Power 4 Conferences Push for Greater Control Over NCAA Championships Amid Governance Overhaul
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — As the NCAA basketball tournament inches toward a modest expansion, a far more seismic shift is brewing within the association. The question of who will govern college sports—and its marquee event, March Madness—has taken center stage at this week’s NCAA convention. With college athletics undergoing unprecedented conversion, the so-called Power 4 conferences—the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, and Big 12—are pushing for greater control over NCAA championships and governance.
This push comes as the NCAA awaits final approval from a federal judge on a landmark antitrust lawsuit settlement, which could pave the way for billions of dollars in direct payments from schools to athletes. The settlement, if approved, would allow schools to spend up to $20.5 million annually on athlete compensation starting next year, further widening the financial gap between the wealthiest programs and the rest of Division I.
“We’ve been given autonomy on very specific issues. It was negotiated back, and I think we’ve used it well,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said during the convention. “We haven’t used (autonomy) actively in a while and think that should be extended.” Sankey’s comments reflect a broader sentiment among the Power 4, which seeks to expand its influence over NCAA operations, including championship management.
The Power 4’s proposal, first reported by Yahoo! Sports, suggests that these conferences should take the reins in managing NCAA championships—a responsibility that has long been a cornerstone of the NCAA’s role. Though, Sankey downplayed the notion that the Power 4 is aiming to sieze control entirely. “There are a lot more issues out there than merely championships,” he noted.
The NCAA’s governance structure has been under scrutiny for years, notably as the financial disparities between conferences have grown. In 2014,the NCAA granted autonomy to the then-Power 5 conferences (including the Pac-12),allowing them to make permissive rules in certain areas without approval from the rest of Division I. The first major move under this autonomy was to increase the value of athletic scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance—a decision that sparked concerns among smaller schools about competitive imbalance.
Now, with the potential for even greater financial disparities on the horizon, the NCAA is under pressure to overhaul its governance model. NCAA President Charlie Baker acknowledged the need for change, stating, “I think there are a lot of things at the NCAA that need to be fixed. I’m a hard sell … that the biggest problem we have is we don’t do a good job running championships.I actually think that’s something we’re pretty good at.”
The NCAA has established a working group to evaluate various proposals for a new governance structure, with the goal of implementing changes by the next school year. However, the Power 4’s push for greater control has raised eyebrows among other conferences.
“That one caught me by surprise,” said Big East commissioner Val Ackerman, referring to the Power 4’s proposal to manage Division I championships. “What the NCAA, more than anything, is built around is the management of the championships. That’s their primary function—to manage 90 championships.”
As the NCAA navigates this pivotal moment, the stakes could not be higher. The association’s ability to adapt to the evolving landscape of college sports will determine its future relevance. For now, all eyes are on the Power 4 and whether their vision for governance will prevail.
Key Points at a Glance
| Topic | Details |
|——————————–|—————————————————————————–|
| Power 4 Proposal | SEC, Big Ten, ACC, and big 12 seek greater control over NCAA championships. |
| Antitrust Settlement | Pending approval could allow $20.5M/year in athlete compensation. |
| Governance Overhaul | NCAA working group aims to implement new structure by next school year. |
| Historical Context | Power 5 autonomy granted in 2014 led to cost-of-attendance scholarships. |
| NCAA’s Role | Management of 90 championships remains a core function.|
The future of college sports governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the coming months will shape the landscape for years to come. Stay tuned as the NCAA navigates this transformative era.The future of NCAA championships is at a crossroads, with discussions swirling around potential changes to governance, tournament formats, and revenue distribution. At the heart of these debates is the question of whether the Power 4 conferences—often referred to as the autonomy 4—should take greater control over national championships. This possibility has sparked concern among the rest of Division I, as access to these championships and their associated revenue is critical for many programs.
dan Gavitt, the NCAA’s senior vice president of basketball, emphasized that the focus should not be on who runs the tournaments but on how thay are managed. “If there are things as a result of realignment, House settlement, change in governance structure that are needs that we need to consider meeting of the membership, including the (autonomy 4), but including others, then we should be open-minded to how we evolve that,” he said. Gavitt highlighted potential areas for evolution, including committee structures, championship formats, and revenue distribution.
One of the most pressing topics is the potential expansion of the NCAA basketball tournament. Currently,the men’s bracket includes 68 teams,but discussions are ongoing about adding four or eight teams—or leaving the format unchanged. “I’d say it’s not a foregone conclusion that the championships would expand,” Gavitt noted. However, expanding the tournament comes with meaningful challenges, particularly rising costs. Additionally, any expansion of the men’s bracket would require a corresponding expansion of the women’s tournament.
The timeline for implementing these changes is tight. A new NCAA governance structure must be established well before the 2025-26 sports seasons begin. This urgency underscores the complexity of balancing the interests of the Power 4 conferences with those of the broader Division I membership.Baylor president Linda Livingstone, whose institution is part of the Big 12, weighed in on the debate, suggesting that the current moment presents an prospect to rethink Division I governance. “I think we have a really good opportunity now where everybody’s bought into knowing that we need to rethink that decision-making model, that governance model in Division I,” she said. Livingstone emphasized the importance of finding a solution that benefits both the autonomy conferences and other institutions outside the Power 4.
Key Considerations for NCAA Championship Changes
| Topic | Details |
|————————–|—————————————————————————–|
| Governance | Potential shift in control to Power 4 conferences; focus on equitable solutions. |
| Tournament Expansion | Options: Add 4 teams, add 8 teams, or maintain current 68-team bracket. |
| Revenue Distribution | Discussions on how to allocate funds fairly across all Division I programs. |
| Timeline | new governance structure needed before the 2025-26 sports seasons. |
The stakes are high. For many programs outside the Power 4, access to NCAA championships and the revenue they generate is essential for survival. As the NCAA navigates these complex issues, the decisions made in the coming months will shape the future of college sports. The challenge lies in finding a balance that preserves the integrity of the championships while addressing the evolving needs of all stakeholders.
(Photo: Christian Petersen / Getty Images)
