Paper No. 8

What a new governing structure for college football could look like—one that aligns incentives, restores enforceability, and creates a stable competitive system.

"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."
— James Madison, Federalist No. 51

The prior papers have established the need for reform, the limits of the current system, and the legal and institutional constraints that shape any viable solution. The remaining question is structural: what would a stable system actually look like?

This paper advances a central claim: major college football must be governed by a federated structure—one that aligns the interests of institutions and athletes, operates within the bounds of the law, and provides enforceable rules through a legitimate governing framework.

The objective is not to centralize power for its own sake. It is to create a system in which authority is defined, incentives are aligned, and competition can be sustained over time.

I. The Case for a Federated Structure

The current system lacks a coherent center. Authority is diffuse, enforcement is inconsistent, and coordination is constrained.

At the same time, full centralization is neither practical nor desirable. Institutions differ in resources, priorities, and competitive objectives. Conferences retain significant value as organizing units.

A federated structure offers a middle path.

In such a system:
- Authority is shared between a central governing body and member institutions
- Rules are established through a defined process that incorporates both institutional and athlete representation
- Enforcement mechanisms are clear, consistent, and legitimate

This structure preserves institutional autonomy where appropriate, while creating a framework within which coordination can occur.

II. The Governing Body

At the center of the system would be a new entity: a college football federation.

This body would be distinct from the NCAA and limited in scope to major college football.

Its core functions would include:
- Establishing and enforcing rules governing competition
- Administering compensation frameworks
- Managing eligibility, transfers, and the competitive calendar
- Serving as the negotiating counterparty for athlete representation

The governing body would not operate as a unilateral authority. Its legitimacy would derive from its structure.

A representative model would include:
- Institutional members (universities and conferences)
- Athlete representatives
- Independent members responsible for oversight and integrity

This composition ensures that no single interest dominates the system.

III. Membership and Tiers

Not all institutions operate at the same level of competition. Any durable system must recognize this reality.

The federation would therefore be organized into tiers.

A top tier—comprising approximately 40 to 50 programs—would represent the highest level of competition, media value, and resource commitment.

A second tier would include additional programs that participate within the broader system, with the possibility of movement between tiers over time.

This structure serves several purposes:
- It aligns competition among similarly situated programs
- It allows for differentiated rules where appropriate
- It creates incentives for performance and investment

Whether movement between tiers is formalized through promotion and relegation or managed through periodic realignment is a design choice. The principle is flexibility within structure.

IV. The Role of Conferences

Conferences would not disappear. They would evolve.

Within the federation, conferences would continue to:
- Organize scheduling within defined parameters
- Maintain regional identity and rivalries
- Administer certain aspects of competition at the conference level

But they would no longer serve as the primary source of governance for the sport.

Instead, conferences would operate within the framework established by the federation. Their authority would be derivative, not foundational.

This raises an obvious question: why would conferences agree to this change?

The answer lies in the pressures already acting upon them.

First, conferences today face increasing constraints on their ability to coordinate. Antitrust law limits the extent to which conferences can impose and enforce rules governing compensation, eligibility, and movement. A federated structure restores the ability to coordinate lawfully through a centralized framework.

Second, conferences are already engaged in a form of internal competition that undermines long-term stability. Realignment has prioritized short-term media value over geographic coherence, creating strain on athletes, institutions, and non-revenue sports. A federation provides a mechanism to stabilize these dynamics while preserving conference identity.

Third, conferences retain a meaningful role within the new system. They continue to:
- Control significant portions of scheduling
- Serve as cultural and competitive anchors
- Participate directly in governance through representation in the federation

Fourth, and most importantly, the alternative is not preservation of the status quo. It is continued erosion.

If no centralized structure emerges, power will continue to shift:
- Upward to media partners
- Outward to courts and litigation
- Inward to individual institutions acting independently

In that environment, conferences lose influence—not preserve it.

The federated model does not eliminate conferences. It preserves them within a system that can endure.

Conferences are not being asked to surrender power. They are being asked to preserve it within a system that can sustain it.

V. Rulemaking and Enforcement

A central weakness of the current system is the gap between rulemaking and enforcement. Rules exist, but they are inconsistently applied, frequently challenged, and often revised in response to external pressure.

In the federated model, rulemaking would follow a defined and transparent process.

Rules would be:
- Proposed through committees composed of institutional and athlete representatives
- Evaluated for competitive, legal, and economic impact
- Adopted through a voting structure that balances institutional and athlete interests

Certain categories of rules—particularly those affecting athlete compensation, movement, and eligibility—would be subject to negotiation with athlete representatives and incorporated into binding agreements.

Enforcement would be centralized and independent.

Key features would include:
- A dedicated enforcement arm within the federation
- Standardized penalty frameworks tied to specific violations
- Independent adjudicators to hear disputes
- A formal appeals process with defined timelines

Penalties could include:
- Financial sanctions
- Scholarship or roster limitations
- Postseason restrictions in extreme cases

The objective is not severity, but predictability. Participants must understand not only what the rules are, but how they will be applied.

This structure replaces discretionary and uneven enforcement with a system that is consistent, transparent, and defensible.

VI. Integration with Athlete Representation

As discussed in the prior paper, a lawful system requires athlete representation.

Within the federation model, this would be formalized.

The governing body would serve as the institutional counterparty in negotiations with athlete representatives. Agreements reached through this process would define key elements of the system, including compensation structures, transfer rules, and eligibility standards.

This integration is essential. It provides the legal foundation for coordinated action and aligns incentives across participants.

VII. The Competitive Product

A federated system allows for a more coherent and valuable competitive structure.

At present, the college football product is fragmented. Scheduling is inconsistent. Competitive alignment is uneven. The postseason operates alongside, rather than within, the broader system. For participants and observers alike, the structure of competition is often difficult to define.

These conditions do not reflect a lack of interest in the sport. They reflect a lack of structure.

A federated model addresses this directly.

First, scheduling can be rationalized. Matchups would be organized within defined tiers, ensuring that competition occurs among similarly situated programs. Non-conference games could be structured to preserve traditional rivalries while reducing the number of mismatched contests that dilute the overall product.

Second, the regular season would carry clearer meaning. With a more coherent structure, results would have consistent implications for postseason qualification and competitive standing. The relationship between performance and outcome would be more transparent.

Third, the postseason can be fully integrated into the system. The College Football Playoff would no longer operate as a partially separate entity, but as the culmination of a defined competitive framework. Qualification criteria, seeding, and progression would be understood in advance, reducing controversy and increasing engagement.

Fourth, roster stability would improve the quality of play. With more structured rules governing transfers and compensation, teams would experience less year-to-year volatility. Continuity enhances development, execution, and competitive identity.

Fifth, the system becomes more legible to fans. One of the enduring strengths of sports leagues is clarity. Participants understand the structure. Outcomes follow defined rules. A federated model moves college football closer to this standard without sacrificing its unique characteristics.

These changes have direct economic implications.

For media partners, a more coherent product is a more valuable product. Predictability in scheduling, clearer stakes, and more consistent matchups enhance both viewership and long-term rights value.

For institutions, the competitive environment becomes more sustainable. Resources are deployed within a system that rewards performance rather than constant escalation.

For athletes, the quality of competition improves. Development occurs within more stable environments, and performance is evaluated within a system that is consistent from year to year.

The objective is not to eliminate what makes college football distinctive. It is to ensure that those distinctive qualities are supported by a structure that enhances, rather than obscures, them.

VIII. Economic Structure

The federation would also play a central role in economic coordination. This is not a secondary consideration. It is the foundation upon which the rest of the system depends.

At present, the financial structure of college football is fragmented. Media rights are negotiated at the conference level. Compensation flows through a combination of institutional resources and external NIL arrangements. Spending is significant, but largely unconstrained, opaque, and unpredictable.

This fragmentation produces three persistent problems.

First, it undermines competitive balance. Institutions with greater resources are able to outspend competitors without meaningful constraint, while others are forced into reactive and often unsustainable financial commitments.

Second, it creates cost escalation without corresponding stability. Each institution must continue to increase spending simply to maintain position. There is no mechanism for coordinated restraint.

Third, it shifts economic power away from institutions and toward external actors. As NIL arrangements become more central, control over compensation becomes diffuse, inconsistent, and difficult to regulate.

A federated system addresses these problems by introducing structure where none currently exists.

This does not require full centralization of all revenues. Institutions would retain control over significant local income streams, including ticket sales, donations, and certain sponsorships. Conferences would continue to play a role in distributing conference-level media revenues.

But the system would establish coordinated frameworks in areas where fragmentation produces instability.

These would include:
- A defined approach to national media rights, whether through full centralization or coordinated negotiation among participating members
- A baseline revenue-sharing model to ensure that participation in the top tier carries both obligations and benefits
- A structured relationship between institutional compensation and broader system economics

The objective is not to eliminate differences between institutions. It is to ensure that those differences operate within a system that remains competitive and sustainable.

For conferences, this structure provides meaningful advantages.

First, it protects long-term media value. A more stable and coherent competitive product is more valuable than one defined by constant turnover and uncertainty.

Second, it reduces internal pressure. Conferences are currently sites of economic competition among their own members. A coordinated framework reduces the need for internal escalation while preserving competitive integrity.

Third, it preserves relevance. In a system where economic coordination becomes necessary, the absence of structure invites external intervention—whether from courts, regulators, or media partners. Participation in a federated model allows conferences to remain central to the system’s evolution.

The alternative is not a continuation of the present model. It is further fragmentation.

As economic activity continues to move outside traditional institutional channels, the ability of schools and conferences to shape outcomes diminishes. Costs rise, but control does not.

A structured economic system reverses that dynamic. It brings key decisions back within a framework that can be governed, negotiated, and enforced.

The precise mechanisms through which compensation is allocated, limited, and distributed will be addressed in the following paper.

For present purposes, the principle is clear: a system that generates substantial revenue cannot remain stable if it lacks a coherent method of governing how that revenue is used.

IX. Relationship to the NCAA

The federation would not replace the NCAA across all sports. It would instead represent a functional separation between major college football and the broader collegiate athletic system.

Under this model:
- Football at the highest level would be governed exclusively by the federation
- Other sports would remain within the NCAA or similar governing bodies
- Institutions would operate under dual structures depending on the sport

This separation allows each system to function according to its own realities.

For football:
- National scale
- Significant revenue
- Professional pathway considerations

For other sports:
- Regional competition
- Academic integration
- Different economic models

The practical effect would be a rebalancing of incentives.

Non-revenue sports would no longer be forced to align with football-driven conference realignment. Travel demands would be reduced. Regional rivalries could be restored.

At the same time, institutions would retain the ability to manage their athletic programs holistically, with football operating as a distinct but integrated component.

The NCAA’s role would continue, but it would no longer attempt to govern a sport whose scale and legal context have outgrown its structure.

X. The Path to Implementation

The creation of a federated system would occur in stages rather than through a single, comprehensive transition.

Phase One: Coalition Formation
A core group of leading institutions—likely within existing power conferences—would agree in principle to form the federation. This group would establish initial governance structures and define membership criteria.

Phase Two: Structural Development
The founding members would:
- Draft governing documents
- Establish the federation entity
- Define representation for institutions and athletes
- Begin negotiations regarding compensation and rule frameworks

Phase Three: Alignment with Existing Obligations
Existing media contracts, conference agreements, and postseason arrangements would be honored where required. The federation would initially operate alongside these structures, with a timeline for integration as contractual obligations expire.

Phase Four: Athlete Representation
A formal mechanism for athlete representation would be established, enabling negotiation of key system rules. This step is essential for legal durability.

Phase Five: Operational Launch
The federation would assume responsibility for:
- Rule enforcement
- Scheduling frameworks
- Postseason structure
- Core governance functions

Participation would likely expand over time as additional institutions elect to join.

This staged approach reflects the realities identified in earlier papers. The system cannot be reset instantaneously. It must evolve within existing constraints.

But once established, the federation provides a clear destination—one that institutions can move toward incrementally rather than attempt to reach in a single step.

XI. A System Designed to Endure

The purpose of the federation model is not to solve a single problem. It is to create a system capable of adapting to future challenges.

By aligning incentives, establishing lawful coordination, and creating enforceable rules, the federated structure provides a foundation for long-term stability.

It is not a perfect system. No such system exists.

But it is one that can function.

And in the context of the current environment, that is no small achievement.