In the summer of 2025, Stanford made waves with the hiring of former Nike CEO John Donahoe as their new athletic director. Rather than having a background in coaching or on-the-field experience, Donahoe comes from the business world, with a resume including executive stints at eBay, PayPal, and Bain & Company.
It’s one of the clearest signs yet that the stakes have changed for college athletic directors. With intensified pressure on budgets, branding, NIL push-and-pull, and more, the Athletic Director role must evolve from a program manager-slash-booster liaison to a strategic steward of institutional value and mission.
How the AD Role Got Here (and How It’s Changing)
We all know the traditional model for the AD role. Typically, a leader will progress from coaching into administration, with an emphasis on sport operations, compliance, and fundraising.
Today’s landscape, however, brings bigger challenges for ADs. Now, they’re juggling their traditional responsibilities along with questions of commercialization, media rights, conference realignments, and student-athlete voices. In other words, they’re becoming enterprise leaders, not just niche leaders.
We’re already seeing instances of this shift across many institutions, with trends including:
- Executive hires from outside athletics: The Stanford case above signals a growing willingness to look for enterprise leadership experience.
- Bridging pro-sports / enterprise experience: The University of Maryland recently hired Jim Smith, who came from sports business strategy roles and was recently the VP of business strategy for the Atlanta Braves.
- Internal hiring trends & gender/parity gaps: Of Division I AD hires since 2020, just 27% were internal promotions. Unfortunately, female AD representation remains very low: as of October 2025, just three of the year’s 52 hires have been women.
- Evolving competence expectations in smaller settings: Just as high school programs are the pipeline for college athletes, high school AD trends can correspond with priorities at the college level. One study in high school contexts found that ADs perceive a need for skills beyond coaching/operations, even if job descriptions lag.
What “Institutionally Asset‑Minded” Means in Practice
Big ideas like “institutional asset” and “enterprise-minded approach” can obscure the on-the-ground realities of what an AD actually can do to embody these priorities. Here’s a working framework for how an AD can operate as a true institutional asset, beyond traditional metrics.
| Dimension | Key Behaviors / Mindset | Institutional Value Created |
| Strategic Alignment | Integrate athletics strategy with institutional mission and brand | Ensures athletics supports enrollment, retention, reputation, donor alignment |
| Financial Stewardship & Innovation | Long-range budgeting, risk management, exploring new revenue streams (e.g. NIL, partnerships, media) | Preserves department solvency; reduces dependence on volatile funding |
| Stakeholder Ecosystem Leadership | Balancing needs of faculty, administration, coaches, students, boosters, legislators | Mitigates conflicts, builds institutional coherence |
| Culture & Talent Systems | Succession planning, leadership development, inclusive recruitment, DEI integration | Builds internal pipeline, strengthens departmental identity, mitigates turnover risk |
| Crisis & Reputation Management | Proactive in compliance, legal, Title IX, scandal navigation, public communication | Shields institutional brand and minimizes downside risk |
| Adaptive Innovation | Experimenting with data analytics, organizational agility, new operating models | Positions athletics for future disruptions (media, NIL, conference shifts) |
A New Profile for AD Candidates
Finding the right AD to lead your athletic division in these changing times requires a new framework for assessment. We can see some of these priorities in the examples already discussed: a shift towards leaders with strategic external backgrounds, or bringing business strategy and pro-sports experience to the college level.
We’ve even seen some institutions shift to non-traditional succession approaches. The University of North Carolina, for instance, created an “AD in waiting” role to allow for a more gradual transition and smoother continuity, while UC Berkeley is testing a “co-director” model, at least temporarily, to manage a period of major change.
At Blue Rock Human Capital, we provide value-added solutions to help navigate these shifts – however they look for each individual team. We advise institutions to define the role first, calibrate assessment models, map future-ready talent, and coach transitions to ensure long-term success.
Assessing for enterprise readiness, not just sport operations competence, involves dimensions such as:
- Strategic fluency (ability to see beyond season-to-season)
- Business and financial acumen
- Stakeholder leadership and influence
- Change leadership and agility
- Cultural and talent mindset
Hiring successfully also means avoiding common pitfalls:
- An overemphasis on “win” records at the expense of broader institutional alignment
- Hiring based on “fit” or internal sport pedigree rather than enterprise capacity
- Underestimating the complexity of compliance, NIL, media, student welfare demands
- Failing to invest in leadership development and succession in athletics
Recommendations for Institutions
Before launching a search, revisit a core question: What does the institution need from athletics today, and what does it need in 5–10 years?
The answer to this question will help you embed human capital strategy in AD role design, with an eye to topics like leadership development, succession, and coaching pathways. Long-term enterprise thinking also demands an investment in onboarding, leadership assimilation, and ongoing coaching to ensure ADs stay aligned with institutional priorities, even (and especially) when those change.
External sources are part of the equation, too. Monitor evolving external pressures (NIL, media, conference consolidation, policy shifts) and build agility into the department. And, of course, work with executive search partners (like Blue Rock) to cast a broader net that encompasses enterprise talent and adjacent sectors.
Today’s institutions demand leaders who see athletics as a strategic asset, not a singular silo. As boards and partners raise expectations for the AD role, search partners must likewise evolve their lenses. With extensive experience across business sectors and in higher education alike, Blue Rock Human Capital is here to be your trusted partner in this transformation journey. Talk to us and bring your next leadership search into the future!
Dr. Travis Feezell is a seasoned higher education leader with extensive experience across academics, enrollment, student life, and athletics. He most recently served as Provost at Belmont Abbey College and previously as President of Hastings College, where he led the Hastings 2.0 transformation initiative. Earlier, he was Provost at the University of the Ozarks and held leadership and faculty roles at several institutions. Travis also brings a strong background in intercollegiate athletics, having served as Athletics Director at Whitman College, Macalester College, and Belmont Abbey College. A national finalist for the Rhodes Scholarship, he has published widely on the role of athletics in higher education and holds a doctorate from the University of Idaho, a master’s from the University of Wales–Cardiff, and a bachelor’s from the University of Wyoming.