Monday, May 5, 2025

THREE MODELS FOR COLLEGE CLUB SPORTS ADMINISTRATION

The administration of non-NCAA intercollegiate “club” sports has traditionally been a “student-driven” affair with little to no institutional support or oversight. When one thinks of “club” sports in the ‘70s, ‘80s or even ‘90s one might think of beer-soaked rugby, lacrosse or hockey games with zero school involvement.  This all changed because colleges and universities began to take more of an interest in their club sports, originally because of liability issues. They did not want “clubs” representing the university, sometimes across state lines, without proper oversight and the potential for being liable for their students’ safety.

Colleges and universities generally began, and continue to, manage their student-run “club sports” programs via their Campus Recreation Departments without significant resources and support but with increasing oversight, and with good reason. However, the markets speak whether or not universities drive sports programming on their campuses or whether they are driven by the interest and energy of students. Especially at large universities, club sports programs that have existed over time have substantial athlete, alumni and fan support that make them run.

            In the following we will look at how colleges are relating to club sports programs on their campuses from traditionally more passive involvement to newer and more active roles in shaping non-NCAA club sports. There are clearly different models and levels of institutional involvement in club sports, but even amongst the differences is a common trend of increasing involvement by colleges and universities as well as third party support. Let’s see some of the models that exist today.

 

#1 THE OLD CAMPUS REC DEPARTMENT MODEL

            Most schools over the past 30 years have administered their non-NCAA club sports via “Campus Rec Departments" and most still do today. These Campus Recreation Departments that are managing intercollegiate club sports are also managing on-campus recreation and wellness programming like intramurals and on-campus fitness programming. Institutions with this model sanction their club sports programs, handle liability issues and distribute limited funding, but in the end, clubs are still “student-run” in terms of scheduling, fundraising, equipment purchasing and other operational and administrative tasks.

            By nature of maturity, many of these programs that find themselves under the old “Campus Rec Department Model” are outgrowing it as clubs age and build alumni loyalty, fan support and demand to play from student athletes seeking opportunities to play competitive intercollegiate sports. Occasionally these programs mature to the point that a university will recognize a program and elevate its status to NCAA or NAIA level of support and therefore be administered by the NCAA athletic department.

Of note are intercollegiate club sports programs at the largest NCAA participating universities that do NOT have an NCAA program in a given sport, but do have a “club” team in that given sport. These Clubs at so called “power four” conference universities are beginning to “look and feel” more and more like NCAA programs as they are the “only game in town” on campus.


#2 THE NCAA DII / NAIA MODEL

            There are numerous sports that have limited presence or do not exist at the NCAA Division II level and therefore cannot be played, or must be played in a limited fashion, without a minimum number of programs for national tournaments. One key example is ice hockey, which does have a handful of participating number of NCAA DII schools, but not enough to warrant a national tournament. The lack of a critical mass of NCAA DII hockey programs acts as a deterrent for colleges to add NCAA DII hockey, while at the same time is an incentive for schools that want to have college hockey, to support it in a non-NCAA fashion. A number of NCAA colleges that play NCAA DII sports, especially in the upper Midwest where hockey is a "native" winter sport, have deliberately evaded NCAA DII hockey and actively supported and funded non-NCAA club hockey teams. The club hockey teams at some of these NCAA DII schools are supported as “varsity” programs for the purpose of their athletics programming and are also administered by their athletic departments that oversee their other NCAA DII programs. Examples include Davenport University in Michigan, University of Mary in North Dakota, University of Jamestown in North Dakota, Maryville University in St Louis and Minot State (ND).

            The same can be said for colleges and universities that are not NCAA members for their athletics purposes, but rather, are members of the NAIA. NAIA does not sponsor or sanction ice hockey. Again, there are NAIA member schools, particularly in the upper Midwest, that sponsor, fund and support hockey teams through their athletic departments and are considered “varsity “ for the purpose of their institution, but are not NCAA or NAIA and therefore compete against other “club” model programs. Examples of NAIA member schools funding their non-NAIA programs as “varsity” programs that play other “club” programs include Aquinas College in Grand Rapids Michigan, University of Michigan – Dearborn, Indiana Tech, and Midland University in Nebraska.


#3 THE “LIBERTY UNVIVERSITY MODEL”

            The most “cutting edge” of all of the college club sports management models is what I have dubbed “The Liberty University Model”. Liberty University is a large private evangelical NCAA DI member with 16,000 students on campus and almost 100,000 students in all academic programs. The university’s NCAA athletic department sponsors 8 men’s NCAA DI sports and 10 NCAA DI women’s sports.

            What makes Liberty University’s approach to non-NCAA “club” sports unique is that it has created a second “department" for non-NCAA intercollegiate club sports dubbed the Liberty University Club Sports Department which is separate and segregated from its NCAA athletic department and also separate from its “Campus Recreation Department”. This Club Sports Department looks and feels like its NCAA athletic department with the difference being that these intercollegiate club sports are not scholarship athletic programs, but are fully funded and supported athletic programs. In essence it is like having an NCAA DIII athletic department under and NCAA DI athletic department in the same university.

            The development of the Club Sports Department began as an interest in liability issues, but changed into an interest in student-athlete attraction and fan support.  The university deliberately does NOT field intercollegiate club programs that it fields at the NCAA DI level. By doing this, the university promotes the fact that their intercollegiate club sports are THE program on campus for a given sport. Many, but not all, of the club sports are sports that are not NCAA sanctioned sports to begin with such as air pistol, cycling, racquetball, rock climbing, ultimate frisbee and men’s rowing.

Video on “Liberty Model”: 

WINDS OF CHANGE

            Colleges and universities are beginning to recognize this shift toward increasing interest, maturity and sophistication of club teams. Rather than simply elevating club programs to NCAA status as they mature, are beginning to find new ways to support and institutionalize these clubs as is the case with the “Liberty Model” and “NCAA DII/NAIA Models”.  Have you recognized this trend in college club sports? Do you think “low key” entry level college club sports still exist and where?

No comments:

Post a Comment