Win games and fill seats. Try to stay visible enough that your sports program remained relevant and pleased the alumni donors. The rest had a way of working itself out. Media told the story and television handled distribution. Athletic departments operated in parts, each group responsible for its piece, coaches were the spokesmen, and the players, well, they played the games and hoped to go pro someday.

The model that held up for over a century simply doesn’t hold up now.

NIL (Name Image Likeness) not only introduced money into the model, it also shifted control of attention. Athletes have moved from serving as brand participants in the system to their own platforms inside it, carrying their own audiences, reach, expectations for how their stories are told. That changes the balance. It forces institutions to compete on their ability to create visibility, consistency and long-term value for both the athlete and the program at the same time.

College athletes are becoming revenue-generating content engines who happen to play sports, not just student-athletes in the traditional sense. And with universities facing existential pressure from AI, declining student-age demographics, and rising competition for enrollment and relevance, attention has become a lifeline.

That puts athletic departments in a different business, and many are still trying to catch up to the new reality.

The industry is building capability faster than it is building clarity. The response across the market has been predictable. Build the studio, launch the platform, expand the content team and then try to control the pipeline.

The instinct is right. For example, Florida’s investment in SwampVū and its move into direct-to-fan content is a clear signal. As has been reported, Cal Athletics informed staff that members of its marketing, athletic communications, and creative services groups would be laid off as part of a broader shift toward a new external model focused on revenue generation and authentic storytelling.

Whether you agree with the approach or not, the larger point is impossible to miss: athletic departments are reorganizing around content, commerce, and brand in a more integrated way. The issue is not whether to invest. It is what happens after.

Technology creates a sense of progress. It gives the appearance of control. But what it actually does is raise expectations. A studio does not solve the problem. Without a clear system and team behind it, the result is chaotic output, pressure to justify the expense, and often little connection to any meaningful return.

NIL can cloud this even further. The right athlete can bring immediate visibility. For a moment, it can feel like the entire strategy is working.

But programs that rely on talent alone are borrowing attention, and when that talent leaves, so does the value attached to it. Instead, athletes must become part of a broader engine that continues to produce across seasons, across teams and across audiences.

That distinction separates programs that spike from programs that grow. It also clarifies the role of marketing leadership.