For our newer subscribers: most of what we publish is about Coaching and player development, but every so often we take on a current issue shaping the world coaches and athletes operate in. This is one of those pieces.
Athletic conferences across the country have been expanding aggressively over the last several years. The recent congressional hearing about college sports got me thinking about it again. While most of the conversation has centered around the major Division I institutions, it has become a trend at NAIA, D2, and D3.
I should say up front that this issue is something I care about because I value higher Education and college athletics. I played and coached at the small college level for years, so when I raise questions I’m doing it as someone invested in where this goes, not as someone taking shots from the outside.
Some small college leagues are pushing toward 17 or 18 schools, and I don’t fully understand it. The reasons I hear are stability and “unique” fits. But more schools also means more votes, more influence, and better protection for automatic postseason bids. Automatic bids matter, and conferences don’t want to lose them. I get that part.
I also think in the time of the demographic cliff and shrinking college aged students, some conferences are expanding because they expect a few of their own members to shut down, and absorbing schools now is a hedge against that. That is a sound thought process, but it also may expedite the end for some.
Here’s where the math stops working for me.
When a conference adds a school several states away, the existing members are suddenly looking at 500-plus mile trips for a weekend baseball series. A trip that used to cost a few thousand dollars now runs eight to ten. That’s a structural shift. Multiply it across baseball, softball, volleyball, basketball, and track, and you’re talking about a budget hit that changes what’s possible for those institutions. And this is happening at a time when schools are closing and budgets are getting cut.
That’s before you count the missed class days, the player fatigue, and the support staff that’s already stretched thin.
For a lot of these schools, regional competition isn’t a fantasy. It already exists. In my state of Kansas, there are two dozen or more private four-year institutions easily within driving distance. So the question worth asking is simple: what problem are we actually solving with expansion?
I’ve watched smaller conferences try to copy the expansion playbook of major conferences without seeming to ask whether the underlying economics are the same. They aren’t. Power conferences expanded chasing media markets and TV contracts big enough to offset the geography. Most smaller institutions don’t have that cushion. Copying a model built for a different financial structure doesn’t make it sustainable. There may be some incremental revenue, but that’s about it.
The margins at small colleges are tight and getting tighter, demographics are shifting, and discount rates (scholarships) are high. Athletics is already a serious enrollment lever and a real institutional investment. Layering in structural Travel cost on top of that isn’t neutral. It changes what schools can afford to do, and eventually what they can afford to be.
Sometimes the most disciplined move is tighter, more regional, and more honest about what the mission actually is.
