Should College Football Appoint a Commissioner to Lead?
The debate over whether college football needs a commissioner has resurfaced, especially ahead of the September 2, 2023, release of ESPN writer Bill Connelly‘s book, “Forward Progress: The Definitive Guide to the Future of College Football.” Central leadership in sports organizations has historically proven vital for maintaining integrity and fairness. As college football faces increasing challenges, the conversation around appointing a commissioner intensifies.
The history of professional sports demonstrates the need for strong governance. In 1920, professional baseball was in turmoil due to the infamous Black Sox scandal. Eight players from the Chicago White Sox were implicated in fixing the 1919 World Series, which raised serious questions about the sport’s credibility. The existing leadership structure, a National Commission lacking effective oversight, failed to address the crisis. This led to the formation of what became known as the Lasker Plan, which proposed a tribunal of independent figures with authority over the sport. Eventually, Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis was appointed as baseball’s first commissioner, providing much-needed direction and restoring public trust.
Fast forward to today, the landscape of college football mirrors some of these historical challenges. Disorganization and competing interests have hampered the game’s growth. Prominent figures, including Alabama head coach Nick Saban and UCLA head coach Chip Kelly, have voiced the necessity for a commissioner. Saban highlighted the importance of prioritizing the sport’s integrity over individual conference interests, while Kelly proposed a collective model for revenue sharing among teams.
Despite calls for centralized leadership, there has been little progress. The lack of a commissioner in college football raises concerns about fairness and consistency, as the sport is governed by multiple entities with divergent aims. As James Franklin, head coach of Penn State, stated, “We need a commissioner who makes decisions in the best interest of college football.” This sentiment has echoed through decades, with calls for oversight dating back to 1958, when Charley Trippi, a college football legend, asserted that the NCAA was overly influenced by the Big Ten.
The current structure, where individual conferences operate independently, has led to disparities in rules and regulations. Coaches like Jimbo Fisher of Florida State have expressed frustration over the absence of uniformity. The perception of chaos within college football may deter fans and undermine the sport’s reputation.
The formation of the College Football Playoff (CFP) presented a potential opportunity for improved governance. A centralized body could enforce rules and create a level playing field. Nevertheless, resistance from powerful conferences like the SEC and Big Ten complicates this possibility. As NBC Sports’ Nicole Auerbach remarked, there is a need for someone focused on the greater good of the sport, rather than the interests of specific conferences.
While a commissioner could offer a unified vision and stability, the risk of reinforcing existing inequalities remains. The historical precedent set by Kenesaw Mountain Landis suggests that while strong leadership can address immediate crises, it can also perpetuate biases within the system. The challenge lies in balancing the demands of powerful stakeholders while ensuring the sport’s integrity and future growth.
In conclusion, the question of whether college football needs a commissioner is not simply a matter of governance; it is about the sport’s identity and future. The voices advocating for centralized leadership highlight a genuine concern for the game’s health. Without a guiding figure to steer college football through the complexities of modern athletics, the sport may continue to struggle with disorganization and inequality. As the conversation evolves, it is clear that the need for a commissioner is more than just a topic for debate; it may be essential for the sport’s survival.
