Sean Frazier said it out loud.
The Northern Illinois vice president and athletic director, long respected as a voice of reason in the industry, didn’t mince words on The Big Mountain Podcast. He argued that while some administrators want to hand over college sports to professional operators, that approach risks missing the point.
“A lot of folks are trying to figure it out,” Frazier said. “Some folks who aren’t really clear about the mission and role…are taking it upon themselves to say, ‘We’re gonna blow this whole thing up. We’ll bring in a professional person, and then they will run it as a financial entity.’ That’s dangerous, because we still have to do the job—and the job is making sure that student-athletes have a quality experience.”
Student-athletes still exist. They still go to class. They still need to adhere to university standards and academic progress.
That’s the heart of the divide. Higher education was not built to operate like the NFL or MLB, where a commissioner makes decisions for one sport and a board signs off. College administrators oversee dozens of teams.
“Any sport can get you fired if you just ignore one or two too long,” Frazier recalled a mentor telling him—a reminder that men’s basketball and football may drive revenue, but gymnastics, tennis, or cross country still demand care and attention.
Now, if (and when) a super league forms? Yes, absolutely, it all makes sense then, but we are a few years away from that starting, let alone some time away from actual traction for the concept.
When Trends Outpace the Mission
It’s tempting to treat the latest shifts from revenue sharing, NIL, and private equity interest as signs that the old model is obsolete. However, college athletics have always undergone waves of change. The foundation, however, has remained the same: universities exist to educate and serve students. Ohio State’s (along with thousands of other schools) mission statement emphasizes knowledge creation, leadership development, and civic engagement—not championships.
(And if you are now googling school mission statements, please let me know what you find!)
That gap between institutional mission and athletic ambition is one reason some, myself included, see eventual super leagues or breakaways as inevitable (again, see above). The financial demands of elite football and basketball simply don’t align neatly with university governance.
Even schools that are “all in” on (varsity) athletics don’t always integrate sports into their stated mission. Sacramento State, for example, has invested significant resources in its programs, including the construction of facilities and the integration of athletics into its identity. Yet its mission statement centers on transforming lives, serving historically underserved students, and preparing leaders in California’s capital—without a single reference to athletics. That contrast highlights how even the most invested universities still maintain a separation between sports and their academic core.
Leadership and Financial Realities
A commissioner I spoke with echoed Frazier’s concern, but from another angle.
“I actually think the bigger problem is presidents complaining to me about not having enough revenues, or expenses are rising rapidly, and then they go out and hire an athletic director whose background is in compliance or academics,” the commissioner said. “If the name of the game is money, wouldn’t you want your athletic director to have some experience in that? … My advice is to hire somebody who has actually done something on the financial side, specifically fundraising and revenue generation.”
It’s an industry paradox.
Presidents make hires based on academic alignment and compliance track records, while the broader ecosystem demands leaders who can navigate fundraising, media rights, and sponsorships. Professional sports executives excel at revenue generation, but they also operate in silos. A college athletic director, as Frazier pointed out, must manage 15–20 sports simultaneously, balancing resources and ensuring no program is neglected.
OK, so what about private equity?
Yes, private equity has emerged as the latest justification for a professionalized model. Firms see college sports as underleveraged assets—ripe for investment in media rights, ticketing, sponsorship, and merchandising. We’ve already seen significant investments in collegiate multimedia rights, signaling that football programs, in particular, are viewed as profit centers.
The influx of capital can accelerate growth and modernization. But private equity also comes with risks: prioritizing short-term profits over long-term student-athlete development or the broader educational mission. If private equity is only one part of the landscape, perhaps it deserves a senior associate AD focused on managing those relationships, not a wholesale transfer of authority to outside executives.
That’s why Frazier’s warning matters. College athletics can and must evolve, but the solution isn’t as simple as importing professional models.
“We have multiple sports under one umbrella,” he explained. “If you take the professional mantra…you’re only catering to maybe one or two. Gymnastics and tennis—all these others—need the same amount of care.”
His conclusion was clear: “It is important from a practitioner standpoint we don’t lose our way. I do think we have to adapt new skill sets and meld the old with the new to come up with the now.”
The message?
Professionalization has its place, but context matters. Leaders like Sean Frazier and conference commissioners on the ground understand that college sports aren’t just about chasing dollars; they’re about balancing missions, multiple sports, and the student-athlete experience in a way no professional league ever has to.
