University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Beyond the game: optimizing stakeholder value in the evolving landscape of the Football Bowl Subdivision

(USC Thesis Other)

Beyond the game: optimizing stakeholder value in the evolving landscape of the Football Bowl Subdivision

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 1
Beyond the Game: Optimizing Stakeholder Value in the Evolving Landscape of the Football
Bowl Subdivision
by
Timothy James Rice
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2024
Copyright 2024 Timothy James Rice

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 2
Acknowledgments
I was a young man seeking purpose when I moved from Long Island, New York, where I
grew up, to stay with my Grandpa (Bop) on the old family farm just outside Traverse City,
Michigan. I began taking classes at the local Northwestern Michigan College and, after about a
year, transferred to Grand Valley State University in Allendale, Michigan. My initial goal was to
become a social worker and make a positive mark on the world. With the guidance of an
academic advisor, I realized that higher education offers endless opportunities to create change.
A special thanks to Doug Lipinski, the former GVSU Deputy Athletic Director and
recently appointed Division II Athletic Director, who gave me my first opportunity as a
marketing intern. Our office was an old racquetball court with a few computers and stacks of
boxes filled with t-shirts, bobbleheads, and promotional banners and props. This is where it all
began—where I spent countless hours learning the fundamentals and developing a passion for
the impact of higher education. I am grateful to everyone from those days, especially Doug, my
advisor Roy Winegar, and former AD Tim Selgo, who set an example of leadership with heart
and integrity. Shout out to Laker Nation.
Thank you to my dissertation committee, chaired by Dr. Dennis Hocevar, and members
Dr. Anthony Maddox and Dr. Alan Green. I feel incredibly fortunate for the interactions with
these three innovative leaders and forward-thinking scholars.
I am grateful for the individuals I have had the privilege of serving alongside at UC
Berkeley as a grad assistant, Northern Illinois University as an assistant AD, San José State
University as an associate AD, San Diego State University as a senior associate AD, and in my
current role as Sr. Director of Development for Principal Gifts at SDSU. The people, the impact,

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 3
and the experiences have made it all worthwhile. With a heart full of gratitude, I thank you all so
much and look to the future with hope and optimism.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 4
Dedication
To my wife, Kerstin: You are my inspiration—my everything. We did this together.
Thank you for all that you do for our family.
To our children, Jackson and Jordan: You are my heart and soul. Always remember that
anything is possible when you work hard, treat others with kindness and respect, and never give
up. Your mother and I love you more than words can ever describe.
To my late father, Lan Rice: Dad, this was all your idea. I miss you so much, but you are
always with me. Thank you for believing in me and for pushing me to do better when I needed it.
Whenever someone says, “I’m doing my best,” I think of you reminding me that I am capable of
even more.
To my late stepmother, Cindy: Thank you for introducing me to a life I never knew
possible, and for giving me new perspectives and revelations. You are sorely missed.
To my mother: Mom, we've been through so much together, and your unwavering love
and support mean everything to me. You taught me to expect miracles.
To my brother, Dan: Thank you for always encouraging me and setting an example as a
thoughtful, kind father and person.
To my sister, Sara: You are always there for me when I need it. Thank you for being an
amazing mother and sister.
To my in-laws, Glen and Jackie: Thank you for welcoming me into your family and
teaching me your ways. I am so grateful for you.
To my nieces and nephews—Sofia, Mattea, Grace, Nari, Amelia, Zoe, Nico, Eleanor, and
Max: I can't wait to see the amazing places life will take you and the impact you'll make on our
world.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 5
Back on the farm in Traverse City, I once found some old books from when my Grandpa
attended Michigan State University. Those notes of encouragement and collegiality from his
professors and classmates showed me what was possible, right when I needed it most.
To my family: It is my honor to dedicate this to all of you.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 6
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... 2
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables................................................................................................................................... 8
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. 9
Abstract......................................................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 12
Description of Stakeholder Groups................................................................................... 21
Purpose of the Project ....................................................................................................... 24
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 24
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework........................................................................... 25
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 27
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 29
The Modern Movement for College Athlete Rights and Compensation .......................... 29
Impact of Media Rights and Conference Realignment..................................................... 31
Collegiate Athletics Stakeholder Groups.......................................................................... 34
Explanation of Design Thinking....................................................................................... 43
Stakeholder Value Theory................................................................................................. 45
Summary........................................................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 48
Mixed-Methods Approach and Rationale ......................................................................... 48
Ethical Considerations...................................................................................................... 48
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 49
Application of Change Theory: Design Thinking............................................................. 49
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 51
Data Analysis Process....................................................................................................... 51
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 53
Sampling Strategy............................................................................................................. 53
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 53
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions................................................................... 55
Conflict of Interest ............................................................................................................ 57
Summary........................................................................................................................... 58
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS.................................................................................................... 60
Overview and Participating Stakeholders......................................................................... 60
Athletics Administrators ................................................................................................... 62
Donors and Season Ticket Holders................................................................................... 81
Football Alums and Letterwinners.................................................................................... 98
Campus Executives......................................................................................................... 109
Faculty............................................................................................................................. 124
Areas of Congruity.......................................................................................................... 135
Most Valuable Experiences............................................................................................. 138
WHY? ............................................................................................................................. 139
Departure Thoughts and Factors..................................................................................... 141
Concerns ......................................................................................................................... 143
Summary......................................................................................................................... 145

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 7
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................... 148
Research Questions and Responses................................................................................ 148
Discussion of Findings.................................................................................................... 149
Key Findings................................................................................................................... 152
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 153
Recommendations for Further Research: The Voice of the Current College Athlete ..... 159
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 160
References................................................................................................................................... 163
Appendix. Collegiate Athletics Stakeholder Survey................................................................... 177

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 8
List of Tables
Table 1 All Respondents by Stakeholder Type............................................................................. 60
Table 2 All Respondents by Conference ...................................................................................... 61
Table 3 Athletic Administrators by Conference ........................................................................... 63
Table 4 Athletics Administrators: Frequency of Departure Thoughts.......................................... 76
Table 5 Athletics Administrators: Departure Factors................................................................... 76
Table 6 Donors and Season Ticket Holders: Frequency of Thoughts of Departure (Stopping
Support).......................................................................................................................... 92
Table 7 Donors and Season Ticket Holders: Thoughts of Departure Factors (Stopping Support)93
Table 8 Campus Executives: Frequency of Thoughts of Departure........................................... 120
Table 9 Campus Executives: Factors of Thoughts of Departure................................................ 120
Table 10 Faculty: Frequency of Thoughts of Departure ............................................................ 131
Table 11 Faculty: Thoughts of Departure Factors...................................................................... 132
Table 12 All Respondents: Thoughts of Departure .................................................................... 137
Table 13 All Respondents: Thoughts of Departure Factors ....................................................... 137

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 9
List of Figures
Figure 1 Design Thinking 101 ..................................................................................................... 26
Figure 2 Collegiate Athletics Stakeholder Map ........................................................................... 34
Figure 3 Athletic Administrators: Value Factors.......................................................................... 65
Figure 4 Athletic Administrators: Most Valuable Experience...................................................... 66
Figure 5 Athletic Administrators: What is Your WHY? .............................................................. 68
Figure 6 Athletic Administrators: Concerns................................................................................. 77
Figure 7 Athletic Directors: Value Factors................................................................................... 81
Figure 8 Donors and Season Ticketholders: Value Factors.......................................................... 83
Figure 9 Donors and Season Ticket Holders: Most Valuable Experience ................................... 85
Figure 10 Donors and Season Ticket Holders: What is Your WHY? .......................................... 88
Figure 11 Donors and Season Ticket Holders: Concerns............................................................. 93
Figure 12 Donors of $1 Million or More: Value Factors............................................................. 97
Figure 13 Season Ticket Holders of 30 Years or More: Value Factor Rating .............................. 98
Figure 14 Football Alums and Letterwinners: Value Factor Rating .......................................... 100
Figure 15 Football Alums and Letterwinners: Most Valuable Experience ................................ 101
Figure 16 Football Alums and Letterwinners: What is Your WHY? ......................................... 104
Figure 17 Football Alums and Letterwinners: Concerns ........................................................... 107
Figure 18 Campus Executives: Value Rating Factor...................................................................112
Figure 19 Campus Executives: Most Valuable Experience ........................................................112
Figure 20 Campus Executives: What is Your WHY? .................................................................115
Figure 21 Campus Executives: Concerns .................................................................................. 121
Figure 22 Faculty: Value Factors ............................................................................................... 126

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 10
Figure 23 Faculty: Most Valuable Experience ........................................................................... 126
Figure 24 Faculty: What is Your WHY? .................................................................................... 128
Figure 25 Faculty: Concerns...................................................................................................... 132
Figure 26 Top Stakeholder Value Factors.................................................................................. 136

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 11
Abstract
This dissertation examines the complexities of stakeholder engagement in the Football Bowl
Subdivision (FBS) of collegiate athletics. Using a mixed-methods approach with 497 participants
across various stakeholder groups—including athletics administrators, donors, campus
executives, faculty, and football alumni—the study explores value-creation mechanisms,
motivations, and concerns. The findings highlight the importance of the PIE (People, Impact,
Emotion) approach to stakeholder value, emphasizing its potential as a foundation for enhancing
both in-person and digital stakeholder experiences and joint-value creation. Practical
recommendations include expanding the study to all NCAA divisions and encouraging
individual athletics programs and universities to conduct stakeholder analyses, aiming to boost
stakeholder satisfaction, discover new revenue opportunities, foster a thriving organization while
creating a lasting impact on the future of higher education.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 12
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
U.S. collegiate athletics’ scope and widespread impact is unique and unmatched across
the global sports landscape. With approximately 1,100 Division I, II, and III National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA) Athletic Departments and over 500,000 college athletes enrolled in
2021–2022, the social and economic influence on lives and American communities is undeniable
(National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA], 2022). Not since ancient Greece has a
civilization so embraced the mind and body ethos as the U.S. higher education system with the
traditional collegiate athletics model (Pope & Pope, 2020). Since the establishment of the NCAA
in 1906, collegiate athletics has provided educational opportunities to an estimated 5 million
college athletes and significantly enhanced health, wellness, and the overall quality of life in
communities nationwide (NCAA, 2021).
Often referred to as “the front porch” of institutions of higher learning, collegiate
athletics has demonstrated its prominence through various phenomena. One notable example is
the “Flutie Effect,” wherein Boston College experienced a 30% increase in applications
following Doug Flutie’s iconic Hail Mary pass (National Bureau of Economic Research [NBER],
2009). Similarly, Boise State University witnessed unprecedented institutional growth and
visibility after its football team’s victory over Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl (Front Office
Sports, 2020).
Boise State President Emeritus Bob Kustra reflected on the transformative effect of the
43–42 Fiesta Bowl win: “There’s no way to (over)state the incredible impact that game had on
what Boise State University has become.” Since that pivotal moment, enrollment surged from a
stagnant 18,876 in Fall 2006 to 24,145 in Spring 2018. The university saw a rise in the
percentage of out-of-state students and a marked increase of in-state students from outside the

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 13
region. Faculty recruitment became more manageable, and the state legislature began to view the
university with greater interest. Research funding dramatically increased, and campus
infrastructure expanded with numerous new buildings, including dormitories, an alum center,
and new engineering and business academic facilities. These positive changes are attributed to
the unforgettable victory in the Fiesta Bowl (The Oklahoman, 2018).
Collegiate athletics has long served as an incubator for developing life skills in countless
business, community, and military leaders by imparting lessons in teamwork, time management,
resiliency, and leadership (C. Murry, 2022). Moreover, collegiate athletics has functioned as the
training and development system for major sports enterprises, including the National Football
League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the
Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA), and the U.S. Olympic movement. The
financial impact of NCAA Division I sports is notable, with total annual revenues surpassing
$15.8 billion in 2019, the year preceding the global COVID-19 pandemic, and reaching $17.5
billion in 2022–2023 (NCAA, 2022). Indeed, television contracts, corporate partnerships, ticket
sales, private philanthropy, apparel sales, and other revenue streams drive income. Consequently,
collegiate athletics has emerged as one of the most financially lucrative sports enterprises in the
United States and has surpassed major professional leagues such as the NBA and the NFL
(Gayles, 2009).
Despite the rapid growth and intrigue, in 1954, the University of Chicago decided to drop
Division I athletics. An essay expressing jubilation over the decision was featured in Sports
Illustrated. The piece vehemently criticized college football by deeming it an “infernal nuisance”
to campus, a sentiment rarely articulated at the time. The author of this critique was Robert

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 14
Maynard Hutchins, who served as President of the University of Chicago from 1929 (starting at
the remarkably young age of 30) until 1945. Hutchins’ (1954) essay pointedly asserted,
The ancient Athenians were as passionate about sport as modern Americans are. So were
the ancient Romans and the Renaissance Italians. So are contemporary Britons and
Germans. However, Americans are the one people in the known history of the world to
couple sports with higher education. No other nation in history has looked to its
academically driven universities as a source of athletic entertainment.
Today, the landscape is undergoing a modern-day reckoning, marked by a growing
emphasis on equity, rights, and compensation for college athletes (A.L. Jones, 2022). This 21stcentury shift can be traced back to pivotal moments in the courts of law and public opinion. One
significant milestone was the case of NCAA v. O’Bannon, where former University of California
Los Angeles (UCLA) Men’s Basketball athlete Ed O’Bannon assumed the lead plaintiff role.
This landmark class action lawsuit against the NCAA, filed in the United States Ninth District
Court for the Northern District of California in 2009, marked a critical juncture by initiating
substantive structural changes in collegiate athletics (Lodge, 2016). According to O’Bannon, the
NCAA’s use of the collegiate athlete’s name, image, and likeness (NIL) in video games and
broadcasts violated the Sherman Antitrust Act (Lodge, 2016). The Ninth District Court ruled in
favor of O’Bannon by determining that the NCAA had breached antitrust law, which challenged
the long-held model of amateurism (Lodge, 2016). Ed O’Bannon stated that this ruling should be
seen as a catalyst for future change by opening new possibilities (BDG Sports, 2014).
Throughout the O’Bannon case, California politicians developed legislation addressing
disparities in collegiate athletics. In 2012, California passed Senate Bill 1525, the College
Athlete Bill of Rights (Crooks et al., 2023). This law mandated that athletics programs

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 15
generating over $10 million annually could provide athletes with financial aid covering the total
cost of attendance (COA), including coverage for sports-related injuries and medical premiums
(California Senate Bill 1525, 2012). In response, the NCAA implemented an optional stipend
system in 2015 that allowed athletic departments to provide additional payments to cover the full
COA for each year of eligibility (Ngo, Coyner, et al., 2022). While not mandatory, the COA was
widely considered necessary to remain competitive, with some institutions easily offering the
maximum amount while others had to seek new funding to cover the gap (Hobson, 2015).
Although the COA program was a positive step, the billion-dollar revenues and escalating
coaching salaries in college football and men’s basketball continued to highlight the perceived
inequities toward athletes (Berkowitz & Upton, 2012).
In 2019, Jay Bilas, a prominent ESPN basketball analyst, former college athlete, and
practicing lawyer, argued that American society should abandon outdated views on college
athlete compensation and stop making baseless excuses (Rich Eisen Show, 2019). Bilas stated
that the NCAA had been trying since 1906 to address these issues but was struggling in the face
of external pressure. He blamed former NCAA President Mark Emmert for miscalculating and
not preparing for these inevitable changes (ESPN, 2019). Emmert, who received a $2.9 million
salary in 2019, consistently showed signs of resistance to change (S. Banks, 2022). In 2014,
Emmert prophesied that allowing compensation beyond the COA would undermine the
traditional collegiate model, create competitive imbalance, reduce opportunities for Olympic
sports athletes, and diminish fan interest (Romney, 2014).
In 2013, California introduced HR3545, the College Athlete Protection Act, to the United
States Congress. Although the legislation did not pass, it aimed to mandate all public institutions
to award their athletes 5-year scholarships, with schools generating over $20 million in revenue

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 16
providing an annual stipend of $3,600 above the COA (HR Bill 3545, 2013). Combined with the
O’Bannon case, these initiatives positioned California as a significant contributor to collegiate
athlete rights legislation, which set the stage for SB-206 (Simmon, 2023). In February 2019,
Senators Nancy Skinner and Steven Bradford introduced CA SB-206, which, effective in 2023,
permitted all Division I athletes at public and private 4-year institutions the rights to capitalize on
NIL through endorsements or other ventures, provided their contracts did not conflict with
existing school agreements (California Senate Bill 206, 2021). The bill also prohibited the
NCAA or institutions from denying compensation to athletes for monetizing their NIL rights
while allowing college athletes to have representation in navigating their NILs (California Senate
Bill 206, 2021).
Despite unanimous approval, the bill faced criticism from many, including
administrators, the NCAA, and numerous conference offices. Nevertheless, it garnered support
from countless professional athletes, college athletes, letterwinners, and NCAA critics. The
aftermath of SB-206 and its future implications were empowered by the unanimous Supreme
Court ruling on June 30, 2021, in Alston v. NCAA. The court found that the NCAA violated
antitrust laws by preventing member institutions from providing athletes with educational
benefits such as laptops, internships, and other resources. Although the case was not directly
focused on NIL rights, it signaled an ideological shift and dismissed the NCAA’s power to justify
amateurism (S. Banks, 2022). In response, Congress and state legislatures began crafting new,
often inconsistent legislation enabling athletes to benefit from personal endorsements and
sponsorships. In 2020–2021, against the backdrop of a global pandemic and a national reckoning
for racial justice, college athletes, particularly those in revenue-generating sports programs (e.g.,
football and men’s and women’s basketball), began to find a unified voice (Crooks et al., 2023).

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 17
This study examines the current state of Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS)-level
collegiate athletics and the value, motivation, and concerns of key stakeholder groups. The FBS
currently encompasses ten conferences, with notable divisions that have been commonly referred
to as the Power-5 (P5) and Group of 5 (G5) due to the resource gaps within the two subsets of
the FBS (Caro, 2023). During the development of this project, the Pacific-12 Conference (Pac12) saw the unprecedented departure of nine institutions to the Big Ten Conference (Big Ten),
Big Twelve Conference (Big 12), and Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC; Smith, 2023). Today,
this shift has left the Pac-12 with two remaining institutions––Oregon State University and
Washington State University––who are fighting, legally, on the field of competition and in the
court of public opinion to uphold their proud history and tradition as P5 programs (Jones, 2023).
In a 2024 letter to Oregon State constituents, Athletic Director (AD) Scott Barnes passionately
wrote,
I remain optimistic about our future, and we are committed to breaking down every door
and inserting ourselves in every conversation, be it specific to Oregon State or the entire
intercollegiate landscape. Oregon State has always punched above its weight class, and
we will continue to do just that. I hear you and know that it feels like since August, we
have been on the receiving end of multiple gut punches. When that happens, you are
faced with two options – exit the ring or throw counterpunches. Hear this, Beaver Nation:
the gloves are on, and we will not stray from our mission. We will rise together, shoulderto-shoulder, supporting our college athletes and coaches while never backing down.
(Oregon State Athletics, 2024)
At the time of this study, the P5 was comprised of the Pac-12, the Southeastern
Conference (SEC), the Big Ten, the Big 12, and the ACC. The G5 consisted of the American

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 18
Athletics Conference (AAC), the Mountain West Conference (MWC), Conference USA (CUSA), the Mid-American Conference (MAC), and the Sun Belt Conference (SBC). In March
2023, former AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco released a memo urging industry colleagues to
refrain from using divisive labels such as “P5” and “G5.” He argued that such nomenclature only
amplified the perception of disparity (Aresco, 2023). Despite Aresco’s plea, these labels have
continued; they are used to identify and categorize the FBS subsets in this study. Aresco retired
in Spring 2024 and made the following statement:
In closing, I wish one and all continued good fortune as you work and compete in the
great drama that collegiate athletics provide and as you strive diligently to advance the
values that make collegiate athletics special. I take my leave confident that amid all the
turmoil and even chaos engulfing collegiate athletics at the moment, accommodation will
be found that protects and reaffirms the true purpose of this enduring and magnificent
enterprise. (Sports Business Journal, 2024)
In 2020, amid the pandemic and a national reckoning for racial justice, the NCAA began
to loosen restrictions on college athlete rights and compensation, including rules related to NIL.
This shift, combined with the Transfer Portal, created an environment conducive to “pay-forplay” scenarios where booster groups, known as “collectives,” offered NIL deals in exchange for
athletic commitments to specific institutions (Brown, 2023).
Industry leaders often distinguish between “true” and “pay-for-play” NIL. “True” NIL
involves legitimate marketing and sponsorship contracts that can include promoting a business
and, in some cases, community and charitable work. In contrast, “pay-for-play” NIL refers to
contracts or agreements usually combined with Transfer Portal activity, which lead to
competitive and financial pressures on athletes, families, agents, and coaches. The improper use

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 19
of NIL in recruiting is a significant issue for FBS ADs, with 90% of ADs expressing a high level
of concern in a 2022 survey by the LEAD1 Association (2023), the Washington, D.C.-based FBS
Athletic Director Trade Association managed by former Maryland Congressman, Tom McMillen,
who has served as the CEO of LEAD1 Association since 2010.
On December 15, 2022, the NCAA appointed Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker as
its new president, which signified a strategic shift toward bipartisan leadership and legislative
engagement (NCAA, 2022). Baker, a former Harvard basketball player with a background in
politics and business, brought a renewed focus on transparency and stakeholder engagement by
working with coaches, staff, athletes, and ADs. Amid ongoing conference realignment, Baker’s
leadership has aimed to address the complexities of modern collegiate athletics (LEAD1
Association, 2023; Taylor et al., 2018). Baker has advocated for congressional intervention to
navigate issues related to NIL and the potential employment status reclassification of athletes
while emphasizing unity and decisive action to manage these transitions effectively (Vannini &
Auerbach, 2023). This approach has been crucial, especially among the NCAA’s ongoing
litigation challenges, and has necessitated careful and strategic organizational moves (S. Wake,
personal communication at LEAD1 Spring Meeting, 2023). The shifting landscape, driven by
financial incentives and media rights deals, has underscored the need for a more sustainable and
equitable model for collegiate athletics.
In September 2023, the LEAD1 Association Fall Meeting in Washington, D.C., brought
together influential bipartisan lawmakers, including Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Joe Manchin (DWV), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA), to
discuss the state of NIL and collegiate athletics legislation. At the time, Senator Cruz estimated a
60% chance of Congress enacting guardrails around revenue sharing, NIL, and athlete

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 20
employment status (LEAD1 Association, 2023). Conversely, Senator Murphy expressed
skepticism about congressional support and advocated for industry self-regulation. A
juxtaposition displayed across the room of more than 80 Division I FBS ADs represented the
challenge of garnering and passing meaningful legislation on Capitol Hill. Earlier in April 2023,
Greg Sankey (LEAD1 Association, 2023), SEC Commissioner and co-chair of the NCAA
Division I Transformation Committee, conveyed to FBS leaders that “it will never be the way it
was, but that does not mean we need to accept the way that it is.”
In the spirit of consensus building and practical solutions, this study asks, “What do FBS
stakeholders value most about their experience with college football, and what areas of
consensus can industry leaders build upon?” The researcher asserts that decision-makers must
prioritize including all stakeholder voices, which must involve current college athletes. The data
from these invaluable perspectives an foster programs, messaging, and other content forms to
increase equity and a renewed sense of belonging for all (Bundy et al., 2018). By employing an
empathetic and understanding approach to creating stakeholder value, industry leaders can
preserve some accommodation that protects and reaffirms the true purpose of this enduring and
magnificent enterprise (Aresco, 2024).
Collegiate athletics has a robust professional development realm where administrators
often reflect on their “why” (WHY): their reason for serving as athletics administrators (AAs).
Introducing a Design Thinking (DT) approach can support this understanding of the WHY. An
empathetic approach can allow stakeholders to better grasp what drives value and motivation.
DT focuses on technological innovation and human-centered solutions while encouraging a deep
understanding of all stakeholders’ needs and aspirations. This methodology can help bridge the
gap between traditional and modern demands to ensure a sustainable and equitable future for

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 21
collegiate athletics while providing joint value across all stakeholder groups. Collegiate athletics
stakeholders can benefit from a competitive landscape characterized by consistency, fairness,
and the preservation of cherished elements, such as the game’s pride, pageantry, historical
traditions, and purity.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
AAs are full-time employees at FBS institutions who work in the athletic department.
They comprise executive-level positions like Senior Associate AD, Executive Associate AD,
Deputy AD, AD, and Assistant or Associate AD. They manage and strategically direct athletic
departments (e.g., Sports Information, Marketing, Communications, Development, Compliance,
Facilities, Student Services, Athletic Training, and Ticketing) that impact critical areas. Their
decisions and work significantly affect the college athlete’s development and overall well-being
by shaping policies, resources, and support systems.
Donors and season ticket holders are individuals and organizations who make
philanthropic investments and may purchase season-long ticket packages. These stakeholders
provide crucial financial support that sustains athletic programs by funding scholarships, facility
improvements, and other essential needs. Their engagement and contributions are vital for
maintaining collegiate athletic programs’ economic health and competitive edge, and their
involvement fosters a strong sense of community and school spirit, which enhances the overall
experience for all stakeholder groups.
Campus executives are university presidents, vice presidents, and associate and assistant
vice presidents. These crucial decision-makers shape institutional priorities and policies by
balancing athletics interests with the broader educational mission. Their support and advocacy
are essential for aligning athletic goals with academic standards and ensuring the holistic

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 22
development of college athletes. They foster a strong connection between athletics and
academics to create an environment promoting athletic excellence and academic achievement.
Faculty primarily focuses on the designated Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR)
position. However, this study gathered responses from all types of faculty members. The FAR
liaises between the athletics department and the academic faculty to maintain the institution’s
academic integrity. The FAR advocates for college athletes’ academic success, monitors
compliance with NCAA regulations, and contributes to athletic policy development. Faculty
members are vital in supporting college athletes’ educational and personal growth to ensure a
balanced collegiate experience and progress toward degree completion.
Football alums and letterwinners are former college athletes who may have earned varsity
letters and are vested in their alma mater’s athletic programs’ success while often serving as
mentors and role models for current college athletes. Their continued involvement and support
enhance the program’s reputation and foster a strong sense of community and tradition. Football
alums and letterwinners’ engagement contributes to the legacy and ongoing success of their
institutions’ athletic departments.
Other stakeholders comprise diverse individuals and groups integral to the collegiate
athletics ecosystem, such as college athletes’ parents (who provide crucial emotional and
financial support), local community members (who bolster the fan base and support network),
and media representatives (who shape public perception and awareness). Additionally, this group
includes retired administrators and ADs, bowl game and conference executives, and other
industry business partners who contribute to the strategic direction, operational support and
efficiency, and business partnerships essential for collegiate athletic programs’ growth and
sustainability.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 23
Statement of the Problem
Industry leaders across the FBS can prioritize an empathetic approach to listening and
gathering comprehensive data from all key stakeholder groups to make informed decisions
during this critical reform period. The current landscape of collegiate athletics, particularly
football, is undergoing significant transformations driven by legal, social, and economic
pressures (Brown, 2019; Smith & Jones, 2021). These changes necessitate a deeper
understanding of various stakeholder groups’ diverse perspectives and needs, including AAs,
donors and season ticket holders, campus executives, faculty, football alums and letterwinners,
and other stakeholders (Anderson et al., 2020). Actively seeking stakeholder data is crucial to
ensure that each group’s voice is heard and valued to prevent marginalization (Davis & Parker,
2018). This comprehensive approach is essential for identifying and addressing each group’s
unique challenges to promote equitable and sustainable solutions (Taylor & O’Brien, 2022).
This approach aligns with stakeholder value theory’s goals while ensuring that all
stakeholder groups’ evolving needs are met dynamically and responsively (Nguyen & Williams,
2019). This study addresses the lack of cross-stakeholder data and aims to identify areas of
consensus related to stakeholder value creation and motivation. By systematically gathering and
analyzing data from a broad spectrum of stakeholders, this research seeks to uncover shared
value factors, motivations, and concerns to inform policy and strategic decisions (Garcia &
Martin, 2020).
This research underscores the importance of inclusivity in decision-making and ideation
while advocating for an approach that goes beyond the interests of a few influential stakeholders
to understand the diverse and often conflicting perspectives within the FBS ecosystem (Wright &
Roberts, 2020). The central issue addressed in this study is the comprehensive understanding of

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 24
FBS stakeholder groups amid ongoing industry reforms. By actively obtaining and integrating
stakeholder data, this study aims to facilitate informed decision-making to support collegiate
athletics’ sustainable and equitable development (Smith & Jones, 2021).
Purpose of the Project
This study explores various stakeholder groups’ value-creation mechanisms in collegiate
athletics by focusing on equity and sustainability. In an era of significant transformation within
the collegiate athletics landscape, understanding these dynamics is crucial for ensuring that all
stakeholder groups are adequately considered and supported. This study aims to identify and
understand the motivations driving stakeholder groups’ engagement and support. Moreover, this
study aims to create innovative strategies that align with the interests of all stakeholders to foster
a more inclusive and responsive higher education framework. By attempting to include all
perspectives, this research aspires to contribute to the knowledge of stakeholder engagement in
academia and provide actionable insights to inform policy and strategic decisions that promote a
balanced approach to value creation that benefits all parties.
Research Questions
RQ 1) What factors do stakeholders value most about their relationship with FBS
collegiate athletics, and what are areas of consensus?
RQ 2) What factors most impact stakeholders’ motivation (WHY) in FBS collegiate
athletics, and what are areas of consensus?
RQ 3) What are the areas of greatest concern among FBS stakeholders, and what are
areas of consensus?

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 25
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Stakeholder Value Theory
This study employs stakeholder theory as the primary lens to examine its findings. Per R.
Edward Freeman (2010), stakeholder theory aims to identify, include, and empower essential
stakeholder voices. Freeman (1984) identified stakeholders as those who influence or are
influenced by achieving organizational objectives. These stakeholders can draw attention to their
needs and act if they are not addressed. Additionally, organizational sustainability is contingent
on meeting or surpassing stakeholders’ needs. In stakeholder theory, organizational sustainability
is distinct from external sustainability, particularly when uncontrollable external factors
significantly influence engagement.
Design Thinking
DT is a human-centered approach to innovation that integrates people’s needs,
technological possibilities, and business success requirements (Brown, 2008). This iterative
process involves five key stages: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test. DT originated
from engineering and design and encourages creative problem-solving by fostering a deep
understanding of user needs, generating a wide array of ideas, and rapidly prototyping and
testing solutions (Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011).
At its core, DT seeks to understand and address users’ needs and experiences. First is the
Empathize phase, where designers delve into the users’ environment to gain insights into their
experiences and challenges, followed by the Define phase, where the information is synthesized
into a clear problem statement. In the Ideate phase, designers brainstorm a wide range of
potential solutions, which are brought to life in the Prototype phase, where tangible solution

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 26
models are created. Finally, in the Test phase, these prototypes are tested with users to gather
feedback and refine the solutions (Plattner et al., 2011).
Figure 1
Design Thinking 101

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 27
Definitions
Conference Realignment
Conference realignment pertains to the shifts and changes in college and university
athletic program memberships as they move from one NCAA conference to another.
Realignment impacts competitive balance, geographic rivalries, and financial aspects.
Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR)
The FAR is a tenured faculty member at an NCAA institution who liaises between the
academic institution and the athletics program. The FAR represents the campus in conference
and NCAA matters to ensure the proper balance between academics and intercollegiate athletics.
Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL)
NIL represents the three facets of individuals’ legal control regarding the use of their
identities for commercial purposes. NIL encompasses how college athletes can profit from their
personal brands.
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
The NCAA is the governing body responsible for managing and overseeing collegiate
athletics across approximately 1,100 schools in the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, the NCAA plays a pivotal role in
regulating and organizing collegiate athletics.
NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS)
The FBS, formerly Division I-A, is the pinnacle of college football in the United States
and comprises the most prominent institutions within the NCAA. The FBS currently
encompasses ten conferences and includes 133 schools.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 28
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent U.S. federal agency
tasked with safeguarding employees’ rights to engage in collective bargaining and addressing
unfair labor practices. Established by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935, the
NLRB oversees and facilitates the relationship between employers and employees in the private
sector, excluding agricultural, railroad, and airline industries, which fall under other regulatory
bodies (National Labor Relations Board [NLRB], 2023).
Transfer Portal
The Transfer Portal is a comprehensive NCAA application, database, and compliance tool
introduced in 2018, designed to streamline and facilitate the process for college athletes seeking
to transfer between member institutions.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation has five chapters with distinct purposes. Chapter One introduces the
dissertation’s scope, significance, and structure while outlining the stakeholder groups and core
issues. Chapter Two presents a literature review that traces the modern evolution of college
athlete rights and compensation and the impact of recent changes. Chapter Three details a mixedmethods approach with data collection and analysis procedures. Chapter Four discusses the
findings’ key themes, such as value factors, motivations, and concerns across stakeholder groups.
Finally, Chapter Five offers conclusions and recommendations. It proposes practical steps for
expanding stakeholder values analysis across the NCAA and suggests avenues for future research
to enhance equity and sustainability in collegiate athletics.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 29
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The Modern Movement for College Athlete Rights and Compensation
Over the past 2 decades, the push for college athletes’s rights has gained momentum,
marked by numerous landmark moments. Across a landscape where collegiate athletics,
particularly football and basketball, have become multi-billion-dollar industries, the question of
equity and fair compensation for college athletes has taken center stage, with various legal,
social, and economic dynamics shaping the discourse.
The O’Bannon Case
The landmark lawsuit, O’Bannon v. NCAA, was filed by former UCLA basketball player
Ed O’Bannon in 2009. The primary contention was the NCAA’s commercial use of former
college athletes’ images without compensation. In 2014, the ruling against the NCAA found that
its practices violated antitrust laws. This decision paved the way for colleges to offer COA
scholarships to athletes to address the inequities in college athlete compensation (Korenoski,
2016a).
The Alston Case
NCAA v. Alston was another pivotal antitrust lawsuit, which culminated in a unanimous
ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2021 that the NCAA’s limitations on education-related
benefits for college athletes violated federal antitrust laws. This decision originated from a 2014
class action suit led by former West Virginia running back Shawne Alston, which challenged the
NCAA’s rules on athlete compensation caps. The ruling marked a significant shift that
undermined the long-held system of amateurism, paved the way for further legal challenges, and
increased pressure concerning college athlete compensation (S. Banks, 2022).

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 30
Cost of Attendance
Traditionally, athletic scholarships covered tuition, books, room, and board. However,
following the O’Bannon decision, schools could cover incidental expenses such as travel and
personal costs through COA stipends. This change represented a substantial step toward
compensating athletes for the full scope of their college experience by acknowledging the
financial demands placed on them beyond their academic and athletic commitments.
Transfer Portal
The NCAA’s Transfer Portal, introduced in 2018, revolutionized the athlete transfer
process. Athletes could enter a database and indicate their interest in transferring, which provided
transparency and changed the power balance between athletes and institutions. Weaver (2024)
framed the intersection of the open Transfer Portal when combined with NIL as “the Wild, Wild
West” and predicted that college athletes would conspire to transfer together in a money-making
spectacle similar to Lebron James’s televised special “The Decision,” when he announced his
intention to join Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh on the Miami Heat in 2010.
Potential Employment Status Reclassification
This ongoing debate ponders whether college athletes should be classified as employees
of their respective institutions. This reclassification would grant them the right to form unions
and negotiate for better conditions and benefits (T. J. Murry, 2022).
Unified Voice During 2020
The year 2020 was pivotal as the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the nationwide
protests following the death of George Floyd, provided an impetus for college athletes to unify
their voices. Many leveraged this platform by advocating for social justice, health and safety
protocols, and fair compensation (Crooks et al., 2023).

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 31
Impact of Media Rights and Conference Realignment
In recent years, the FBS landscape has significantly transformed via a series of
realignments, with the primary catalyst being the pursuit of lucrative television media rights
deals. These agreements, which grant exclusive rights to televise and stream conference games,
have become the financial cornerstone of many FBS athletics programs. Institutions seek to align
themselves with the top conferences that boast robust media rights contracts, which can infuse
substantial revenue between $30–$70 million annually, depending on the school and conference,
while bolstering the exposure of athletics programs and overall institutional brands nationally
(Jensen et al., 2020).
The lucrative postseason playoff system, the College Football Playoff (CFP), has
contributed to realignment, with schools seeking to position themselves in the most competitive
conferences to enhance their prospects of inclusion in the CFP. An organization entirely outside
of the NCAA’s jurisdiction, the CFP was inaugurated in 2014 and has heightened the emphasis
on the strength of the schedule and influenced schools’ migration toward more competitive
conferences.
The wave of FBS conference realignment started with the University of Maryland and
Rutgers University migrating from the ACC to the Big Ten Conference in 2014. Financial
considerations (i.e., the Big Ten’s expansive television market and robust media rights deals)
were pivotal in this move (Taylor et al., 2018). Similarly, in 2021, the University of Texas and
the University of Oklahoma, perennial powerhouses, announced the intention to leave the Big 12
for the SEC, officially beginning in 2024. In 2022, the University of Southern California (USC)
and UCLA jointly announced their departure from the Pac-12 to the Big Ten. On June 30, 2024,
UCLA AD Martin Jarmond posted the following statement to his LinkedIn account:

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 32
Two years ago today, history was made for UCLA athletics. As we embark on a new
chapter in our illustrious history, officially joining the Big Ten Conference on August 2,
2024, I want to thank all the former athletes, coaches, alumni, faculty, and fans who have
proudly represented those Four Letters. We stand on the shoulders of those barrier
breakers, game changers, and leaders who came before us. Our students will carry on the
tradition of excellence. We will compete at the highest level on the field, in the classroom,
and in the boardroom . . . as we have always done. Onward and upward. Go Bruins!
The active involvement of the campus president and leadership groups such as the Board
of Trustees have underscored the influence of financial considerations and media rights in
reshaping the collegiate athletics landscape (Auerbach, 2008). Thus, as institutions continue to
navigate, the balance between stakeholder and financial value will undoubtedly remain a central
theme in the industry’s future, with many experts predicting the inevitable formation of a
professionalized college football conference (Lev, 2022).
The Big Ten’s 2022 media rights agreement with Fox, CBS, and NBC, worth over $7
billion, exemplifies the substantial financial impact of these conference-wide television rights
deals. This agreement, effective from July 1, 2023, to 2030, ensures that each member
institution, including the new additions of USC and UCLA, can potentially receive up to $100
million annually (Rittenberg, 2022).
The inaugural CFP was held at the end of the 2014 season. It replaced the Bowl
Championship Series (BCS) Championship Game with a four-team postseason tournament.
Subsequently, the CFP selection committee has annually selected the best four FBS teams to
compete in two national semifinal games, with the winners advancing to the CFP Championship.
According to Dinich (2024), the new CFP contract with ESPN is worth $7.8 billion and ensures

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 33
the network will remain the sole media rights holder of the event through the 2031–2032 season.
Nonetheless, Freeman et al. (2007) stated that the goal of an organization should not solely be
profit maximization but the creation of value for all stakeholders, including customers,
employees, suppliers, college athletes, and the community. Each of the six CFP qualifying
conferences––the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, Big 12, and the AAC (via Cincinnati’s
participation)––received a base shared CFP payout of nearly $28 million. In contrast, the
remaining four conferences––the MAC, MWC, AAC, SBC, and C-USA––split $13.17 million
(Domingo & Sommers, 2021). This disparity highlights the growing financial inequities within
collegiate athletics.
The most viewed college football game of the 2021 season, a late-season matchup
between The Ohio State University and the University of Michigan, drew 15.9 million viewers
for the Fox Sports Big Noon Kickoff. The following week, the SEC Championship game pulled
15.3 million viewers, whereas the Big Ten Championship game drew 11.7 million viewers. In
contrast, ABC’s AAC Championship game attracted 3.4 million viewers, while the MAC
Championship game between Kent State University and Northern Illinois University drew
867,000 viewers for ESPN (Ozanian, 2022). Ozanian (2022) reported that for the 2017–2019
seasons, the SEC total media rights contract split between ESPN, ABC, and CBS averaged $216
million per season, which grew to $300 million in their latest deal. Moreover, the Big Ten
contracts with ESPN, ABC, and Fox averaged $378 million annually over the same period.
Comparatively, the ACC had a singular broadcast partner, ESPN/ABC, and netted an average of
$146 million, compared with the $202 million figure for the Pac-12 across ESPN, ABC, and Fox.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 34
Figure 2
Collegiate Athletics Stakeholder Map
Collegiate Athletics Stakeholder Groups
This study delineates seven key stakeholder groups within the FBS domain: AAs, donors
and football season ticket holders, campus executives, football staff, faculty, and others.
Athletics Administrators
In July 2024, Big-12 Commissioner Brent Yormark discussed the search for a new AD at
the University of Houston:
In today’s world . . . I just think as they consider the next chapter of collegiate athletics, it
requires diversified skill sets. Would it be great if they could find someone that has

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 35
institutional knowledge but also brings the business knowledge with it in combination?
That would be ideal. We’re in a business of value creation right now, not only at the
conference but the schools. How do you build your brand? How do you build your
business? Having someone that understands that, as well as other nuances, I think is
critically important. (Duarte, 2024)
Across the NCAA’s 1,100 member institutions, AAs lead athletic departments and shape
the direction for coaches, staff, and college athletes. Their responsibilities vary based on the
institutions’ size and goals but generally encompass essential obligations: monitoring and
maintaining ethical standards, personnel management, program interpretation to various
stakeholders, public relations, marketing, fundraising, budgeting, accounting, management,
facility planning, long-range planning, event planning, equipment operations, field maintenance,
athletics training and medical, and contest and official scheduling (Greenberg & Evrard, 2016).
Human resource management, particularly hiring and managing coaches, is a significant aspect
of the job, given the high turnover. As state funding has decreased, AAs have increasingly
focused on fundraising and other revenue streams to grow and sustain athletic programs
(Baldemor, 2019).
Successful AAs typically have graduate education, athletic administration experience,
articulated ethical principles, high motivation, and practical communication skills (Williams,
2021). Hence, this role in the athletic department is no longer a transition for retired coaches; it
demands business skills and experience to navigate a rapidly changing athletic environment.
While many common characteristics exist across all NCAA levels, Kinder (2014) highlighted
differences in AAs’ roles across NCAA divisions: Division I administrators emphasize
managerial skills; Division II administrators combine administrative, coaching, and teaching

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 36
duties; Division III administrators are the most heavily engaged in coaching and teaching
(Baldemor, 2019).
Hatfield et al. (1987) likened the AA’s job to the general manager of a professional sports
organization. Thus, despite the shared title, AAs’ specific skills and duties vary across
institutions, while the ever-changing collegiate athletics landscape demands adaptability and a
keen understanding of evolving challenges. By integrating insights from Freeman’s (2010)
stakeholder value theory, we can appreciate the complex balance AAs must achieve between
financial stability, ethical considerations, and stakeholder interests while maintaining work-life
lines.
Campus Executives
Campus executives, defined in this study as currently employed college or university
presidents, vice presidents, and associate and assistant vice presidents, face complex,
multifaceted challenges in intercollegiate athletics. The persistent trends of escalating coaching
salaries and ballooning athletics expenditures require college presidents to balance financial
prudence with the pressures of competing in the collegiate athletic arms race. Historically,
college presidents were pivotal in forming the NCAA in 1906. However, their oversight of
athletic programs has fluctuated over the decades, which has led to institutional control
challenges and ethical concerns (Covell & Barr, 2001).
The Carnegie Foundation’s 1929 report on intercollegiate athletics highlighted the
potential for commercialism to foster cheating and financial scandals. Thus, it urged presidents to
take action (Benford, 2007). Despite this early warning, presidents increasingly distanced
themselves from the direct management of athletic programs, which resulted in new challenges
involving coaches, college athletes, and institutional control (Covell & Barr, 2001).

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 37
In 2001, the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics called for significant NCAA
reform after reflecting on ongoing concerns about collegiate athletics. Although the
recommendations did not materialize into widespread changes, notable actions followed. One
significant event was Indiana University President Myles Brand’s termination of Head Men’s
Basketball Coach Bobby Knight’s contract due to misconduct, despite the program’s iconic
success (Brand, 2001). This incident highlighted the overemphasis on collegiate athletics in
certain institutional cultures. Brand (2001) noted that the decision to terminate Knight generated
more public and media attention than the university’s landmark $105 million gift for genomics
research that year.
These examples underscore the ongoing struggle of campus executives to balance
fostering competitive athletic programs while upholding their institutions’ academic and ethical
standards. The complexities of this balance are further compounded by the need to navigate the
diverse interests and pressures from various stakeholders, including alums, donors, students, and
faculty.
Faculty
Faculty are integral to the intricate landscape of collegiate athletics since they bridge
academic institutions and athletic programs. Faculty members, both tenured and non-tenured,
work NCAA member institution campuses and play multifaceted roles in maintaining the
delicate balance between academics and intercollegiate athletics. Educators are deeply invested
in ensuring that college athletes achieve academic success while navigating the demanding
commitments of their respective sports. As a stakeholder group, faculty uniquely influence the
culture and effectiveness of universities’ academic and athletic realms.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 38
As mentioned, the FAR has a designated role in the faculty-college athlete dynamic,
liaises between the academic institution and the athletics program, and embodies the institution’s
commitment to fostering an appropriate balance between academics and intercollegiate athletics
(NCAA, 2022). The FAR represents the campus in all conference and NCAA matters while
contributing to the overall governance of collegiate athletics. This position is crucial in
upholding the principles of amateurism and ensuring that college athletes have an environment
conducive to academic and athletic achievement.
According to McCarthy (2021), faculty, including the FAR, tend to be motivated by
contributing to the holistic development of college athletes. They provide essential academic
support to ensure college athletes meet eligibility requirements and thrive educationally.
Moreover, faculty contribute to college athletes’ ethical and intellectual growth by fostering a
sense of responsibility and integrity on and off the field. As faculty representatives, FARs are
pivotal in advocating for college athletes’ best interests by aligning the values of academics and
athletics within the university ecosystem. This collaborative effort, which includes FARs, adds
substantial stakeholder value by enriching the overall experience for college athletes. For
example, at the 2023–2024 San Diego State University Men’s Basketball end-of-year banquet,
the most acknowledged and thanked individual was the academic advisor who provided
individual tutoring on coursework and exams.
Faculty’s role in intercollegiate athletics underscores the need for a balanced approach
that respects institutions’ educational missions while supporting athletic excellence. Integrating
Freeman’s stakeholder value theory, faculty are essential stakeholders who contribute to the
sustainability and integrity of collegiate athletics by ensuring that academic and athletic pursuits

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 39
are not mutually exclusive but complementary aspects of the collegiate experience (Freeman,
2010).
Donors and Season Ticket Holders
Donors and philanthropists are pivotal in shaping the landscape of collegiate athletics by
providing crucial financial support to athletic programs and institutions. Donors’ contributions
(e.g., substantial financial gifts, endowments, and sponsorships) profoundly impact collegiate
athletic programs’ sustainability and growth. A notable example is the rise of state-of-the-art
athletic facilities, as many universities have constructed or renovated stadiums, training facilities,
and other infrastructure projects due to the generous philanthropic support of individual donors.
Donors also contribute to scholarship programs that provide financial aid to college
athletes. These endowed scholarships create a lasting impact by supporting college athletes’
academic and athletic pursuits. The philanthropic contributions of donors help institutions attract
and retain top-tier athletes to foster a competitive environment. Indeed, the concept of
stakeholder value for individual donors in collegiate athletics is multifaceted. For donors,
contributing to collegiate athletic programs provides a sense of engagement and connection by
aligning their values with the success and growth of the programs to create a legacy while
enjoying unique and emotion-filled experiences.
Additionally, donors often derive a sense of pride and satisfaction from the tangible
outcomes of their contributions (e.g., upgraded facilities, successful athletic programs, and
college athletes’ development). Recently, campaigns fundraising for stadium renovations,
endowed coaching positions, and academic support centers for college athletes have become
common in collegiate athletics.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 40
However, while donor contributions are vital, discussions have concerned the potential
influence of major donors on athletic departments’ decision-making. Thus, balancing donors’
interests with collegiate athletics’ core values and integrity remains critical. Nonetheless, donors
and philanthropists are integral to financially supporting athletic programs’success and
sustainability. The value extends beyond monetary contributions by fostering community, pride,
and lasting connections between these donors and the institutions they support.
Season ticket holders are also indispensable in the ecosystem of collegiate athletics, as
they contribute significantly to the financial health of collegiate athletics programs through
various avenues. Ticket sales remain one of the primary revenue streams for many athletic
departments. According to an NCAA report, the median generated revenue from 2019 ticket
sales for FBS schools was approximately $20.7 million, which was skewed by the gap between
Power and non-Power conferences. Even for non-FBS institutions, ticket sales contributed a
relatively significant portion, with the median annual revenue for FCS and Division II schools at
approximately $120,000 (NCAA, 2020).
Season tickets are significantly valuable due to the direct revenue they generate through
consistent fan attendance, which creates a conducive environment that fosters a home-field
advantage and contributes to the overall experience of collegiate athletics events. Beyond ticket
sales, ancillary purchases like parking and concessions further bolster the financial standing of
collegiate athletic departments. For instance, parking revenue can generate upwards of thousands
of dollars on game day, while concession sales add an essential revenue stream. According to a
2018 Forbes article by Daniel Kleinman, the University of Texas, which held the top spot for
college licensing royalties, amassed $10.6 million primarily from apparel and merchandise sales,

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 41
which clearly shows the magnitude of the impact of donors, season ticket holders, and general
customers.
Football Alums and Letterwinners
Football alums and letterwinners are pivotal to the overall culture of a football program
and the larger athletics department since they significantly contribute to their alma mater’s
cultural, community, and financial aspects. As campus community members, they embody their
respective institutions’ enduring spirit and traditions. Graduates who played football often
maintain lasting connections to their alma maters. Their loyalty and pride translate into valuable
support for universities in financial contributions and enthusiastic engagement with athletic
events, programs, and interaction with the football coaching staff and college athletes.
A notable manifestation of alum support is philanthropic efforts and donations. Alums’
frequent contributions to athletic programs, endowments, and facility enhancements bolster the
university’s financial health and provide resources for sustained athletic success. These financial
contributions are integral to sports programs’ growth and competitiveness since they enable
universities to attract top-tier coaching talent, invest in state-of-the-art facilities, and offer
enhanced opportunities for college athletes (Smith, 2014). Moreover, the presence of passionate
alums at games, reunions, and other university-related activities contributes to the vibrant
atmosphere surrounding collegiate athletics. This engagement and the achievements of
letterwinners in various professional fields enhance the institution’s overall reputation and pride
(Baldemor, 2019).
The professional success of letterwinners and alums has also become a compelling
marketing tool for universities that influences recruitment efforts and enhances the institution’s
brand. Alums and letterwinners constitute a vital stakeholder group that contributes financial

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 42
resources, fosters community spirit, and perpetuates collegiate athletics’ rich history and
traditions. Their engagement and support are indispensable components of the broader ecosystem
since they reinforce the interconnectedness of stakeholders in the collegiate athletics landscape
(Covell & Barr, 2001).
College Athletes
In this study, the voice of the current college athlete is labeled as “The Missing Voice.”
This label arises from the lack of viable research and data collected from the most crucial
stakeholder group in college football: current athletes. Despite their pivotal role in collegiate
athletics, current college football athletes are often underrepresented in academic and policy
discussions due to numerous challenges that impede their participation.
This study uses the term “college athlete” because, in the United States, “student-athlete”
is a contested label applied to individuals participating in NCAA-sanctioned sports programs
sponsored by their educational institutions (O’Neil et al., 2021). College athletes manage tightly
regimented schedules involving academic commitments, practices, workouts, and study sessions
to balance the dual demands of full-time students who are athletes (Gayles, 2009). These
demanding schedules leave little time for additional activities, such as participating in research
studies.
NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo’s 2021 memo directly challenged the
classification of “players at academic institutions.” The memo argued that “student-athlete” is a
misclassification falsely applied to deny college athletes the protections afforded by the NLRB.
Abruzzo emphasized that certain players at academic institutions can collectively be statutory
employees, so they have the right to improve their employment conditions (T. J. Murry, 2022).

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 43
This reclassification effort underscores the evolving recognition of college athletes’ labor rights
and highlights the need to hear their perspectives directly.
Despite the traditional notion of harmony between academics and athletics implied by the
“student-athlete” label, this group’s significant challenge is negotiating dual commitments to
their educational pursuits and athletic endeavors (O’Neil et al., 2021). The expectations and
responsibilities placed on college athletes often lead to tension between their academic and
athletic commitments. One of the more extreme examples is the 2012 Ohio State football athlete
Cardale Jones’ Twitter post, “Why should we have to go to class if we came here to play
FOOTBALL? We ain’t come to play school; classes are pointless.” Nonetheless, Jones, who
played professionally as a backup for the Buffalo Bills, rescinded his earlier statement and
ultimately returned to school after he finished playing to complete his degree.
Business Partners
A vital stakeholder group omitted from this study is business partners. Their exclusion
was due to their vastness, which would have rendered the study unmanageable. However, the
significance of industry partners in the collegiate athletics domain cannot be understated. These
external entities, often comprising companies specializing in marketing, technology, and various
other sectors, engage with collegiate athletic programs to offer services that enhance operational
efficiency, marketing strategies, and overall program effectiveness. Notable industry partners
include Learfield, Playfly, Oak View Group, Opendorse, Legends, Teamworks, Sport & Story,
and RealResponse.
Explanation of Design Thinking
DT is an innovative problem-solving framework that originated in design and
engineering but has since expanded to various fields such as business, education, and healthcare.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 44
Popularized by Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, DT is described as a human-centered approach that
integrates empathy, creativity, and rationality to meet user needs and drive business success
(Brown, 2008). As mentioned, DT comprises five stages.
The Empathize stage involves understanding stakeholders’ experiences through
observation and engagement to ensure the design process addresses real human needs (Kelley &
Kelley, 2013). The Define stage synthesizes these findings into clear problem statements by
focusing design efforts on the right challenges (Doorley et al., 2018). The Ideate stage uses
brainstorming to explore innovative possibilities (Brown & Wyatt, 2010). The Prototype stage
creates tangible representations of ideas that allow teams to explore and refine solutions quickly
(Schrage, 1999). The Test stage evaluates prototypes with users to gather feedback and ensure
solutions meet user needs effectively in an iterative process fostering continuous improvement
(Martin, 2009).
DT’s human-centered approach and iterative process effectively address complex,
ambiguous problems. They encourage multidisciplinary teams to co-create innovative and
practical solutions (Cross, 2011). By focusing on prototyping and testing, DT reduces risks
associated with new ideas while continually improving solutions based on user feedback
(Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011).
In modern collegiate athletics, especially the FBS, DT principles can be transformative.
The Empathize stage can provide insights into stakeholder experiences that allow athletic
departments to define relevant problems and opportunities (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). For
example, programs can identify issues like player safety and academic support during the Define
stage. The Ideate phase can bring together various stakeholders to brainstorm solutions. Next,
prototyping and testing these solutions, such as new training protocols or fan engagement

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 45
strategies, allow for iterative refinement before broader implementation (Carlgren et al., 2016).
Integrating DT into strategic processes can help FBS programs foster innovation and
responsiveness to address immediate challenges and adapt to the evolving landscape of collegiate
athletics. For instance, a DT approach can help design comprehensive mental health support
systems tailored to athletes’ unique needs (Van Aken & Chandler, 2005).
In summary, DT provides a robust framework for addressing the complex challenges in
modern collegiate athletics. DT can drive meaningful improvements in athlete experiences,
operational effectiveness, and fan engagement within the FBS by emphasizing empathy,
creativity, and iterative problem-solving.
Stakeholder Value Theory
The term “stakeholder” first appeared in an internal memorandum at the Stanford
Research Institute (now SRI International, Inc.) in 1963. It aimed to broaden the concept of the
stakeholder by recognizing that management’s responsiveness should extend beyond any one
group. Consequently, stakeholders were initially defined as “those groups without whose support
the organization would cease to exist” (Freeman, 1984, p. 31).
Stakeholder theory contends that an organization is a conceptualized network of
relationships crucial to its operations that involve individuals or groups that influence or are
influenced by its business activities (Freeman, 1984, 2010). Research has found that the
collective efforts and motivation of the entire organization create value, so the withdrawal of
support from any stakeholder threatens the organization’s viability, effectiveness, and bottom line
(Freeman, 2010). Stakeholder theory underscores the fundamental role of stakeholders in
forming the foundation of a functional value-creation network for organizations, irrespective of
size (Eskerod & Jepsen, 2016).

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 46
Organizations risk losing stakeholders, resources, and legitimacy if value creation is not
mutually beneficial. Therefore, it is in the best interest of all stakeholders to create value and
view it as a reciprocal process (Bundy et al., 2018). Companies and organizations are founded on
specific purposes that serve as the foundation for stakeholders to engage (or not) in relationships
with them (Freeman, 2010).
This study examines value creation in collegiate athletics through the lens of stakeholder
theory. In alignment with Freeman’s writings, value creation is a collaborative process within
relationships that benefit the central organization and each stakeholder group. The literature on
sustainability-oriented business models prominently emphasizes value creation as a process
yielding measurable outcomes for different stakeholders. This perspective includes addressing
sustainability-related challenges via collaboration among multiple stakeholders to provide the
necessary scope and range of expertise and resources (Hörisch et al., 2014). This viewpoint on
value creation is critical when analyzing business model sustainability. Furthermore,
stakeholders possess the capacity to be influenced by an organization in its pursuit of objectives.
Consequently, successful organizations are typically most adept at cultivating practical
cooperation with stakeholders—a concept encompassing interdependent actions that benefit
parties or enhance their relationship (Freeman, 1984).
Summary
The early 21st century witnessed a significant push for college athlete rights and
compensation, driven by legal challenges, societal events, and the commercialization of
collegiate athletics. This shift toward equity has been ongoing, marked by continuous debate.
AAs’ roles have expanded to include ethical standards, personnel management, public relations,
marketing, and fundraising, with increased focus on compliance, social media, and mental health

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 47
due to reduced state funding (Baldemor, 2019; Greenberg & Evrard, 2016; Kinder, 1994; Smith,
2014). Campus executives balance athletics’ financial demands with academic priorities while
navigating complex decisions and historical tensions between commercialism and academic
integrity (Benford, 2007; Brand, 2001; Covell & Barr, 2001). Faculty members, especially FARs,
seek to ensure college athletes receive proper academic support and uphold amateurism
principles that contribute to their ethical and intellectual development (McCarthy, 2021; NCAA,
2023).
Moreover, donors and season ticket holders are crucial for funding scholarships,
facilities, and other resources while fostering community and pride (Campaign Arkansas, n.d.;
McNamara & King, 2019). Business partners and broadcast media executives, such as Learfield
and Playfly, enhance operational efficiency and fan engagement, while lucrative media rights
deals influence collegiate athletics’ financial landscape and conference realignment (Hoffer &
Pincin, 2015; Learfield, 2021; Playfly, 2021). Football alums and letterwinners provide cultural,
community, and financial support while inspiring current and future athletes with their on-field
accomplishments and dedication (Greenberg & Evrard, 2016).
Nevertheless, despite their pivotal role, current college athletes are often
underrepresented in discussions due to their demanding schedules and apprehensions about
speaking out. Therefore, including their perspectives is essential for understanding collegiate
athletics’ challenges and opportunities (Gayles, 2009; Jones, 2022; Murry, 2022). Therefore,
recognizing and valuing all stakeholders, including college athletes, is vital for a more equitable
and sustainable future in collegiate athletics. This stakeholder-centric approach informs the
study’s recommendations for a balanced and inclusive environment.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 48
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Mixed-Methods Approach and Rationale
This chapter explores the methodology of the research design employed in this study.
This study used a mixed-methods approach that integrated quantitative and qualitative inquiry.
Thus, a survey was crafted to address the research questions and digitally distributed to key
stakeholder groups: AAs, donors and season ticket holders, campus executives, football alums
and letterwinners, faculty, and football staff. An additional category, “others,” allowed
respondents to identify their stakeholder role in their own words.
Quantitative data were analyzed to identify congruencies and gaps in value factors.
Moreover, open-ended questions provided a qualitative context to better understand the
perspectives. The research focused on the FBS, comprising ten conferences and 133 member
institutions across 42 states that serve approximately 55,000 college athletes (LEAD1
Association, 2023). The USC Institutional Review Board approved the research plan to protect
human research participants’ rights and welfare.
Ethical Considerations
Ethics were central to this research. Voluntary participation and informed consent were
ensured to mitigate potential harm. All communications explicitly stated the research intentions
and emphasized its nature as a USC doctoral dissertation. Participant anonymity and
confidentiality were protected, with no identifiable information collected and shared beyond the
stakeholder group, conference affiliation, and, in some cases, the level of support provided to a
participant’s respective athletics program.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 49
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection began in Fall 2023 and concluded in January 2024. The dynamic nature
of collegiate athletics necessitated flexible data collection and analysis. The researcher remained
informed about industry developments and adjusted the research design and methods to ensure
the study’s relevance. Data were collected through a multi-pronged approach to maximize reach
and response rates among target populations. The survey was distributed through digital
channels, including emails sent using athletics departments’staff directories and campus
websites as sources of up-to-date email addresses.
Additionally, the survey was advertised on social media platforms (i.e., Facebook and
LinkedIn), industry platforms (i.e., D1.ticker email distribution), and various online fan forums.
This comprehensive outreach strategy ensured broad dissemination and participation to enrich
the data with diverse perspectives from multiple echelons within the FBS community. This
approach broadened the study’s scope and enhanced the data’s richness to provide a
comprehensive view of the stakeholder landscape.
Application of Change Theory: Design Thinking
The study incorporated elements of the positivist paradigm, which posits that reality can
be objectively observed and described. However, it also embraced qualitative aspects to capture
the richness of stakeholder perspectives (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The mixed-methods
survey strategy combined quantitative data collection with qualitative insights to better
understand stakeholder values, motivations, and concerns. This balanced approach allowed for
the generalization of findings while exploring the depth and complexity of stakeholder
experiences (Fowler, 2013).

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 50
To enhance the data analysis process, the researcher incorporated elements of DT that
particularly emphasized empathy. DT guided the research by fostering a human-centered
approach that valued stakeholders’ experiences and needs (Brown, 2008). The study aimed to
deeply understand stakeholders’ needs and experiences by asking empathetic questions to
accurately identify and address their core issues (Plattner et al., 2011). The DT process, which
involves the five key stages of Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test (Brown, 2008),
was employed as follows.
During the Empathize stage, the survey questions were crafted to elicit detailed and
honest responses from participants. This stage aimed to understand the stakeholders’ experiences,
feelings, and concerns regarding their experiences with collegiate football at the FBS level. By
empathizing with the participants, the study sought comprehensive insights into their values,
motivations, and concerns (Brown, 2008).
Next, the data analysis of the Define stage defined the key issues affecting collegiate
athletics as identified by the stakeholders. This phase synthesized the data to uncover patterns
and themes that represented the core problems and challenges faced by the stakeholder groups
(Brown, 2008). Subsequently, the Ideate phrase was based on these definitions, as detailed in
Chapter Five of this dissertation. This phase involved brainstorming and proposing potential
solutions to the identified problems. Stakeholder input was crucial in generating innovative ideas
that addressed their needs and concerns (Plattner et al., 2011).
Afterward, the researcher made recommendations for the Prototype stage, with initial
models and strategies designed to test the proposed solutions in real-world settings. The goal was
to develop practical approaches that could be refined based on stakeholder feedback (Brown,
2008). Finally, the Test phase evaluated these recommended prototypes in real-world contexts to

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 51
assess the solutions’ effectiveness and feasibility to ensure they met the stakeholders’ needs and
addressed the core issues identified earlier in the study (Plattner et al., 2011).
Thus, by integrating DT principles into the research process, this study aimed to create a
more empathetic and practical approach to understanding and addressing the challenges in
collegiate athletics. This methodology enhanced the depth of the research and ensured that the
solutions developed were practical and stakeholder-driven.
Research Questions
The study sought to elucidate the values, motivations, and concerns of key stakeholders
involved with FBS collegiate athletics. By focusing on these aspects, the research aimed to
provide a comprehensive understanding of stakeholder dynamics and answer the following
research questions:
RQ 1) What do stakeholders value most about their relationship with FBS collegiate
athletics, and what are areas of consensus?
RQ 2) What factors most impact stakeholders’ motivation in FBS collegiate athletics, and
what are areas of consensus?
RQ 3) What are the areas of greatest concern among FBS stakeholders, and what are
areas of consensus?
Data Analysis Process
This study employed DT principles to structure an empathetic data analysis process to
deeply understand stakeholder perspectives, which were divided into three main sections: Values,
Motivations, and Concerns. Each section provided a detailed examination of stakeholder
responses.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 52
Values Analysis
The values analysis involved two main components: quantitative analysis of value factors
and qualitative analysis of open-ended responses. The value factors analysis sought to identify
each stakeholder group’s top three factors. The participants rated these factors on a scale, and the
results highlighted the most and least valued aspects of their involvement in FBS collegiate
athletics.
The researcher manually coded the open-ended responses to “What is your most valuable
experience?” to glean the percentage of responses to specific topics. Themes and codes were
analyzed using many of the same value factors that participants rated to ensure consistency and
depth in the analysis.
Motivation Analysis
The motivation analysis centered on the open-ended question, “What is your WHY?
What motivates you in college football?” The responses were analyzed manually to identify
patterns and themes related to the study’s value factors. This thematic analysis revealed the
underlying motivations driving stakeholder engagement, which provided further insight into the
personal and professional drivers influencing stakeholder involvement.
Concerns Analysis
The concerns analysis encompassed multiple facets of stakeholder perspectives on the
impact of NIL, the Transfer Portal, and conference realignment. Open-ended responses to why
stakeholders felt the way they did about these industry factors were thoroughly reviewed. The
analysis addressed the question, “Do you ever think about departing your role?” Quantitative
responses were examined per stakeholder groups and among different intersections, such as
administrators/donors and donors/campus executives.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 53
Open-ended responses to “What concerns you about the future of the industry?” were
also analyzed using manual coding for themes and patterns. This analysis used the study’s value
factors as a guide to identify core issues and concerns impacting stakeholders. By integrating DT
principles into the data analysis process, this study aimed to create a more empathetic and
practical approach to understanding and addressing the challenges in collegiate athletics. This
methodology enhanced the depth of the research and ensured practical and stakeholder-driven
solutions.
Instrumentation
The primary data collection instrument was a comprehensive survey designed and
distributed through USC’s Qualtrics program. This platform was chosen for its ability to manage
large-scale mixed-methods data collection and analysis. Some minor secondary insights from a
2022 LEAD1 Association study complemented the primary data to provide a longitudinal view
of AD sentiments.
Sampling Strategy
A purposive sampling strategy was employed to capture a broad spectrum of voices
across the collegiate athletics enterprise by focusing specifically on Division I FBS stakeholders.
This focus was justified by the FBS’s significant influence within the broader collegiate athletics
landscape. The goal was to achieve maximum participation across stakeholder groups to provide
nuanced and representative data reflecting FBS collegiate athletics’ diverse experiences and
values.
The Researcher
I was born and raised on Long Island, New York, in a family that blended artistic and
entrepreneurial spirits. My introduction to collegiate athletics occurred when my mother took me

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 54
to basketball games at Hofstra University as a boy, where I first saw that higher education and
collegiate athletics offered a broad canvas for creativity and impact. I recall watching the
environment beyond the game with intrigue, including the student section, the band, the refs,
coaches, sponsors, alums, and how these stakeholders interacted. Today, I reside in San Diego,
California, with my wife, an architect, former collegiate soccer athlete, and dedicated mother to
our two children.
My career in higher education and collegiate athletics began as an undergraduate student
at Grand Valley State University, a 15-time Learfield Directors’ Cup winner in Division II
(Grand Valley State Athletics, 2023). From there, I moved to the San Francisco Bay Area, where
I served as a graduate assistant at UC Berkeley Athletics.
Following my time at UC Berkeley, I joined San José State University as a development
coordinator and later advanced to Associate AD for Football Development. I was also fortunate
to serve as the Senior Assistant AD for Revenue Generation at Northern Illinois University (NIU)
while working under two valued mentors and lifelong friends––Sean Frazier, the NIU AD, and
Jay Vickers––who now serves the University of Nevada, Las Vegas campus. These roles and
experiences allowed me to build lasting relationships and contribute to the growth and success of
athletics programs and universities. My journey continued to the flagship of the California State
University (CSU), San Diego State University, where I served as Senior Associate AD for
Development by overseeing the Aztec Club and working as part of a vast team executing a major
capital campaign.
In late 2021, I chose to step away from collegiate athletics and started a company,
Riverbend Strategy Inc. I was fortunate to partner with various collegiate athletics organizations
and provide revenue-generation services. In January 2024, I returned to San Diego State

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 55
University as Senior Director of Development for Principal Gifts, focused on campus priorities
and a more interdisciplinary approach.
Throughout my professional journey, I have developed an appreciation for the people and
relationships formed across the campus community. I believe in the power of optimism and
positivity and the importance of empathy and compassion in working together toward positive
outcomes.
In 2021, I was honored to receive recognition as the National Association of Athletics
Directors of Development (NAADD) Division I University Fundraiser of the Year (NAADD,
2021). This recognition was a testament to the teamwork, dedication, and support of my
colleagues, donors, and mentors. Although I did not participate as a college athlete, athletics
influenced my development and formative years. I am committed to conducting a balanced,
cross-disciplinary approach in this study. I seek to include the voices and perspectives of diverse
stakeholder groups to navigate my positionality and effectively explore this topic.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
In determining the course of study for this project, the researcher initially aimed to cover
a broader spectrum of collegiate athletics across all NCAA divisions (i.e., I, II, and III) to include
an even more expansive range of stakeholder groups. The purpose was to identify areas of equity
and consensus across these diverse groups to provide a comprehensive understanding of
collegiate athletics’stakeholder value and needs. However, the scope of the study was narrowed
for practicality. Hence, this study focused exclusively on FBS institutions and five specific
stakeholder groups. This decision was influenced by the need to maintain a manageable scope
and the study’s alignment with the DT framework.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 56
Limitations
One notable limitation of this study was the absence of current college athletes,
particularly football athletes. The initial concept was to use current athletes as a baseline for
comparing and analyzing the perspectives of other stakeholder groups. However, many athletic
departments enforced strict policies regarding athlete surveys and data collection, which made it
challenging to gather direct information from current athletes during this study. Additionally, the
demanding schedules of college athletes, filled with academic and athletic commitments, further
impeded data collection efforts. Consequently, the study’s focus was adjusted. While it touched
on “The Missing Voice” of current college athletes, the emphasis shifted to a deeper examination
of the participating stakeholder groups.
Another limitation of this study is the built-in bias of the researcher. The researcher made
the decision to try to focus on the positive rather than dwell on negative factors and responses.
This decision, while achieving the researcher’s goal of creating positive and practical solutions,
could also have excluded certain concerns and negative factors of stakeholder experiences.
Additionally, the researcher acknowledges that the value factor ratings may have some
skew based on the socially acceptable norms in higher education, especially for those
stakeholders who are campus employees. For example, the value factor of Money was
consistently ranked in the bottom half of the value rating scale. The low rating of Money, while
noble, appears to the researcher as a possible misrepresentation of the level of value importance
to the stakeholders.
During this study, the House vs. NCAA case gained significant traction and on May 23,
2024, the National Collegiate Athletic Association settled the lawsuit for $2.75 billion, agreeing
to a revenue-sharing model allowing member institutions to distribute funds up to $20 billion to

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 57
Division I athletes who have played since 2016. The House Settlement is transformational in
nature, and due to the timing of the study the researcher chose to exclude it from this study. This
case adds to the need for future research on stakeholder value and motivation in the face of a new
revenue sharing model.
Assumptions
This study operated under several assumptions to ensure clarity and direction in the
research process. First, it assumed that the selected stakeholder groups—though not
exhaustive—represented the broader perspectives within collegiate athletics. Second, the study
assumed that narrowing the focus to FBS institutions provided a relevant and sufficient context
for understanding the dynamics of equity and stakeholder value across collegiate athletics and
higher education. Third, the findings from this prototype study were assumed to inform future
larger-scale studies and practical applications in other divisions and contexts. Lastly, the study
assumed that despite the absence of direct input from current college athletes, insights from
different stakeholders could still provide valuable perspectives on the critical junctures of reform
and equity in collegiate athletics. These assumptions underpinned the study’s design and were
integral to interpreting the findings and drawing meaningful conclusions.
Conflict of Interest
The researcher acknowledges the potential for conflict of interest based on past
involvement with the LEAD1 Association, an organization advocating for the consensus and
interests of FBS ADs. Another potential conflict of interest is the researcher’s built-in
experiences and biases developed while working in the traditional collegiate athletics
environment, which was based on the system of amateurism.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 58
Summary
This chapter outlined the mixed-methods approach used in the study, which combined
quantitative and qualitative research to explore critical stakeholder perspectives in collegiate
athletics. A survey was distributed digitally to athletics administrators, donors, season ticket
holders, campus executives, football alums, letterwinners, faculty, and football staff, with an
“others” category for additional stakeholder roles. Quantitative data analysis identified value
factor congruencies and gaps, while open-ended questions provided qualitative context. The
study focused on FBS institutions, involving 133 member schools across ten conferences, and
was approved by the USC Institutional Review Board.
Ethical considerations included voluntary participation, informed consent, participant
anonymity, and confidentiality protection. Data collection from Fall 2023 to January 2024
utilized emails, social media, and industry platforms to maximize reach and response rates and
ensure diverse stakeholder perspectives. The methodology integrated DT principles and
emphasized empathy to deeply understand stakeholder needs and experiences. The DT process
involved the Empathy, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test phases, with recommendations for
solutions detailed in Chapter Five.
The research addressed three primary questions about stakeholder values, motivations,
and concerns within FBS collegiate athletics. Data analysis focused on these areas while using
DT principles to structure the process. Quantitative value factors were analyzed alongside
qualitative open-ended responses to reveal the most and least valued aspects of stakeholder
involvement. The motivation and concerns analyses provided further insights into stakeholder
engagement and industry challenges, including NIL, the Transfer Portal, and conference
realignment.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 59
The study used a comprehensive survey via USC’s Qualtrics platform, supplemented by
insights from a 2022 LEAD1 Association study. A purposive sampling strategy targeted Division
I FBS stakeholders to achieve representative data. The researcher’s background in collegiate
athletics, including roles at various universities and a personal commitment to cross-campus
collaboration and positive relationships, informed the study’s empathetic and stakeholder-driven
approach.
Limitations included the absence of current college athletes due to data collection
challenges and strict department policies. The study assumed that selected stakeholder groups
represented broader perspectives and focused on FBS institutions for relevant context. Potential
conflicts of interest were acknowledged due to the researcher’s past involvement with the
LEAD1 Association and experiences within the traditional collegiate athletics model.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 60
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Overview and Participating Stakeholders
This chapter overviews the participants, stakeholder roles, and conference affiliations.
Each stakeholder group is analyzed based on the methods outlined in Chapter Three. The
research questions guide the findings and correlate them based on three categories: Value,
Motivation, and Concern.
A total of 497 survey responses were submitted. The participants included the following
stakeholder groups: 193 AAs, 107 Donors and Season Ticket Holders, 68 Others, 42 Alums and
Letterwinners, 41 Campus Executives, 22 Football Staff, and 17 Faculty. Notably, 21 current
FBS ADs from the AAs group completed the survey.
Table 1
All Respondents by Stakeholder Type
Stakeholder Type % Count
Athletics Administrators 38.83% 193
Donors/Football Season Ticket Holders 21.53% 107
Other 13.68% 68
Football Alums/Letterwinners 8.45% 42
Campus Executives 8.25% 41
Football Staff 4.43% 22
Faculty 3.42% 17
Total 100% 497

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 61
Of the 497 respondents from all identified stakeholder groups, participation across the ten
FBS conferences was recorded, with the most significant number of respondents coming from
the West Coast: 72 respondents (18%) from the MWC and 64 from the Pac-12 accounted for
16% of total responses. This distribution was likely due to the researcher’s regionality and the
natural network among the participating stakeholder groups. The conferences with the lowest
participation rate were C-USA, with 24 respondents (6%), while the SBC and the AAC provided
25 respondents each (6% each).
Table 2
All Respondents by Conference
Conference % Count
Mountain West Conference (MWC) 17.87% 72
Pacific 12 Conference (Pac-12) 15.88% 64
Mid-American Conference (MAC) 12.16% 49
Big Ten Conference (Big 10) 10.67% 43
Southeastern Conference (SEC) 10.42% 42
Big 12 Conference (Big 12) 7.94% 32
Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) 6.70% 27
Sun Belt Conference (SBC) 6.20% 25
American Athletic Conference (AAC) 6.20% 25
Conference USA (C-USA) 5.96% 24
Total 100% 403

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 62
Athletics Administrators
Data analysis from the survey provided insights into the perspectives of 193 AAs
representing all ten FBS conferences. The respondents encompassed various roles and functions
within their respective athletics departments. The respondents included 59 athletics executive
team members, which comprised senior associate ADs, executive associate ADs, and deputy
ADs. Additionally, 38 respondents held assistant or associate AD positions, while 18 individuals
represented entry-level and middle-management roles in Compliance, Development, and Sports
Information. Notably, the survey garnered responses from 21 current FBS ADs, with some
participating enthusiastically.
The survey data indicated that most of the responses came from AAs in P5 conferences,
with significant participation from the Big Ten (15%), the Pac-12 (15%), and the SEC (12%).
Despite the researcher’s more substantive network within G5 conferences, P5 administrators
engaged more. This disparity is attributed to P5 AAs having more resources and time to dedicate
to professional development activities, such as participating in surveys and studies.
Research supports the idea that P5 institutions have more funds for professional
development and other non-revenue sports due to their substantial revenue from football and
basketball programs. This financial robustness allows P5 athletics departments to manage their
time and resources better, which provides administrators with more opportunities for engagement
in activities beyond their immediate responsibilities.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 63
Table 3
Athletics Administrators by Conference
Conference % Count
Big Ten Conference (Big 10) 15.15% 25
Pacific 12 Conference (Pac-12) 14.55% 24
Southeastern Conference (SEC) 12.12% 20
Big 12 Conference (Big 12) 10.30% 17
American Athletic Conference (AAC) 10.30% 17
Sun Belt Conference (SBC) 8.48% 14
Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) 8.48% 14
Mountain West Conference (MWC) 7.88% 13
Mid-American Conference (MAC) 7.27% 12
Conference USA (C-USA) 5.45% 9
Total 100% 165
Athletics Administrators: Value Factors
The analysis of the 193 AAs who responded to the stakeholder value survey revealed
significant insights into the priorities and motivations within this group. These respondents
highlighted impact, people, and teamwork as the top three value factors.
Impact, the highest-rated value factor, underscored these AAs’ commitment to making a
positive difference in the lives of college athletes. This focus was consistent with higher
education institutions’ broader mission to foster personal and professional growth in students

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 64
(Astin, 1984). The administrators viewed their roles as opportunities to contribute to the holistic
development of athletes on and off the field.
The second-highest-rated factor, people, highlighted the significance of human
relationships in the lives of these AAs. This emphasis on interpersonal connections is attributed
to the collaborative nature of athletics departments, where teamwork and cooperation are
essential. Human relationships are foundational to creating a sense of belonging and community,
which is critical in educational and athletic settings (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). By prioritizing
people, the administrators recognized the importance of the social and emotional aspects of their
work.
Teamwork, the third-highest value factor, resonated with the inherent nature of athletics,
where collective effort, togetherness, and cooperation are paramount. Being part of a team and
contributing to a larger goal was a powerful motivator and source of fulfillment for these AAs.
Moreover, the importance placed on teamwork reflected their appreciation for the collaborative
efforts required to succeed in sports.
Conversely, the low ratings for travel, perks, and exclusivity suggested that these factors
did not significantly contribute to value creation for these AAs. The low importance placed on
travel may be due to the demanding nature of travel in collegiate athletics, which can be timeconsuming and tiring. Additionally, the shift toward virtual meetings and events during the
COVID-19 pandemic may have reduced travel’s perceived necessity and appeal.
Similarly, perks, including tangible items like gear and gifts, were rated low, which
indicated that these AAs were more motivated by intrinsic factors such as personal fulfillment
and professional relationships rather than extrinsic rewards (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Furthermore,
the de-emphasis on exclusivity suggested a preference for inclusive and collaborative

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 65
environments, which aligned with these AAs’ high valuation of people and teamwork and
reflected a culture prioritizing collective success over individual elitism (Hogg & Terry, 2000).
Figure 3
Athletics Administrators: Value Factors

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 66
Figure 4
Athletics Administrators: Most Valuable Experience
The analysis of open-ended survey responses to “What is your most valuable moment
from throughout your experience in your FBS stakeholder role? Please feel free to tell a story
and share however you are comfortable. What happened? How did it happen? How did it make
you feel?” revealed the most valuable experiences (MVEs) for the AAs’, which predominantly
centered on people, winning, and impact. Winning in many of the responses reflected the
emotion accompanying moments of success on the field of athletic competition: celebratory
moments, hugs, high-fives, and pure joy in the collective success of the team.
The MVE theme of people was mentioned 12 times (16%). The stakeholders emphasized
the significance of relationships and camaraderie developed through their roles. An AA from the
Pac-12 described the “very fond memories of the people I have met, places I have visited, and
the relationships that will last a lifetime.” An AD from the Big Ten shared the joy of “seeing kids
. . . who have no belief in their ability or desire to achieve academically succeed in the classroom

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 67
and have great success in life after sport.” An athletics development professional from the MAC
shared,
There is nothing like being part of a group of individuals who shed blood, sweat, and
tears for a common goal in sports. The lessons learned of overcoming adversity and the
self-realization that you can overcome something if you work hard at it cannot be given
to someone. It is only earned by the individual.
The above responses highlighted the profound impact of human emotion and connections and the
enduring nature of these bonds within the FBS environment.
The theme of winning, with seven mentions (10%), reflected the thrill and excitement
associated with competitive success. An AA from the Pac-12 shared the experience of
watching one of our teams come back and win a national championship in the local
campus bar with the entire athletic department. So much joy and pride that we could all
come together and experience that as one felt amazing and made you be like, “This is
why I do what I do because the people I am around every day make it worth it.”
Another example was from a senior associate AD in the Big Ten, who noted the thrill of
winning the Aer Lingus college football classic after many months of planning and
replanning. This experience helped me become a leader, as well as learning how to
manage up. Relief after the football team won their game, and I knew that this would be a
game that donors and the football team would talk about for many years to come because
it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
The theme of impact, with seven mentions (10%), highlighted the meaningful difference
the stakeholders made in the lives of college athletes. An athletics executive from the SBC
reminisced,

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 68
I worked with an athlete who was first-generation college and had a sick mother who
transferred to our school to be close enough to take care of her and needed several
waivers to be eligible. I was able to work through many different options with the NCAA
to get these waivers, and after his first game, he came over and high-fived me and said
thank you so much for helping me achieve my dream, and then his mom came up to me
crying saying thank you for helping their family. It was just an excellent example of how
sports are bigger than just a game on the field.
One current FBS AD who did not provide a conference affiliation shared, “It is not the 4 years
we have them; it is after that, seeing how many have grown and doing great things in their
communities.”
Hence, the survey responses revealed that the MVEs for the FBS stakeholders in the AA
Stakeholder Group were deeply rooted in relationships, the emotional fulfillment of working
together to achieve competitive success, and the positive impact on college athletes’ lives.
Figure 5
Athletics Administrators: What is Your WHY?

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 69
The analysis of open-ended survey responses to “What is your WHY? What motivates
you in your role?” from the AAs revealed that the primary motivators were impact, people, and
community. Impact emerged as the top motivator, as cited in 37% of responses. These AAs
highlighted the significance of making a positive difference in the lives of college athletes. One
athletics executive from the SBC shared, “I want to make an impact on college athletes just like
my advisors did for me.” This sentiment underscored the desire to give back and contribute to the
personal and professional growth of college athletes.
Moreover, an AD from the Big 12 shared,
P5 athletics is a double-edged sword. Nothing ignites or transforms an institution [like
ours] like the power of high-level, successful athletics [in particular FB and MBB]. It is
incredible to feel the energy, pageantry, goodwill, and passion that it creates for campus,
students, and alumni. Further, seeing the growth of S-A’s through their experiences is the
highlight! Wouldn’t trade that for anything. On the other hand, the pressures and stakes
are remarkably high. You must win. You must be financially viable. You must have good
fortune in how 18–23-year-olds conduct themselves. You must have a staff (250+!) and
coaches who do the right thing . . . If those things don’t fall your way, then it’s very
fragile, and it can all crumble around you.
An athletics executive from the Pac-12 noted, “College athletics, other than the military,
is the most effective leadership program for youth in America, and our work makes an impact on
every community in this great country.” This sentiment reflected the broader societal value
placed on college athletics as a vehicle for developing leadership skills and community
engagement.
Moreover, an AD from the AAC shared,

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 70
As a former student-athlete, I feel strongly that what we provide through our programs to
student-athletes could very well be the most impactful classroom they step foot in. The
lessons learned, the ability to navigate adversity, the opportunity to establish camaraderie,
and the ultimate maturity that comes through sports truly impact the lives of future
generations. By nature, athletics is a rollercoaster of emotion and results that force
student-athletes to figure out who they are, how they are gifted, and how to make a
difference. Knowing the impact it had on my life drives me to give my best to improving
their experience as student-athletes while at our institution.
For some, the motivation extended to family and personal values. Another Pac-12
executive shared, “My family is number 1 to be able to provide them with the best life possible
and access to working on a college campus and making an impact on the lives of others.” An
academic support staff shared his or her WHY as “providing an equitable educational experience
to student-athletes in order to obtain a life-changing degree while also competing in a lifechanging athletic experience.”
People, mentioned by 13% of respondents, highlighted the importance of relationships
and camaraderie in their roles. An assistant or associate AD from the Pac-12 shared, “The people
I work with every day are great to be around despite the challenges we face.” This attitude
reflected how relationships within the athletics environment were crucial motivators and sources
of support and unity. An athletics executive from the SBC expressed the allure of “the fun, thrill,
excitement of college athletics. It’s a dynamic and ever-changing job where no two days are the
same. Being part of a team atmosphere and working toward a common goal. Gameday will never
get old!”

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 71
Others emphasized the broader educational mission and the unique experiences college
athletics offer. An assistant or associate AD who identified as a finance professional emphasized,
[The] student-athlete experience––it is much more than the revenue sports. The money
that is brought in by media funds the entire department. Collegiate athletics is now a
minor league system and should not be one. That is how it’s trending.
Community, comprising 9% of responses, reflected the importance of fostering a
supportive and cohesive environment. A Pac-12 athletics executive expressed, “I believe in the
role of higher education to positively impact our communities: better community, better state,
better country.” This response demonstrated a strong sense of duty toward creating a positive
impact on the broader community, a key aspect of stakeholder value theory. One administrator
noted, “This is my ministry: working and developing young people from diverse backgrounds
working for common goals.” A mid-level manager from the MWC described the joy of “uplifting
others . . . it’s great when I experience success, but nothing compares to the feeling of investing
in one of my teammates and seeing them earn success––that feeling is unmatched.”
Finally, a commitment to social justice and equity was a powerful motivator for some, as
an assistant or associate AD from the MAC stated the desire “to fight for gender equity, to
preserve access to education for the underrepresented.”
Athletics Administrators: Modern-Day Change
The data analysis of the AAs’ responses revealed significant insights into their
perceptions of three key issues: NIL, conference realignment, and the Transfer Portal. The
respondents were asked to indicate the impact of these factors on their overall experience as FBS
stakeholders using a slider scale, where a score of 10 or lower showed a very negative impact, 90
or higher indicated a very positive effect, scores between 20 and 40 signified a somewhat

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 72
negative impact, and scores between 60 and 80 reflected a slightly positive effect, with 40–60 as
neutral.
Regarding NIL, the mean score for this issue was 36, with 130 respondents indicating a
somewhat negative impact on their overall experience. This finding suggested that while NIL
was important, this group perceived it somewhat negatively. A Big-12 AD shared,
The strain on administrators and coaches regarding NIL at P5 institutions is very real . . .
No one is content; no one is doing enough. No one is immune to the pressure of
navigating NIL. It has added exceptional strain to already very difficult jobs.
An AD from the AAC reinforced this sentiment: “Many of our donors are shifting to NIL. They
do not have the discretionary dollars to give to both the department and NIL.”
Some respondents felt that the narrative around college athletics was misfocused. An AA
who worked in Development shared this opinion,
Most people are focusing on the wrong thing about college athletics. The NCAA has let
others control the narrative. There is great benefit to being a student-athlete. I don’t think
they are “exploited” at all. There are student-athletes who are taking complete advantage
of the opportunities that college athletics allows and are thriving in life. We don’t hear
enough about those stories. All we hear about is how college student-athletes are being
“exploited,” and that’s just not true.
Conference realignment, with a mean score of 47 and 125 respondents, fell into the
neutral range but leaned slightly toward a somewhat negative impact. This higher mean score
compared to NIL implied that AAs found conference realignment slightly less negative, though it
was still not viewed as overly positive. An athletics executive from C-USA shared, “Conference
realignment created my position. However, it has also created negative non-regional travel.”

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 73
The Transfer Portal, with a mean score of 36 and 131 respondents, also negatively
impacted the respondents’ overall experiences. Like NIL, the Transfer Portal was not viewed
positively among this stakeholder group. The responses reflected the need for better management
and communication regarding its implications. One athletics executive from the Big 12
highlighted, “All of the change has come at once. It has not been staggered in any way. That has
made it particularly challenging. Clarity is still a ways off on many issues.” An assistant or
associate AD from the SBC noted, “Things have changed where athletes just go for the money
and do not understand the value of an education. Different team every year so hard for
camaraderie and fan engagement with athletes.”
An executive from the SBC emphasized the need for adaptability: “As with any changes
in college athletics, if you let something become ‘a negative’ and don’t find a way to make it
work, you will be left behind.” Moreover, an AD from the AAC shared,
Our level is subject to the worst combination of NIL and Transfer Portal regulations or
lack thereof. NIL is 99% pay-for-play for most student-athletes, and we will never have
the resources to compete with compensation at the Power conference level. When you
combine that with unlimited transfers, we are now in the short-term experiential business
for student-athletes and our developmental/professional programming, which is less than
ideal.
In summary, the data revealed that the AAs’ perceived NIL and the Transfer Portal
similarly, with somewhat negative impacts on their overall experience. These issues, along with
conference realignment, were seen as significant factors influencing college sports’ current and
future landscapes. While these issues presented challenges, they were also viewed as part of the

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 74
“new normal” that these AAs had to navigate by embracing the positives rather than focusing
solely on the negatives.
Athletics Administrators: Thoughts of Departure
The AAs’survey data revealed that many administrators had contemplated leaving their
roles at FBS institutions. Of 139 respondents, only 6% had never thought about departing their
roles, 30% rarely thought about it, 40% sometimes considered it, 19% often considered it, and
4% always thought about leaving. Hence, 63% of the respondents had at least occasional
thoughts of departure, which indicated a high level of career uncertainty within this group.
The most cited factor influencing these considerations was work/life balance, with 18%
of respondents identifying it as a reason for considering departure. Indeed, the demanding nature
of the AA role, which often requires long hours, frequent travel, and high personal sacrifice, can
lead to strain. An AA from the SEC noted,
Work-life balance is hard in sports. Work-life integration is a better phrase, but certain
places are worse than others. A real problem is senior administrators and ADs basically
churning and burning employees since they don’t understand how much additional work
there is for employees now with all of the changes, or administrators just not caring that
people working as much or more than them are making significantly less.
Mental health and burnout, closely related to work/life balance, were the second most
common reasons that 15% of the respondents cited. The intense pressure, high expectations, and
constant demands of the job can lead to chronic stress and burnout, especially when combined
with a lack of work/life balance. One assistant or associate AD shared, “COVID changed the
entire way athletics operates. Nice that mental health has become a priority, and the stigma has
been greatly reduced.” Recognizing the importance of mental well-being is essential, as it

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 75
directly impacts job performance and satisfaction and contributes to a positive and productive
work environment (Maslach & Leiter, 2016).
Better compensation elsewhere was the third most significant concern cited by 13% of
the respondents. While many administrators are passionate about their roles, financial incentives,
and other opportunities can be attractive. One executive-level administrator said, “Financial
upward mobility doesn’t exist within the MAC until you are the athletic director.” Competitive
compensation is an essential aspect of career satisfaction and retention, which acknowledges the
value and expertise that AAs bring to their roles (Ehrenberg, 2012).
Other factors contributing to these considerations included issues related to NIL, potential
changes to athlete employment status, and internal and external pressures. One respondent who
served as a mid-level manager in the SEC highlighted the impact of NIL and the evolving
landscape of collegiate athletics:
I’m not sure that the current direction of college athletics is sustainable. Something is
going to have to give if the current operations model is expected to be maintained. Also,
as an employee, the demands on me and my staff continue to increase more and more
every year, but our compensation, staff size, and available resources are not increasing.
In conclusion, the top factors for AAs considering departure from their roles—work/life
balance, mental health/burnout, and better compensation elsewhere—highlighted key areas
influencing their professional experiences. By better understanding these factors, valuable
insights were gained into the aspects of their roles that mattered most to them. These insights can
contribute to a more positive and supportive professional workplace within collegiate athletics
departments.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 76
Table 4
Athletics Administrators: Frequency of Departure Thoughts
Frequency % Count
Never 6% 9
Rarely 30% 42
Sometimes 40% 56
Often 19% 27
Always 4% 5
Total 100% 139
Table 5
Athletics Administrators: Departure Factors
Factors % Count
Work/life balance 17.98% 80
Mental health/burnout 15.28% 68
Better compensation elsewhere 13.48% 60
NIL 11.69% 52
Potential changes to athlete employment status 9.89% 44
Internal pressure (e.g., finances and expectations) 9.44% 42
Transfer Portal 7.42% 33
External pressure (e.g., litigation and competitiveness) 6.74% 30
Conference realignment 4.72% 21
Other 3.37% 15

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 77
Total 100% 445
Figure 6
Athletics Administrators: Concerns
The AA’s open-ended survey responses to “What concerns you about the future of FBSlevel collegiate athletics?” revealed several key concerns: financial sustainability,
professionalization, governance and leadership, and the erosion of traditional values and
community. Financial sustainability emerged as a primary concern, as mentioned in
approximately 45% of the responses. The AAs were worried about the increasing influence of
money and the financial pressures that came with it. A Pac-12 executive noted, “Money, TV, and
big business are tearing it apart, and it is happening faster each year.” A MAC executive shared a
similar concern: “The financial viability of the current model, and the competitive balance, based
on the haves and the have-nots.”
The growing financial divide between institutions was a prevalent theme, with these AAs
expressing anxiety over maintaining competitive balance and financial stability. An AD from the

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 78
SEC shared, “We need to make challenging decisions because there is not an unlimited supply of
money. Football and men’s basketball will continue to be invested in at a high level because of
the positive return.”
Professionalization in collegiate athletics was highlighted in at least 30% of responses.
The AAs expressed significant concerns over the shift toward a professional sports model, which
some felt undermined the traditional nature of collegiate athletics and amateurism. An athletics
executive shared,
The overarching concern is that college athletics is starting to resemble the professional
ranks with the Transfer Portal and NIL. In many respects, it is a bit of a runaway train,
and does the NCAA and/or Congress have the ability to wrangle it back in? I’m not
overly confident.
An assistant or associate AD in the Big Ten highlighted the loss of the traditional spirit:
“The professionalization of it all and the stark reduction in the magic it once had.” Governance
and leadership issues were mentioned in at least 20% of responses, which reflected the
uncertainty and lack of clear guidance in the evolving landscape of collegiate athletics. An
executive-level administrator from the Big 12 expressed concern,
The absence of clarity on many of the key issues. It is the Wild Wild West in many areas.
There is not a clear set of foundational rules for everyone to follow at the current time. A
common foundation and set of guidelines that everyone must follow will provide the
stability needed for change to take root and prosper.
A Big-12 AD elaborated,
Where to start? The unending thirst for more: resources, money, NIL, compensation
[coach and S-A], facilities, network exposure, etc., there are almost no industry controls,

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 79
and we’re all so scared of litigation that it continues to spiral to the point of being
unsustainable.
The erosion of traditional values and community was another significant theme in 25% of
responses. Administrators were concerned about the impact of financial pressures and
professionalization on the sense of community and traditional values in collegiate athletics. A
Big Ten executive shared a fear of the “elimination of Olympic sports, another round of
conference realignment that will leave some schools without a home. The lack of camaraderie
among institutions.” Meanwhile, an assistant or associate AD noted that “the money will run out.
The same donors are also being asked to fund the collectives. Non-revenue men’s sports may
become non-scholarship.” These concerns highlighted the importance of maintaining core values
and a sense of community amidst the evolving landscape. An AAC AD shared,
The decisions we have ahead of us are very complex and, if not well thought out and
calculated, could bring the collapse of the entire intercollegiate model that serves
thousands of student-athletes across all levels of the NCAA. There are no perfect
solutions, but we need to recognize the potentially catastrophic outcomes and try creating
a model that mitigates those.
Other concerns included the impact on academics, as mentioned by 15% of respondents,
due to a declining emphasis on education. An executive from the AAC stated,
We have lost our way and are focused on the money rather than the value of the
education. We have overpaid our coaches and administrators, not invested in our
foundational values, and that is coming back to bite us now.
The employment status of college athletes also emerged as a significant concern.
Administrators worried about the implications of treating college athletes as employees, which

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 80
could reduce opportunities and increase financial pressures on institutions. A development staff
member from the Pac-12 noted the issue of “college athletes becoming employees and getting
cut/losing scholarships due to injuries and having a bad season.”
Hence, the AAs’ survey responses revealed that their primary concerns were financial
sustainability, increasing professionalization, governance and leadership challenges, and the
erosion of traditional values and community. An executive from the AAC shared, “We have lost
our way and are focused on the money rather than the value of education. We have overpaid our
coaches and administrators, not invested in our foundational values, and that is coming back to
bite us now.” A Big-12 assistant or associate AD echoed, “The destruction of the primary
conferences and traditions driven by the highest achieving/earning teams in each conference and
the inability for other institutions to stay relevant and compete at the same levels.”

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 81
Figure 7
Athletics Administrators: Value Factors
Donors and Season Ticket Holders
Of the 107 donors and season ticket holders who participated in the study, 17 respondents
acknowledged donating over $100,000 in their lifetimes to their respective athletics programs.
Additionally, five donors acknowledged giving over $1 million to their respective institution’s
athletics program.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 82
Donors and Season Ticket Holders: Value Factors
The analysis focused on 107 Donors and Football Season Ticket Holders Stakeholders
across all ten FBS conferences. This group identified the top three value factors as emotion,
winning, and impact.
Emotion emerged as the highest value factor, which reflected the significance of the
feelings associated with supporting collegiate football teams. The thrill of victory, the agony of
defeat, and a deep affinity and love toward their institutions were powerful motivators that
enhanced these stakeholders’ overall experience and loyalty (Fredrickson, 2001).
Winning, the second-highest value factor, underscored the importance of athletic success.
The drive for victory and the competitive spirit were central to the engagement of these
stakeholders, who found significant value in supporting a successful team. The human desire to
win is deeply rooted in our psychology. Winning provides a sense of achievement and validation
while fulfilling a fundamental need for competence and mastery (Deci & Ryan, 1985). It also
enhances social status and recognition, which are essential aspects of human motivation and selfesteem (Mazur, 1985). Supporting a winning team allows stakeholders to share in these victories,
which creates a sense of pride and collective identity. This sense of achievement and the
associated positive emotions reinforce their commitment to the team and institution (Sloan,
1989).
Impact, the third-highest value factor, highlighted the respondents’ desire to contribute
positively to the lives of college athletes and the broader community. These donors and season
ticket holders likely viewed their financial and moral support as a driver to foster development
and future life success in college athletes (Astin, 1984).

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 83
Figure 8
Donors and Season Ticketholders: Value Factors
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Philanthropy
The importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in philanthropy and across all
enterprises cannot be overstated. Research has consistently shown that business success is
increasingly tied to diverse populations, leadership teams, and stakeholder groups. For nonprofits and universities, actively pursuing diversity programming is not only a moral imperative
but also a strategic necessity. Diverse teams bring various perspectives, ideas, and solutions that
enhance innovation and decision-making processes (Page, 2007). Moreover, organizations that

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 84
reflect the diversity of their communities are better positioned to understand and meet the
evolving needs of those they serve.
A report from McKinsey & Company underscored the business case for DEI. It found
that companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity were 35% more likely to have
financial returns above their respective national industry medians (Hunt et al., 2015). The U.S.
Census Bureau’s projections indicate significant demographic shifts over the next 2 decades,
which further underscores the need for organizational diversity. By 2045, the United States is
expected to become a majority-minority nation, meaning that no single racial or ethnic group
will constitute a majority of the population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). These changes highlight
the importance of organizations adapting and reflecting diversity within their leadership and
stakeholder engagement strategies.
For philanthropic organizations, embracing DEI can enhance their ability to connect with
a broader donor base and better address the needs of multitudes of communities. A study by the
Council on Foundations (2019) found that diverse boards were more effective in fulfilling their
missions since they brought varied perspectives that contributed to more comprehensive and
inclusive decision-making. Additionally, engaging with diverse donors may increase
philanthropic support, as individuals are more likely to contribute to organizations representing
their values and experiences.
In summary, as the demographic landscape of the United States continues to evolve,
organizations prioritizing diversity will be better equipped to meet the challenges and
opportunities of the future. These organizations can enhance their impact and drive positive
social change by fostering inclusive environments, promoting equity, and engaging with diverse
stakeholders.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 85
Figure 9
Donors and Season Ticket Holders: Most Valuable Experience
The analysis of open-ended survey responses to “What is your most valuable moment
from throughout your experience in your FBS stakeholder role?” revealed that the most
cherished moments for the Donors and Football Season Ticket Holders revolved around the
themes of people, teamwork, winning, and academics.
The theme of people prominently appeared in 21% of the responses. These stakeholders
frequently emphasized the significance of relationships and camaraderie developed through their
roles. A new football season ticket holder shared, “It is always about people and relationships.
Gathering together in a common spirit is what life is all about.” One donor who had given
upwards of $250,000 and had season tickets for over 30 years highlighted “personal relationships
with staff and donor/fans,” which underscored the importance of interpersonal connections and
the sense of community fostered through shared experiences. A donor from the MWC shared, “I
met the first athlete that received the scholarship I funded. We now have a long-term relationship
outside of football.”
Another donor from the MWC shared,

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 86
During COVID, no fans were allowed at the Mountain West Championship game in
Vegas. When the game was over, and our team won, I received a phone call from the
Athletic Director while everyone was celebrating on the field, thanking me for our
support. I really appreciated the personal aspect, so I increased my donations for the
following year.
The theme of teamwork was the most mentioned. It constituted 27% of the responses and
reflected the importance of contributing to a team and belonging to something bigger than
oneself. A donor to a Big-12 program who had given more than $500,000 and had season tickets
for over 30 years shared, “We lost a young family member in 2005. The athletic department and
University wrapped their arms around us. The prayers, support, and friendship that was displayed
was beyond imaginable.”
Moreover, an MWC program donor who had given more than $1 million shared,
Being in a position financially that we never thought we would be in gave us the
opportunity to put our school into our trust documents in a meaningful way. We are able
to support the colleges we graduated from and athletics through the new football/soccer
facility. We are appreciated by faculty, coaches, staff, and students for our gift, even
though the funds won’t come until we both die. It feels so good to know that programs
and facilities will continue on into the future.
Winning, comprising 11% of the responses, reflected the thrill and excitement associated
with competitive success. An ACC donor who had given over $50,000 and had season tickets for
over 20 years recounted, “Winning a championship at an institution that followed the letter and
spirit of the rules, graduated its athletes with meaningful degrees, and beat the frauds along the
way.” This statement encapsulated the pride brought by competitive triumphs and adherence to

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 87
rules and values. The victories they celebrated were about more than just the scoreboard. Indeed,
the Donors and Season Ticket Holders valued the integrity and hard work behind each win. For
instance, a donor who had season tickets for over 30 years shared,
My most valuable moment is when I see on the faces of student-athletes the moment they
experience success. This can be during an athletic competition or if I hear about their
great success in life—be it an employment success or a family success. An example of
this is when I see past teams coming back for a reunion, and I see these athletes are still
connected through their common experiences. They’ve made themselves friends for life.
Academics, representing 9% of the responses, highlighted the importance of access to
higher education and academic achievements. A donor from the MAC who had donated less than
$10,000 and had season tickets for more than 20 years expressed thankfulness by “supporting the
university that gave me an opportunity and education. Very grateful for the chance,” which
emphasized the transformative power of education. Another MAC program donor who had given
over $100,000 and had season tickets for more than 30 years noted an occasion of “going to a
football banquet and listening to players talk about the opportunity that was provided by
collegiate athletics. Appreciation of what was given to them.” This memory highlighted the
impact of educational opportunities on college athletes’ lives and futures.
In conclusion, the survey responses revealed that the most valuable moments for FBS
stakeholders in the Donors and Football Season Ticket Holders were deeply rooted in
relationships, teamwork, competitive success, academic achievements, and the emotional
fulfillment they felt through their support.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 88
Figure 10
Donors and Season Ticket Holders: What is Your WHY?
The Donors and Football Season Ticket Holders open-ended survey responses to “What
is your WHY? What motivates you in your role?” were analyzed, and the key motivators were
people, impact, and community, while perks, exclusivity, and travel were the least mentioned.
People emerged as the top motivator in 24% of the responses. These donors and season
ticket holders frequently emphasized the significance of relationships and camaraderie. One
respondent who had given over $100,000 to a program and held season tickets for over 30 years
noted the motivation of “friendship among fans, that my support makes a difference in young
athletes’ lives, providing educational opportunities and future employment opportunities.”
Impact, represented in 18% of responses, reflected the desire to make a positive
difference. A donor from C-USA who had season tickets for less than 5 years summarized, “I
love my school, the athletics, and the idea that many of these kids are first-generation college
students and will better their family’s lives after graduation.” One donor who had season tickets
for over 30 years shared the joy of “giving back to the university that helped me get to where I

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 89
am today. Helping students less fortunate than me. Making a difference in athletics and
education.” A donor who had given over $1 million and had season tickets for more than 10
years highlighted “the impact athletics has on college athletes, the university, and the general
student pride and experience.” These responses demonstrated these stakeholders’ commitment to
influencing college athletes’ personal and professional growth, as aligned with the principles of
stakeholder value theory. For instance, a donor who did not have football season tickets shared,
I have seen both as an athlete and as an alum and donor the benefits of sports and the
opportunities afforded student-athletes. This is one of the best “training grounds” for life,
and helping to provide these opportunities in the way they were provided to me is my
primary “why.”
An MWC donor who had given over $1 million over a lifetime shared,
Education is the key to successful adulthood. As a first-generation university graduate
over 55 years ago, I feel strongly that those who choose the university setting to continue
their education after high school should be supported in all the ways we can.
Community, appearing in 12% of responses, reflected the importance of fostering a
supportive and cohesive environment. A former staff member who was a donor and Season
Ticket Holder from the MWC shared, “I have a lot of school pride. I love how athletics brings
our entire community together.” Moreover, a new donor from the Big 12 shared, “I love my
school and want to support it in any way that I can. Being a season ticket holder is a small step,
but in the future, I hope to donate more money when I am able.” These responses illustrated how
the donors and season ticket holders valued the sense of unity and collective effort within their
communities.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 90
In conclusion, the survey responses from the Donors and Football Season Ticket Holders
revealed the primary motivators of fostering relationships, making a positive impact, and
building a meaningful community.
Donors and Season Ticket Holders: Modern-Day Change
The analysis of the Donors and Football Season Ticket Holders data revealed significant
insights into their perceptions of three key factors: NIL, conference realignment, and the Transfer
Portal. The respondents were asked to indicate the impact of these factors on their overall
experience as FBS stakeholders using a slider scale, where a score of 10 or lower showed a very
negative effect, scores of 90 or higher indicated a very positive impact, scores between 20 and 40
signified a somewhat negative impact, and scores between 60 and 80 reflected a slightly positive
effect, while scores between 40 and 60 were considered neutral.
For this stakeholder group, the mean score for NIL was 33, with 67 respondents
indicating a somewhat negative impact on their overall experience. This finding suggested that
while NIL was an important issue, it was perceived somewhat negatively by this specific group
of stakeholders. One donor from the Big 12 explained, “NIL for my school has been tough, but I
believe the athletes should be compensated. That said, there has got to be a better way to do
this.” A donor who had season tickets for more than 10 years echoed this sentiment, “NIL has
turned college football into semi-pro football; it is uninteresting, just a contest of which alumni
are going to pay for a good team.” Additionally, an MWC donor who had given over $1 million
over a lifetime and had season tickets for more than 30 years remarked, “I feel strongly that with
the Portal and NIL, the university experience and the education received is compromised. It also
allows young people to leave a team rather than working harder to become part of the team.”

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 91
An ACC donor who had given over $50,000 and had season tickets for more than 20
years shared,
Real NIL is fine. The synthetic NIL being used as a recruiting inducement is antithetical
to college sports. Conference realignment only makes sense from a football standpoint
(maybe MBB) . . . It makes absolutely no sense for all other sports, and the poor
leadership (short-term thinking) by the university and conference leadership is killing
college sports. The Transfer Portal itself is good, but the timing of it for football is
horrendous. The tampering before entering the portal is rampant, and synthetic NIL [see
above] plays too big a role.”
Another donor to a Big-12 program noted,
Traditions, rivalries, and long-time affiliations are being dismantled. Players should get
paid. The NCAA must modernize, and the schedules and rules around NIL, hiring/firing,
bowl games, and playoffs all must adjust to protect the importance of the regular season,
regional rivalries, expanded playoffs, and the ability for players and coaches to keep their
commitments.
Conference realignment, with a mean score of 35 and 69 respondents, fell into the
somewhat negative range. This score implied that these donors and football season ticket holders
found conference realignment slightly more impactful, though they still did not view it
positively. An ACC donor who had season tickets for more than 5 years expressed, “I want a
different product than the NFL––the history and spirit of REGIONAL conferences and playing
schools that I have regular interactions with the opposing fan bases.”
In comparison, the Transfer Portal, with a mean score of 32 and 68 respondents, also
negatively impacted the respondents’ overall experience. One donor highlighted the complexity

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 92
of these changes, “Transfer Portal is going to ruin the G5 conferences. They will become ‘farm
teams’ for the P5. The P5 will keep taking the best players from G5, and it will be harder for G5
to compete even among themselves.” A Pac-12 donor added, “The fluidity of the Transfer Portal
and NIL is detaching the game from the institution. We do not have a system to capture the
tradition of CFB while compensating athletes with money and flexibility in their playing years.”
A C-USA donor who had given less than $50,000 noted,
As much as I’m all for student-athletes transferring and bettering their lives by way of
additional funds or more playing time, it’s hard to be invested in the player if you know
they’re likely going to leave (potentially to a rival) in a year. Having an athlete feel pride
for one’s school, especially after they graduate, feels cheapened.
Table 6
Donors and Season Ticket Holders: Frequency of Thoughts of Departure (Stopping Support)
Frequency % Count
Never 22% 17
Rarely 41% 32
Sometimes 19% 15
Often 15% 12
Always 3% 2
Total 100% 78

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 93
Table 7
Donors and Season Ticket Holders: Thoughts of Departure Factors (Stopping Support)
Factors % Count
Transfer Portal 21.37% 28
NIL 19.85% 26
Conference realignment 18.32% 24
Potential changes to athlete employment status 11.45% 15
Other 9.16% 12
Internal pressure (e.g., finances and expectations) 5.34% 7
Mental health/burnout 3.82% 5
External pressure (e.g., litigation and competitiveness) 1.53% 2
Total 100% 131
Figure 11
Donors and Season Ticket Holders: Concerns

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 94
The donors and football season ticket holders’ open-ended survey responses to “What
concerns you about the future of FBS-level collegiate athletics?” revealed several key concerns:
financial inequality, professionalism, governance and leadership challenges, and the erosion of
traditional values and community.
Financial inequality emerged as a primary concern in approximately 40% of the
responses. Donors and season ticket holders were worried about the widening gap between
wealthy P5 schools and smaller institutions. A donor from the MAC who had season tickets for
over 30 years noted, “The big get bigger, and mid-size conferences won’t have the opportunity to
get much-needed non-conference dollars.” Another MAC donor who had given over $250,000
and had season tickets for over 20 years feared a “further widening of the gap between the haves
and have-nots.” These concerns highlighted the increasing financial disparities and their potential
to disrupt competitive balance and the overall integrity of collegiate athletics. A fear existed that
non-P5 schools would struggle to survive financially, which would lead to a lack of opportunity
for college athletes at these institutions. One donor who had season tickets for less than 5 years
added,
Transfer Portal––players have no sense of loyalty to the coaches, program, and institution
that recruited them and developed their talent. NIL. G5 will never be able to compete
with the big bucks the P5 have at their disposal.
The theme of the professionalization of collegiate athletics was highlighted in
approximately 35% of responses. The respondents expressed anxiety over the shift toward a
professional sports model, mainly due to the NIL deals and the Transfer Portal. This shift posed
significant challenges in maintaining collegiate athletics’ traditional values and spirit, which
respondents felt were being eroded. Concerns were raised about the impact on non-revenue

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 95
sports, with another donor noting, “The infusion of NIL money, portal team jumping, and the
fallout from the same . . . is destroying the institutional integrity of the sport.” A donor who had
given over $100,000 to a program added,
I am concerned about the “pay-to-play” part of NIL. I don’t mind if an athlete endorses a
local business or product and gets paid for that. When a player accepts money to go to a
different school, I believe we are moving in the direction of the professionalization of
college sports.
Governance and leadership challenges were mentioned in 25% of responses, which
reflected concerns about the lack of effective governance and proactive leadership. A Pac-12
donor who had given over $10,000 expressed, “The system and structure are slow to catch up to
the changes of NIL/Portal.” The respondents also highlighted that the NCAA’s slow response to
the evolving landscape had led to a chaotic environment that threatened the sustainability of
collegiate athletics. A donor who had given over $10,000 and had season tickets for less than 5
years shared,
Quite frankly, this business/profit model makes the game far less appealing and enjoyable
for me. I already get my dose of that watching the NFL. Again, there was something very
positive and appealing about college athletes playing for the logo on the helmet and not
their name on the back of their jersey. For me, this sentiment began when players began
sitting out bowl games to protect their draft status. Typically, those that make this
decision are the elite players who have a legitimate shot in the NFL draft––the same
players that, for the most part, have also been the team leaders, who have undoubtedly
been espousing sacrifice, commitment, and work ethic above all. Imagine the impact that
move has on their teammates, the majority who will likely never play football again.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 96
Essentially, it strips away the integrity of the elite players’ leadership and, in my opinion,
their character.
Other concerns included the impact on community and tradition, as mentioned by 20% of
respondents. These concerns highlighted the desire to preserve the core values and community
aspects historically defining collegiate athletics. Academic integrity was mentioned by 15% of
respondents, based on worries about the declining focus on education. One donor from the Pac12 stated, “That emphasis on money will replace the emphasis on scholarship. It is happening
already.”
The employment status of college athletes also emerged as a significant concern. The
respondents were worried about the implications of treating college athletes as employees, which
could reduce opportunities and increase financial pressures on institutions. A donor to an MWC
program who had donated over $1 million and had season tickets for more than 30 years shared,
“I believe that NIL, and the portal as it is set up now, encourages a ‘quitter’ mentality. Loyalty to
the institution and the individuals left behind are discarded for the dollars.”
In conclusion, the survey responses from the Donors and Football Season Ticket Holders
revealed that their primary concerns were financial inequality, increasing professionalization,
governance and leadership challenges, and the erosion of community and tradition in FBS-level
collegiate athletics. These themes highlighted the need for balanced interests, sustainable
solutions, and clear governance.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 97
Figure 12
Donors of $1 Million or More: Value Factors

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 98
Figure 13
Season Ticket Holders of 30 Years or More: Value Factor Rating
Football Alums and Letterwinners
Football Alums and Letterwinners: Value Factors
In this section, the analysis focused on the 42 respondents who were part of the Football
Alums and Letterwinners. This group identified the top three value factors as people, leadership,
and winning, while the lowest-rated factors were exclusivity, perks, and money.
People emerged as the highest value factor, which underscored the importance of the
bonds formed through college football. These alums highly valued lifelong connections with
teammates, coaches, and the broader football community. This finding aligned with R. Freeman’s
(1984) stakeholder value theory, which emphasizes creating joint value through positive

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 99
relationships across various stakeholder groups. Football programs fostered these mutually
beneficial connections by building a supportive and engaged alums network.
Leadership, the second-highest value factor, highlighted the development of leadership
skills through football participation. Football alums credited their athletic experiences with
instilling discipline, resilience, and the ability to lead, which reflected the broader value of
athletics in cultivating skills that benefit individuals and institutions. The concept of joint value
was evident here, as alums’ leadership skills enhanced their personal lives and contributed to the
institution through mentorship and advocacy.
Winning, the third-highest value factor, signified the competitive spirit central to football.
Pursuing victory provided a sense of achievement and fostered a culture of excellence. The drive
for success enhanced these individuals’ pride and reinforced their affinity and future support for
the institution. Stakeholder value theory underscores shared success, where team achievements
create value for the entire community, including alums, current athletes, and supporters (Sloan,
1989).
Freeman’s joint value concept is further demonstrated by the transition of these football
athletes to alums. Positive experiences during academic and athletic experiences significantly
impacted their desire to stay involved and give back, whether through volunteering or
financially. This ongoing engagement and contribution created a cycle of value that benefited
current athletes and the institution.
In summary, the Football Alums and Letterwinners prioritized people, leadership, and
winning, which reflected their value for relationships, personal development, and athletic
success. The interconnected experiences of athletes and alums demonstrated how positive
engagement fostered long-term support and contributions to create a continuous value cycle.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 100
Figure 14
Football Alums and Letterwinners: Value Factor Rating

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 101
Figure 15
Football Alums and Letterwinners: Most Valuable Experience
The analysis of open-ended survey responses to “What is your most valuable moment
from throughout your experience in your FBS stakeholder role?” revealed that the most
cherished moments for the Football Alums and Letterwinners revolved around the themes of
people, teamwork, winning, and academics.
The theme of people was prominent in 23% of the responses. These stakeholders
frequently emphasized the significance of relationships and camaraderie developed through their
roles. Their relationships formed the backbone of their ongoing involvement and commitment to
their alma maters. A Pac-12 football alum reminisced, “We used to go to the Rose Parade and
Rose Bowl Game as a family almost every year when I was a kid. I will cherish those memories
for the rest of my life.” A football alum from the MWC shared, “I was given the honor of giving
a speech at the retirement dinner of one of my coaches from when I played.”
The theme of teamwork was the most mentioned and constituted 27% of the responses,
which reflected the importance of contributing to a team and being part of something larger. A
respondent from the Pac-12 described teamwork as “every day, fighting for a common goal with

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 102
an amazing group of people with the same goal, learning how to lead by example.” This
comment illustrated how these alums and letterwinners felt pride and satisfaction in seeing their
team grow and succeed while knowing they played a part in that journey. A football alum from
the MWC noted, “Working with a group of men to set goals, plan, work, fight, and win.” One
MAC football alum described their journey,
I was a walk-on who earned a full scholarship a year later. That sense of accomplishment
and team acceptance cannot be duplicated. I was a member of my institution’s first FBS
bowl game and victory, an incredible experience. I was recognized as “Scout Team Player
of the Year.” That affirmation of contribution was a great feeling. Reunions with
teammates are always very much looked forward to. Staying affiliated with my school
and having “back when I played” conversations are outstanding. Traveling to away
games as an alumni/donor/former player allows us to see parts of the country, stadiums,
and schools we otherwise would not have occasion to experience.
Another Pac-12 football alum reflected,
My most valuable moment as a stakeholder has been my involvement as an FBS athletics
administrator for nearly 20 years, helping coordinate the alumni activities of former
student-athletes at my institution/alma mater. I am now trying to imagine college sports
reunions in the future where it will be hard to remember who was even on what team. So
much movement and portal activity can’t be helping our current student-athletes
academically and preparing them for a future beyond their sports program.
The theme of Winning, comprising 14% of the responses, reflected the thrill and
excitement associated with competitive success. One respondent from the MWC recounted the
“Final Four buzzer-beater for SDSU against Florida Atlantic. It was a once-in-a-lifetime

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 103
experience to see SDSU make the championship on a buzzer-beater—a memorable experience
with great friends.” This statement encapsulated the exhilaration and pride brought by
competitive triumphs, even if not football, which resonated deeply with these alums and
letterwinners who invested their time, memories, and passion into supporting their programs.
One football alum from the Big Ten highlighted an athletic achievement and recalled “catching
my first pass against Purdue, whose QB at the time was Drew Brees . . . It was the realization of
a childhood dream to catch a pass in a Division I stadium in front of 60,000 fans.”
The theme of academics, representing 11% of the responses, highlighted the importance
of access to higher education and academic achievements. Many stakeholders expressed
gratitude for the educational opportunities that allowed them to succeed. One respondent valued
“being one of the first in my family to receive a college degree,” which emphasized education’s
transformative power for first-generation college students. An MWC alum explained that
“receiving an athletic scholarship was one of my goals and made me feel outstanding and
valued,” which highlighted the profound impact of educational opportunities on college athletes’
lives and futures. A Big-12 football alum added, “When I got to represent my university at the
NCAA leadership conference and meet other student-athletes from around the country, I felt
proud and noticed.”
However, while not frequently mentioned explicitly, the theme of emotion was woven
through many responses as these stakeholders expressed pride, an affinity for their institutions,
and a deep love for the game. These emotional connections underpinned many experiences
described and added depth and personal significance to the shared moments.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 104
In conclusion, the survey responses revealed that the most valuable moments for these
FBS stakeholders in the Football Alums and Letterwinners were deeply rooted in relationships,
teamwork, competitive success, and academic achievements.
Figure 16
Football Alums and Letterwinners: What is Your WHY?
An analysis of the open-ended survey responses to “What is your WHY? What motivates
you in your role?” by the Football Alums and Letterwinners revealed that the key motivators
were people, pride, and teamwork, while perks, exclusivity, and travel were the least mentioned.
People emerged as the top motivator in 28% of the responses. These alums and
letterwinners frequently emphasized the significance of relationships and camaraderie. One Pac12 football alum valued “making some of my best friends in life, connections that aided my
career and employment, being there for friends in trouble and the reciprocal.” A respondent from
the MWC valued “the common bond you share with other former college athletes.” A Big Ten
football alum noted, “The team, the people, and the love of the game,” which highlighted the

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 105
importance of interpersonal connections and the sense of community fostered through shared
experiences.
Pride, constituting 20% of responses, reflected the desire to support their alma maters and
the sports programs they participated in. One respondent from the MWC shared,
As an ex-player, I am very proud and privileged to have represented my school. It will
always be cherished and appreciated. If my involvement can help another college athlete
to experience the same memories and joy that I did, it is my responsibility to do so.
An MWC alum highlighted “pride as a former player and the desire to see my former
program succeed.” These sentiments demonstrated their commitment to honoring their personal
history and emotional investment in their institutions. One football alum from the MAC
emphasized,
Being a former player, there is a tremendous amount of personal history and emotional
investment in college athletics in general, and specifically, my alma mater and sport. The
sense of belonging and community for those that stay affiliated with their institution can
be a tremendous part of a lifestyle. The amateur status (playing for the love of the game)
made college football different from professional with higher turnover (you can only play
so many years), greater amount of teams from varying geographies, pride versus
occupation, etc.
Another noted, “The pure authenticity where young people play because they’re passionate and
for the right reasons . . . NIL has changed all of that recently.”
Teamwork, comprising 16% of the responses, reflected the importance of being part of a
team and the accompanying camaraderie. One MWC respondent expressed, “After you leave
collegiate athletics, you miss being a part of a group or team. This keeps me involved.”

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 106
In conclusion, the survey responses from the Football Alums and Letterwinners revealed
the primary motivators of fostering meaningful relationships, supporting their alma mater, and
being part of a team.
Football Alums and Letterwinners: Modern-Day Changes
For the Football Alums and Letterwinners, the mean score for NIL was 42, with 26
respondents indicating a somewhat negative to neutral impact on their overall experience. This
finding suggested that while NIL was an important issue, it was perceived with mixed feelings
by this specific group of stakeholders. One current football alum from the MWC stated, “NIL
and the portal are negatively changing the game. What was (and should still be) an honor and a
privilege is now turning into a business.” Another alum from the MAC commented, “Everything
is about money now. The integrity of the game is in jeopardy. Money is too big a factor in
competitive advantage. Loyalty on both sides of the equation is lost.”
Conference realignment, with a mean score of 30 and 30 respondents, fell into the
somewhat negative range. This score implied that these football alums and Letterwinners found
Conference Realignment to have a more pronounced negative impact. One current football alum
from the Pac-12 mentioned, “Conference realignment has hurt the tradition of college football by
eliminating rivalry games and traditional bowl matchups.” An MWC football alum stated,
“Conference realignment destroyed the Pac-12 and, with it, natural rivalries and regional
football.” Another football alum remarked, “There is a significant money grab going on by
bigger conferences. This is going to cause G5 programs to get left behind.”
In comparison, the Transfer Portal, with a mean score of 37 and 27 respondents, which
was higher than other stakeholder groups, also negatively impacted the respondents’ overall
experience. Like NIL, the Transfer Portal was not viewed positively, which reflected concerns

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 107
about its implications. One current football alum from the Pac-12 highlighted that it was “tough
to get to know players when they are transferring so much. Conference realignment has hurt the
tradition of college football by eliminating rivalry games and traditional bowl matchups.”
Both NIL and the Transfer Portal were perceived negatively, with concerns about loyalty,
money, and the overall integrity of the game. This analysis underscored the varying levels of
concern and interest in these topics among the Football Alums and Letterwinners.
Figure 17
Football Alums and Letterwinners: Concerns
The open-ended survey responses from the Football Alums and Letterwinners to “What
concerns you about the future of FBS-level collegiate athletics?” revealed significant concerns
across several key themes: financial inequality, professionalization, governance and leadership,
and the erosion of tradition and values.
Financial inequality emerged as a primary concern, mentioned in approximately 35% of
responses. These alums and letterwinners expressed deep worry over the widening gap between
wealthy programs and smaller institutions. One respondent from the Pac-12 noted,

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 108
Many of us are just plain sad to see the way college athletics is headed. The gap between
the have’s and have-nots, especially in college football, is widening, and as a result, any
semblance of parity is going out the window. I feel badly for all women’s athletics and
Olympic sport programs that help develop our nation’s Olympic programs. I feel the open
portal is creating a lack of loyalty, a lack of perseverance, and the diminishment of pride
in one’s school. We are headed to a semi-pro model without the parity the NFL now
enjoys.
Another from the MAC noted that due to the “NIL and Transfer Portal, the amateur
aspect of the game will soon be lost. The number of viable teams will diminish. Money will
become a major (if not dominant) factor in recruiting versus institution affinity, coaching, etc.”
These sentiments underscored the fear that financial disparities would erode competitive balance
and diminish opportunities for smaller schools. Another football alum from a MAC program
added, “NIL and Transfer Portal: The amateur aspect of the game will soon be lost. The amount
of viable teams will diminish. Money will become a major (if not dominant) factor in recruiting
vs. institution affinity, coaching, etc.”
Professionalization was highlighted in about 30% of responses. The respondents voiced
concerns about the shift toward a semi-professional model driven by NIL deals and the Transfer
Portal. Another added, “Everything is becoming a farm system for the pros.” This
professionalization was noted as undermining the traditional values and spirit of collegiate
athletics, with a focus shifting away from education and personal development toward financial
gain and professional prospects. A respondent from the MWC stated,
NIL will possibly result in an elite “super conference,” and many smaller and less storied
schools will fade away. Oddly, though I do not like the Transfer Portal, it does tend to

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 109
even the playing field somewhat. Many fine second-/third-string players from famous
schools who are not getting the playing time they want can go to other schools and
possibly start.
Governance and leadership challenges were mentioned in 25% of responses. These alums
and letterwinners expressed frustration with the NCAA’s perceived ineffectiveness and lack of
cohesive leadership.
The erosion of tradition and values was another significant theme in 20% of responses.
The respondents mourned the loss of traditional values and camaraderie that had historically
defined collegiate athletics. One respondent from the MWC expressed, “It is a ‘What have you
done for me lately?’ and ‘How much can you get me now?’ culture with zero loyalty.”
Other concerns included the impact on community and camaraderie, which was
highlighted by 15% of the respondents. They feared the changing landscape would negatively
affect the sense of community and shared experiences central to collegiate athletics.
In conclusion, the survey responses from the Football Alums and Letterwinners revealed
that their primary concerns for the future of FBS-level collegiate athletics revolved around
financial inequality, increasing professionalization, governance and leadership challenges, and
the erosion of tradition and values.
Campus Executives
Campus Executives: Values
This section reports the analysis of 41 respondents who were campus executives across
all ten FBS conferences. This group identified the top three value factors as community, emotion,
and impact, while the lowest-rated factors were travel, money, and perks.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 110
Community emerged as the highest value factor, which highlighted the importance of
athletics in fostering a sense of unity and belonging within and across campus divisions.
Athletics is often called “the front porch” of the university because it serves as a gateway for
engagement with students, alums, and the broader community. The “Flutie Effect” supports this
concept, which refers to increased college applications and galvanization of the community
following high-profile athletic success (Mixon & Treviño, 2005). These campus executives
recognized that a strong athletics program could enhance the university’s visibility, reputation,
and community engagement.
This emphasis on community for the institution of higher learning is tied to the
educational principles of ancient Greek civilization, where the integration of mind and body was
central to the educational system. The Greeks believed in developing intellectual and physical
capabilities, a philosophy resonating with athletics’ traditional role in traditional American higher
education. Just as Greek athletes competed in the ancient Olympics to demonstrate physical
excellence, collegiate athletics has provided a platform for showcasing and enhancing the
holistic development of students.
Emotion, the second-highest value factor, underscored the powerful feelings associated
with athletic events. The thrill of victory and the shared experiences of fans and supporters
contributed to a vibrant campus culture. These emotional connections could enhance loyalty and
engagement among all university stakeholders (Fredrickson, 2001).
Impact, the third-highest value factor, reflected the desire to make a positive difference
through athletics. Campus executives valued the role of sports in promoting student
development, academic success, and community service as aligned with the broader mission of
higher education to foster holistic growth and societal contribution (Astin, 1984). The connection

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 111
between athletics and academic success in modern universities mirrors the Greek ideal of arete,
or excellence, where physical and intellectual achievements are pursued together.
Conversely, the minimal emphasis on travel indicated a preference for local engagement
over extensive travel. In summary, the Campus Executives prioritized community, emotion, and
impact, which reflected their appreciation for athletics’ unifying role, the emotional connections
it fosters, and its positive societal impact.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 112
Figure 18
Campus Executives: Value Rating Factor
Figure 19
Campus Executives: Most Valuable Experience

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 113
The analysis of the open-ended survey responses to “What is your most valuable moment
from throughout your experience in your FBS stakeholder role?” revealed that the most
cherished moments for the Campus Executives revolved around the themes of people,
community, winning, and academics.
The theme of people appeared in 20% of the responses. These stakeholders frequently
emphasized the significance of relationships and camaraderie. A vice president from the Big 12
shared, “My experience as a collegiate athlete will always hold some of my fondest memories. It
enabled me to grow as a man, and I still hold fond relationships with many of my former
teammates.” A vice president from the SBC valued “connecting with donors and fans who love
the university as much as I do and do all they can to help college athletes,” which underscored
the importance of interpersonal connections and the sense of community fostered through shared
experiences. A development officer from the Pac-12 noted the challenge of “raising four head
coaching endowments to help secure the financial future of our department all took a lot of work
and internal collaboration to make happen, which was very fulfilling.”
The theme of community was the most mentioned and constituted 20% of the responses,
which reflected the importance of bringing people together. An assistant or associate vice
president from the MWC remembered “seeing the community come together to support the
university in 2018 for the purchase of the stadium site. It made me proud to be affiliated with the
university and more motivated to do a good job.” An MWC vice president reminisced about “the
entire university community coming together to watch our team compete at the highest level was
very exciting. The competition united everyone. We all now have a shared, thrilling, and positive
experience that we will remember forever.” These responses illustrated how these campus
executives valued the sense of unity and collective effort within their communities.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 114
Another assistant or associate vice president serving an FBS institution shared,
We have an end-of-the-year celebration of athletes’ accomplishments on and off the field.
It is great to see these students celebrated for their academic, social, and athletic
achievements. The students celebrating their academic accomplishments and the seniors
saying goodbye to their teams was incredibly meaningful and emotional. It made me feel
proud of what we are accomplishing with our athletes.
The theme of winning, comprising 13% of the responses, reflected the thrill associated
with competitive success. A vice president from the SEC recounted an experience of “winning a
national championship in football and knowing its impact on future enrollment and donations.”
This response encapsulated the exhilaration and pride brought by competitive triumphs that
resonated deeply with these campus executives who invested their time, efforts, and passion into
supporting their teams. A provost from the SBC reflected,
I have been involved with D1 athletics dating back to helping with recruiting as a junior
faculty member. Watching these young men and women grow, develop, and mature into
responsible graduates and citizens of society is especially satisfying. They are often
labeled as privileged, but the discipline and hard work required to convert talent into
winning outcomes are often overlooked. I love to see that prevail over the preconceived
bias held against many athletes. One of my favorite moments was when my son and I
were the guests of the team when they traveled to Navy. Our starting QB was a good
student in my college for whom I had written letters of reference. He lit up Navy that day
with an MVP performance. He autographed his jersey from that game, and the AD
presented it to my son as a gift for my support of athletics. A great memory!

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 115
The theme of academics, representing 13% of the responses, highlighted the importance
of access to higher education and academic achievements. Many stakeholders expressed
gratitude for the educational opportunities that allowed them to succeed. A campus executive
from the MWC remembered “graduation, having a front-row seat to students realizing their
strengths and goals,” which emphasized education’s transformative power. This appreciation for
academic success underscored the value placed on holistic development that the campus
executives helped foster in their roles.
Emotion was woven throughout many responses as the stakeholders expressed pride and
joy in their work, an affinity for their institutions, and a deep love for the game. These emotional
connections underpinned many experiences described with added depth and personal
significance to the shared moments.
In conclusion, the survey responses revealed that the most valuable moments for the FBS
stakeholders in the Campus Executives were deeply rooted in relationships, community,
competitive success, and academic achievements.
Figure 20
Campus Executives: What is Your WHY?

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 116
An analysis of the Campus Executive’s open-ended survey responses to “What is your
WHY? What motivates you in your role?” revealed that the key motivators were impact,
academics, and community, while perks, exclusivity, and travel were the least mentioned.
Impact emerged as the top motivator in 35% of the responses. The campus executives
frequently emphasized the importance of making a positive difference in the lives of students and
the broader community. An MWC vice president noted, “I was motivated to create and build
initiatives and programs that would have a lasting impact for the campus, the community, and
most importantly for students.” Another campus executive from the MWC shared the joy of
“impacting lives that will transcend families and generations.” These responses aligned with
stakeholder value theory’s emphasis on creating value for all stakeholders and DT’s focus on
empathy and understanding user needs. A vice president from the SBC stated the motivation of
“serving an institution that truly changes the lives and future outlook for its students. I am an
alumna, so I have benefited greatly from professionals who sat where I sit today.”
Academics, constituting at least 25% of the responses, reflected the belief in education as
a transformative force and the importance of higher education. A vice president from the SEC
shared, “Education is the great equalizer for all students and their future.” These responses
demonstrated a commitment to leveraging the power of education to create opportunities and
foster growth. A vice president from the MAC added, “I want to live in a world where people
value education and imagine each other and the world more complexly. Education and curiosity
are the future of the US.” One assistant or associate vice president emphasized,
Seeing students graduate and thrive in their college experience motivates my continued
collaboration. Our “going pro” program focuses on life after college and creates a focus

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 117
on careers after college (not just going pro in athletics but going pro as accountants,
managers, entrepreneurs, etc.).
Community, comprising at least 20% of the responses, focused on fostering a supportive
and cohesive environment. One vice president from C-USA shared valuing “the opportunity to
enhance the lives of all students, not just athletes.” This statement illustrated how these campus
executives valued the holistic development and success of students and the broader community.
Emotion was also a notable theme in at least 10% of the responses. The respondents
expressed pride and a deep affinity for their institutions. A Big-12 vice president shared, “As a
former college athlete, I understand the critical importance of the collegiate athletic experience,
as well as being able to see the value of a university’s athletic department as the ‘front porch’ of
a university.”
Leadership was mentioned by at least 8% of respondents, which emphasized the role of
leadership in their motivation. A vice president from the SEC stated, “I love my role in executive
leadership and how I can play a role in helping the university meet its strategic priorities.” An
assistant or associate vice president from the Pac-12 expressed the desire “to develop a national
program that is considered ‘best practice’ by others in the industry.”
In conclusion, the survey responses from the Campus Executives revealed that their
primary motivators were making a positive impact, supporting education, and fostering a strong
community. These themes aligned with stakeholder value theory and DT principles by
highlighting the holistic and mission-driven nature of their roles. These sentiments encapsulated
the profound and multifaceted value these stakeholders sought to create by serving as campus
executives on FBS university campuses.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 118
Campus Executives: Modern-Day Changes
For the Campus Executives, the mean score for NIL was 33, with 52 respondents
indicating a somewhat negative impact on their overall experience. This finding suggested that
while NIL was an important issue, it was perceived somewhat negatively by this specific group
of stakeholders. One retired campus executive from the MWC stated, “Loyalty to an institution is
being replaced by chasing the money for a growing number of athletes. The Transfer Portal is too
easy.” An assistant or associate vice president commented, “NIL is a good idea, but there need to
be boundaries and caps placed on deals. NIL is creating a semi-pro field without salary caps and
boundaries other professional programs provide.” A vice president from the SEC expressed,
“Collegiate athletics is becoming more ‘me’ focused and less team focused. I am concerned that
over time, this will hurt fan loyalty.” One respondent who served as a vice president in the AAC
shared, “In my previous role (recently) experience in athletics, donors are feeling fatigued and
frustrated by NIL, conference realignment, and Transfer Portal.”
Conference realignment, with a mean score of 31 and 54 respondents, fell into the
somewhat negative range. This score implied that the campus executives found conference
realignment to have a slightly more pronounced negative impact. One campus executive who
served as an assistant or associate vice president mentioned, “Conference realignments are only
focused on TV deals that benefit a few institutions. Realignment has destroyed classic rivalries
and created larger geographic areas requiring more extensive travel, which is expensive and has
negative environmental consequences.” A campus development executive remarked, “The failure
to preserve the Pac-12 strikes me as the ultimate manifestation of a highly dysfunctional
marketplace.”
Moreover, a vice president from the MAC commented,

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 119
Athletes only go for the money now; look at how many opt out of playing bowl games.
Realignment has destroyed classic rivalries. Names are nonsensical––the Big 12 doesn’t
have 12 teams. Larger geographic areas require more extensive travel-expensive and
negative environmental consequences. The whole thing has changed very much for the
worse.
The Transfer Portal’s mean score of 32 and 51 respondents also indicated a somewhat
negative impact on the respondents’ overall experience. Like NIL, this group did not view the
Transfer Portal positively due to concerns about its implications. One campus executive serving
in the MAC highlighted, “The Transfer Portal has gotten out of hand. Universities put many
resources into college athletes for them to leave the institution.” Another campus executive
shared, “I am particularly concerned with the long-term negative impacts of repeated transfers to
college athletes. Most of them will not go pro, but do they lose the benefit of their education
chasing a dream?” An SEC campus executive commented, “Collegiate athletics is moving to a
form that will not allow universities to continue supporting all athletic programs.”
A provost from an SBC institution shared,
The majority of student-athletes remain amateurs, but NIL, the Transfer Portal, and
conference realignment are serious disruptions aimed only at the quasi-professional
athletes. These factors have negatively impacted the 80–90% of collegiate athletes who
will not compete at the professional level.
The data revealed that conference realignment was the most negatively impactful issue
among the Campus Executives. NIL and the Transfer Portal were also perceived negatively, with
concerns about loyalty, money, and the overall integrity of the game. This analysis underscored

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 120
the varying levels of concern and interest in these topics among the campus executives and
highlighted areas that could need attention to improve their experiences.
Table 8
Campus Executives: Frequency of Thoughts of Departure
Frequency % Count
Never 22% 6
Rarely 37% 10
Sometimes 33% 9
Often 7% 2
Always 0% 0
Total 100% 27
Table 9
Campus Executives: Factors of Thoughts of Departure
Factors % Count
Internal pressure (e.g., finances and expectations) 17.54% 10
Mental health/burnout 17.54% 10
Work/life balance 17.54% 10
NIL 10.53% 6
Transfer Portal 7.02% 4
Potential changes to athlete employment status 7.02% 4
External pressure (e.g., litigation and competitiveness) 7.02% 4

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 121
Better compensation elsewhere 7.02% 4
Conference realignment 5.26% 3
Other 3.51% 2
Total 100% 57
Figure 21
Campus Executives: Concerns
The open-ended survey responses from the Campus Executives to “What concerns you
about the future of FBS-level collegiate athletics?” revealed significant concerns across several
key themes: professionalization, the erosion of core values and academic connection, inequality
and resource distribution, and governance challenges.
Professionalization emerged as a primary concern in approximately 40% of responses.
These campus executives worried about collegiate athletics becoming a minor league for
professional sports, driven by NIL deals and the Transfer Portal. One MWC vice president noted,
“It is becoming another form of a pro sport––a minor league for the NFL but with many of the

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 122
trappings of a major league of its own.” Another MWC executive echoed, “NIL is making
collegiate athletics like professional athletics. I believe in the ‘student’ part of the equation.” A
vice president from the MAC expressed,
Realignment will lead to fewer divisions and will eventually operate more like the NFL––
with just two divisions. TV deals will be more important than regional competitions. This
will continue to lead to longer travel and schedules for student-athletes, and they will
continue to be considered athletes first instead of students.
This shift toward a professional model threatened the traditional values of collegiate athletics,
with a greater focus on financial gain and professional prospects.
The erosion of core values and academic connection was highlighted in approximately
35% of the responses. The respondents voiced concerns about the diminishing link between
athletics and academics. A vice-chancellor from the Pac-12 shared, “The legitimacy of the tie to
academics. It’s all about revenue, and we are losing the valid connection to the school mission.
Football should just spin out of schools/colleges and disconnect if it were possible/feasible.”
Another shared, “I worry that we are too focused on potential future professional athletes at the
expense of those without a career path in professional sports.” These responses reflected the fear
that increasing focus on revenue and professional opportunities was undermining the educational
values of collegiate athletics.
Inequality and resource distribution were mentioned in 30% of the responses. The
campus executives highlighted the growing gap between well-funded programs and smaller
institutions. One respondent who served as an assistant or associate vice president in the Pac-12
shared concerns about “the costs associated with participation by universities. There is a limit to
what donors will fund in NIL. This is an every-year commitment. This will not continue

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 123
indefinitely.” A campus executive from the MWC emphasized the struggle of having the “ability
to compete against larger, more lucrative schools [and] changing the ‘rules’ without considering
impacts on all schools.” These responses underscored concerns that financial disparities would
widen and negatively impact smaller schools and their athletic programs.
Governance challenges were another significant theme mentioned in 25% of the
responses. The respondents emphasized effective governance and leadership and desired
proactive adaptation to rapid changes. A C-USA vice president shared,
NIL, Transfer Portal, and realignment have made sports ‘quasi-professional’ and are
rapidly destroying the connection between sports and the university. There is little loyalty
or affinity for the most talented athletes, who chase the dollar and fail to connect with the
students and alumni supporting them.
A Big-12 vice president noted “the rapid pace of change combined with increased volatility.”
This response reflected a call for stronger governance structures to manage the evolving
landscape of collegiate athletics.
Other concerns included the impact on community and tradition, as highlighted by at
least 20% of the respondents. These campus executives feared that the changing landscape would
negatively affect the sense of community and tradition central to collegiate athletics. A vice
president from the AAC remarked, “The networks have made it all about chasing resources, and
it is not sustainable, particularly when longstanding rivalries are dismantled.” This perceived
shift from community-oriented values to a more commercial approach was seen as detrimental to
the relationship between athletics and the larger campus community.
In conclusion, the survey responses from the Campus Executives revealed that the
primary concerns for the future of FBS-level collegiate athletics revolved around

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 124
professionalization, the erosion of core values and academic connections, inequality and resource
distribution, and governance challenges. Despite these concerns, there was hope that proactive
governance and a recommitment to core values could address these challenges and ensure
collegiate athletics’ continued success and integrity.
Faculty
Faculty: Value
This section analyzes responses from 14 faculty across all 10 FBS conferences. This
group identified leadership, academics, and impact as the top three value factors, while money,
travel, and exclusivity were the lowest-rated factors.
Leadership emerged as the highest value factor, which emphasized the importance of
developing leadership skills in college athletes. The faculty recognized that athletics fosters
discipline, resilience, and teamwork, which are valuable on and off the field (Ewing, 1997).
Moreover, academics, the second-highest value factor, underscored the faculty’s priority on
educational achievements despite demanding athletic schedules and travel requirements. These
faculty members worked closely with college athletes to support their academic progress by
providing additional tutoring, flexible office hours, and tailored educational programs. Their
commitment reflected the integration of athletics and academics, a principle dating back to
ancient Greek education, which emphasized the development of both mind and body (Knight
Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2010). The faculty often served as mentors and
advisors to effectively guide the athletes in balancing their academic and athletic responsibilities.
Impact, the third-highest value factor, highlighted the faculty’s commitment to making a
positive difference in the lives of college athletes. These faculty members aimed to foster
personal growth, academic success, and community engagement, as aligned with the broader

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 125
mission of higher education to contribute to societal improvement (Astin, 1984). Through their
interactions, the faculty sought to inspire a sense of purpose and direction by encouraging these
athletes to use their platforms to make meaningful contributions within and outside the
university.
The minimal emphasis on money indicated that financial incentives were not primary
motivators. Concerns about increased travel due to conference realignment reflected the impact
on students’ academic performance and well-being. Research has indicated that extensive travel
can disrupt academic schedules and lead to stress and fatigue that affect college athletes’
academic performance (Ridpath, 2018). Hence, the faculty advocated for policies to balance
athletic commitments with educational priorities to ensure college athletes’ academic success.
The relationship between campus faculty and current athletes is vital for the holistic
development of college athletes. Faculty play a crucial role in supporting athletes through
rigorous academic programs while understanding the unique challenges these students face due
to their sports commitments. This partnership is essential in helping college athletes achieve a
balance that promotes academic excellence and athletic performance.
The Faculty prioritized leadership, academics, and impact, which reflected their
commitment to developing well-rounded college athletes. These priorities highlighted the
integration of athletics and academics, while concerns about increased travel emphasized the
need for balance in college athletes’ commitments. The collaborative relationship between the
faculty and athletes fostered an environment where college athletes could thrive academically
and athletically.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 126
Figure 22
Faculty: Value Factors
Figure 23
Faculty: Most Valuable Experience

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 127
The analysis of open-ended survey responses to “What is your most valuable moment
from throughout your experience in your FBS stakeholder role?” revealed that the most
cherished moments for the Faculty revolved around the themes of academics, winning, and
empowerment.
The theme of academics was prominent in 43% of the responses. A faculty member from
the SBC cherished “just seeing the smiles on the faces of students and their families as they
receive that degree.” A faculty member from the MWC highlighted “watching students graduate
and go on to have successful careers and families,” which underscored the importance of
academic milestones and the transformative impact of education. Faculty members took great
pride in seeing their students succeed academically and pursue fulfilling careers.
The theme of winning, which constituted 29% of the responses, reflected the thrill and
excitement associated with athletic success. A faculty member noted,
I get a thrill whenever one of our teams, soccer, football, basketball, whether men or
women, win––especially this year when Men’s Soccer and Women’s Soccer won the
MAC. I love to see my students succeed. Of course, the highlight of my many years as
the clock operator has been the undefeated season in football that led to the Cotton Bowl.
This narrative illustrated how the faculty members valued their teams’ victories and the pride
these successes brought to their institutions.
The theme of empowerment, which represented 14% of the responses, highlighted the
importance of supporting college athletes in leveraging their influence to create organizational
change. One SEC faculty member shared motivation for“empowering college athletes to
leverage the incredible power they have to seek organizational change,” which emphasized the
role the faculty could play in guiding college athletes to use their platforms for broader societal

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 128
impact. This appreciation for empowerment underscored the value placed on holistic
development and leadership, which the faculty supported through their mentorship and advocacy.
In conclusion, the survey responses revealed that the most valuable moments for FBS
Faculty were deeply rooted in academic achievements, athletic successes, and empowering
college athletes. These themes, aligning with stakeholder value theory and DT principles,
highlight the holistic and impactful nature of their roles.
Figure 24
Faculty: What is Your WHY?
An analysis of the Faculty’s open-ended survey responses to “What is your WHY? What
motivates you in your role?” revealed that the key motivators were impact, academics, and
people, while perks, exclusivity, and travel were the least mentioned.
Impact emerged as the top motivator in 33% of the responses. The faculty members
frequently emphasized the importance of making a positive difference in the lives of college
athletes. One faculty member from the MWC valued “making a difference in people’s lives the

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 129
way people at my college made a difference in mine.” A faculty member from the SEC shared
the desire
to make a positive impact on college athletes during an incredibly formative time in their
life; to be an ally that promotes athlete welfare and values an individual for identifying
traits beyond that of their athletic ability; to tell them they’re great, but they can be even
more, tapping into the innate competitiveness of an athlete to motivate them to pursue
greatness in all walks of their life, not just athletics.
Another faculty member from the SEC expressed an affinity for “interesting issues and working
with very dedicated staff members in athletics who work hard for the benefit of students.”
Academics, constituting 25% of responses, reflected the belief in education as a
transformative force and the importance of higher education. One Big Ten faculty member
shared,
I strongly believe in the quote from the Greek philosopher Diogenes: “The foundation of
every nation lies in the education of its youth.” Being part of the growth of a college
athlete is both a joy and a responsibility that I take seriously and treasure.
People, comprising 17% of responses, reflected the importance of relationships and
camaraderie. A respondent from the MAC noted,
I am involved with the Athletics Department because a great deal of my students are
athletes. I like to see them and like to see them succeed. I really enjoy the camaraderie
and working with people in the Athletics Department.
These responses illustrated how the faculty valued the relationships they built within the athletic
environment, which aligned with DT’s emphasis on creating meaningful user relationships and
experiences.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 130
Emotion was also a notable theme in at least 15% of the responses. The respondents
expressed pride and a deep affinity for their institutions. A respondent shared about a “love of the
game and my university––care for our athletes.”
In conclusion, the survey responses from the Faculty revealed the primary motivators of
making a positive impact, supporting education, and fostering meaningful relationships. A FAR
from the MAC stated, “Athletics has a tendency to be siloed away from the rest of the university.
One of the main objectives of my role is to continue building relationships and bridges
throughout the campus with athletics.”
Faculty: Modern-Day Changes
For the Faculty, the mean score for NIL was 40, with 12 respondents indicating a
somewhat negative to neutral impact on their overall experience. Hence, while NIL was an
important issue, this stakeholder group perceived it with mixed feelings. A faculty member from
the SEC stated,
College athletes are underrepresented, even compared to the traditional student body. The
restoration of inalienable rights to pursue compensation based on one’s name, image, and
likeness or freely transfer institutions is a step in the right direction of athlete autonomy.
These are good things that are long overdue.
Another MWC member commented, “We have completely devalued a college education and are
trying to create legislation for the 1% rather than for the other 99%.”
Conference realignment, with a mean score of 40 and 11 respondents, also fell into the
somewhat negative to neutral range. This score implied that the faculty found conference
realignment to have a mixed impact. Another faculty member observed that the “kids should not
have to travel so far and have monetary distractions.”

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 131
In comparison, the Transfer Portal, with a mean score of 38 and 12 respondents, indicated
a somewhat less negative impact on the respondents’ overall experience. Like NIL, the Transfer
Portal was not viewed entirely positively due to concerns about its implications. One current
faculty member from the MAC highlighted,
There is not much NIL for our athletes. However, I am in favor of athletes having that
right. I am also in favor of athletes being able to transfer to do what is best for each of
them. However, I do see the statistics on athletes not landing anywhere after going into
the Transfer Portal and the impact on education for any transfer student.
In summary, the data revealed that NIL and conference realignment produced somewhat
negative to neutral impacts among the Faculty. The Transfer Portal was perceived more
negatively, with concerns about loyalty, education, and the overall experience of college athletes.
This analysis underscored the faculty’s varying levels of concern and interest and highlighted
areas needing attention to improve their experiences.
Table 10
Faculty: Frequency of Thoughts of Departure
Frequency % Count
Never 50% 6
Rarely 33% 4
Sometimes 17% 2
Often 0% 0
Always 0% 0
Total 100% 12

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 132
Table 11
Faculty: Thoughts of Departure Factors
Factors % Count
Transfer Portal 18.75% 3
NIL 18.75% 3
Other 12.50% 2
Conference realignment 12.50% 2
Work/life balance 12.50% 2
Potential changes to athlete employment status 6.25% 1
Internal pressure (e.g., finances and expectations) 6.25% 1
Better compensation elsewhere 6.25% 1
Mental health/burnout 6.25% 1
External pressure (e.g., litigation and competitiveness) 0.00% 0
Total 100% 16
Figure 25
Faculty: Concerns

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 133
The open-ended survey responses from the Faculty to “What concerns you about the
future of FBS-level collegiate athletics?” revealed several key themes: professionalization,
inequality and resource distribution, the erosion of academic values, mental health concerns, and
governance challenges.
Professionalization was a significant concern mentioned in 45% of the responses. Faculty
members worried that collegiate athletics was becoming too like professional sports, which
would undermine its foundational values. One faculty member noted, “Football is now on the
professional level. The Power 5 is all that is important in football. They will break away from the
NCAA, and the mid-level conferences like the MAC will be left in the dust.” Another added,
“The Power 5 will become a minor league for the NFL, making the Group of 5 a Division II
level.” These responses reflected a fear that increasing professionalization would marginalize
smaller programs and shift focus away from education.
Inequality and resource distribution were highlighted in approximately 35% of the
responses. Faculty expressed concerns about the widening gap between well-funded programs
and those with fewer resources. One respondent from the Pac-12 stated, “The rich will get richer.
The top 40–50 will take all the revenues and money and leave nothing for anyone else.”
The erosion of academic values appeared in 30% of the responses. Faculty members were
concerned that the increasing focus on money and athletics would undermine the academic
mission of universities. One Big Ten faculty member shared,
Two things: (1) the increasing focus on money as a replacement for education and (2) the
“interference” of outside policy-/decision-makers who seem to not really understand the
value of S-A and that the S comes before the A, for example, policymakers to start with.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 134
To me, the collegiate model died when the U.S. Olympics started using pros on its teams.
We will never see the “Miracle on Ice” again.
Mental health concerns were cited in 25% of the responses. Faculty members highlighted
potential mental health strains on college athletes due to increased pressures and expectations.
One respondent from the SEC noted,
University athletic programs don’t have the resources and preparation to handle the
mental health strains due to conference realignment. The stresses of travel, being away
from friends and family, and balancing athletic and academic expectations will push
athletes to breaking points.
Governance challenges were mentioned in 20% of responses. The faculty expressed the
need for better governance and leadership to manage the evolving landscape of collegiate
athletics. One SEC respondent shared concerns about
the NCAA receiving an antitrust exception, Congressional oversight of NIL, the
continued de-emphasis on academic success and educational attainment, the lack of
readily available mental health resources at NCAA member institutions . . . so essentially,
the continued maintenance of what the NCAA is and has been.
In conclusion, the survey responses from the Faculty revealed that their primary concerns
for the future of FBS-level collegiate athletics revolved around professionalization, inequality
and resource distribution, the erosion of academic values, mental health concerns, and
governance challenges.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 135
Areas of Congruity
Value Factors: People, Impact, and Emotion
This section overviews the top value factors identified by the 490 respondents to the
survey, who comprised all stakeholder groups. The three highest-rated value factors were people,
impact, and emotion (PIE).
The emphasis on people underscored the importance of human relationships, which
indicated that stakeholders across all groups valued meaningful connections and interactions
across their organizations. This emphasis aligned with Freeman’s (2010) stakeholder value
theory, which posits that creating value for all stakeholders involves fostering positive ad
authentic human relationships and a sense of community (Freeman, 1984). Impact, another top
value factor, highlighted the respondents’ commitment to making a positive difference in the
lives of college athletes, students, and the broader stakeholder community, which reinforced the
educational and developmental mission of collegiate athletics (Astin, 1984). Emotion, the thirdhighest factor, captured the significance of the emotional experiences tied to participation, such
as the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat, and the deep fulfillment of working together to
achieve a goal that is larger than oneself. These emotional factors enhanced engagement and
loyalty through intrinsic motivation (Fredrickson, 2001).
In contrast, the lower ratings for perks, exclusivity, and money suggested that these
factors were less important in creating value for the respondents. The minimal emphasis on perks
indicated a preference for intrinsic motivators over tangible rewards (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The
low importance of exclusivity reflected a desire for inclusive environments rather than elitist
structures (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Finally, the low valuation of money underscored that financial
incentives were not primary drivers for these stakeholders, whose responses indicated that they

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 136
valued the more intrinsic aspects of their roles. Notably, these data did not include “The Missing
Voice” of college athletes.
In summary, the collective preferences of all respondents highlighted the importance of
PIE: focusing on people and building meaningful relationships, making a positive impact on the
students and communities served, and the emotional fulfillment from team and individual
achievement, pivotal moments, and other meaningful experiences.
Figure 26
Top Stakeholder Value Factors

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 137
Table 12
All Respondents: Thoughts of Departure
Frequency % Count
Never 16% 55
Rarely 33% 112
Sometimes 32% 110
Often 16% 55
Always 3% 12
Total 100% 344
Table 13
All Respondents: Thoughts of Departure Factors
Factors % Count
Work/life balance 16.71% 143
NIL 13.55% 116
Mental health/burnout 13.20% 113
Transfer Portal 10.86% 93
Better compensation elsewhere 9.81% 84
Internal pressure (e.g., finances and expectations) 9.11% 78
Potential changes to athlete employment status 8.88% 76
Conference realignment 8.06% 69
Other 4.91% 42
External pressure (e.g., litigation and competitiveness) 4.91% 42

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 138
Total 100% 856
Most Valuable Experiences
The analysis of the MVEs of various stakeholder groups in collegiate athletics revealed
significant areas of congruity and consensus. This narrative examines the dominant themes
identified by these stakeholders while emphasizing the collective values of PIE as central to their
cherished moments to draw clear lines of comparison between the groups.
The predominant MVE factors among the AAs’ were people, winning, and impact. This
group frequently highlighted the importance of relationships and camaraderie developed through
their roles and emphasized experiences such as hiring college athletes as interns, celebrating
championship victories, and witnessing college athletes’ growth and successes. Moreover, the
Donors and Football Season Ticket Holders similarly strongly emphasized people, impact,
teamwork, winning, and academics. The theme of people appeared prominently, with many
respondents citing the joy of connecting with others and witnessing collective efforts leading to
the success and prominence of the institution.
The Football Alums and Letterwinners also highlighted people, teamwork, winning, and
academics as their most cherished experiences. The theme of people stood out, with the alums
frequently mentioning the lasting relationships and sense of community fostered through their
athletic participation. Furthermore, the Campus Executives valued people, community, winning,
and academics, with the theme of people as a critical component. This group often reflected on
the communal and supportive environment created through collegiate athletics. Finally, the
Faculty MVEs revolved around academics, winning, and empowerment, with commencement

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 139
and degree completion standing out prominently. Faculty frequently highlighted moments of
empowerment of college athletes.
The AAs, Donors and Football Season Ticket Holders, Football Alums and Letterwinners,
and Campus Executives emphasized people as a central element of their MVEs. This shared
emphasis highlighted the importance of fostering strong, supportive relationships across different
roles within collegiate athletics. Impact was another common theme noted by the AAs, Campus
Executives, and Faculty. Focusing on making meaningful differences through educational
achievements and community-building efforts was a unifying factor that underscored the
importance of positive, tangible outcomes in collegiate athletics. Moreover, emotion, while not
as universally highlighted as people and impact, was still crucial, especially for the Donors and
Football Season Ticket Holders and Campus Executives. The emotional connections and shared
experiences of victories, community support, and personal growth contributed significantly to
the overall value perceived by these stakeholders.
Hence, incorporating the PIE Approach to Stakeholder Value in Higher Education into
stakeholders’ thought processes and approaches to work and engagement can enhance overall
satisfaction and loyalty. Programs can build a more inclusive and supportive environment by
focusing on strong relationships, meaningful impact, and deeply valuable emotional connectivity.
WHY?
The analysis of stakeholder motivations in collegiate athletics, derived from “What is
your WHY? What motivates you in your role?” revealed significant congruity and consensus
across different groups. The AAs identified impact, people, and community as the primary WHY
motivators. Impact emerged as the top motivator, as mentioned in 37% of responses, with AAs
highlighting their desire to make a positive difference in the lives of college athletes. Similarly,

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 140
the Donors and Football Season Ticket Holders prioritized people, impact, and community as the
key WHY motivators, with people emerging as the top motivator at 24%. Their motivation was
deeply rooted in personal connections and the collective experiences they shared through their
vested interest in collegiate athletics.
The Football Alums and Letterwinners placed people, pride, and teamwork as the primary
WHY motivators, with people being the top motivator at 28%. These alums highlighted the
importance of relationships and shared experiences. This motivation reflected their enduring
bonds and pride as athletes and continued involvement in the athletic department community.
Moreover, the Campus Executives identified impact, academics, and community as the main
WHY motivators, with impact being the top motivator at 35%. This group emphasized making a
positive difference in the lives of students and the broader community.
The Faculty highlighted impact, academics, and people as the key WHY motivators, with
impact being the top motivator at 33%. The emphasis on academics, constituting 25% of the
responses, reflected the belief in education as a transformative force and the importance of
higher education. The faculty members also valued people and emphasized the relationships and
connections formed with students.
Notably, the consistent presence of people and impact as the primary WHY motivators
across all stakeholder groups indicated a profound consensus on the core values driving
engagement with collegiate athletics. Hence, programs that foster strong relationships, create
significant community impacts, and evoke emotional connections will likely be more successful
and sustainable. The alignment of motivations around people and impact suggests that efforts to
enhance cross-stakeholder relationships and make meaningful contributions to the community
will be particularly effective.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 141
Using the PIE Approach to Stakeholder Value in Higher Education, stakeholders can
enhance value and satisfaction, foster loyalty, and contribute toward a sustainable future. As a
stakeholder explained, “Collegiate athletics is not just about winning games; it is about changing
lives and building a better community for all.”
Departure Thoughts and Factors
The analysis of responses to “Have you ever thought about departing your FBS
stakeholder role?” revealed varied levels of departure contemplation among different stakeholder
groups, each influenced by unique concerns. This study compared these thoughts and identified
the primary reasons behind them to provide a human touch by highlighting the personal and
emotional aspects driving these decisions.
Among the AAs, frequent thoughts of departure were notable, with 40% sometimes, 19%
often, and 4% always contemplating leaving their roles. These results indicated that 63% of FBS
AAs frequently thought about departing their role––the highest percentage of all stakeholder
groups and significantly higher than the national average, per McKinsey. The main reasons that
spurred these thoughts were a desire for a more reasonable work-life balance, concerns about
mental health/burnout, and opportunities for better compensation elsewhere, usually in a less
stressful environment.
The Donors and Football Season Ticket Holders also expressed concerns, though
thoughts of departure (i.e., stopping support through donations and ticket purchases) were less
frequent. Only 22% never considered leaving, while 41% rarely and 19% sometimes did. Their
primary concerns were the Transfer Portal (21%), NIL (20%), and conference realignment
(18%). These stakeholders were deeply invested in the tradition and community of collegiate

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 142
athletics, so changes that disrupted these values led to some contemplation of ending their
support.
The Campus Executives showed similar patterns, with 37% rarely and 33% sometimes
considering departure. The main concerns were internal pressures, mental health/burnout, and
work-life balance. This group’s concerns highlighted the need for strategic leadership and clear
governance to navigate the evolving landscape of FBS athletics.
The Faculty displayed the lowest contemplation rates, with 50% never considering
departure and 33% rarely. Faculty concerns included the Transfer Portal and NIL, which
highlighted structural changes in collegiate athletics as their primary issues. Faculty members
were concerned with maintaining their institutions’ academic integrity and educational mission,
so they feared that professionalization could undermine the academy’s core values.
The recommendations section contains ideas for solutions, with this study serving as a
prototype for future strategies. The test phase involved sharing the study with industry leaders for
feedback and implementation. Maintaining collegiate athletics’ integrity and traditional values
amid evolving challenges requires balancing professional demands with personal well-being,
which can contribute to stakeholder satisfaction and retention. Highlighting the voices of these
stakeholders, especially current athletes, can foster a more authentic and human-centered
approach to reforming and sustaining the collegiate athletics system.
With a DT approach, hope exists for a future solution that creates more balance for AAs.
By understanding and addressing their concerns (e.g., work-life balance and mental health) and
fostering a more supportive and sustainable environment, the industry can move toward a more
balanced and fulfilling experience for all involved. Therefore, this study offers a pathway to

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 143
achieve this balance through empathy, clarity, ideation, prototyping, and testing—critical DT
principles that lead to innovative and effective solutions.
Concerns
The analysis of open-ended survey responses to “What concerns you about the future of
FBS collegiate athletics?” revealed several significant themes across different stakeholder
groups: financial sustainability and inequality, professionalization, governance and leadership
challenges, and the erosion of traditional values and community. These themes highlighted
shared worries and unique perspectives from the various groups.
The AAs primarily focused on financial sustainability, with approximately 45% of
responses pointing to the unsustainable nature of current revenue models. This concern was
mirrored by the Donors and Football Season Ticket Holders, which also highlighted financial
inequality as a significant issue. These stakeholders worried about the widening gap between
resourceful P5 schools and G5 programs and feared it could undermine the competitiveness and
viability of the overall ecosystem. “The big get bigger and mid-size conferences won’t have the
opportunity to get much-needed non-conference dollars,” one respondent noted. Similarly, the
Football Alums and Letterwinners expressed deep concern over financial disparities, with
approximately 35% highlighting the widening program gap. This consensus across groups
underscored a shared anxiety about the economic future of FBS athletics.
Professionalization was another significant concern for all groups. The AAs worried that
increasing professionalization could erode collegiate athletics’ core educational mission and
values. This sentiment was echoed by the Donors and Football Season Ticket Holders, who felt
that professionalization detracted from the amateur ethos. “It is becoming a money game and not
about the actual game or competition,” one donor remarked. The Football Alums and

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 144
Letterwinners also feared that the resemblance to professional sports would undermine the
traditional collegiate athletics experience. The Campus Executives shared this concern and noted
that professionalization threatened to disconnect athletics from academic missions. The Faculty
was particularly vocal about this issue, with approximately 45% expressing that collegiate
athletics is becoming too similar to professional sports, which could potentially undermine its
foundational values. A faculty member stated, “The legitimacy of the tie to academics is being
lost. It is all about revenue.”
Governance and leadership challenges were frequently mentioned, with many
respondents across groups expressing frustration over the NCAA’s ability to manage the evolving
landscape. The AAs pointed to the uncertainty and lack of clear direction, while the Donors and
Season Ticket Holders highlighted the need for stronger oversight, particularly with NIL and the
Transfer Portal. The Football Alums and Letterwinners, Campus Executives, and Faculty shared
similar concerns about the NCAA’s effectiveness. One administrator noted, “The NCAA is
creating a new model based on the temperature of the day.” This statement reflected a
widespread dissatisfaction with current governance.
The erosion of traditional values and community was another shared concern. The AAs
and Donors and Season Ticket Holder lamented the loss of regional rivalries and the impact of
conference realignment. “It has become a money grab. Greed and ‘self-first’ is the order of this
era,” a donor stated. The Football Alums and Letterwinners emphasized the importance of
tradition and expressed sadness over the loss of longstanding rivalries and the unique aspects of
collegiate athletics that differentiated them from professional leagues. The Campus Executives
and Faculty were similarly worried that pursuing revenue and professionalization threatened the

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 145
traditional values of collegiate athletics. As one faculty member remarked, “We are letting greed
take over. We are forgetting the value of an education.”
While specific concerns varied slightly in emphasis when comparing these perspectives, a
strong consensus across all stakeholder groups concurred about the significant issues facing the
future of FBS collegiate athletics. Financial sustainability and inequality, professionalization,
governance and leadership challenges, and the erosion of traditional values and community were
universally acknowledged themes concerning critical areas needing attention.
Common concerns about financial sustainability and inequality suggested the need for a
more equitable distribution of resources and re-evaluation of revenue models in collegiate
athletics. The shared worries about professionalism indicated a desire to maintain the amateur
status of collegiate athletics and ensure that athletics complement rather than overshadow the
educational mission. Governance and leadership challenges highlighted the need for more robust,
more effective oversight and regulation, particularly in managing NIL and the Transfer Portal.
In conclusion, addressing these shared concerns will be crucial for the future of FBS
collegiate athletics. Stakeholders across different groups emphasized the importance of
maintaining financial sustainability, preserving collegiate athletics’ amateur and educational
ethos, and improving governance and leadership to effectively navigate the evolving landscape.
This sentiment encapsulated the broader concern about where collegiate athletics is headed and
underscored the need for a balanced approach that prioritizes education and community
alongside athletic excellence.
Summary
The primary finding of PIE as the three top-rated value factors demonstrated the
importance of relational and transformative experiences over material benefits across all

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 146
stakeholder groups. Thus, the PIE Approach to Stakeholder Value in Higher Education holds
promise for colleges and universities of all types to restructure their engagement strategy.
Concerns about the future of FBS collegiate athletics were consistent across all groups,
focusing on financial sustainability, professionalization, governance and leadership, and the
erosion of traditional values and community. AAs expressed worry about the financial viability
of the current model and the increasing resemblance to professional sports, while donors and
season ticket holders were concerned about the widening economic gap between the P5 and G5
and the loss of tradition that comes with realignment. Football alums and letterwinners echoed
these concerns by emphasizing the negative impact of commercialization and
professionalization. Campus executives and faculty highlighted an eroding connection between
athletics and academics and the need for improved governance.
In conclusion, the survey responses underscored the shared values of PIE across
stakeholder groups in FBS collegiate athletics. The PIE Approach to Stakeholder Value in Higher
Education highlights collegiate athletics’ relational and transformative potential by emphasizing
the importance of fostering connections and making a positive difference while evoking
memorable emotional experiences. Moreover, the often-mentioned factor of community also
reinforces the need to prioritize these elements amid ongoing changes. Addressing the concerns
about financial sustainability, professionalization, governance, and the erosion of traditional
values will be essential to preserving some semblance of positive traditions in collegiate
athletics. Furthermore, the bottom-rated factors of perks, exclusivity, and money highlighted a
collective de-emphasis on material benefits and social status. Hence, the data clearly showed that
stakeholders were more invested in the humanistic and PIE aspects of the FBS collegiate athletic
experience.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 147

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 148
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter Five serves as this dissertation’s culmination by integrating the findings of the
previous chapters to draw comprehensive conclusions and offer actionable recommendations.
This chapter aims to provide a holistic understanding of collegiate athletics’ complexities and
evolving landscape. Through the lens of stakeholder value theory and DT, we explore
stakeholder groups’ motivations, concerns, and value perceptions while proposing strategies to
enhance engagement and sustainability in collegiate athletics.
This chapter revisits the core research questions, summarizes the key findings, discusses
their implications, and presents recommendations for practice and further research. By
addressing stakeholders’ intrinsic motivations and concerns, this chapter provides a pathway for
industry leaders to navigate the challenges and opportunities in the modern era of collegiate
athletics.
Research Questions and Responses
Research Question 1
What factors do stakeholders value most about their relationship with FBS collegiate
athletics, and what are areas of consensus?
Response
The values analysis revealed that the top three value factors across all stakeholder groups
were PIE (i.e., people, impact, and emotions). This key finding indicates the importance of
people and relationships, the positive impact on lives and communities, and the emotional
connections developed across the university community, especially with other stakeholders.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 149
Research Question 2
What factors most impact stakeholders’ motivation (WHY?) in FBS collegiate athletics,
and what are areas of consensus?
Response
The primary motivators include feeling a sense of belonging and community, the
opportunity to positively impact the lives of college athletes, and personal fulfillment and a sense
of purpose from adding value to a team working together to achieve a larger goal.
Research Question 3
What are the areas of most significant concern among FBS stakeholders, and what are
areas of consensus?
Response
The primary areas of concern are financial sustainability, increasing professionalization,
governance and leadership challenges, and the erosion of traditional values and community.
Discussion of Findings
Value Factor Ratings
Analyzing value factor ratings across all stakeholder groups provided a foundation for the
PIE Approach to Stakeholder Value in Higher Education, a new thought process for higher
education administrators to consider when approaching their work. It is a checkpoint process to
ensure that the key tenets of PIE are embedded in all work. The PIE Approach to Stakeholder
Value in Higher Education is underscored by authentic human connections, making a difference
in stakeholders’ lives and the community, and emphasizing emotional aspects. Earning a college
degree is a meaningful and emotional experience for many, especially for first-generation and
marginalized student populations.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 150
In addition to PIE, the desire for community also ranked highly, which underscores the
collective spirit that binds these groups together. This sense of community is crucial in creating a
supportive and cohesive environment that can withstand the various challenges faced by
collegiate athletics. It suggests that stakeholders value collaborative efforts and shared
experiences that contribute to a unified and resilient community.
Motivations (WHY)
Stakeholders across all groups shared common motivations rooted in the desire to
positively impact college athletes’ lives and the broader community. For instance, AAs
emphasized their commitment to making a difference, which aligned closely with the
motivations of donors and season ticket holders, who highlighted relationships and community.
Similarly, football alums and letterwinners stressed the significance of pride and teamwork,
which reflected their enduring connection to their alma maters and the sport.
These shared motivations reinforce the importance of the PIE Approach to Stakeholder
Value in Higher Education in driving stakeholder engagement and creating joint value. The
collective focus on these intrinsic values underscores a unified commitment to fostering an
environment where personal growth, community building, and emotional engagement are
paramount. This alignment across diverse stakeholder groups highlights common ground that can
serve as a foundation for future collaborative efforts and unified strategies.
Moreover, the strong emphasis on PIE suggests that stakeholders are not solely motivated
by personal gain or institutional success but rather by meaningful contributions they can make to
the lives of college athletes and the broader community. This intrinsic motivation, as opposed to
extrinsic motivation driven by external rewards such as money and perks, is critically important
for the sustainability and future of collegiate athletics. Intrinsic motivation leads to deeper

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 151
engagement, long-term commitment, and a greater willingness to collaborate for the common
good.
Freeman’s work suggested that intrinsic motivation can also lead to more innovative and
sustainable solutions. When stakeholders are motivated by a genuine desire to contribute to the
common good, they are more likely to engage in collaborative problem-solving and support
initiatives that promote long-term success and sustainability.
Concerns About the Future of FBS Collegiate Athletics
The stakeholders in this study expressed several common concerns: financial
sustainability, professionalization, governance and leadership, and the erosion of traditional
values and community. The potential shift toward a more professionalized model of collegiate
athletics, driven by NIL and the Transfer Portal, raised significant apprehension among all
groups. A fear existed that these changes could undermine the traditional values and community
spirit that have long defined collegiate athletics. Financial inequality and sustainability were
significant worries since they could widen the gap between wealthier P5 schools and smaller
institutions. The stakeholders were concerned that this disparity could threaten the viability of
many programs and limit opportunities for college athletes.
Thoughts of Departure
The frequency of thoughts about departing FBS stakeholder roles varied among groups.
For instance, AAs reported the most common thoughts of departure at 63%, mainly influenced
by the issue of work/life balance, mental health/burnout, and better compensation opportunities
elsewhere. Campus executives and faculty reported lower frequencies of departure thoughts,
with their concerns similarly rooted in professionalization and financial pressures.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 152
For comparison, McKinsey (2023) reported that 40% of all employees would consider
departing from their current jobs in the next 3 to 6 months due to declining well-being and rising
talent attrition. This data underscores the importance of addressing intrinsic motivations and
creating supportive environments to retain critical stakeholders.
Key Findings
In summary, the data analysis revealed the following key findings:
1) PIE (i.e., people, impact, and emotion) were the most valued factors across all
stakeholder groups. This finding resulted in the ideation of the PIE Approach to
Stakeholder Value in Higher Education.
2) Intrinsic motivations were deeply rooted in the desire to positively impact college
athletes and the broader community.
3) Significant concerns included financial sustainability, increasing professionalization,
governance challenges, and the erosion of traditional values and community.
4) Thoughts of departure were influenced by combined issues concerning work/life
balance, mental health, and better compensation opportunities, with variations across
stakeholder groups reflecting unique challenges and perspectives.
These insights highlight the current state of collegiate athletics and emphasize the need for a
balanced and equitable model to address stakeholders’ diverse needs and concerns, including
“The Missing Voice” of college athletes.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 153
Recommendations for Practice
Incorporating the PIE Approach to Stakeholder Value in Higher Education
The PIE Approach to Stakeholder Value in Higher Education, developed as a result of this study,
focuses on three core elements: people, impact, and emotion. This framework assesses and
enhances the value provided to various stakeholders in higher education institutions, including
students, faculty, staff, alumni, donors, and the wider community.
Incorporating the PIE Approach involves focusing on each component. People are the
heart of any institution, encompassing relationships, collaborations, and networks that sustain a
vibrant academy. Stakeholders can integrate this aspect by fostering inclusive environments,
promoting teamwork, and ensuring every member feels valued and connected. Engaging with
people means actively listening to their needs and aspirations, building a stronger, more cohesive
community. The goal is to consider all stakeholder groups as you work to connect and add joint
value. An example of this would be the invitation of campus Deans and Faculty to participate as
a “coach for the day” during a home competition.
Impact pertains to the tangible and intangible outcomes institutions generate, including
educational achievements, research contributions, and broader societal influence. Stakeholders
can emphasize impact by aligning their actions with the institution's mission, supporting
initiatives that drive meaningful change, and continuously assessing the long-term effects of their
programs and policies. Highlighting impact demonstrates the institution's value beyond
traditional metrics, showcasing its role as a transformative force in individuals' lives and the
community. Put simply, FBS stakeholders must always place the wellbeing of athletes and
students at the forefront.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 154
Emotion acknowledges the affective connections stakeholders have with the institution,
including pride, loyalty, and a sense of belonging. Institutions can nurture emotional engagement
by creating memorable experiences, upholding cherished traditions, and communicating
authentically with their community. Understanding and tapping into these emotional bonds can
deepen stakeholders' commitment and enhance their overall experience. An example of this
would be for an Artificial Intelligence platform to recognize that a stakeholder met their spouse
on campus while students, and creates digital prompts acknowledging and celebrating these
emotional milestones, while also prompting to make a donation or purchase an item to celebrate
the anniversary.
A key aspect of the PIE Approach is the emphasis on Joint Value creation across
stakeholder groups. Joint Value refers to the synergistic benefits that arise when stakeholders
collaborate and align their interests. In higher education, this means recognizing and leveraging
the interconnectedness of different groups, such as how alumni support can enrich student
experiences or how faculty research can attract funding and elevate the institution's reputation.
By fostering a culture of collaboration and mutual support, institutions can ensure value is cocreated and shared among all stakeholders, leading to a more integrated and resilient educational
ecosystem.
The PIE Approach provides a comprehensive framework for understanding and
enhancing value within higher education institutions. By focusing on people, impact, and
emotion and promoting joint value creation, stakeholders can work together to cultivate a
thriving, inclusive, and impactful academic community. This narrative highlights the importance
of each component and underscores the interconnectedness of all stakeholder groups in achieving
the institution's mission and vision.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 155
NCAA Systemwide Stakeholder Analysis
This study analyzed stakeholder values, motivations, and concerns within collegiate
athletics by primarily focusing on the FBS. The insights garnered from this research serve as a
prototype for expansion. The researcher recommends that the NCAA scale the prototype to
encompass the entire enterprise of collegiate athletics––all Division I, II, and III programs,
conferences, championship events, and industry partners––to include a broad range of
stakeholder groups. The NCAA is uniquely positioned to lead this expansive initiative and ensure
comprehensive coverage across all divisions and stakeholder groups. This consulting group can
design, distribute, and analyze the data to provide a robust and detailed understanding of the
larger collegiate athletics ecosystem.
The NCAA continues to put forth impressive efforts to enhance the collegiate athletics
experience. Thus, the researcher believes further commitment to a genuine, data-driven
understanding of stakeholder perspectives can significantly advance these efforts. By fostering
an empathetic and inclusive approach, the NCAA can continue to build strong, trust-based
relationships with all stakeholders. This approach aligns with the core principles of DT, which
emphasizes empathy, ideation, and prototyping. Understanding intrinsic motivations and
addressing deeper needs can lead to more effective engagement strategies and the development
of initiatives that resonate strongly with stakeholders.
Departmental Stakeholder Analysis
Individual athletics programs within Division I, II, and III can adapt this prototype to
their unique contexts. Individual programs can conduct a stakeholder analysis by drawing on the

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 156
methods and insights from this study to better understand their stakeholders’specific values,
motivations, and concerns.
Customized Stakeholder Engagement
Each athletics department can use the principles of stakeholder value theory to delve into
its stakeholders’ intrinsic motivations. For instance, some programs may find that stakeholders
value a balance between athletics and academics, community involvement, and personal growth.
By recognizing and addressing these motivations, programs can foster stronger stakeholder
relationships to increase support and engagement.
Understanding stakeholder motivations can also open new revenue opportunities at the
departmental level. For example, creating mentorship programs that connect current athletes with
successful alums can enhance community loyalty and increase philanthropic support. Moreover,
developing community outreach initiatives that align with stakeholder values can attract sponsors
and partners who provide additional athletic program funding.
Moreover, athletics programs can establish mechanisms for continuous feedback from
stakeholders. Regular surveys, focus groups, and open forums can help maintain an ongoing
dialogue to consistently meet stakeholder needs. This continuous feedback loop aligns with DT’s
iterative nature, which allows programs to adapt and evolve their strategies based on real-time
insights. By expanding this prototype on a macro level, the NCAA can lead a transformative
initiative that profoundly understands and responds to the needs of the collegiate athletics
ecosystem. Moreover, individual athletics programs can leverage these insights to enhance
stakeholder engagement and uncover new revenue opportunities.
This dual approach, grounded in empathy and intrinsic motivation, can pave the way for a
more sustainable and prosperous future for higher education institutions. The NCAA, individual

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 157
athletics programs, and universities can foster a deeper sense of belonging and community by
understanding and addressing all stakeholders’ heartfelt emotions, personal connections, and
intrinsic motivations.
Creating a sense of connectivity and creating opportunities for stakeholders to be a part of
something larger than themselves—whether through shared victories, personal development
opportunities, or community involvement—can strengthen stakeholder commitment and loyalty.
Such deepened engagement can translate into new revenue opportunities since valued and
emotionally connected stakeholders are more likely to invest their time and resources.
Quarterly Balance and Wellness Checks
Athletics departments can implement structured balance and wellness checks that
emphasize well-being, balance, and a sense of belonging for employees and athletes to address
the findings related to thoughts of departure. These quarterly check-ins can enhance retention,
satisfaction, and overall performance by proactively addressing workload and well-being
concerns. The top three reasons for departure among athletics administrators—work/life balance,
mental health/burnout, and better compensation opportunities elsewhere—underscore the need
for these initiatives. The introduction of quarterly balance and wellness checks can involve
anonymous surveys to collect feedback on workloads, stress levels, and overall well-being. This
data can be supplemented by one-on-one meetings to discuss individual responses and provide
personalized plans. Ensuring access to mental health resources and stress management
workshops is essential alongside implementing flexible work policies, such as remote work
options and adjusted schedules as needed. Peer support programs can also be developed to foster
a sense of community and shared responsibility among staff and athletes.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 158
Enhancing a sense of belonging within the department is crucial for incentivizing longterm commitment. Strategies can include offering personalized career development plans and
professional growth opportunities, establishing recognition programs to celebrate milestones and
achievements, and organizing team-building events and social gatherings. Employee wellness
programs addressing physical, mental, and emotional health can be implemented to promote an
inclusive culture that values diversity and open communication.
Leveraging technology to support these initiatives is also recommended. Developing an
app or online platform can facilitate easy access to surveys, meetings, resources, and communitybuilding activities. This platform can also provide wellness tips and stress-relief exercises to
support stakeholders’ well-being further.
Investing in Storytelling and Stakeholder Relations
In the evolving landscape of collegiate athletics, athletic departments can prioritize
enhanced storytelling and stakeholder value-creation initiatives. Drawing from roles in other
industries (e.g., Chief Storyteller and Stakeholder Relations roles), athletic programs can
enhance their engagement strategies by transforming external relations efforts (e.g., sports
information [SID], marketing, development, ticket sales, and sponsorships) into dynamic and
innovative human interest storytelling units. By integrating DT, athletic departments can
emphasize empathy, creativity, and innovative methods to effectively “pull at the heartstrings” of
all stakeholder groups. Training current staff on methods and hiring communicators with a talent
for horizontal thinking and a heartfelt approach can help craft narratives highlighting the human
elements beyond the game to make stories more personalized and relatable.
Moreover, athletics departments can explore digital innovation, particularly artificial
intelligence (AI), to create an immersive and personalized user experience (UX). AI can

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 159
revolutionize how athletics programs interact with their audiences by turning digital platforms
into personalized engagement hubs. For example, AI can guide users through tailored
experiences by acknowledging their anniversaries if they met their spouses at the university and
other personalized UX. This approach can mirror how companies like Amazon and Meta use
predictive modeling to enhance customer engagement and increase revenue opportunities.
Offering more than just stats and scores, athletic departments can create content that breaks down
games through a more innovative and non-traditional lens using a horizontal thinking approach.
Furthermore, multiple versions of stories based on user preferences can be developed. For
instance, users who prefer emotional narratives can receive a deeper dive into athletes’ unique
stories, including challenges and triumphs, while individuals who want specific baseball athletes’
statistics presented clearly and interestingly can be prompted with unique visualizations tailored
to their interests. Personalized visualizations can include the history of support, priority points,
benefit levels, and an AI-generated impact report that outlines the impact of the user.
Recommendations for Further Research: The Voice of the Current College Athlete
In this study, “The Missing Voice” of the current college athlete’s perspective is not
represented. As the primary participants in collegiate athletics, athletes’ experiences, perceptions,
and insights are indispensable for a holistic understanding of the ecosystem. Therefore, future
research can prioritize including the current college athlete’s voice to capture the full spectrum of
stakeholder experiences and needs. Indeed, understanding athletes’ perspectives is crucial for
several reasons.
First, current athletes can provide direct insights into the daily realities, challenges, and
rewards of participating in collegiate athletics. Their experiences can highlight areas for
improvement in athlete welfare, academic support, mental health services, and career

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 160
preparation. Second, college athletes face unique challenges, such as balancing academics and
athletics, managing physical and psychological health, and navigating the pressures of
performance and competition. Capturing these perspectives can inform more effective policies
and support systems. Third, recent developments, such as litigation surrounding athlete
compensation, ever-increasing coaching contracts, and changes in NCAA regulations, directly
impact athletes. Their perspectives on these issues are vital for understanding the broader
implications on their well-being and the integrity of collegiate athletics. Finally, understanding
what motivates current athletes (e.g., personal development, compensation, team camaraderie,
future career aspirations, and a love for the sport) can help tailor programs and initiatives that
resonate with their intrinsic motivations and lead to a better overall environment.
Conclusion
Collegiate athletics in higher education is driven by passionate stakeholders dedicated to
the success and well-being of students, and this is why I remain an optimist. That said, one topic
I have felt mixed on is using “college athlete” instead of “student-athlete.” My seeking of advice
on this issue continually evoked pointed opinions. For instance, an athletics executive stated,
“The day we stop calling them student-athletes is the day I find a new job.” Meanwhile, I was
advised by a sports law expert to “stay safe” by not using this contested label. Based on this
warning, I chose to use “college athlete.”
Nonetheless, to me, this issue is about more than a label. It is the foundation so many of
us who have “grown up” in this industry have come to know, where we have found purpose, to
the point where for more than 15 years, I have commonly closed my emails with the
acknowledgment: “Thank you for your support of our much-deserving student-athletes.” I meant
those words. I stand proud knowing we made a positive difference in the lives of those who are

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 161
students and athletes, whatever label the future holds for these incredible young men and women.
Nevertheless, the time has come for change, and it must be welcomed and embraced. Regardless
of anyone’s stance on this issue, all viewpoints should be heard, respected, and considered in
developing a more equitable model for the future. I hope this study on stakeholder value is a step
in this direction.
I close this dissertation with an example from an individual who leads with heart and
purpose, former San José State University (SJSU) and current University of Arizona Head
Football Coach Brent Brennan. During a major fundraising campaign launch event for the SJSU
football program, this new, young, first-time head football coach stated the following to a crowd
of stakeholders:
People have asked me what we are building here. We are building a foundation for these
young men to be successful. We are going to teach hard work, we are going to teach
respect, we are going to teach toughness, and we are going to teach love. We know that if
we teach them these things, they’ll be successful in life, and if we give them that
foundation, they will be successful on the field, too. The football will take care of itself if
we handle them as men. Football has the power to raise the profile of our institution, but
we need everybody all in.
The word “love” elicited a noticeable reaction from the crowd, with heads tilted and eyes
squinted they sat up in their chairs. It was unexpected and refreshing to hear a football coach
publicly emphasize life’s emotional and human elements by saying that love can lead to on-field
success, which takes courage. During Coach Brennan’s time at SJSU, the program raised
significant funds, which included the largest single philanthropic gift in the football program’s
history. The program built new facilities and created joint value for the campus and external

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 162
stakeholders in new and meaningful ways. Most impressively, Coach Brennan and his staff built
a winning program on and off the field with their “Beyond Football” leadership development
program, all of this resulted in winning their first-ever MWC Championship in 2020. Thus, the
PIE Approach to Stakeholder Value in Higher Education seeks to remember to “teach love” in
our work—love for people, love of impact, and love of life-changing experiences that resonate
beyond the game.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 163
References
A message to beaver nation. Oregon State University Athletics. (n.d.).
https://osubeavers.com/news/2024/4/16/general-amessage-to-beaver-nation
Anderson, P., et al. (2020). Stakeholder perspectives in collegiate athletics. Journal of Sports
Management, 34(2), 123–145.
Aresco, M. (2023). Memo on divisive labels in collegiate athletics
https://theamerican.org/news/2023/3/9/general-statement-from-american-athleticconference-commissioner-mike-aresco.aspx
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308.
Auerbach, P. E. (2008). Decisions under influence: College presidents’ athletics-related decisionmaking behavior at NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision Institutions.
Baker, R., Wagner, R., & Neiheisel, J. (2021). The impact of the cost of attendance stipends on
NCAA Division I basketball programs. Journal of Sports Economics, 22(3), 189–213.
Baldemor, V. L. (2019). Understanding the non-financial benefits that intercollegiate athletics
provides the university.
Banks, A. (2022). The Supreme Court gets the ball rolling: NCAA v. Alston and Title IX.
Northwestern University Law Review, 117(2), 549–576.
Banks, S. (2022). NCAA v. Alston: The Supreme Court decision and its impact on collegiate
athletics. Journal of Sports Law and Policy, 15(3), 224–245.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–
529.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 164
Berkowitz, S., & Upton, J. (2012, May 15). Budget disparity growing among NCAA Division I
schools. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-
05-15/budget-disparity-increase-college-athletics/54960698/
Bilas, J. (2019). Interview on the Rich Eisen Show [Video]. Rich Eisen Show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij8hYTBhX80
Bowen, H. R. (1980). The costs of higher education: How much do colleges and universities
spend per student, and how much should they spend? Jossey-Bass.
Brown, E. J. (2023). The impact of name, image, and likeness (NIL) legislation on the decisionmaking process regarding school attendance for college athletes (Publication No.
30522579) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California]. ProQuest Theses
and Dissertations Global.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.
Brown, T. (2019). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and
inspires innovation. Harper Business.
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach,
12(1), 29–43.
Bundy, J., Vogel, R. M., & Zachary, M. A. (2018). Organization–stakeholder fit: A dynamic
theory of cooperation, compromise, and conflict between an organization and its
stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal, 39(2), 476–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/
smj.2736
California SB206: 2019-2020: Regular session. LegiScan. (n.d.).
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB206/id/2055437#:~:text=The%20bill%20would%20prohib

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 165
it%20a%20team%20contract%20from%20preventing%20a,operative%20on%20January%
201%2C%202023.
California Senate Bill 1525. (2012). http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1501-
1550/sb_1525_bill_20120927_chaptered.html#:~:text=The%20bill%20would%20require
%20the%20athletic%20program%20to%20provide%2C%20to,and%20the%20resulting
%20deductible%20amounts.
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing design thinking: The concept in idea and
enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 38–57.
Caro, C. (2023a). The International Journal of Sport and Society. The Inequalities of College
Football. Quantifying the Economic and Recruiting Disparities in Division One FBS
Football. Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 1–27.
Caro, C. (2023b). The inequalities of college football: Quantifying the economic and recruiting
disparities in Division One FBS Football. The International Journal of Sport and Society,
14(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.18848/2152-7857/CGP/v14i02/1-23
Council on Foundations. (2019). Leading together: Diversity, equity, and inclusion in
philanthropy. https://cof.org/leading-together-2019
Covell, D., & Barr, C. A. (2001). The ties that bind: Presidential involvement with the
development of NCAA Division I initial eligibility legislation. *Journal of Higher
Education, 72*(4), 414-452.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. SAGE Publications.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 166
Crooks, D., Logan, A., Thomas, D., Clark, L., & Gill, E. (2023). Legal and political activism:
The next wave of college athlete protest. Sport, Education and Society, 28(4), 434–447.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.2023490
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg.
Davis, R., & Parker, J. (2018). Equity and fairness in collegiate athletics. Sports Ethics
Quarterly, 27(3), 201–217.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
Dinich, H. (n.d.-b). College football playoff, ESPN agree to deal through 2031-32. ESPN.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39766079/college-football-playoff-espnagree-deal-2031-32
Doorley, S., Holcomb, S., Klebahn, P., Segovia, K., & Utley, J. (2018). Design thinking bootleg.
d.school, Stanford University.
d.school. (2010). An introduction to design thinking process guide. Institute of Design at
Stanford.
Duarte, J. (2024, July 12). A “defining moment.” inside the search for UH’s athletic director.
Houston Chronicle. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/texas-sportsnation/college/article/uh-athletic-director-search-19569311.php
Ehrenberg, R. G. (2012). American higher education in transition. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 26(1), 193–216.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 167
Eskerod, P., & Jepsen, A. L. (2016). Project stakeholder management. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315245881
ESPN. (2019). Title of the article. ESPN. Retrieved from [link]
Ewing, M. E., Gano-Overway, L. A., Branta, C. F., & Seefeldt, V. D. (2002). The role of sports
in youth development. In M. Gatz, M. A. Messner, & S. J. Ball-Rokeach (Eds.),
Paradoxes of youth and sport (pp. 31–47). State University of New York Press.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broadenand-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman Publishing Inc.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University
Press.
Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2007). Stakeholder theory and ‘the corporate
objective revisited’. Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369.
Fowler, F. J. (2013). Survey research methods. SAGE Publications.
Front Office Sports. (2020). College Football Economic Impacts Vary, True Figures Hard to
Determine https://frontofficesports.com/college-football-economic-impact/
Garcia, M., & Martin, S. (2020). Understanding stakeholder motivations in sports management.
International Journal of Sports Science, 39(1), 67–82.
Gayles, J. G. (2009). The college athlete experience. New Directions for Institutional Research,
2009(144), 1–117.
Gibbons, S. (2016, July 21). Design thinking 101. Nielson Norman Group.
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/design-thinking/ (this is for the DT 101 graphic)

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 168
Goh, Z., Ilies, R., & Wilson, K. S. (2015). Supportive supervisors improve employees’ daily
lives: The role supervisors play in the impact of daily workload on life satisfaction via
work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 65–73.
Grand Valley State Athletics. (2023). Athletics success. https://www.gvsulakers.com.
Greenberg, M. J., & Evrard, A. W. (2016). Athletic directors. Marquette Sports Law Review,
26(2), 735.
Harrison, L. (2020). The evolving landscape of collegiate athletics. Collegiate athletics Review,
12(4), 101–112.
Hatfield, B., Wrenn, J. P., & Bretting, M. M. (1987). Comparison of Job Responsibilities of
Intercollegiate Athletic Directors And Professional Sport General Managers. Journal of
Sport Management, 1(2), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.1.2.129
Hobson, W. (2015). Cost of attendance stipends show which sports colleges want to spend on.
Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2015/05/22/cost-ofattendance-stipends-show-which-sports-colleges-want-to-spend-on/
Hoffer, A. J., & Pincin, J. A. (2015). The effects of conference realignment on NCAA athletic
departments. Applied Economics Letters, 22(15), 1209–1223. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13504851.2015.1021448
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.
Hörisch, J., Freeman, R. E., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Applying stakeholder theory in
sustainability management: Links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual
framework. Organization & Environment, 27(4), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1086026614535786

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 169
Hunt, V., Layton, D., & Prince, S. (2015). Why diversity matters. McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com
HR3535, 2013 To protect the academic futures of collegiate student athletes. Govinfo. (n.d.-b).
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hr3545ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr3545ih.pd
Jensen, J. A., Spreyer, J., Lipsey, J., Popp, N., & Malekoff, R. (2020). Assessing demand for
intercollegiate athletic departments: An investigation of multimedia rights agreements.
Journal of Global Sport Management, 5(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.
2019.1577161
Jones, A. L. (2022). The dawn of a new era: Antitrust law vs. the antiquated NCAA
compensation model perpetuating racial injustice. Northwestern University Law Review,
116(5), 1319–1364.
Jones, T. (2022). The classification challenge: Athletes as employees. Law Review Journal,
volume(issue), pages.
Jones, A. (2023). The legal battle for the Pac-2: Tradition vs. change. Collegiate Athletics
Review, volume(issue), pages.
Katz, M. (2023). Kiffin: Latest conference realignment movement ‘not good for college
athletes’. TCA Regional News. https://sports.yahoo.com/kiffin-latest-conferencerealignment-movement-010400095.html
Kelchen, R., Goldrick-Rab, S., & Hosch, B. J. (2017). The costs of college attendance:
Examining variation and consistency in institutional definitions. Journal of Higher
Education, 88(6), 809–833.
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us
all. Crown Business.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 170
Kleinman, D. (2018, September 11). The most valuable college apparel deals 2018. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielkleinman/2018/09/11/the-most-valuable-collegeapparel-deals-2018/
Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2010). Restoring the balance: Dollars, values,
and the future of collegiate athletics. http://www.knightcommission.org
Korenoski, M. N. (2016a). O’Bannon v. NCAA: An antitrust assault on the NCAA’s dying
amateurism principle. Duquesne Law Review, 54(2), 493.
Korenoski, M. (2016b). The O’Bannon case and the future of college athlete compensation.
Sports and Entertainment Law Journal, 8(1), 35–57.
LEAD1 Association. (2023). About LEAD1. https://www.lead1association.com
Lee, S., & Kim, Y. (2021). Inclusive decision-making in collegiate athletics. Journal of Higher
Education Athletics, 29(2), 89–104.
Lev, M. (2022). Pac-12 coaches dish on super conferences, NIL, ‘ever-changing’ world of
collegiate athletics . TCA Regional News.
https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcats/football/pac-12-coaches-dish-on-superconferences-nil-ever-changing-world-of-college-athletics/article_d1d23a6c-1024-11edb1b1-c72de4a21835.html
Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Designing for growth: A design thinking toolkit for managers.
Columbia University Press.
Lodge, J. (2016). Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad NCAA? . . . The Ed O’Bannon v. NCAA
Decision’s Impact on the NCAA’s Amateurism Model. University of Iowa Law. 779-781.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 171
Los Angeles Times. (2014, June 20). NCAA president emphasizes belief that student-athletes are
“amateurs.” Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-snncaa-mark-emmert-witness-stand-obannon-20140619-story.html
Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive
advantage. Harvard Business Press.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Burnout: A brief history and how to prevent it. World
Psychiatry, 15(2), 103–111.
Mazur, A. (1985). A biosocial model of status in face-to-face primate groups. Social Forces,
64(2), 377–402.
McCarthy, C. (2021). Faculty athletics representatives, mentors play key roles supporting
student‐athletes through pandemic. Collegiate athletics and the Law, 17(12), 4–8.
https://doi.org/10.1002/catl.30844
McKinsey & Company. (2021, October 21). People are leaving jobs in droves. Here’s what
makes the stay? https://www.mckinsey.com/about-us/new-at-mckinsey-blog/people-areleaving-jobs-in-droves-heres-what-makes-them-stay
Mixon, F. G., & Treviño, L. J. (2005). From kickoff to commencement: The positive role of
intercollegiate athletics in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 24(1), 97–
102.
Murry, T. J. (2022). The path to employee status for college athletes post-Alston. Vanderbilt
Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 24(4), 787.
National Association of Athletics Directors of Development (NAADD). (2021). NAADD award
winners. https://www.nacda.com/naadd/

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 172
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). (2009). The Flutie Effect: How athletic success
boosts college applications. Harvard Business School.
NCAA. (2015). Cost of attendance Q&A. http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/mediacenter/news/cost-attendance-q
NCAA. (2024). NCAA history https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/5/4/history.aspx
NCAA. (2024). NCAA membership directory.
https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/5/3/membership-directory.aspx
Ngo, F., Coyner, M., & Lough, N. (2022). The financial behaviors of chasing athletic prestige:
Evidence from the NCAA cost of attendance policy. Review of Higher Education, 45(3),
307–336. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2022.0001
Ngo, F., Murnane, R., & Willett, J. (2022). Economic impacts of the NCAA cost of attendance
policy. Economics of Education Review, 85, 102169.
Nguyen, T., & Williams, A. (2019). Stakeholder data integration in sports management. Journal
of Sports Analytics, 22(3), 145–158.
O’Bannon press conference transcript and quotes. BDG Sports. (2017, August 25).
https://bdglobalsports.com/?p=1689
O’Neil, L., Amorose, A. J., & Pierce, S. (2021). College athletes’ dual commitment to school and
sport: Compatible or conflicting? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 52, 101799.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101799
Ozanian, M. (2022, July 6). Indian Premier League’s valuations: Cricket now has a place among
world’s most valuable sports teams. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 173
2022/04/26/indian-premier-league-valuations-cricket-now-has-a-place-among-worldsmost-valuable-sports-teams/
Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms,
schools, and societies. Princeton University Press.
Pifer, N. D., Huml, M. R., & Asada, A. (2021). Switching schools: Examining the networks,
antecedents, and on-court outcomes of NCAA Division I men’s basketball transfers. Journal of
Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 14(30).
https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1361&context=jiia
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2011). Design thinking: Understand – improve – apply.
Springer.
Pope, D. G., & Pope, J. C. (2020). The impact of collegiate athletics success on the quantity and
quality of student applications. Southern Economic Journal, 75(3), 593–929.
Rich Eisen Show. (2019). Interview with Jay Bilas [Video]. Rich Eisen Show.
https://youtu.be/Ij8hYTBhX80?si=KQwxQarQT4ukE4QE
Ridpath, B. D. (2018). Alternative models of sports development in America: Solutions to a crisis
in education and public health. Ohio University Press.
Rittenberg, A. (n.d.). Big ten completes 7-year, $7 Billion media rights agreement with Fox,
CBS, NBC. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34417911/big-tencompletes-7-year-7-billion-media-rights-agreement-fox-cbs-nbc
Riverbend Strategy Inc. (2023). About us. https://www.riverbendstrategy.com
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.
CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 174
Schrage, M. (1999). Serious play: How the world’s best companies simulate to innovate.
Harvard Business School Press.
Simmon, I. (2023). But who really wins? College athletes’ analysis of name, image, and likeness
policy narratives (Publication No. 30573409) [Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Southern California]. ProQuest Theses and Dissertations Global.
Sloan, L. R. (1989). The motives of sports fans. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, games, and
play: Social and psychological viewpoints (pp. 175–240). Erlbaum.
Smith, A. (2015). Collegiate athletics: The challenges of governance and ethical issues. Journal
of Sport Management, 29(3), 276–294.
Smith, M. (2014). The economic impact of collegiate athletics: A case study of the University of
Maryland. International Journal of Sport Finance, 9(3), 262–278.
Smith, J., & Jones, M. (2021). Legal and economic pressures in collegiate athletics. Law and
Sports Review, 14(1), 55–70.
Sports Business Journal. (2024, June 4). AAC’s Mike Aresco bids farewell to the conference.
AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco gives farewell remarks to conference.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/06/04/mike-aresco-aac-final-letter
Taylor, E. C., McLarty, B. D., & Henderson, D. A. (2018). The fire under the gridiron: Resource
dependence and NCAA conference realignment. Journal of Business Research, 82, 246–
259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.042
Taylor, R., & O’Brien, D. (2022). Sustainable development in collegiate athletics. Journal of Sports
Sustainability, 18(1), 34–50.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 175
The American on ESPN. (2023, May 9). An open letter on Power 5 – Group of 5 branding.
https://theamerican.org/news/2023/5/9/football-an-open-letter-on-power-5-group-of-5-
branding.aspx
Tramel, B. (2018, September 9). Epic fiesta bowl win over Oklahoma did wonders for Boise
State and its home city. The Oklahoman.
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/columns/berry-tramel/2018/09/09/epic-fiestabowl-win-over-oklahoma-did-wonders-for-boise-state-and-its-home-city/60502728007/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). Demographic turning points for the United States: Population
projections for 2020 to 2060. https://www.census.gov
Van Aken, J. E., & Chandler, J. (2005). Targeted innovation: A practical guide for designing
new products and services. Purdue University Press.
Vannini, C., & Auerbach, N. (2023, April 24). NCAA President Baker: College athletes don’t
want to be employees. The Athletic. https://theathletic.com/4446295/2023/04/24/charliebaker-ncaa-nil/
Weaver, K. (2021, May 3). The NCAA transfer portal is becoming the wild, wild west. something
needs to change. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/karenweaver/2021/05/03/the-ncaatransfer-portal-is-like-the-wild-wild-west-something-needs-to-change/
Weight, E. A., & Zullo, R. H. (2015). The athletics arms race: Examining university and athletic
department administrators’ views on the purpose of intercollegiate athletics. Journal of
Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 8, 146–163.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 176
Williams, M. J., & Mathis, D. M. (2021). The COVID-19 Pandemic and the stress it put on College
Athletics. The sport journal, 1.
World Economic Forum. (2022, March 15). US workers want more pay and better perks, so
more than half are considering switching jobs. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/
2022/03/ workers-jobs-employee-business-reshuffle/
Wright, P., & Roberts, E. (2020). Balancing stakeholder interests in collegiate athletics. Sports Policy and
Management Journal, 31(2), 112–129.

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 177
Appendix. Collegiate Athletics Stakeholder Survey

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 178

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 179

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 180

BEYOND THE GAME: OPTIMIZING STAKEHOLDER VALUE 181

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation examines the complexities of stakeholder engagement in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) of collegiate athletics. Using a mixed-methods approach with 497 participants across various stakeholder groups—including athletics administrators, donors, campus executives, faculty, and football alumni—the study explores value-creation mechanisms, motivations, and concerns. The findings highlight the importance of the PIE (People, Impact, Emotion) approach to stakeholder value, emphasizing its potential as a foundation for enhancing both in-person and digital stakeholder experiences and joint-value creation. Practical recommendations include expanding the study to all NCAA divisions and encouraging individual athletics programs and universities to conduct stakeholder analyses, aiming to boost stakeholder satisfaction, discover new revenue opportunities, foster a thriving organization while creating a lasting impact on the future of higher education.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teaching well-being alongside academic studies in an undergraduate for-credit mindfulness course

PDF

Impact of elementary grade teachers practicing radical love in Florida classrooms

PDF

Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders

PDF

Medicare claim processing: an analysis of perceptions of lived experiences by health care executives and leaders regarding Medicare claim denials

PDF

Labor versus management perspectives on remote, in-person, and hybrid work: an examination of incongruences, challenges, and strategies for optimal workplace collaboration, motivation, and performance

PDF

Cultural wealth exploration of Black female executives and its additive value in STEM corporations: a cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) analysis

PDF

Key factors for successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact driven grantmaking practices

PDF

No officer left behind? The promotion experiences of retired and separated Black commissioned officers in the United States Army

PDF

Reducing the environmental impact of mining - a promising practice study

PDF

The antecedents and consequences of low franchisee satisfaction and its effect on retention: an exploration of a critical issue through the lens of Urie Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory

PDF

Personal and environmental influences on preparing for transition from sport: a social cognitive approach to exploring the collegiate experiences of Black former NFL players

PDF

Lived experiences of African American expatriate teachers abroad and back: a teacher's experience that brings effect to the community

PDF

The underrepresentation of African American officers in senior leadership positions in the United States Army

PDF

Understanding the non-financial benefits that intercollegiate athletics provides the university

PDF

Digital literacy skills and productivity within the Pauseitive app

PDF

Making the grade: augmenting Mississippi measures of school quality with local values

PDF

A gap analysis to find best practices in philanthropy to support California's community colleges and offer potential solutions to close performance gaps

PDF

Investigating the personal and organizational factors influencing the departure of female physicians from healthcare leadership roles

PDF

The spouse factor: how a partner’s career impacts U.S. Navy officer retention

PDF

Managing competing stakeholder demands: global leaders’ decision-making amid social backlash

Asset Metadata

Creator Rice, Timothy James (author)

Core Title Beyond the game: optimizing stakeholder value in the evolving landscape of the Football Bowl Subdivision

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 08/14/2024

Defense Date 08/06/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag college athletics,FBS,Football,motivation,NCAA,OAI-PMH Harvest,sports,stakeholder,Value

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), Green, Alan (committee member), Maddox, Anthony (committee member)

Creator Email tjrice@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113998UKJ

Unique identifier UC113998UKJ

Identifier etd-RiceTimoth-13387.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-RiceTimoth-13387

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Rice, Timothy James

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240814-usctheses-batch-1198 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu