programs; that never made sense and is not a viable path forward. 

The goal should be to protect everyone’s golden goose — the NCAA basketball tournament — while recognizing that the 65 to 85 biggest programs in Division I are no longer in the same universe as the other 280 to 300. We need different solutions for these two different enterprises. And there is a way to accomplish that without breaking apart the NCAA tournament, which should be priority No. 1 for DI-AAA and the FCS — and I would imagine is also a priority for the television partners that make that event so lucrative for all involved.

The plan: an amicable divorce — with shared custody of the basketball tournaments