Strategic clarity for college athletic leaders navigating structural change
This advisory work supports athletic directors, senior administrators, and football leadership teams making high-stakes decisions in an environment evolving faster than legacy structures were designed to handle.
College athletics is shifting faster than the models and structures designed to support it
College athletics is under structural strain.
Revenue sharing, NIL governance, roster volatility, donor fatigue, conference realignment, compliance exposure, and widening resource gaps are converging at the same time. Most operating models were built for a different pace and a simpler environment.
In this moment, the greatest risk isn’t doing too little.
It’s making decisions that feel necessary now but quietly limit flexibility later.
This work exists for moments when leaders need a clearer lens before committing to choices that are difficult — or impossible — to unwind.
Who this advisory serves
This advisory work is designed for senior decision-makers inside college athletics.
Athletic Directors
Leaders accountable for competitive identity, financial sustainability, and alignment with institutional priorities.
Football Leadership
Programs where football economics, roster dynamics, and performance expectations disproportionately shape outcomes across the department.
Executives navigating governance, donor relationships, compliance pressures, and long-term departmental health.
Senior Administrators
The challenges leadership brings into focus
Leaders bring this advisory into the conversation when costs and revenue begin drifting out of alignment and it’s no longer clear which levers actually matter.
When competitive identity within a conference is eroding, but the implications are hard to name; when decision-making slows because too many stakeholders are involved and no one has a clear frame; when strategy is still anchored to assumptions from a different era.
These moments don’t require more consultants or more activity.
They require better judgment.
How advisory support is structured
Every engagement follows the same underlying logic: clarity first, alignment second, execution third.
The initial phase is always diagnostic. I use a proprietary Strategic Performance System (SPS™) as the playbook to translate complexity into a clear, shared understanding of the institution’s competitive, financial, and operational reality.
From there, the engagement structure follows the decisions being navigated — not a predefined process.
PHASE I
Strategic Architecture & Alignment
A diagnostic designed to clarify where the program stands today and establish the strategic foundation required for long-term sustainability and competitive advantage.
Phase I clarifies:
What pressures matter most?
Where institutional friction is slowing progress?
What success needs to mean in this environment?
Which structural gaps require attention?
What strategic direction creates the highest long-term advantage
The output of Phase I is not a report. It is decision-grade clarity and alignment leadership can use.
PHASE II
Ongoing Strategic Advisory
Phase II provides leaders with continued access to senior-level thought partnership as decisions compound and conditions evolve. The structure takes one of two forms, depending on complexity and ongoing decision pressure.
Embedded Strategy
Fractional strategy partner to help leadership maintain alignment, reinforce execution discipline, and navigate compounding decisions.
Strategic Advisor
Continuity of judgment, pressure-testing, and perspective as decisions arise without requiring embedded capacity.
Phase I establishes a clear decision architecture.
Phase II ensures that clarity becomes disciplined execution and long-term institutional advantage.
I’ve spent my career navigating complex, high-pressure environments—in professional sports, entrepreneurship, innovation, and organizational leadership. The constant across all of them:
When the environment shifts, clarity becomes the most valuable asset.
This work is built for environments where incentives are misaligned, stakeholders are numerous, and the pace of change outstrips institutional decision cycles.
The advantage is not more information — it’s a clearer operating picture, stronger alignment, and a cadence that prevents programs from becoming permanently reactive.
The goal is institutional control: decisions that hold up over time, even as the landscape keeps shifting.
Why this approach works
Areas of focus
Focus of the engagement adapts to the realities of each institution, but commonly concentrates across two categories.
Our work together follows decision pressure — not rigid service categories.
Power 4 environments
Advisory focus often centers on football-specific strategy, resource allocation, roster economics, and downstream consequences across the department.
Group of 5 and FCS environments
The advisory lens more often takes a department-wide view, where football must be understood in the context of the full athletic department and institutional mission.
Request a Strategic Clarity session
For college athletic leaders navigating structural change and high-stakes decisions.