It was a crisis moment in college football. Concerns about safety, payments to players and a dwindling focus on academics reached a fever pitch.
A prominent news outlet published a scathing exposé alleging schools allowed football players to cheat on entrance exams or, in one instance, receive a lucrative deal from a cigarette franchise. One player, the reporting showed, played for Penn State one week and then UPenn the next. And then there was the violence.
A player was confronted after injuring an opposing team’s star and responded, “We’re coached to pick out the most dangerous man on the opposing side and put him out in the first five minutes of play.” The president of the United States felt compelled to act, convening prominent college football coaches at the White House.
The year was 1905.
Around the White House dining table, President Theodore Roosevelt raised some of the more egregious circumstances at each college. The coaches, including the legendary Walter Camp, pushed back. But they eventually agreed to a joint statement acknowledging “an honorable obligation” to play the game cleanly and pledged themselves to live up to that obligation. Roosevelt’s famous dinner at the White House, followed by subsequent discussions between 13 colleges and universities, resulted in safer rules for college football and the creation of the Intercollegiate Athletic Association — the precursor to the NCAA.
A century later, college football is once again facing what feels like an existential crisis. Finding a path forward will require a similar spirit of cooperation. But unlike the days of Roosevelt, new rules on the playing field won’t solve the mounting issues facing college sports. Instead, we need new models of governance and enforcement.
A solution that’s not perfect, but the best option
At present, unregulated agents, coaching carousels, unenforced rules around revenue sharing, NIL, and a revolving-door transfer portal threaten what actually makes college sports great: its educational purpose.
Faith-based institutions like Brigham Young University — with a distinct emphasis on service and learning — must be especially advocatory for a renewed focus on integrity, mission, character and the educational aspects of college athletics. But for real progress, leaders of good conscience from across the academy must work with public officials to ensure college football remains something more than a farm league for the NFL.
To appreciate how best to move forward, it’s important to understand how we got here.
In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in NCAA v. Alston paved the way for paying college athletes with more than scholarships. Justice Brett Kavanaugh captured the prevailing sentiment of many sports fans when he wrote his scathing concurring opinion that questioned the “NCAA’s decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student-athletes who are not fairly compensated.” Today, a majority of Americans (more than 50 percent), and a healthy majority of college sports fans (more than 60 percent), continue to support compensation for college athletes either through name, image and likeness (NIL) or through revenue sharing with their respective colleges or universities.
While the ruling in NCAA v. Alston was welcomed by many, it also blunted the ability of the NCAA and conferences to enforce rules without the fear of further lawsuits. Enforcement or collective rules risks running afoul of antitrust laws, which prohibit collusion between entities (including universities) when it comes to labor markets. To sort out and enforce the myriad issues facing college athletics, colleges and universities need some limited antitrust protections.
Some contend that instead of antitrust carve-outs, universities should instead engage in a collective bargaining process with student-athletes. But unlike pro sports leagues that collectively negotiate compensation and other conditions between owners and players — such as the NBA or NFL — universities are often state entities subject to state labor laws, many of which prohibit collective bargaining.
Though far from perfect, a step in the right direction is already before Congress in the form of the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act. The act, which is backed by more than 20 college athletic conferences including the Power Four, would address many of the large issues facing college athletics — agents, the transfer portal, the coaching carousel and, most importantly, the antitrust carve-outs vital to allow college sports the space to self-govern and enforce sound policies without the constant threat of yet another lawsuit.
After NCAA v. Alston, the subsequent House v. NCAA lawsuit further altered the landscape of college athletics. An Arizona State University swimmer (Grant House) and a basketball player for the University of Oregon (Sedona Prince) sued in 2020 for name, image and likeness damages. The major athletic conferences and the NCAA voted to settle the case in 2024 for $2.75 billion. Part of the settlement paved the way for colleges and universities to share revenue with student-athletes. But one need only take a glance at the website “The College Sports Litigation Tracker” to see that the threat of lawsuits in this space hasn’t ended. Some limited antitrust protections would allow for enforcement of newly tailored rules that could reduce the need for further litigation. Of course, any reforms without meaningful enforcement inevitably result in some skirting the rules to gain a competitive advantage, while compliant institutions are left at a disadvantage. There are always going to be rule breakers, but right now there’s insufficient clarity on the rules and what happens if they’re broken. The Protect College Sports Act would allow a path for this meaningful enforcement.
The thorniest problems to solve
The transfer portal is one area where reform and enforcement are needed. The bill proposes a model that would permit a single transfer per student-athlete without affecting eligibility. Subsequent transfers would require evidence of a coaching change or other extenuating circumstances. Permitting transfers is beneficial to the selfdetermination of student-athletes. And this is especially true as coaches have become increasingly mobile. But excessive transfers can prove detrimental to a student’s academic progress. Transferring means lost credits, adapting to new graduation criteria, new faculty, different academic expectations and revised graduation timelines.
These considerations are often overlooked when agents pitch athletes on entering the transfer portal. As a result, too many college athletes are receiving advice from unprofessional agents with little accountability. Many athletes are taken in by agents promising big NIL deals and overly rosy market valuations only to be abandoned when the riches don’t materialize. The Protect College Sports Act would put in place a certification process for agents who wish to represent college athletes. Professional sports agents are almost universally required to certify by meeting certain professional standards. Failure to abide by these standards can result in being barred from the market. The college landscape lacks any such system. This needs to change for the sake of student-athletes.
The proposed legislation would also help level the playing field. The drive for ever greater revenue has led to a sports landscape where the rich and powerful rule, and then there’s everyone else. The Protect College Sports Act would provide a path to support smaller athletic conferences and schools. The core values of most academic institutions are committed to the common good and democratizing access to great competition. A system where only a handful of schools have a monopoly (or duopoly) on competitive college sports is not the right path forward.
Implicit in any limited antitrust protection for colleges and universities is a kind of public trust. And colleges and universities must live up to that public trust. What is most noble and great about college sports is how it points to a mission to lift the mind and character of students. If universities focus on maximizing revenue and look past its more noble aims, then college football is lost and so too is the public’s trust. Fans, alumni, students, staff, faculty and entire campus communities are so invested in the success of their teams precisely because athletic programs come to symbolize our higher aspirations and those of our institutions of higher education.
Why college sports is worth saving
We are certainly not perfect at Brigham Young University. And we have much work to do to live up to our high standards. But as BYU’s president, I have seen glimpses of when athletics transcends competition on the field. I see it when BYU alumni join with the alumni of opposing schools to perform pregame service projects. I see it when BYU faithful bring ice cream to visiting teams’ fans at each home game. I see it when entire fan bases rally for a family facing a major hardship on a rival’s team. I see it when our head football coach praises his players after a bowl game victory not for their athletic performance or physical prowess but for how they live up to their highest ideals. I see it when a coach from another school gets up before their fan base and advocates for treating a religious school like BYU with respect and dignity. That is how sports point to a bigger educational mission that lifts humanity and breaks down prejudices and barriers.
We don’t need to retreat to an old model of yesteryear to rediscover what makes college sports so incredibly inspiring. College athletics just needs the structures, reforms and protections that will allow it to preserve what we already know is truly special. The educational excellence, the respectful competition, the connection to campus traditions, the character development, the selfless service, the pageantry — it’s all still there, and we can ensure it continues for generations.
A century ago, leaders came together to save college football. They met the moment. It took courage and action. Congress should act today to provide the limited antitrust protections that will allow college athletics to move forward in the 21st century — enforcing the House settlement, protecting student-athletes from predatory actors, and reforming the transfer portal so it supports academic progress. These and other reforms will allow competitive excellence to flourish alongside the higher aspirations and values that make college sports so unique.
Theodore Roosevelt, Walter Camp, the father of American football, and others understood that sports sometimes require courageous reform to survive. “Athletics are good,” Roosevelt once said, “… because they tend to develop courage. They are also good because they encourage a true democratic spirit.” Let’s hope we still have enough of both to save sports on our college campuses.
C. Shane Reese is the 14th president of Brigham Young University. He is a fellow of the American Statistical Association and a recipient of the ASA’s Excellence in Statistics in Sports Award.
This story appears in the September 2026 issue of Deseret Magazine. Learn more about how to subscribe.