Edward Waters University's athletics department is reassessing its approach to money games—contests where smaller programs travel to face larger opponents in exchange for guaranteed payments—after a sobering financial and competitive reality check against Jackson State.
According to President A. Zachary Faison Jr., Edward Waters received $65,000 to play Jackson State but netted only about $30,000 after expenses. That margin matters in Division II athletics, where institutional budgets are tighter and every dollar allocated to travel, equipment, and operations carries real weight.
The loss itself was decisive: a 52-point defeat that left players and leadership alike searching for answers. In the aftermath, Faison took the step of apologizing to his players, acknowledging the toll that such a lopsided matchup takes on student-athletes who invest their time, effort, and emotional energy into competition.
Money games have long been a fixture in college athletics, particularly at smaller institutions. The model is straightforward: a program with limited resources accepts a guaranteed payment to travel and compete against a better-resourced opponent, knowing the loss is likely but banking on the financial cushion to support operations. For years, this arrangement has helped Division II and Division III programs fund scholarships, equipment purchases, and facility improvements.
But Faison's public reconsideration suggests that the calculus is shifting. When the financial return shrinks after accounting for travel, lodging, meals, and other operational costs, the incentive weakens. When the competitive gap is so wide that it becomes demoralizing rather than developmental, the educational mission of athletics comes into question.
The president's announcement of a new strategy for money games signals that Edward Waters is not content to accept the status quo. What that strategy will look like remains to be seen, but the direction is clear: the university is prioritizing both the financial health of its athletics program and the dignity of its student-athletes.
This moment reflects a broader conversation happening across Division II and smaller Division I programs. As travel costs rise, as competitive imbalances persist, and as institutional budgets face pressure, more athletic directors and presidents are asking whether money games serve their communities or simply extract value from them. Some programs have moved toward scheduling opponents closer to their competitive level, even if it means less guaranteed revenue. Others have sought alternative funding models.
Why this matters: HBCU athletic programs operate with finite resources and deep commitments to their student-athletes. When leadership like Faison publicly acknowledges that a financial arrangement isn't working—and apologizes to players for putting them in a lopsided situation—it signals that HBCUs are willing to make harder choices in service of their communities. The decision to rethink money games reflects a values-based approach to athletics that prioritizes long-term institutional health and athlete welfare over short-term financial gains.