The athletic director’s chair remains one of the smallest, most exclusive clubs in higher education. With just over 350 Division I programs and only so many openings each year, the path to “the chair” has always been steep. Yet in 2025, the route isn’t just steep, it’s rapidly evolving.
Despite rumors of professional sports executives storming the gates of college athletics, the reality is more nuanced. The titles and pressures might resemble pro sports more than ever, but the people occupying the chair still largely come from inside higher education, and they’re carrying the same battle scars and toolkits as before.
The Myth of the Pro Sports Takeover
Travis Smith, consultant and researcher with Higher Ed Athletics, dismisses the idea that presidents are abandoning the college pipeline for pro-sports outsiders.
“Turning to the pro sports executive is overhyped,” Smith said. “The traditional AD hires will remain because the up-and-coming candidates will gain the same skills that pro executives already have. College athletics itself now looks and feels more like pro sports, so those competencies are built in.”
Still, one hire may have nudged the conversation. The University of South Florida’s move to bring in Michael Kelly’s successor from the Tampa Bay Sports Commission turned heads.
“It makes sense for presidents and firms to check with city or state sports commissions to see if their CEO is interested,” Smith added. “The skill set transitions incredibly well if you look at Higgins at USF.”
In a world where NIL collectives, media-rights negotiations, and donor capital mirror franchise dynamics, the crossover feels natural. But for now, it remains the exception, not the norm.
Who’s Getting the Call
Since 2020, three job titles have accounted for nearly three-quarters of Division I AD hires:
- Deputy AD (85 hires)
- Sitting AD (71 hires)
- Senior Associate AD (30 hires)
Combined, those 185 hires represent 75 percent of all D-I AD appointments over the past five years. The most dependable stepping-stone remains the Deputy AD chair — especially for FBS and Power Five institutions.
That’s not to say internal promotions have disappeared. Higher Ed Athletics data show 65 internal promotions since 2020, roughly 27 percent of all Division I hires. However, these tend to occur more frequently in FCS and non-football I-AAA programs, where institutional culture and budget alignment are just as important as brand reach.
For FBS schools, athletic departments continue to fish within familiar ponds. Of the Big Ten’s 17 AD hires since 2020 (including three at Northwestern), nearly every one involved a candidate already working within the Power Five orbit. The ACC (15) and SEC (9) exhibit similar levels of self-reliance.
“Power schools mostly hire from within their own subdivision ranks,” Smith confirmed. “That’s unlikely to change — the expectations are just too high for anyone who hasn’t lived inside that machine.”
The Gender Gap Widens
Among all the statistics, one stands out for the wrong reason: the declining number of women in the chair.
“I’m concerned about the lack of women being hired,” Smith said. “Only three of 32 hires in 2025 so far have been women. In 2024, 12 of 52 were. That’s not great, but this year’s pace is much worse.”
The splashiest female hire of the year — Keli Zinn to Rutgers — drew headlines, yet she’s one of only three women to ascend to the AD role across all of Division I in 2025. The trend underscores how progress in gender diversity has stalled, especially outside of I-AAA schools.
And yet, the Zinn hire almost never was, as it was reported early that Brian LaFimina was the first offer for the role.
Despite robust candidate pipelines — dozens of female deputies and senior associates at Power and Group of Five institutions — search firms and presidents still seem to gravitate toward the same narrow set of résumés. “Fit” remains a convenient but opaque rationale.
The Push and Pull of Risk
Every search for some candidates is about “getting the chair.” For many administrators, even a short-term contract can feel like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
There are just 365 big chairs across the country. Getting one — even if it’s not a perfect fit — is too tempting to pass up.
That mindset explains why some candidates accept one-year deals or minimal buyouts: visibility at the FBS level may outweigh long-term security. The trade-off is clear — the job itself has never been more volatile.
Presidents are quicker to make changes, public pressure has intensified, and expectations extend far beyond wins and losses. Managing NIL, donor politics, and state-level scrutiny can make a short tenure feel like a lifetime.
The Revolving Door
The numbers show just how fluid the market has become.
Since 2020, 16 sitting ADs have voluntarily stepped down to become Deputy ADs elsewhere — 12 of those moves to Power Five schools. A few have climbed back to the chair: Dr. Ed Scott (Memphis) and Tommy McClelland (Rice) are among them.
Recent examples illustrate the same pattern of athletic directors stepping down or shifting roles to position themselves for future opportunities. Diana Sabau moved from Utah State to Maryland, Brent Jones transitioned from Troy to Georgia Tech, Wesley Mallette left UC Riverside for South Carolina, and Julie Cromer made the jump from Ohio to LSU.
These moves highlight a strategic (and career) reality: stepping back to a deputy role in a Power environment can fast-track the next leap — or at least preserve relevance in a rapidly consolidating field.
From Culture to Commerce
While the AD’s role has always balanced athletics and academics, the 2020s version is unmistakably commercial. NIL valuations, revenue-share models, and athlete-brand management now sit alongside compliance, fundraising, and facilities.
With some student-athletes earning seven-figure NIL incomes, departments have prioritized educational programs to navigate what one administrator called “the wild west.” The result? Athletic directors are now equal parts CEO, lobbyist, and cultural counselor.
And that’s before confronting the next frontier: the College Sports Commission and potential federal regulation of athlete employment models.
The “Pro-ization” of the College AD
Even if the pro-sports exodus into college jobs is exaggerated, the responsibilities undeniably mirror pro front offices. Media rights, licensing, fan-experience analytics, and even dynamic ticket pricing have become standard vocabulary inside college boardrooms.
That means future ADs must operate with the same fluency as corporate executives — even when rising through traditional higher education pathways. As Smith observed, “The up-and-coming candidates will gain the skills of pro sports executives as college athletics itself continues to look like pro sports.”
In effect, the position has changed more than the people. The next generation of leaders — many of whom are trained within university systems — will simply wear a more corporate badge.
Division II: The Quiet Model
While FBS athletic departments pursue billion-dollar media contracts, Smith sees potential stability at a lower level.
“Division II athletics has a chance to get really good and step out as the ultimate model of college athletics within higher education,” he said.
In that space, where budgets are lean and priorities align more closely with institutional missions, athletics can still unify a campus without dominating it. The ROI is measured in engagement, not NIL valuations — and that may be the model some universities rediscover as the FBS arms race intensifies.
What’s Next
If 2024 marked a generational pivot — with older ADs stepping aside and pro-sports speculation surging — then 2025 is shaping up to be a re-centering. Deputy ADs still control the pipeline, internal promotions still drive smaller-school searches, and the industry continues to grapple with diversity and sustainability.
The difference is what lies ahead. Artificial intelligence, athlete revenue sharing, and the professionalization of athletic departments could reshape the skills that presidents prioritize in their next hires.
Perhaps the next generation of ADs could be phased out not by age, but by algorithms.
For now, though, the fundamentals remain the same: relationships, fundraising, vision, and the ability to navigate a university’s political maze. “The chair” might be harder than ever to reach, but it still demands the same foundation — even if the ground beneath it keeps shifting.
