College athletics has a governance problem.

The House settlement changed more than how schools compensate student athletes. It also accelerated a shift in authority. Schools participating in the settlement framework can provide direct financial benefits to student athletes, while significant responsibility for implementing and enforcing elements of the agreement has moved toward the defendant conferences.

But the competitive incentives haven’t changed.

University presidents, athletic directors, coaches and student athletes still want to win. Meanwhile, conference commissioners may be increasingly positioned to help create sustainable competitive environments among institutions with dramatically different resources and ambitions.

That is a difficult governance assignment — and one they never signed up for.

The nonprofit paradox comes full circle

Years ago, then-UC Davis Athletic Director Kevin Blue described what he called the “nonprofit paradox” in college athletics: a system that combines a nonprofit organizational structure, zero-sum competition and accelerating revenue.

The result is predictable. In a system where winning is the objective and there is no traditional owner demanding a financial return, resources tend to flow toward winning. Schools reinvest in the things they believe will make them more competitive.

That logic made sense when conferences and the NCAA operated within a more centralized system of rules and restrictions.

Today, I believe a........

© Sports Business Journal