Fear-Based Planning vs. Opportunity-Driven Strategy in Post-House College Athletics

As the House v. NCAA settlement reshapes the financial model of college athletics, institutions across Division I are faced with a stark choice: React out of fear, or build for the future with strategic opportunity.

The economic restructuring tied to revenue-sharing, NIL expansion and conference realignment has led to divergent decision-making approaches often dictated by a school’s financial standing. We’re noticing two primary responses to this shifting landscape:

• Fear-based planning: Some schools are trying to secure their place among the sport’s elite, often making risky financial moves in pursuit of competitive relevance.
• Opportunity-driven strategies: Some see the settlement and changing industry as a chance to stabilize their programs and build for long-term sustainability.

This divide illustrates the undeniable reality that revenue disparities are defining the future of competitive success in college athletics. The ability to work through this transformation effectively will separate those who merely survive from those who thrive.

Fear-Based Planning: Conference Realignment Anxiety and Short-Term Risks

For some programs with strong (but not dominant) financial standing, fear is driving their decision-making. Their biggest concern isn’t just NIL, Title IX compliance or revenue-sharing obligations. It’s being left behind in conference realignment.

Many of these schools recognize they’re not on equal footing with some in the SEC and Big Ten and their massive media rights deals and revenue inflows. So they overspend to remain competitive, hoping to secure relevance and their place in future conference reshuffling.

Signs of Fear-Based Planning in Athletic Departments

Planning based primarily on fear manifests itself in a few ways.

Aggressive spending on coaching and facilities: Schools are committing to massive facility upgrades and record-breaking coaching salaries — not necessarily because they can afford them, but because they feel they must do so in order be attractive in realignment discussions.

Overextending NIL and collective resources: Even schools with limited donor bases are pouring significant funds into NIL efforts. As a result, they’re straining their budgets just to keep pace with their conference rivals.

Short-term competitive gambles: Institutions are making decisions based on short-term, on-field success, sometimes at the expense of long-term financial stability.

This sense of “conference realignment FOMO” has created a situation in which some schools are making financial commitments that may not be sustainable. While their goal is to not be left behind in the next wave of consolidation, history suggests fear-based planning rarely results in lasting success.

The Opportunity-Driven Approach: Stability and Strategic Growth

At the other end of the spectrum, some Division I institutions are viewing the post-House era as an opportunity. These programs are making calculated moves to ensure long-term financial sustainability first.

Most schools have the option to opt into or out of the settlement, and many are choosing to opt in. For these programs, the post-House world isn’t about trying to outspend their way to relevancy. It’s about strategically positioning themselves to survive in a changing ecosystem.

Why Revenue Matters

Beneath both of these approaches lies an inescapable truth: Revenue gaps between programs are shaping the future of college athletics more than ever.

Recruiting and NIL advantage: Schools with deep financial resources can offer superior NIL opportunities, making them more attractive to athletes.

Coaching and staff investment: Programs with strong financial resources can more easily afford top-tier coaching talent and support staff. This gives their teams a strategic edge in competition, player evaluation, acquisition and development.

Facility upgrades and competitive edge: While cutting-edge facilities serve as a recruiting tool and performance booster, continuous investment in infrastructure is costly.

Adaptability to new policies: Wealthier programs will absorb the costs of revenue-sharing, NIL regulations and athlete benefits with less financial strain. Schools that can’t do so must carefully strategize every financial move.

The Future of Competitive Balance

The House settlement and impending revenue-sharing models might accelerate the stratification of college athletics — ensuring the wealthiest programs continue to dominate while placing additional strain on other institutions.

The most critical observation from watching schools work through this transition is this: Institutions making decisions based on comprehensive strategic institutional priorities, along with fiscal responsibility, will be the ones that endure.

How James Moore & Co. Can Help

Navigating this evolving financial model requires expert financial planning, compliance oversight and data-driven strategic decision-making. That’s where we come in.

Our services include:

• Financial planning and revenue optimization – Helping schools forecast and adjust budgets for revenue-sharing and NIL realities.
• Operational efficiency and cost management – Streamlining financial operations to maximize profitability and reinvest in long-term sustainability.
• Compliance and risk management – Ensuring athletic departments stay ahead of NCAA regulations and financial oversight requirements.

Our Collegiate Athletics Services team has been at the forefront of these changes. By leveraging our expertise, institutions can ensure they are well positioned for success in this rapidly evolving collegiate sports landscape.

All content provided in this article is for informational purposes only. Matters discussed in this article are subject to change. For up-to-date information on this subject please contact a James Moore professional. James Moore will not be held responsible for any claim, loss, damage or inconvenience caused as a result of any information within these pages or any information accessed through this site.