| Intercollegiate athletics has its share of both advocates and adversaries. On the one hand, many commentators applaud college sports for supplementing the educational experiences of students and broadening the exposure of the university to its constituents (Boyer, 1989). On the other hand, athletics, particularly the revenue-generating sports of basketball and football, create numerous problems for university leaders. Each week, news sources report concerns about program mismanagement, over-extended budgets, misconduct by players and coaches, and poor academic performance by student-athletes. In response to these troubles, reformers most commonly suggest that university presidents should gain greater control over athletic departments.;Numerous studies have explored how universities make decisions in the academic and administrative realms and what role presidents played in these decisions (Stroup, 1966; Cohen & March, 1974; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1974; Fisher, 1984; Birnbaum, 1992; Rosovsky, 1990). Noticeably absent from the literature, however, are analyses of university decision-making and presidential influence on major issues related to revenue-generating sports. Until this study, it has been unclear whether or not presidents actually possess a sufficient degree of power to lead athletics reform efforts.;This study builds on our existing knowledge of the complexity of institutional governance. I not only describe how major decisions were made, but I also investigate how these decision processes compare to normative descriptions of academic governance. I reveal the unique aspects of college sports that make presidential control difficult, and I explore the participation and influence of other key decision-makers including the athletic director, head coaches, faculty, trustees, and boosters.;An understanding of athletics-related decision-making deepens and broadens our understanding about institutional governance and presidential leadership. For both scholars and university administrators, it enriches our comprehension of power dimensions, communication, and the possibilities for institutional change. |
