NACDA 2026 Recap: What We Heard, What It Means
College athletics is in the middle of something. Not a single shift, but several at once: financial models in flux, regulatory uncertainty that shows no sign of resolving, a generation of professionals turning over, and AI entering the conversation whether departments are ready or not.
NACDA 2026 reflected all of it. But the energy in the room was purposeful, not anxious. People came looking for frameworks, not commiseration. Here’s what we took away.
We weren’t just attending. We were in the room.
This year at NACDA, our team had the opportunity to contribute to the conversation in two meaningful ways.
I had the chance to present a session on Turning Every Engagement Into Revenue, a framework for how athletic departments can stop leaving value on the table and start converting the relationships they’re already building into measurable fundraising outcomes.
My colleague Candace Dunback and I co-hosted a National Association of Athletic Development Directors (NAADD) roundtable discussion alongside Athlete Network partner Terry Prentice of Mississippi State University. The discussion focused on how athletic departments can activate the constituents already in their ecosystem (former athletes, alumni, fans) to drive first-time gifts, online giving, and deeper engagement. Mississippi State has been thoughtful about this work, and having them in the room brought real practitioner credibility to the conversation.
Both sessions were well attended. More importantly, they reflected where the industry’s head is right now: less focused on whether to change, and more focused on how.
Here’s what stood out from the broader conference.
The donor pipeline problem is being named out loud
Athletic fundraisers have known for years that the old model — identify major gift prospects, cultivate, solicit, repeat — isn’t sustainable. But this year, I heard it stated plainly and without defensiveness: you can’t bleed the same donors indefinitely and call it a strategy.
Building the next generation of donors requires engagement long before a gift is on the table. That means connecting during their student years or first brand impression, staying present through early career, and building affinity that compounds over time. The organizations doing this well aren’t waiting for someone to become a major gift prospect. They’re creating the conditions that make it possible.
Sport-specific affinity is a serious engagement lever
One of the most consistent threads across conversations: donors who played a sport often feel more allegiance to that program than to the institution at large. And yet, most outreach treats them as generic alumni, leaving significant gifts on the table
This isn’t a new observation, but it’s gaining traction as a strategic priority. Leveraging sport-specific affinity requires accurate data on who played what, when, and where (and who supported them). That’s harder than it sounds for most departments, but the ones doing it are seeing real results. Most departments know this intuitively, but still lack the data infrastructure to act on it consistently. The challenge isn’t belief, but rather execution.
Former athlete engagement has moved into the mainstream
Former athlete engagement is no longer a niche conversation. It’s a part of how athletic departments are thinking about community, fundraising, and long-term institutional health.
The myth that former athletes don’t give is an institutional failure, not a behavioral one. When departments don’t track contact information and solicit, they read silence as disinterest. The data tells a different story.
Everyone is a fundraiser now, coaches included
Revenue sharing and the financial pressures created by NIL and the transfer portal are reshaping how athletic departments think about their staff. Coaches, for better or worse, are increasingly being asked to think and act like fundraisers.
That’s a significant cultural and operational shift — and part of a broader reckoning with how athletic departments need to operate. The departments that will navigate it well are the ones investing in standardized processes, embedding fundraising behaviors into daily workflows rather than treating it as a separate function owned by a separate team.
But here’s the tension: coaches are being handed a fundraising mandate without the tools to execute it. When we asked during our roundtable whether any school would ever give coaches access to their main CRM or communication platforms, the room responded with immediate laughter. The answer was an unambiguous no.
So what does success actually look like in that environment? The conventional wisdom is that coaches aren’t good at fundraising. The more honest read is that they’ve never had access to the data or infrastructure that would make them effective. And in the meantime, the competition for donors — even within the same department — often crowds out the collaboration that would actually move the needle.
It’s worth noting, though, that not every athlete wants to participate in NIL opportunities, and the conversation often risks treating all athletes as if they share the same goals and motivations. Departments that better understand the varying needs of their athletes may be better positioned to build long-term engagement and affinity.
Regulatory chaos is real, and it’s creating an uneven playing field
The frustration with the lack of clarity around NIL, revenue sharing, and the transfer portal was palpable. Institutions with vastly different resources are competing under inconsistent, shifting rules — and trying to build sustainable fundraising infrastructure at the same time.
What I heard repeatedly: people aren’t waiting for clarity to arrive before acting. They’re building frameworks that can flex. That’s a pragmatic response to an environment where certainty isn’t coming anytime soon.
AI is everywhere, and leaders need to get ahead of the narrative
AI came up in nearly every conversation I had. What struck me wasn’t the enthusiasm, but the shift from fear to curiosity. A year ago, the reaction in rooms like this was guarded. Now, people are leaning in, asking practical questions about what AI can actually do for their teams. The conversation has clearly evolved from “Should we use AI?” to “How do we use AI responsibly and effectively?”.
The risk: when leadership doesn’t define a clear vision for AI, it creates a vacuum. That vacuum gets filled by speculation, anxiety, and half-measures. The organizations that will benefit most are the ones where leadership is proactive — naming what the technology is for, what it isn’t for, and what success looks like.
Data is the throughline
If there was one theme connecting everything — donor engagement, athlete affinity, AI adoption, trust-building — it was data. Specifically, the growing recognition that better data isn’t a technical nice-to-have. It’s the foundation for the accountability and trust that advancement professionals are being asked to demonstrate.
That conversation is maturing. And that’s a good sign.
