One for the Few, One for the Many: Why the Future of College Sports Needs a Dual Model
College athletics is at a historic crossroads. On one end of the spectrum, the high-revenue sports of football and men’s basketball at Power Four schools, are embracing a fully professionalized era. NIL compensation, transfer portal freedom, and direct revenue-sharing under the House v. NCAA settlement have ushered in a new world, and for the top 2% of NCAA athletes, the economics now resemble the professional ranks more than traditional college sports.
But what about the other 98%? What about the Olympic sports, the walk-ons, the tuition-paying student-athletes, and the millions of high school kids who dream of competing in college, but never will because there simply aren’t enough opportunities?
The answer is not to force everyone into the same model. That’s the mistake too many decision-makers are making right now - trying to cram every program, sport, and athlete into a system that was only ever built for the few. And when it doesn’t fit, they start cutting.
What we need is a dual model.
One that embraces the realities of modern college sports economics for those who generate big-time revenue, while preserving and expanding traditional college athletics for everyone else.
Two Tracks, One Mission
The professionalized track, the “2%” is already here. Power conference football and men’s basketball are revenue machines. They will share billions with athletes over the next decade, and that’s a good thing. Those athletes deserve compensation for the massive value they generate. Let that system mature, grow, and evolve.
But alongside it, we must protect and grow the “98%” This includes the thousands of athletes competing in Olympic and non-revenue sports. These programs aren’t about TV ratings or multimillion-dollar sponsorships. They’re about education, development, and access.
And yes, they can be sustainable.
The Additive Model: Stop Cutting, Start Building
Too often, schools respond to change with subtraction. “How can we cut costs? Which teams can we drop?” But what if the better question is: How can we add?
There are immediate, practical ways to expand opportunities without breaking budgets:
Add more student-athletes to existing varsity rosters
Most teams are not maxed out on capacity. With thoughtful scaling, schools can leverage existing facilities and coaching staffs to serve more athletes.
Bring back JV teams
This provides a structured pipeline for athlete development, creates a farm system that reduces reliance on the transfer portal, and offers meaningful opportunities to compete, even without full NCAA sanctioning.
Explore multi-tiered programs
Imagine Clemson with D-I, D-II, and D-III baseball teams. The NCAA currently prohibits this, but why? There’s demand, there’s infrastructure, and it would better reflect the diversity of talent and interest across campuses.
These are solutions that serve both mission and margin. Families spend $30+ billion annually on youth sports. Over 8 million high school students participate in sports, but fewer than 7% play in college. There is no shortage of demand, just a shortage of opportunity.
The Hidden Cost of Trying to Fit Everyone Into One Model
When schools treat Olympic sports like afterthoughts in the new revenue-sharing era, the consequences ripple far beyond the athletic department:
College culture suffers - The breadth of sports on campus contributes to community, identity, and alumni engagement.
Olympic development is harmed - College programs are the foundation of U.S. success in swimming, track, wrestling, gymnastics, and more.
Opportunities shrink - Cutting teams or roster spots disproportionately affects women, walk-ons, and lower-income students who use athletics as a path to higher education.
Leading by Expanding
Some universities are already showing what leadership can look like in this moment:
Florida State added women’s lacrosse.
South Florida launched new beach volleyball and lacrosse teams.
Others are quietly growing JV or club pipelines that offer structured, meaningful opportunities.
And yet, elsewhere, schools are cutting 100+ varsity spots overnight under the guise of a “roster reset.” That’s not strategy, that’s quitting.
A Smarter Future
The dual model isn’t about clinging to tradition or resisting progress. It’s about recognizing that one-size-fits-all doesn’t work in a system this big and diverse.
Let the revenue-generating sports follow their path. Give them the structure, oversight, and support they need to thrive in a professionalized environment.
But don’t drag the rest of college athletics down that same path just because it’s easier for budgeting spreadsheets. Don’t treat cross country runners or softball players like failed football players.
Instead, build a system that allows both models to succeed - one that maximizes opportunity, not just revenue.
The future belongs to the universities bold enough to grow when others shrink, to include when others exclude, and to build systems that serve both the stars and the many who still dream of wearing their school’s jersey.
This isn’t a compromise. It’s a vision. And it’s time we embrace it.
