College Faculty Representatives Persistently Hold onto Fading Influence over Athletics Policies in Institutions of Higher Learning
In the sprawling world of college sports, Don Bruce, an economics professor at the University of Tennessee, has been a steady presence for nearly two decades. Known for his unwavering support of student-athletes and academic integrity, he's served as his school's faculty athletics representative for thirteen years, going through four athletic directors and three chancellors.
Aside from his duties at Knoxville, Bruce's college sports work has spanned beyond Tennessee's borders. Currently, he's a member of the 40-person NCAA Division I Council, a position earned by serving as the past president of the 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives (1A FAR). He's also served on NCAA's original Name, Image and Likeness Working Group, formed in May 2019, and on the NCAA's constitution committee launched shortly after its interim NIL policies took effect in July 2021.
Despite the contributions to his campus and its athletics, as college sports is marching full-speed into a new era of revenue-sharing and athlete compensation, Bruce is preparing to step down, forsaking not just his Tennessee role, but also his national appointments tied to it. It's a departure that's tinged with pride—and a deep sense of concern about the future of the faculty athletics representative position in college sports.
For years, the NCAA-sanctioned position of the FAR has been struggling to maintain its authority in a college athletics landscape chiefly ruled by commercial interests. Critics, long contending that the position is little more than a superfluous, yet ironically influential facade, have found it hard to justify the existence of FARs when athletes are poised to earn millions and institutional autonomy is at stake.
But now, as the academic footing of college sports grows increasingly uncertain, Bruce has joined other 1A FAR leaders in drafting a public letter to the NCAA Division I Board of Directors and its new decision-making working group. The missive sharply critiques the group for marginalizing faculty representatives under the pretense of operational efficiency.
"The NCAA continues to peddle the supreme importance of academic standards and student-athlete success... through advertisements, public statements, and congressional testimony," the letter pronounces. "Yet these words ring hollow with the nearly complete omission of FARs from the proposed decision-making structure."
Notably, the working group excluded any faculty athletics representatives, an "oversight," according to FARA's letter, that could not be corrected after the fact.
NCAA spokespersons countered that the letter would be shared with both the working group and the Division I Board of Directors, while disputing the characterization that FARs had not been engaged in the process. The spokespersons argued that all NCAA members—including faculty athletics representatives at every D-I school—had received two governance structure surveys to provide feedback, and that NCAA staffers have met with the 1A FAR Board to discuss the issue and gather input.
All the while, the D-I Board is in the process of redefining its structure. Currently, it boasts one faculty athletics representative member—Pamela Bruzina of Missouri, who serves as the president of FARA—while the D-I council has reserved two seats for FARs. The proposed new governance model, however, would eliminate faculty from the D-I Board entirely and reduce its representation to just one seat on the newly envisioned D-I Administrative Group.
Over the past six months, faculty athletics representatives have encountered signs that their voices are becoming increasingly disregarded—if not altogether unwelcome—in the evolving college sports bureaucracy. They've met repeated signals that their influence is waning, and with shared revenues and new athlete compensation models on the horizon, it seems to only be a matter of time before the academic voice in college sports fades away.
But FARs like Bruce and Bruzina aren't ready to relinquish their fight. They're already contemplating if and how the role should evolve to meet the challenges of the modern college sports scene. With demands for the position growing and the need for academic oversight becoming more pressing, it remains to be seen if the faculty athletics representative—that steadfast academic guardian—will be able to carry on its vital mission in an age of dollar signs and power plays.
"Don Bruce, as a member of the NCAA Division I Council and past president of the 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives (1A FAR), has been actively involved in sports-related analysis, advocating for academic integrity within the world of college sports. Recently, he and other 1A FAR leaders penned a public letter, critiquing the NCAA for neglecting the faculty athletics representative position, raising concerns about the future of this academic role in the evolving landscape of sports."
"The NCAA's proposed governance model is set to eliminate faculty from the D-I Board entirely, potentially weakening the academic voice in college sports. Faculty athletics representatives like Bruce and Pamela Bruzina are determined to ensure that the faculty athletics representative position evolves to meet the challenges of the modern college sports scene, maintaining its vital role as an academic guardian amidst increasing commercial interests."
