Additional reporting and analysis provided by KC Smurthwaite, athletic department analyst, consultant, and contributor for HERO Sports.
The Collegiate Commissioners Association meets this week in Chicago, a gathering that typically combines education, information sharing, and numerous pitches. Among the proposals circulating this year, multiple sources confirmed to HERO Sports, is that commissioners will be presented with a model that could shift the FCS playoffs under a new umbrella more closely resembling the College Football Playoff (CFP).
“We lose money,” said one sitting athletic director whose program has made multiple playoff runs in the past decade. “It’s a great product and tremendously undervalued. Surely there has to be another way. I think every athletic director, president, and commissioner will listen if something like this is presented.”
For starters, there is strong interest in general from venture capitalists in getting into college sports.
“We want in [on DI college athletics] because we see the no-doubt opportunities and low-hanging fruit,” said a Europe-based venture capitalist who isn’t a part of this pitch, but is familiar with the concept of the FCS playoffs.
A conference commissioner, speaking on background, didn’t dismiss the possibility: “We will always be listening for ways to improve our product and enhance the student-athlete experience. We hear a lot of pitches, but this topic is very intriguing for a variety of reasons.”
Another commissioner told HERO Sports that it’s never a bad thing for someone to be interested in your product, and it’s a positive that the FCS is at the forefront of something instead of being an afterthought.
How would this actually work?
An entity with strong financial backing would take ownership of the FCS playoffs. Sources indicate the presentation is coming from a group familiar with and has strong ties within the college athletics landscape.
The group would manage the FCS playoffs much like the FBS’ CFP. The CFP already operates as an independent postseason tournament outside the NCAA umbrella called CFP Administration, LLC, a company owned by all FBS conferences and Notre Dame. They fund and manage the playoff structure, distribute revenue, and leverage sponsorship, media, concessions, and other assets to maximize value.
In this potential model, said group – Venture Capitalist (VC), Private Equity (PE), or an LLC – would fund the FCS playoffs similarly while also bringing in additional resources. The revenue generated could make the tournament more rewarding financially for conferences and teams.
Venture capital and private equity see the FCS playoffs as an undervalued sports property with proven metrics (TV audiences, strong brands, etc.) but with underachieving monetization. The playoffs have a strong history of growth, but leaves significant revenues untapped in the eyes of a VC or PE. For a group equipped with helping such problems, they can inject capital, modernize the structure, and realize the upside of media rights, sponsorship, and event value.
So … why now?
The FCS postseason is one of the best NCAA tournaments, a 24-team bracket to crown a Division I national champion. Eleven conferences earn an auto-bid with 13 at-large bids selected from a committee made up of FCS ADs. The playoffs have produced some epic on-campus environments, sold-out championship bouts, and plenty of NFL-level talent.
But the financial structure is uniquely challenging, especially in the current landscape.
The playoffs are operated entirely by the NCAA, with schools reimbursed for travel and per diem costs, but with little to no net profit. Schools must pay minimum bids to host playoff games regardless of their seed, guaranteeing payments of around $50,000 to $80,000 back to the NCAA. The NCAA also claims most of the ticket revenue (historically around 85%). Because of this, schools can lose money hosting playoff games.
On the FBS side, they also end up breaking even or sometimes even losing money on bowl games. The difference is that at the FBS level, bowl payouts are distributed to the conferences and then redistributed to help offset those costs, or even “just to make whole.” In the current FCS model, however, the emphasis is less on generating or sharing revenue and more on simply managing expenses.
That structure has created friction, particularly for basketball-first institutions that already operate on tight football budgets. When Division I split into two subdivisions in 1978, part of the rationale was to enable smaller programs to compete in Division I football without devoting FBS-level resources. Nearly 50 years later, the tension between access, exposure, and financial sustainability remains.
For those pitching a reimagined FCS playoff model, TV data is the strongest selling point.
Last season’s FCS championship game between North Dakota State and Montana State drew 2.41 million viewers on ESPN, peaking at over 3.1 million. That made it the second-most-watched title game on record. The 2024 semifinals on ABC drew 1.58 million viewers (SDSU-NDSU) and 1.37 million viewers (South Dakota-Montana State). Quarterfinals, such as Mercer-NDSU (1.4 million on ABC), also delivered.
In fact, the 2024 playoffs averaged 1.3 million viewers across ESPN platforms, marking the best average since the 2009-10 season and representing a 49 percent year-over-year increase.
Is there traction?
Is a more financially-incentivizing playoff system of interest for FCS commissioners, athletic directors, and presidents? More revenue streams are vital for low to mid-major conferences, athletic departments, and institutions. A move in this direction could also create more stability in realignment as the FCS postseason becomes even more attractive. Or is dipping into venture capital and private equity not appealing? Some administrators in the past have pointed out to HERO Sports that the point of the FCS playoffs isn’t to make money. But in the new world of college athletics, has that opinion shifted?
As one commissioner put it, they wouldn’t put this on the meeting agenda for nothing.
It’s too early to say whether the CCA meeting in Chicago will spark anything. There is a sense of intrigue and excitement behind this for some. For now, though, the conversations are info gathering. One industry source compared the idea of a private playoff umbrella to the growth of “NIT-style” postseason models – separate, but parallel, to NCAA oversight.
As one venture capitalist told HERO Sports: “It’s an undervalued product that needs a jumpstart badly.”
If this pitch were to become reality, it likely wouldn’t be effective until 2027 or 2028 at the earliest. The NCAA may be interested in outsourcing the playoffs to a third party in exchange for a guarantee.
As the FCS has taken its lumps in realignment and the transfer portal, the playoff system has seen some positives – increasing the number of seeds to reduce regionality, better television slots (especially the championship game), and strong TV ratings. One of the biggest negatives still exists – the finances. The commissioners will soon hear the financial opportunities and ideas.
