Q1. In general, is NCAA Division I headed in a positive direction or a negative direction?

• All respondents: Positive 9%, Negative 62%, Unsure 28%
• FBS schools: Positive 16%, Negative 56%, Unsure 28%
• Non-FBS schools: Positive 5%, Negative 66%, Unsure 29%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Positive 3%, Negative 80%, Unsure 17%
• Athletics directors: Positive 16%, Negative 57%, Unsure 27%
• Senior woman administrators: Positive 9%, Negative 51%, Unsure 41%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Positive 8%, Negative 65%, Unsure 27%

Q2. What do you think the impact of the House settlement will be on Division I college sports as a whole?

• All respondents: Positive 16%, Neither 8%, Somewhat negative 50%, Extremely negative 26%
• FBS schools: Positive 22%, Neither 10%, Somewhat negative 50%, Extremely negative 17%
• Non-FBS schools: Positive 13%, Neither 7%, Somewhat negative 49%, Extremely negative 31%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Positive 5%, Neither 7%, Somewhat negative 39%, Extremely negative 49%
• Athletics directors: Positive 21%, Neither 10%, Somewhat negative 52%, Extremely negative 15%
• Senior woman administrators: Positive 19%, Neither 4%, Somewhat negative 62%, Extremely negative 15%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Positive 13%, Neither 11%, Somewhat negative 45%, Extremely negative 30%

Q3. Do you agree or disagree that your institution’s oversight board (Board of Trustees, Board of Regents) is adequately knowledgeable about the House settlement terms and its potential impact on your institution?

• Presidents/Chancellors: Agree 52%, Neither 17%, Disagree 32%
• Athletics directors: Agree 55%, Neither 11%, Disagree 35%

Q4. What impact do you believe the House settlement will have on the overall experience of Division I college athletes in each of these sports?

• FBS football: Positive 60%, Neither 10%, Negative 31%
• Non-FBS football: Positive 21%, Neither 22%, Negative 56%
• Men’s basketball: Positive 48%, Neither 12%, Negative 40%
• Women’s basketball: Positive 38%, Neither 18%, Negative 45%
• All other men’s DI sports: Positive 5%, Neither 16%, Negative 80%
• All other women’s DI sports: Positive 7%, Neither 16%, Negative 78%

Q5. Who should be primarily responsible for regulating Division I college sports?

• NCAA: 58%
• College Sports Commission or other future Division I membership‑controlled entity: 18%
• Athletics conferences: 9%
• Governing bodies that regulate specific sports: 8%
• Federal government: 4%
• None of these: 4%

Q6. Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement: “The Division I structure continues to be viable as a single division within the NCAA.”

• All respondents: Agree 29%, Neither 10%, Disagree 62%
• FBS schools: Agree 27%, Neither 10%, Disagree 63%
• Non-FBS schools: Agree 30%, Neither 9%, Disagree 61%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Agree 19%, Neither 12%, Disagree 69%
• Athletics directors: Agree 42%, Neither 3%, Disagree 55%
• Senior woman administrators: Agree 23%, Neither 14%, Disagree 62%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Agree 26%, Neither 10%, Disagree 64%

Q7. How concerned are you that your institution will not be able to sustain its current competitive classification level (e.g., Autonomy/ Power 4, FBS-G6, FCS, DI basketball-centric)?

• All respondents: Extremely concerned 24%, Somewhat concerned 32%, Only a little/Not at all concerned 42%, Unsure 2%
• FBS schools: Extremely 19%, Somewhat 29%, Little/Not at all 51%, Unsure 2%
• Non-FBS schools: Extremely 27%, Somewhat 33%, Little/Not at all 37%, Unsure 3%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Extremely 38%, Somewhat 33%, Little/Not at all 26%, Unsure 2%
• Athletics directors: Extremely 14%, Somewhat 29%, Little/Not at all 56%, Unsure 2%
• Senior woman administrators: Extremely 22%, Somewhat 33%, Little/Not at all 43%, Unsure 2%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Extremely 26%, Somewhat 32%, Little/Not at all 39%, Unsure 2%

Q8. Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement: “Division I should have two different national championship levels for certain sports, similar to the championship structure for Division I football)”

• All respondents: Agree 35%, Neither 17%, Disagree 48%
• FBS schools: Agree 34%, Neither 18%, Disagree 49%
• Non-FBS schools: Agree 36%, Neither 17%, Disagree 47%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Agree 44%, Neither 19%, Disagree 38%
• Athletics directors: Agree 28%, Neither 9%, Disagree 64%
• Senior woman administrators: Agree 24%, Neither 18%, Disagree 58%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Agree 43%, Neither 22%, Disagree 35%

Q9. Below is a list of potential actions for federal legislation for Division I college sports. Please indicate whether you support or oppose such legislation

• Creating a national standard to regulate college athlete NIL compensation: Strongly support 66%, Somewhat support 20%, Neither 7%, Oppose 8%
• Preventing college athletes in all sports from being classified as employees: Strongly support 69%, Somewhat support 9%, Neither 5%, Oppose 14%
• Creating limits on how much each institution can spend on specific sports or budget categories. Spending limits might include caps on individual sport budgets, budgets on sport-specific coach/staff compensation, or sport operating expenses: Strongly support 40%, Somewhat support 20%, Neither 13%, Oppose 19%
• Allowing the NCAA to enact national rules that will supersede any conflicting individual state laws related to college sports programs: Strongly support 55%, Somewhat support 22%, Neither 10%, Oppose 13%

Q10. Below is a list of potential actions that could be taken by NCAA, conferences, or institutions without federal legislation. For each, please indicate whether you support or oppose such action

• Enforce strong penalties for tampering with or providing recruiting inducements to current players before the transfer portal opens: Strongly support 84%, Somewhat 10%, Neither 4%, Oppose 3%
• In sports other than men’s and women’s basketball, loosen requirements for regular-season conference scheduling to allow greater flexibility for regional competitive alliances: Strongly support 50%, Somewhat 32%, Neither 13%, Oppose 5%
• Create legally-defensible limits on how much each institution can spend on specific sports or budget categories. Spending limits might include caps on individual sport budgets, budgets on sport-specific coach/staff compensation, or sport operating expenses: Strongly support 39%, Somewhat 33%, Neither 14%, Oppose 14%

Q11. Do you agree or disagree that the NCAA Division I governing board(s) should include independent directors, individuals who must not be employed by (or serve on a governing board for) a member institution, conference, or a media partner of any conference or institution?

• All respondents: Agree 38%, Neither 29%, Disagree 33%
• FBS schools: Agree 36%, Neither 22%, Disagree 42%
• Non-FBS schools: Agree 39%, Neither 33%, Disagree 29%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Agree 48%, Neither 24%, Disagree 28%
• Athletics directors: Agree 32%, Neither 29%, Disagree 39%
• Senior woman administrators: Agree 25%, Neither 35%, Disagree 39%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Agree 45%, Neither 28%, Disagree 27%

Q12. Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement:“Keeping all current Division I schools in the same men’s and women’s basketball national championship tournaments (i.e., March Madness) is essential.”

• All respondents: Agree 76%, Neither 8%, Disagree 16%
• FBS schools: Agree 74%, Neither 9%, Disagree 17%
• Non-FBS schools: Agree 76%, Neither 8%, Disagree 17%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Agree 73%, Neither 10%, Disagree 16%
• Athletics directors: Agree 87%, Neither 2%, Disagree 10%
• Senior woman administrators: Agree 83%, Neither 5%, Disagree 12%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Agree 66%, Neither 12%, Disagree 22%

Q13. Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement:“A new governing entity should be created for Power 4 football teams that would operate separately from the NCAA.”

• All respondents: Agree 55%, Neither 15%, Disagree 30%
• FBS schools: Agree 50%, Neither 11%, Disagree 39%
• Non-FBS schools: Agree 57%, Neither 17%, Disagree 26%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Agree 59%, Neither 15%, Disagree 26%
• Athletics directors: Agree 66%, Neither 6%, Disagree 27%
• Senior woman administrators: Agree 54%, Neither 27%, Disagree 20%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Agree 46%, Neither 13%, Disagree 41%

Q14. Do you oppose or support FBS football having a single executive or commissioner to provide unified leadership for the sport, not just for its national championship (the CFP)?

FBS schools: Support 58%, Neither 26%, Oppose 16%

Q15. How would you describe the impact of name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation for athletes on Division I college sports?

• All respondents: Positive 36%, Neither 14%, Negative 50%
• FBS schools: Positive 44%, Neither 13%, Negative 42%
• Non-FBS schools: Positive 32%, Neither 14%, Negative 54%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Positive 20%, Neither 16%, Negative 64%
• Athletics directors: Positive 38%, Neither 11%, Negative 51%
• Senior woman administrators: Positive 45%, Neither 18%, Negative 38%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Positive 38%, Neither 13%, Negative 50%

Q16. Do you support or oppose allowing universities to provide compensation to Division I college athletes for playing their sport, separate from NIL payments?

• All respondents: Support 33%, Neither 11%, Oppose 56%
• FBS schools: Support 45%, Neither 13%, Oppose 42%
• Non-FBS schools: Support 27%, Neither 9%, Oppose 64%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Support 21%, Neither 10%, Oppose 69%
• Athletics directors: Support 46%, Neither 12%, Oppose 42%
• Senior woman administrators: Support 34%, Neither 15%, Oppose 51%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Support 30%, Neither 8%, Oppose 63%

Q17. How concerned are you about your athletics program’s current or future level of reliance on institutional funding and student fees to balance its budget?

• All respondents: Extremely 48%, Somewhat 31%, Little/Not at all 19%, Unsure 2%
• FBS schools: Extremely 43%, Somewhat 31%, Little/Not at all 25%, Unsure 2%
• Non-FBS schools: Extremely 50%, Somewhat 32%, Little/Not at all 16%, Unsure 2%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Extremely 56%, Somewhat 30%, Little/Not at all 11%, Unsure 3%
• Athletics directors: Extremely 47%, Somewhat 33%, Little/Not at all 19%, Unsure 1%
• Senior woman administrators: Extremely 42%, Somewhat 33%, Little/Not at all 24%, Unsure 1%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Extremely 48%, Somewhat 30%, Little/Not at all 19%, Unsure 3%

Q18. Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement: “The NCAA should alter its revenue distribution formula to increase incentives to institutions for offering athletics scholarships in sports other than football and basketball and for offering more sports than the minimum required for DI.”

• All respondents: Agree 63%, Neither 21%, Disagree 17%
• FBS schools: Agree 56%, Neither 21%, Disagree 23%
• Non-FBS schools: Agree 66%, Neither 20%, Disagree 13%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Agree 54%, Neither 32%, Disagree 14%
• Athletics directors: Agree 61%, Neither 16%, Disagree 23%
• Senior woman administrators: Agree 60%, Neither 23%, Disagree 17%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Agree 68%, Neither 17%, Disagree 15%

Q19. Do you support or oppose requiring college sports coaches to earn a “coach credential” certifying their knowledge and training in areas to support athlete development, mental health, physical health, and safety?

• All respondents: Support 71%, Neither 19%, Oppose 11%
• FBS schools: Support 74%, Neither 13%, Oppose 12%
• Non-FBS schools: Support 69%, Neither 22%, Oppose 9%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Support 63%, Neither 28%, Oppose 9%
• Athletics directors: Support 58%, Neither 27%, Oppose 15%
• Senior woman administrators: Support 73%, Neither 17%, Oppose 10%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Support 81%, Neither 10%, Oppose 9%

Q20. Please select the budget range for new athlete payments and new scholarships that you anticipate your institution will make this year towards the new institutional athlete benefits cap. (responses from ADs at House settlement schools)

• Maximum allowed (~$20.5M): 7%
• $15–$20M: 4%
• $10–$15M: 1%
• $5–$10M: 8%
• $2.5–$5M: 16%
• $1–$2.5M: 15%
• $500K–$1M: 16%
• $100K–$500K: 26%
• Under $100K: 5%
• Unsure: 1%

Q21. Division I universities face higher costs for athletics because of new rules that allow athletes to be compensated and athletics scholarship limits to be increased. Please indicate whether your campus has adopted, is considering, or is not considering each of the following strategies to cover these new costs. (responses from ADs at House settlement schools)

• Increase fundraising & corporate support: Adopted/Considering 97%, Not considering 3%
• Expand media & sponsorship revenues: Adopted/Considering 92%, Not considering 8%
• Increase ticket prices or add surcharge: Adopted/Considering 82%, Not considering 17%
• Increase portion of institutional operating funds: Adopted/Considering 54%, Not considering 46%
• Reduce operating budgets for some sports: Adopted/Considering 46%, Not considering 54%
• Increase athletics student fees: Adopted/Considering 31%, Not considering 69%
• Shift general scholarships to athletics: Adopted/Considering 23%, Not considering 77%
• Reduce compensation for coaches/staff: Adopted/Considering 20%, Not considering 80%
• Drop some varsity sports: Adopted/Considering 20%, Not considering 80%
• More government funding: Adopted/Considering 18%, Not considering 82%

Q22. What do you anticipate will happen to the number of athletics scholarships offered in the following sports at your institution within the next five years?(responses from ADs at House settlement schools)

• Football (if applicable): Increase to max 11%, Increase not to max 32%, No change 53%, Decrease 4%
• Men’s basketball: Increase to max 37%, Increase not to max 11%, No change 47%, Decrease 6%
• Other men’s sports: Increase to max 4%, Increase not to max 29%, No change 52%, Decrease 15%
• Women’s basketball: Increase to max 31%, Increase not to max 10%, No change 52%, Decrease 7%
• Other women’s sports: Increase to max 4%, Increase not to max 38%, No change 44%, Decrease 14%

Q23. What do you believe will happen to the number of varsity sports offered at your institution within the next five years?)

• Increase number of sports: 18%
• Number of sports will stay the same: 57%
• Decrease 1 sport: 7%
• Decrease 2 sports: 6%
• Decrease 3 or more sports: 3%
• Unsure: 9%

Q24. Here are measures that might help an institution maintain its total number of varsity sports. For each, please indicate how much help these measures would provide.

• More regional scheduling for sports to reduce travel costs: Major help 43%, Some help 48%, Limited/No help 10%
• New or more financial incentives provided by NCAA, conference, and/or other entities to reward an institution for its number of participants or number of sports: Major help 29%, Some help 57%, Limited/No help 14%
• New federal government funding, as a supplement to institutional and athletics funding, to support Olympic sports programs: Major help 52%, Some help 38%, Limited/No help 10%

Q25. How would you describe the impact of the transfer portal on Division I college sports?

• All respondents: Positive 8%, Neither 7%, Somewhat negative 39%, Extremely negative 47%
• FBS schools: Positive 8%, Neither 3%, Somewhat negative 46%, Extremely negative 43%
• Non-FBS schools: Positive 8%, Neither 9%, Somewhat negative 35%, Extremely negative 49%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Positive 3%, Neither 3%, Somewhat negative 25%, Extremely negative 69%
• Athletics directors: Positive 9%, Neither 3%, Somewhat negative 44%, Extremely negative 44%
• Senior woman administrators: Positive 10%, Neither 11%, Somewhat negative 47%, Extremely negative 32%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Positive 7%, Neither 8%, Somewhat negative 37%, Extremely negative 47%

Q26. Do you support or oppose current rules that allow college athletes to transfer between schools as often as they choose and be immediately eligible to compete for their new school(s) without penalty?

• All respondents: Support 11%, Neither 4%, Somewhat oppose 30%, Strongly oppose 54%
• FBS schools: Support 12%, Neither 5%, Somewhat oppose 29%, Strongly oppose 55%
• Non-FBS schools: Support 13%, Neither 4%, Somewhat oppose 30%, Strongly oppose 53%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Support 9%, Neither 2%, Somewhat oppose 16%, Strongly oppose 74%
• Athletics directors: Support 8%, Neither 6%, Somewhat oppose 24%, Strongly oppose 62%
• Senior woman administrators: Support 18%, Neither 11%, Somewhat oppose 32%, Strongly oppose 39%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Support 14%, Neither 1%, Somewhat oppose 38%, Strongly oppose 49%

Q27. How important is it for college athletes to be enrolled as full-time students and taking classes at the school for which they are competing?

• All respondents: Very important 94%, Somewhat important 4%, Slightly/Not at all important 2%
• FBS schools: Very 91%, Somewhat 7%, Slightly/Not at all 2%
• Non-FBS schools: Very 96%, Somewhat 3%, Slightly/Not at all 2%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Very 97%, Somewhat 2%, Slightly/Not at all 2%
• Athletics directors: Very 88%, Somewhat 10%, Slightly/Not at all 2%
• Senior woman administrators: Very 95%, Somewhat 4%, Slightly/Not at all 1%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Very 97%, Somewhat 1%, Slightly/Not at all 1%

Q28. How important is it to limit college athletes to four full seasons of competition eligibility?

• All respondents: Very important 52%, Somewhat important 25%, Slightly/Not at all important 23%
• FBS schools: Very 50%, Somewhat 25%, Slightly/Not at all 25%
• Non-FBS schools: Very 53%, Somewhat 25%, Slightly/Not at all 22%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Very 69%, Somewhat 21%, Slightly/Not at all 10%
• Athletics directors: Very 46%, Somewhat 23%, Slightly/Not at all 31%
• Senior woman administrators: Very 45%, Somewhat 33%, Slightly/Not at all 23%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Very 54%, Somewhat 23%, Slightly/Not at all 23%

Q29. Division I college teams are required to be on track to graduate at least half of their athletes to be eligible for postseason competition (e.g., March Madness, College Football Playoff). How important is this rule?

• All respondents: Very important 84%, Somewhat important 11%, Slightly/Not at all important 5%
• FBS schools: Very 83%, Somewhat 11%, Slightly/Not at all 7%
• Non-FBS schools: Very 84%, Somewhat 12%, Slightly/Not at all 5%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Very 88%, Somewhat 9%, Slightly/Not at all 3%
• Athletics directors: Very 72%, Somewhat 21%, Slightly/Not at all 6%
• Senior woman administrators: Very 81%, Somewhat 13%, Slightly/Not at all 5%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Very 90%, Somewhat 5%, Slightly/Not at all 4%

Q30. How important is it for college athletes to graduate?

• All respondents: Very important 94%, Somewhat important 5%, Slightly/Not at all important 1%
• FBS schools: Very 91%, Somewhat 7%, Slightly/Not at all 3%
• Non-FBS schools: Very 96%, Somewhat 4%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Very 98%, Somewhat 2%
• Athletics directors: Very 94%, Somewhat 4%, Slightly/Not at all 1%
• Senior woman administrators: Very 91%, Somewhat 9%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Very 93%, Somewhat 4%, Slightly/Not at all 2%

Q31. How important do you think college programs in Olympic sports like gymnastics, hockey, swimming, and track & field are to the success of the USA Olympic team in the Summer and Winter Olympic Games?

• All respondents: Extremely 73%, Somewhat 19%, Slightly/Not at all 5%, Unsure 3%
• FBS schools: Extremely 76%, Somewhat 13%, Slightly/Not at all 5%, Unsure 4%
• Non-FBS schools: Extremely 71%, Somewhat 22%, Slightly/Not at all 5%, Unsure 2%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Extremely 67%, Somewhat 20%, Slightly/Not at all 9%, Unsure 5%
• Athletics directors: Extremely 71%, Somewhat 19%, Slightly/Not at all 6%, Unsure 3%
• Senior woman administrators: Extremely 84%, Somewhat 11%, Slightly/Not at all 2%, Unsure 3%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Extremely 70%, Somewhat 23%, Slightly/Not at all 5%, Unsure 2%

Q32. How important is it for NCAA DI universities to offer opportunities for students to participate in collegiate Olympic sports like gymnastics, swimming, and track & field (sports other than those tied to generating revenues like football and basketball)?

• All respondents: Extremely 73%, Somewhat 20%, Slightly/Not at all 6%, Unsure 1%
• FBS schools: Extremely 73%, Somewhat 19%, Slightly/Not at all 6%, Unsure 1%
• Non-FBS schools: Extremely 73%, Somewhat 20%, Slightly/Not at all 6%, Unsure 2%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Extremely 64%, Somewhat 28%, Slightly/Not at all 8%
• Athletics directors: Extremely 64%, Somewhat 24%, Slightly/Not at all 11%, Unsure 1%
• Senior woman administrators: Extremely 82%, Somewhat 13%, Slightly/Not at all 3%, Unsure 3%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Extremely 77%, Somewhat 17%, Slightly/Not at all 5%, Unsure 1%

Q33. Do you support or oppose using any federal funds to help finance collegiate Olympic sports programs and scholarships that develop USA Olympic national team members?

• All respondents: Support 73%, Neither 19%, Oppose 8%
• FBS schools: Support 78%, Neither 13%, Oppose 9%
• Non-FBS schools: Support 70%, Neither 22%, Oppose 8%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Support 68%, Neither 25%, Oppose 8%
• Athletics directors: Support 83%, Neither 12%, Oppose 5%
• Senior woman administrators: Support 73%, Neither 23%, Oppose 5%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Support 70%, Neither 19%, Oppose 11%

Q34. Do you support or oppose a fee or federal tax on sports gambling operators to create a national fund to help finance collegiate Olympic sports that develop USA Olympic national team members and provide broad-based sports opportunities?

• All respondents: Support 82%, Neither 13%, Oppose 5%
• FBS schools: Support 87%, Neither 9%, Oppose 4%
• Non-FBS schools: Support 78%, Neither 16%, Oppose 6%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Support 77%, Neither 15%, Oppose 8%
• Athletics directors: Support 92%, Neither 9%, Oppose 0%
• Senior woman administrators: Support 78%, Neither 19%, Oppose 3%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Support 79%, Neither 13%, Oppose 9%

Q35. Do you oppose or support a new fund being created through a portion of the College Football Playoff revenues to reward CFP/FBS college sports programs for developing USA Olympic national team members and offering broad-based sports opportunities?

FBS schools: Support 57%, Neither 19%, Oppose 24%

Q36. When it comes to providing female college athletes with equitable opportunities, financial assistance, and treatment compared to male college athletes, do you think colleges and universities have not gone far enough, have been about right, have gone too far or are you unsure?

• All respondents: Not far enough 43%, About right 44%, Gone too far 6%, Unsure 8%
• FBS schools: Not far enough 39%, About right 50%, Gone too far 6%, Unsure 5%
• Non-FBS schools: Not far enough 45%, About right 40%, Gone too far 6%, Unsure 9%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Not far enough 36%, About right 53%, Gone too far 7%, Unsure 3%
• Athletics directors: Not far enough 18%, About right 64%, Gone too far 8%, Unsure 10%
• Senior woman administrators: Not far enough 63%, About right 22%, Gone too far 5%, Unsure 9%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Not far enough 50%, About right 37%, Gone too far 5%, Unsure 7%

Q37. Considering Title IX, which of the options below better captures your opinion about how Division I institutions should allocate new types of payments to athletes—like name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation and new “revenue-share” payments?

• All respondents: Include with total institutional aid and distribute equitably — 31%; Consider separately and distribute by sport revenue/marketability — 47%; Unsure — 22%
• Leaders at FBS schools: Equitable 26%, Separate 58%, Unsure 16%
• Leaders at Non‑FBS schools: Equitable 33%, Separate 41%, Unsure 25%

Q38. Will female college athletes overall be in a worse or better situation from new rules that allow institutions to pay athletes through NIL and revenue-sharing, and increased athletics scholarships?

• All respondents: Much/Somewhat better 25%, About the same 20%, Much/Somewhat worse 55%
• FBS schools: Better 26%, Same 22%, Worse 52%
• Non-FBS schools: Better 24%, Same 19%, Worse 57%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Better 14%, Same 22%, Worse 64%
• Athletics directors: Better 41%, Same 29%, Worse 30%
• Senior woman administrators: Better 29%, Same 18%, Worse 52%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Better 17%, Same 14%, Worse 69%

Q39. How important is the presence of Division I sports to your institution?

• All respondents: Very important 70%, Somewhat important 23%, Slightly/Not at all important 7%
• FBS schools: Very 79%, Somewhat 16%, Slightly/Not at all 4%
• Non-FBS schools: Very 65%, Somewhat 27%, Slightly/Not at all 8%
• Presidents/Chancellors: Very 72%, Somewhat 25%, Slightly/Not at all 4%
• Athletics directors: Very 80%, Somewhat 17%, Slightly/Not at all 4%
• Senior woman administrators: Very 74%, Somewhat 20%, Slightly/Not at all 5%
• Faculty athletics representatives: Very 60%, Somewhat 28%, Slightly/Not at all 12%

Q40. How much benefit does Division I college sports contribute to your campus in each of the following areas?

• Engagement with alumni, parents, and external fans: Very high/High 73%, Moderate 21%, Little/No benefit 6%
• Identity, brand awareness, and marketing: Very high/High 69%, Moderate 23%, Little/No benefit 8%
• Fundraising: Very high/High 66%, Moderate 25%, Little/No benefit 10%
• The college experience for the overall student body: Very high/High 59%, Moderate 30%, Little/No benefit 11%
• Student recruitment and enrollment: Very high/High 55%, Moderate 34%, Little/No benefit 12%
• Reputation for academic quality: Very high/High 46%, Moderate 33%, Little/No benefit 22%
• Tuition revenue from non‑scholarship or partial‑scholarship varsity athletes: Very high/High 36%, Moderate 31%, Little/No benefit 34%