Jun 20, 2025
A White Paper & Strategic Case for Adding Student-Athletes and Teams
By Brent Richard and Drew Weatherford / June 20, 2025
Brent Richard is a career investor, operator and entrepreneur in sports and education businesses, the CEO of IMG Academy, and a former collegiate soccer player.
Drew Weatherford is a co-founder of Weatherford Capital and Collegiate Athletic Solutions and a former starting Quarterback for Florida State University.
Executive Summary
“The tipping point is that magic moment when an idea, trend, or social behavior crosses a threshold, tips, and spreads like wildfire.”
— Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point
The problem to solve: Higher education needs a new framework that upholds amateur sports’ educational and community-building value, while celebrating and adjusting to a world where several sports (primarily football and basketball) in top collegiate athletic conferences are generating significant entertainment-driven revenue for universities. These are new and interesting opportunities and challenges for universities to solve; the problem emerges when conversations turn to cutting students and teams.
A call for action: A few bold university leaders willing to use a new strategic framework can change this conversation, for good, by adding more student-athletes and teams. If you are a university president, trustee or influential alumni, your voice and actions can have impact. Proudly pilot a new model (steps outlined in this paper), and celebrate a moment of innovation and pride.
The “why” for universities: This paper outlines eight key reasons for universities to add student-athletes and teams. In doing so, universities will be:
Making a profitable economic decision. This paper outlines the economics of adding incremental tuition paying student-athletes while leveraging a university’s fixed and semi-fixed cost and infrastructure base to achieve a winning economic formula. While the model of entertainment is shaking up college sports, the model of education through sports has existing frameworks that can be applied, profitably, in this moment of change. We cannot allow the business of entertaining adults to put risk on the business of educating tomorrow’s leaders through sport. This is a solvable economic opportunity with clear frameworks to apply.
Meeting a clear need in the market and addressing a significant supply and demand imbalance in the high school-to-college transition. This paper outlines the existing dynamics in the market from the perspective of youth athletes and their parents. The new dynamics of (1) transfer portals, (2) expanding eligibility and (3) roster caps, while perhaps benefiting (some) current college students, create negative impacts on millions of up-and-coming student-athletes trying to land roster spots in college. Currently, there are millions of families actively raising their hands each year to participate in college sports, and yet only c. 100k new roster spots open annually for incoming freshmen; many must settle for sub-par college fit to pursue their dreams of sports in college, or they abandon their dreams altogether. This represents a significant supply-demand mismatch that is not being met by universities offering only two options: NCAA sanctioned varsity sports or recreational sports (club/intramural). The existing two-solution model can and should change to meet the moment and needs in the market.
Emphasizing that sports education is a forward-thinking approach for the evolving world. More now than ever, we hear consistently and clearly from parents that sports is education; not “extra-curricular.” We expect significant AI-related disruption to how education is delivered and to what skills are important for the future of jobs. A university typically exists to provide great and relevant education, allowing graduates to succeed in life after college. That life after college will look increasingly different. What are top hiring managers saying about the most important core skills for 2030 and beyond? Resilience, flexibility and agility. Not far behind? Leadership and social influence. Next to that? Self-motivation. These skills can be actively taught; sports is simply a platform to re-enforce and apply – sports is the “lab.” On-field sport participation, re-enforced by active teaching curriculum, will develop critical skills of tomorrow.
Graduating tomorrow’s leaders. We hear consistently from hiring managers that in a crowded field of applicants with impressive academic track records, student-athletes often rise to the top of the list for hiring, and in turn succeed in the workforce. While many folks in the real-world workforce intuitively understand this, studies have also been conducted on the topic. Case and point, E&Y found that 94% of women c-suite executives played sports, 52% of them at the university level. So, corporate women leaders’ participation in high-level sports over-indexes the general graduate population by at least 8x.
Winning for the largest affinity group entering college each year, and improving student on-boarding, satisfaction and retention. Set Saturday college football games aside; those benefits to school marketing, donor engagement, and culture are obvious and well-documented. Less obvious, perhaps, is the simple fact that >50% of high school students play sports. This is larger than the next “affinity group” matriculating to college by a wide margin. If universities elevate and expand their sports offerings, it will create a competitive advantage in student engagement and recruitment. Currently, many students in this affinity group are receiving (and paying for) a better and more competitive high school sports experience than they can get in college.
Helping university Presidents manage multi-stakeholder challenges. As many real-world examples have proven out, cutting roster spots and teams are among the most unpopular headlines a university can face. No matter what the rationale for the moves, there are very few stakeholders that are happy with these decisions. Adding student-athletes and teams to address hard economic realities facing university Presidents is a win-win approach. Universities can win the perception battle and the economic one as well.
Creating a more sustainable talent pipeline for NCAA sanctioned varsity teams. Love or hate the current transfer portal dynamics, the reality is that NCAA sanctioned varsity student-athletes have more flexibility and transfer more often than they used to. By profitably adding more student-athletes into varsity-lite Varsity Club sport experiences, universities can achieve all the mission aligned goals noted above, while simultaneously providing and creating a talent pipeline for existing NCAA sanctioned varsity sports, addressing some of the realities of the new portal dynamics in college sports.
Creating a solution for all divisions and levels of NCAA competition. Currently, new frameworks circulating college sports are being driven and dictated by high-level Division-I sports programs that represent < 5% of total student-athletes. These are very important student-athletes, and critical economic conversations. With that said, the solutions presented in this paper target the 95% and will accrue to the benefit of all programs at various levels. Less than 7% of high-school student-athletes find college roster spots (c. 3% D-I). If the result of the recommendations in this paper is that the 7-10th percentiles get their shot, that is a win for students and a win for universities. These are great students and athletes that would be strong additions to universities. At every level of play, there will be more depth of competition, more coaching opportunities in the market, and more sustainable economics supporting long-term health of sports programs.
Proposing a new model for universities to work with: This paper outlines a varsity-lite team model that achieves university mission-aligned goals above. The model is just that, a model. While inevitably it can and should evolve to fit individual university realities, the key is that it can be implemented and tested immediately by any university with an interest. Schools can look at their own unique circumstances, and tailor a program that fits. The model:
Maximize all available roster spots for NCAA sanctioned varsity teams under the recent settlement, or go further, if your school is not participating in the settlement. These can be tuition paying families, lowering the overall discount rate for student-athletes on campus, increasing revenue with limited new operational burden or costs.
Add varsity-lite second teams in a few sports as a pilot program, with an eye towards expanding the model in success. We will call these “Varsity Clubs” or “Second Squads.” These Varsity Clubs do not need to be sanctioned NCAA teams to be attractive to tuition paying families. While there are myriad iterations a university can consider, for the model to be attractive to high quality academic and athletic high school families, the model should strive to follow some basic guidelines:
Access to NCAA sanctioned varsity facilities when possible;
Administration oversight from NCAA sanctioned varsity staff, and ideally the 360 degree student-athlete services (dining, athletic training, weight room, study halls, etc.) consistent with NCAA sanctioned varsity programs;
Lower mandatory training loads plus/minus 50% of NCAA sanctioned varsity expectations, with optional ways to get more. This should be more intensive than typical student-run club sports, but not as intense as full-on NCAA sanctioned varsity sports;
Ensure recruiting and enrollment pathways remain consistent with the pathways of existing NCAA sanctioned varsity student-athletes (through the sports coaches);
Ideally, with time, recruit other schools in your conference or nearby and create Varsity Club competitions, rivalries and championships. Student-athletes don’t need competition to be NCAA qualified to matter.
Addressing the elephant in the room: This paper is not a specific solution to address the reality that < c. 5% of college athletes and programs have significant value as an entertainment mechanism for adults. These are some of the most talented student-athletes in the world, doing incredible things on the field, who deserve the opportunities they now have in college sports. This new Entertainment model cannot be overlooked and is the basis for meaningful ongoing litigations and settlements, and the basis for much disruption to (some) universities.
This paper focuses on the model for the other 95% of student-athletes – an education model.
In youth sports, every sport has its own unique ecosystem and economic model. A football athlete and a softball athlete require different facilities, different coaching, different scheduling, different technology, different recruiting. In the business of sports education, football athletes and softball athletes are perhaps as closely related as a business school student and an undergrad science major. Solving a new football opportunity or challenge by reducing softball, makes as much sense as solving a business school opportunity or challenge with reductions to undergraduate science.
This paper attempts to break these models and decisions down, rather than conflating them unfairly and unnecessarily. For c. 95% of student-athletes and teams, the model of education through sports is important, often life-changing, and profitable, or can be profitable, while aligning with a university’s core mission to educate.
Context for This Unique Moment in College Athletics, and for New Solutions
To evaluate new frameworks and ideas for college athletics, let’s first set the stage:
We are undergoing generational change in college athletics, at a rapid pace.
College athletics is facing significant change in the form of rapid evolution of NCAA regulations, the introduction of athlete compensation, and the prevalence of entertainment-driven business models. This rapid change has left many universities facing existential questions about the structure and purpose of their athletic programs. With Judge Claudia Wilken’s recent approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, the financial pressures and legal constraints are now more real and immediate than ever.
The current rapid state of change is hard for many schools. Universities must work collaboratively with student-athletes while simultaneously settling class action lawsuits and setting new rules of engagement with student-athletes. Universities must work together to maximize the value of their revenue streams and rights, while simultaneously competing with each other on the field, for enrollment and brand prestige. This is not a recipe for silver-bullet solutions and fast answers. Change takes time.
Note: Recommendations in this paper are geared towards universities being able to take action, quickly, without waiting for significant cross-university collaboration, court cases or other variables.
At the heart of change is the evolving college athletics business model: sports as entertainment vs sports as education.
Sports as Entertainment is the business of sports. This business is media, ticket, sponsorship and apparel driven. In college, most of this business model is related to high-level D-I football and basketball programs. To illustrate this point, based on studying the economics of college sports, a judge approved a proposal that allocates 95% of the recent $2.8 billion back-pay House settlement to football and basketball student-athletes.
Sports as Education is tuition-supported driven. The business of education, through sport, is about developing great well-rounded students, using sport as a platform for life.
For generations, education was the business model of college athletics. Some universities now receive significant entertainment revenue from sports, creating a new hybrid model that extends into entertainment. In turn, universities must share some of these lucrative non-tuition revenue streams with student-athletes. This is what the disruption and change in college athletics boils down to.
While significant change is impacting college athletics, youth sports is also evolving, and future enrollees of universities want more than what universities currently provide
The authors of this paper have a unique lens on college athletics: through the eyes of the middle and high-school parent and student-athlete. Through the sports education products that we own and operate, we “hear” from millions of student-athletes each year. The youth sports market is robust, growing and evolving. Investment of time and energy is growing. Quality and rigor of competition is growing. Participation is growing.
Speaking with parents, the reasons for growth are clear: youth sports is education, and education that most classroom settings fall short on. Youth sports is the educational lab through which to develop critical life skills like teamwork, communication, resilience, managing emotions, and the like. While winning on the field is nice, most parents want the “W” in life for their kids. Parents also like that sports is a pathway to college, creating better college fit and in some cases college choice, as well as a guaranteed onramp supporting a good college transition. While the conversation of NIL and revenue exists, these topics are relevant to a relatively small subset of the millions of youth sports families out there. These emerging financial benefits are a “cherry on top”, not a core driver. To underline this point, we hear much more from parents about the challenges of social media for teens than we do about the benefits of social media as a revenue generating platform.
Speaking with student-athletes, sports has always been about friendship, competition, peer engagement and identity. What we hear more these days is that sports is about experience, and specifically in-person experience in a youth world increasingly dominated by technology and social media. Sports is one of the few remaining aspects of youth life that can only happen in person, and it is more critical and important as a result.
While universities are focused on their current economic models, the moves they are making now, in this time of change, have reverberating impacts on millions of future student-athletes. We are seeing three clear and new pressure points: (1) reduction (or threat of reduction) in roster sports; (2) transfer portals and preferences of coaches to recruit existing college student-athletes before high-schoolers; (3) extended eligibility of existing college student-athletes. These dynamics are putting a squeeze on high-school student-athletes today.
The upshot is simple: The needs and wants of middle and high-school student athletes and their parents, representing 50% plus of all incoming college freshmen, no longer align with the current realities of the college model that limits serious sports to a (potentially shrinking) limited number of NCAA sanctioned varsity spots and relegates everyone else to recreational sports.
Why the misalignment? Mostly due to stagnation of the university sports model, driven by NCAA legal frameworks, not by assessment of demand in an evolving youth sports world. Another subtle but meaningful reason? Universities typically bundle sports delivery costs into tuition. In high-level high school sports, costs are often unbundled from academic costs with a family investing in sports above and beyond core academic education.
Choices A University Can Make
Universities face a stark choice:
Contract: In the face of economic pressure, cut student-athletes and teams, risking legacy, donor activation, campus vibrancy and relevance in a world where the importance and interest in sports is rising.
Maintain the status quo: Theoretically possible, but practically hard in the face of top-down change impacting the entire college sports ecosystem.
Expand: Grow access and opportunity through sports by adding student-athletes and teams, leveraging athletic participation as a driver of enrollment, engagement, and revenue.
A Choice to Expand: Criteria for a Solution to Be Viable
Any effective solution should:
Expand access to competitive athletics.
Be financially viable.
Enhance, not compromise, academic growth and flexibility.
Foster campus spirit and community.
Be scalable and adaptable to institutional needs.
A Solution: Adding Student-Athletes and Teams
By adding student-athletes and teams, universities will be:
Making a profitable economic decision.
Meeting a clear need in the market and addressing a significant supply and demand imbalance in the high school-to-college transition.
Emphasizing that sports education is a forward-thinking approach for the evolving world.
Graduating tomorrow’s leaders.
Winning for the largest affinity group entering college each year, and improving student on-boarding, satisfaction and retention.
Helping university Presidents manage multi-stakeholder challenges.
Creating a more sustainable talent pipeline for NCAA sanctioned varsity teams.
Creating a solution for all divisions and levels of NCAA competition.
We will deep-dive into each benefit in the following pages.
1. Making a profitable economic decision
One learning from the authors is that convincing a university how to shift the lens on its P&L, in particular sports, is difficult. With that said, in a moment of generational transformation, putting old biases and frameworks aside is important to introduce new ideas.
On the education (not entertainment) side of college sports, there are two economic frameworks that support adding student-athletes and teams: (1) Shifting the lens on sports profitability and (2) marginal (incremental) profitability. The first is probably most important, but the second is likely more practical and requires less new thinking.
(1) Shifting the lens on sports profitability.
NCAA sanctioned varsity sports, at many universities, are isolated and often do not count tuition revenues in their P&L consideration. All universities are a blend of students and programs that add up to a wide-ranging enrollment and revenue picture. Isolating expenses of any one program without counting the full tuition revenue impact is unlikely to be a winning equation for any aspect of campus.
The equation to a profitable sports education model is the same as the equation for a broader university education model, and it always starts with a simple numerator / denominator, or what most schools call the “discount rate,” which in turn drives net revenue or captured revenue. The discount rate represents the amount of aid given relative to the expected revenue of the student base on a full-pay basis. Discounting in sports goes by another name, “scholarship.”
This is not a new concept but rather applies an existing concept to sports. Public universities support lower in-state tuition and financial aid by enrolling high-pay out of state applicants. Universities support domestic student financial aid and academic expansion by enrolling high-pay international applicants.
University-wide discount rates – outside of sports – vary widely but often approach 30, 40 or even 50% plus. Inside sports, notwithstanding the most talked-about sports programs being 80% plus scholarship/discounted (football and basketball), it is often true that the vast majority of other sports fall more in line with university averages, around 50%.
Consider this: these sports are often referred to as “non-revenue sports.” Yet, on a revenue basis, these sports are often performing similarly on the most important metric a university has: net tuition revenue per student. This is the profit and loss “lens” problem that exists in (some, not all) universities as it relates to student-athletes.
The upshot: for many sports – excluding football and basketball – the net tuition economic model is already (likely) reasonably consistent from a net revenue standpoint with other aspects of a university enrollment base.
(2) Marginal (incremental) profitability.
To increase college sports profitability, reduce the overall discount rate for athletes. The way to do this, while also winning for students, is to increase the denominator (tuition), without reducing scholarships or participation.
The simple way to achieve this: add more tuition paying student-athletes and teams. To illustrate, if the average sports discount rate (non-football and basketball) is 50% today, adding a varsity-lite Varsity Club team of tuition paying student-athletes in each sport would reduce the discount rate to 25%, driving profitability, perhaps making student-athletes among the most profitable populations on campus.
The reverse action on student-athletes is likely to put the P&L in reverse. Reducing student-athletes is unlikely to materially change the cost of delivery, facilities and other fixed and semi-fixed costs.
A real-world example of negative operating leverage: D-I college baseball teams under the new House settlement guidelines. The recent settlement reduced the roster sizes for many baseball teams. The challenge? Reducing the number of baseball players (including many tuition paying players) does not materially change the cost to deliver the baseball program. The same coaching is required, and the same facilities are required.
Core to the marginal profitability argument is operating leverage in the cost-structure, namely facility capacity and human capacity.
Facility capacity (in year). Fields, locker rooms, staff offices and the like make up capacity in sports. Universities have invested tens to hundreds of millions on these facilities, and the facilities are likely operating under-capacity/utilization. Many schools operate a one team = one field model for NCAA sanctioned varsity sports. We know from experience that a single field or court can accommodate more teams. While this may require some new operational creativity and flexibility, the opportunity is likely there.
Facility capacity (in summer and breaks). Capacity flexes across the year. In most college sports, facilities get only modest use in the summer and over breaks. There is significant capacity in these weeks and months. Universities have fields/courts, a brand, massive marketing databases, and skilled coaches. There is a seven or eight figure annual revenue opportunity in leveraging these assets. Bringing in more athletes (camps) during these times is also proven to be a great enrollment pathway to the university.
Human capacity. There is likely capacity in the existing talent in the university sports system. Allocating time to second teams and more athletes would be a shift, but if the alternative is losing athletes, teams or coaches, then this is a shift worth making. Change is hard, but it is possible in times like this. No doubt adding student-athletes and teams will require some additional hiring, but the ratio of hires to tuition can be modest.
While the economic framework above will result in marginal profitability from adding student-athletes and teams, if this is not convincing enough for a university, then what? As a last lever, prudently consider adding fees to the model to account for direct marginal costs of delivery (travel, coaching, etc.). While this is an undesirable addition for families, and not intended as a primary recommendation, when faced with the alternative of cutting or reducing programs, this is the better of two undesirable outcomes. Right or wrong, many families in middle and high-school are used to treating sports team and travel costs separate from core education costs; sports fees have already been mostly “unbundled” from core academic tuition in high-level high school sports.
Cost unbundling for value-added experiences with direct incremental costs is not a new or unique concept for universities, nor for parents (e.g. intl’ trips and study abroad programs).
2. Meeting a clear need in the market and addressing a significant supply and demand imbalance in the high school-to-college transition
As noted in the “Executive Summary” and “Context,” the binary college sports model of NCAA sanctioned varsity sport or recreational club/intramural is outdated at best, built on a legal framework (NCAA eligibility) that is changing, and inconsistent with modern realities of student-athletes matriculating to college. Innovative schools will see this as opportunity to change and grow. The addition of a varsity-lite Varsity Club experience to complement the existing NCAA sanctioned varsity sport and recreational club/intramural ecosystem would likely be attractive to millions of future student athletes.
3. Emphasizing that sports education is a forward-thinking emphasis for the evolving world
As noted in the “Executive Summary,” what happens on the field of play is a “lab” in an educational context. Supplement the on-field lab with intentional curriculum in areas of mental performance, nutrition, sleep, leadership, and the like, and a university will have a powerful education model that prepares students for the future of work and life. The future of work almost certainly requires heavier emphasis on these core skills. Through this lens, sports present an impactful and differentiated educational opportunity for universities taking the lead on the future of education. Add more student-athletes and teams to extend these learning models to a wider student base.
4. Graduating tomorrow’s leaders
See “Executive Summary.”
5. Winning for the largest affinity group entering college each year, and improving student on-boarding, satisfaction and retention
See “Executive Summary.”
6. Helping university Presidents manage multi-stakeholder challenges
See “Executive Summary.”
7. Creating a more sustainable talent pipeline for NCAA sanctioned varsity teams
See “Executive Summary.”
8. Creating a solution for all divisions of NCAA competition
See “Executive Summary.”
An Actionable Model: Max out roster caps, and add “Varsity Clubs”
The model is just that, a model. While inevitably it can and should evolve to fit individual university realities, the key is that it can be implemented and tested immediately by any university with an interest. Schools can look at their own unique circumstances, and tailor a program that fits. The model:
Maximize all available roster spots for NCAA sanctioned varsity teams under the recent settlement, or go further, if your school is not participating in the settlement. These can be tuition paying families, lowering the overall discount rate for student-athletes on campus, increasing revenue with limited new operational burden or costs.
Add varsity-lite second teams in a few sports as a pilot program, with an eye towards expanding the model in success. We will call these “Varsity Clubs” or “Second Squads.” These Varsity Clubs do not need to be sanctioned NCAA teams to be attractive to tuition paying families. While there are myriad iterations a university can consider, for the model to be attractive to high quality academic and athletic high school families, the model should strive to follow some basic guidelines:
Access to NCAA sanctioned varsity facilities when possible;
Administration oversight from NCAA sanctioned varsity staff, and ideally the 360 degree student-athlete services (dining, athletic training, weight room, study halls, etc.) consistent with NCAA sanctioned varsity programs;
Lower mandatory training loads +- 50% of NCAA sanctioned varsity expectations, with optional ways to get more. This should be more intensive than typical student run club sports, but not as intense as full-on NCAA sanctioned varsity sports;
Ensure recruiting and enrollment pathways remain consistent with the pathways of existing NCAA sanctioned varsity student-athletes (through the sports coaches);
Ideally, with time, recruit other schools in your conference or nearby and create Varsity Club competitions, rivalries and championships. Student-athletes don’t need competition to be NCAA qualified to matter.
Implementation Guidance
In new models, the next step is typically the best step. Below is a path to get moving, quickly:
Evaluate existing NCAA sanctioned varsity roster sizes, pick several sports to add to, giving clear guidance to sports coaches on the discount rate desired for new students (full pay, partial pay)
Very limited incremental costs and resources will be needed to accommodate, making this move operationally simple, fast, and economically impactful.
Pilot the varsity-lite Varsity Clubs experience in select sports to learn staffing and capacity model changes in real-time, and to understand demand from student-athletes in real-time.
Ask AD’s and coaches which sports have the most recruiting demand.
Consider the reality that individual sports are simpler to build than team sports, making them ideal test cases for simplicity.
Staff-up appropriately under existing NCAA sanctioned varsity team leadership, but doing so in a lean way, to ensure staffing expenses do not lead demand for new enrollment.
Other Actions to consider
While this paper focused on immediately actionable solutions in the context of our understanding of existing NCAA and recent House settlement frameworks, there certainly are opportunities for universities to work together, and with the NCAA, to evolve rules and regulations to meet the evolving market. Two notable areas worth focusing on:
Add the ability for a university to play multiple NCAA divisions in a single sport. Currently a university can only compete in a one (NCAA sanctioned varsity) team, one division model. This restriction does not fit the evolving needs of student-athletes and universities. Take a DI soccer program as an example. A simple and productive way to add more student-athletes and teams would be to have a “first team” play DI, and a “second team” play a lower division. This is more consistent with international sports models with varied levels of structured competition for developmental teams. This would allow a “second team” program to slot into existing DII and DIII frameworks for competition, gameplay and championships. This is the simplest path to adding student-athletes and teams, but it is currently blocked by rules and regulations.
Remove roster limits. Roster limits are averse to the interests of millions of future student athletes, and as demonstrated in this paper, counter to a university’s economic interests as it looks for solutions to new pressures in college sports. While there may be valid reasons for roster caps in certain scenarios, broadly applied, these caps stymie the opportunity to impact more lives through sports, and caps take away a key economic value lever for universities that want ways to compete and win for students, their economic model and mission.
Title IX and Governance
The varsity-lite Varsity Club experience can be done responsibly. When structured appropriately:
Title IX compliance can be maintained through gender balance;
Scholarships are optional additions to this model, but not required, keeping budgets manageable;
While ideally NCAA evolves to meet the moment, Varsity Clubs can be governed outside NCAA frameworks, allowing flexibility.
Conclusion and A Call to Lead
Adding student-athletes and teams, by maximizing existing rosters and adding varsity-lite Varsity Clubs, offers a practical, scalable, and mission-aligned solution to the challenges facing college athletics. By expanding access, growing revenue, and avoiding other regulatory and financial burdens of compliance, institutions can reimagine athletics for a new era—one that meets the needs of students, families, and universities alike.
We need leaders. We need innovators. The students are ready. The economics are sound. The tipping point is here. The next move from a handful of university leaders can tip the future of college sports for the vast majority of participating student-athletes, students who are interested in college sports as a platform for education and for life.
NOTE: This White Paper is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated entities.
