College Faculty Athletics Representatives Hang Onto Fading Policy Control: Decline in Influence Over Athletics Policies
Don, a professor of economics at the Universiity of Tennessee, clocked a whopping thirteen years as the school's faculty athletics rep since 2012, outlasting four ADs, three chancellors, triumphs, controversies, and even a multitude of internal and external upheavals. His tenure stretches far beyond Knoxville, wrangling spots on the 40-member NCAA Division I Council, a post earned from his stint as past president of the 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives (1A FAR). He was also a one-man faculty voice on NCAA's original Name, Image, and Likeness Working Group, hastily formed in May 2019, and on the constitution committee launched post haste after the interim NIL policies' July 2021 implementation.
The time has come for Don to throw in the towel, stepping down next month. Amid his pride in contributions to his campus, he feels a gnawing sense of concern and despair about the future of the faculty athletics rep position in college sports.
For years, FARs have been fighting a losing battle against commercial interests in the college athletics realm. Critics contend that the position serves little more than as a mere façade, an empty seat at the national policy-making table. However, with revenue-sharing and a new era of athlete compensation barreling down the pipeline, the faculty's token presence is a relic of the past.
"Nowhere's academics involved in the conversation right now," Don lamented. "It's really disheartening, especially because we [FARs] show up for work to support student-athletes, protect the institution, and preserve its core values-and that is the collegiate model."
Last week, Don and other 1A FAR leaders drafted a stinging public letter to the NCAA Division I Board of Directors and its decision-making working group. The letter defends FARs' exclusion from the new decision-making structure, insinuating internal machinations that exclude their voices while paying lip service to academic standards and student-athlete success.
When asked about the letter, the NCAA spokesperson asserted that it would be shared with both groups. However, they disputed the portrayal that FARs were not engaged in the process, highlighting two feedback-gathering governance structure surveys sent to every D-I school's faculty athletics representative.
Mid-June, Pamela Bruzina, the faculty athletics rep at Missouri, and FARA president herself, reported receiving an invitation to the working group's next meeting.
As of now, the D-I Board boasts a single FAR representative, Bruzina, while the D-I council steers two FAR seats. The envisioned new governance model, however, plans to eliminate faculty representation from the D-I Board entirely, with just one seat reserved for faculty in the newly imagined D-I Administrative Group.
The past six months have seen faculty athletics reps encounter indications that their voices are steadily being sidelined, pushed out, or worse-outright unwelcome-in the evolving bureaucracy of college sports. During the 2021 NCAA Convention at the Gaylord Opryland Resort, the D-I Council unveiled a "decision-making" working group, conspicuously devoid of any FARs. This group was entrusted with overhauling the governance structure of top-tier college athletics and provided a June 2025 deadline for recommendations to the D-I board, with new structures anticipated by July.
"They're adding more student-athletes to the mix," said Brian Shannon, Texas Tech's faculty athletics rep, "but they don't necessarily have an institutional perspective."
After rollout details on the working group, FARA and D1 FAR board members congregated in a hotel room to strategize next steps. Subsequently, Don and Bruzina revealed, NCAA staff informed them that while FARs had no formal representation on the working group, they'd still be consulted informally.
Over the years, faculty reps like Rogers have battled tirelessly for influence and recognition. From 1987 onward, Rogers confronted hurdles as SMU grappled with the fallout of the infamous "Ponygate" scandal. At that time, the Southwest Conference vested voting authority in a board populated entirely by faculty athletics representatives, with each member serving a staggered term as league president. However, by Rogers' term, president Kenneth Pye spearheaded an effort to shift conference governance into the hands of university presidents.
Since then, Rogers has stood on the front lines of faculty representatives' chronically futile bid for influence and respectability. The NCAA agreed to include a faculty athletics representative on its Division I Football Oversight Committee in 2015, although only in an ex officio (non-voting) capacity. Two years later, Rogers joined the Division I Football Competition Committee as a voting member, eventually having his voting privileges revoked.
The importance of faculty oversight in college athletics resonated in the Carnegie Foundation's 1929 report, American College Athletics, which advocated for academic values and relegated competitive sports responsibility to the president and faculty.
Over the years, NCAA bylaws have stipulated the appointment of a faculty athletics representative for each member institution, but they've left the scope and duties of the role largely to each school's discretion. In 2009, the NCAA declined an amendment proposal aimed at bolstering the FAR's duties, including administering the annual coaches' certification test for off-campus recruiting, owing to a lack of compelling reasons or benefits to do so.
Pam Bruzina, a former collegiate runner who assumed the role of faculty athletics representative at Missouri in 2017 amid an NCAA academic misconduct probe, emphasized the importance of faculty oversight in protecting academic integrity. With the prospect of revenue-sharing and athlete compensation looming, she's concerned that pressures to win games might intensify, dwarfing academics.
FAR leaders like Bruzina are contemplating the role's evolution to stay relevant in today's college sports landscape. Some question whether multi-FAR models would be more effective moving forward, with Tennessee experimenting in this vein since 2017.
Schools with established business and law schools have also seen a surge in FARs holding juris doctorates, such as the University of Georgia, where David Shipley-a law professor turned FAR-serves as secretary of the Board of the University of Georgia Athletics Association (UGAAA). Earlier this month, the UGAAA board approved a 16% budget increase for the upcoming fiscal year, bolstering Bulldogs athletics spending beyond a quarter of billion dollars.
Apart from monetary concerns, questions about FAR compensation and workload remain, with researchers advocating for better remuneration and reduced academic obligations.
As the NCAA continues its morph into a more business-oriented institution, the future role and influence of faculty athletics representatives remain uncertain, casting doubt over the fate of the collegiate model they pledge to protect.
Don, a professor and the former faculty athletics rep at the University of Tennessee, expressed his concern about the decreasing involvement of academics in college sports, especially with the upcoming revenue-sharing and new era of athlete compensation. In a public letter drafted by 1A FAR leaders, they insinuated that the faculty's token presence was a relic of the past and called out internal machinations that exclude their voices while allegedly paying lip service to academic standards and student-athlete success.
As the NCAA continues to evolve into a more business-oriented institution, the role and influence of faculty athletics representatives become increasingly uncertain, casting doubt over the fate of the collegiate model they pledge to protect. The Past six months have seen faculty athletics reps encounter indications that their voices are being sidelined, pushed out or worse, outright unwelcome in the evolving bureaucracy of college sports.
