ABSTRACT Myles Brand offered a provocative defense of intercollegiate athletics (IA) by arguing that it is substantively similar to traditional performing arts, such as art or music, and so should be accepted by faculty as a legitimate part of a university's educational mission. Randolph Feezell characterized Brand's analogical argument as 'sophistic' and defended the reasonableness of what Brand termed the 'Standard View' of athletics whereby it is peripheral to a liberal arts education. I contend that Brand did not bring his persuasive analogical argument to its logical conclusion: IA should contribute to a new, first-of-its kind academic major in Competitive Sport. Feezell’s criticisms of Brand’s analogical argument were unpersuasive, and his conception of a liberal arts education was outdated. As a result, I defend the legitimacy of a Competitive Sport major comparable to a Music Performance major and give a detailed description of its rigorous, liberal arts-based curriculum that integrates faculty and coaching instruction through shared learning objectives and outcomes. I conclude by identifying, and responding to, several practical issues if such a major were to be implemented in a US university.