In National Harbor, Maryland, approximately a dozen miles south of the U.S. capital, the towering Gaylord National Resort overlooks the Potomac River. Its impressive 19-floor indoor botanical atrium offers an unending sanctuary, with countless visitors wandering beneath its transparent roof.
During this particular week, officials from academic institutions and athletic conferences are convening for the yearly NCAA gathering at this location.
This sight—multitudes of attendees congregated within one venue—serves as a metaphor for the NCAA itself. The Gaylord facility epitomizes the “broad umbrella” concept, a phrase frequently applied to the NCAA’s diverse range of member institutions, which possess vastly different objectives, benchmarks, and economic capabilities, yet function collectively under one overarching national body.
It might be an opportune moment for transformation.
“Significant issues are not resolved in large gatherings of many individuals; that is a fundamental truth,” stated Greg Sankey, the commissioner for the Southeastern Conference, during a recent discussion with Yahoo Sports.
Amidst the yearly assembly of the organization, prominent figures from the NCAA’s elite—specifically, the Football Bowl Subdivision, and primarily its four major conferences—are outlining a strategy for further reforms in how college sports are managed and regulated, with a particular focus on football.
Without widespread public knowledge, collegiate executives have established a new committee explicitly tasked with examining the future oversight of the Football Bowl Subdivision and assessing whether this division should function independently of the NCAA framework—a proposition frequently debated and now gathering unprecedented traction.
However, an arguably graver concern appears to be emerging: discontent among several influential conferences regarding the perceived lax enforcement by both the NCAA and the College Sports Commission concerning accusations of athlete tampering, decisions on eligibility, and methods to bypass the sport’s recently implemented spending limit for rosters.
To certain stakeholders, a remedy is taking shape: individual conferences ought to manage their own affairs, uphold their own regulations, and possibly even confine competition exclusively to their internal members.
“Should the College Sports Commission fail to uphold the House settlement, if the NCAA neglects to enforce regulations against tampering, and if Congress refrains from enacting the SCORE Act, then the SEC will find itself compelled to forge its own path in establishing rules and accountability,” declared Jere Morehead, the president of Georgia and a past member of the NCAA Division I Board of Directors, to Yahoo Sports earlier this month. “We would then possess a considerably more robust argument that we are not infringing upon antitrust statutes, given our lack of market dominance.”
Collegiate sports executives are convening this week at the Gaylord National Resort in National Harbor to deliberate on the numerous challenges facing the sector.
Although the SEC shares its discontent regarding national regulatory oversight with others, its conference representatives are openly articulating their grievances while discreetly initiating preliminary explorations into a revised operational framework.
Sankey issues a warning against any implications of a frequently debated “separation” by the SEC and other major conferences. He states that no one desires to “hasten toward that outcome,” and the SEC maintains its dedication to a “unified national body.”
Nevertheless, “there are boundaries to such commitment,” Sankey noted. “The degree of exasperation is escalating. I foresee many individuals expressing, ‘This arrangement may prove unworkable for us.'”
Such sentiments extend far beyond the geographical influence of the SEC, even if their proponents largely operate without public visibility.
“Among other member groups, there’s backing for a comparable structure,” a Big Ten athletic director conveyed to Yahoo Sports. “This entails each conference managing its own affairs and participating solely in intra-league contests.”
‘Engaging in financial manipulation’
Leading the recent wave of grievances is the chaotic state of college athletics, now half a year removed from the most profound shift in its century-plus existence—where institutions directly remunerate student-athletes via a restricted revenue-sharing framework.
The shortcomings in enforcement are attributed to the NCAA, responsible for addressing tampering and supervising eligibility, as well as to the College Sports Commission, the new body established by the major conferences to regulate the spending limit.
The recruitment of athletes from rival institutions is a frequent phenomenon, characterized by Mississippi State president Mark Keenum as “pervasive interference.” Coaches and personnel are inciting athletes from other programs to join the transfer portal, notwithstanding many being bound by existing revenue-sharing contracts with their current teams—a practice that has already led to legal action (Wisconsin has initiated a lawsuit against Miami concerning tampering claims).
Team expenditure allocations are surging considerably past the $20.5 million ceiling designated for all athletes within an academic institution’s athletic division. Projections for the majority of high-profile football rosters are surpassing $25 million, as universities facilitate the reallocation of funds—from the athletic department to player rosters—by leveraging third-party marketing and endorsement contracts that are not subject to the limit.
Institutions are employing traditional approaches (such as collectives and benefactors), collaborators in multimedia rights (like Playfly and Learfield), and clothing manufacturers (including Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour). Although these arrangements are required to be vetted by the CSC’s newly implemented clearinghouse, NIL Go, college officials are assuring financial compensation to athletes prior to these agreements receiving official approval.
This state of affairs has rendered the sector frustrated and fractured, leading many to openly ponder four concise questions.
What exactly is transpiring?
“We are effectively engaging in financial obfuscation,” commented a senior administrator from a Big Ten institution. “Our current activities amount to little more than shifting funds.”
Three athletic directors from major conferences—all of whom, coincidentally, are not affiliated with the SEC—expressed to Yahoo Sports in the past week their conviction that no spending limit should exist, given the considerable difficulty of its enforcement.
During a recent appearance on the Ohio-based podcast, The Tim & Beanie Show, Ross Bjork, the athletic director for Ohio State, stated that collegiate officials ought to seriously contemplate ceasing “financial constraints,” as such restrictions lead to infractions and legal disputes. He posited that the $20.5 million ceiling is now insufficient, as demonstrated by the use of third-party bypasses by institutions.
“Perhaps we should simply establish an unrestricted market?” Bjork inquired.
Nevertheless, not all stakeholders are inclined to fundamentally reshape a framework that has been in operation for merely half a year.
During a comprehensive discussion with Yahoo Sports recently, Sankey explicitly voiced his disapproval of the NCAA, citing discrepancies in eligibility waiver decisions that frequently amplify coaches’ annoyance and bewilderment, and also criticized the body for its weak enforcement against tampering.
“I am perplexed by the absence of clear guidelines regarding accountability for tampering,” Sankey commented. “That specific oversight falls within the purview of the NCAA.”
Nevertheless, tampering does not constitute a straightforward infraction to pursue legally. Initially, NCAA authorities reference a 2024 judgment by a Tennessee court that permits collectives supported by boosters, operating under Name, Image, and Likeness rules, to engage with high school recruits and athletes in the transfer portal. This preliminary court order remains in effect.
In remarks provided to Yahoo Sports, the NCAA indicated that its regulatory division has handled approximately 95 instances of tampering so far this year, with several awaiting ultimate endorsement from the Committee on Infractions.
“Effective prosecution of tampering incidents necessitates collaboration from coaches, student-athletes, and administrators—particularly those whose squads were subjected to interference—and while the Association appreciates the assistance provided in completed matters, increased collaborative effort will result in a greater number of concluded investigations,” stated Tim Buckley, the NCAA’s senior vice president of external relations.
The limitation on roster expenditures, however, presents a distinct challenge.
Oversight for this falls under the College Sports Commission.
‘Hesitant’ College Sports Commission?
The College Sports Commission is still in its nascent stages, yet its Chief Executive Officer, Bryan Seeley, has reportedly labored assiduously with both conference and constituent institutions to guarantee the system’s conscientious functioning.
Nevertheless, in a scenario reflecting the internal conflicts within collegiate athletics, the CSC’s involvement pact—formulated and championed by legal counsel from the influential conferences—has twice failed to secure unanimous approval from the 68 institutions across the SEC, Big 12, ACC, and Big Ten. The initial iteration of this document—endorsed by the SEC but only enforceable if all major conference universities sign—forbids academic establishments from pursuing legal action against the CSC. This measure is intended to safeguard the CSC’s ability to enforce regulations and avert the downfall experienced by NCAA enforcement: litigation from its own constituent members.
“Everyone seeks to fault the NCAA; the NCAA, in essence, is us,” declared Chris Del Conte, the athletic director for Texas. “As the governing entity, we formulated the regulations, yet members violated those regulations and then retained legal representation to challenge the very rules they helped establish.”
During a presentation at the NCAA convention on Wednesday, Seeley passionately appealed to institutions for ten minutes, imploring them to endorse the involvement agreement—a document he deems “fundamental” for the future—and encouraged administrators to publicly back it.
“Should there be an occasion to take a risk, that time is currently,” Seeley conveyed to the assembled conference and institutional representatives.
Inquiries may be imminent. Seeley mentioned that the organization is in the midst of informing multiple institutions about “concerns we are investigating related to undisclosed Name, Image, and Likeness agreements.” The CSC recently added a tenth individual to its team, a roster that features at least one former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent.
Morehead, alongside three additional university presidents from major conferences, authored a letter earlier this week, advocating for institutions to endorse the CSC agreement to facilitate genuine enforcement. The predicament concerning the CSC agreement serves as “a prime illustration of our inability to resolve our issues,” remarked Joe Castiglione, Oklahoma’s departing athletic director.
“The College Sports Commission is likely somewhat apprehensive about enforcing regulations among the Power Four institutions because, in essence, we recently dismissed the NCAA,” stated Danny White, Tennessee’s athletic director.
Numerous administrators attribute a portion of the expanding rosters less to bypassing the spending limit and more to institutions “pre-funding” athlete agreements last spring. Universities disbursed millions to athletes for their 2025 rosters prior to the establishment of the new regulatory body and the cap’s introduction, thereby furnishing them with surplus funds for use in the transfer portal for the subsequent year’s roster.
“It will require several years to stabilize the outcomes of the pre-funding activities,” commented Brett Yormark, the commissioner for the Big 12, who indicated his vigorous efforts to secure the participation agreement’s prompt signing. “The CSC is equipped to implement settlement regulations and is achieving substantial headway.”
The previous summer, Jim Phillips, the commissioner for the Atlantic Coast Conference, suggested that an institution might need to face sanctions for the full impact of the new regulatory branch to be understood.
“Such an event must occur,” Phillips asserted. “And should it transpire within our conference, my perspective will remain unchanged, as our collective aim is to stabilize the entirety of this undertaking.”
Is regulatory action approaching?
Sankey points to the NIL Go processing center as a potential mechanism for regulatory action, by either endorsing or rejecting third-party remunerations for athletes. According to recent statistics, the CSC has sanctioned 17,321 agreements valued at $127.2 million, while rejecting 524 agreements worth $14.9 million. Numerous additional cases are currently being examined.
On Friday, the body declared its “apprehension” regarding third-party assurances made to athletes that have not yet received official clearance, and confirmed it is initiating investigations into multiple programs concerning undeclared Name, Image, and Likeness arrangements. Should these agreements ultimately be disproved, athletes could jeopardize their right to compete.
“Absent federal legislation and genuine institutional consent to this accord, along with a full commitment to upholding the intent of the law, we will be compelled to explore alternative mechanisms that provide necessary safeguards,” Linda Livingstone, the president of Baylor and a former leader of the NCAA Board of Governors, conveyed to Yahoo Sports during an August interview.
“The models most frequently discussed involve some form of collective negotiation,” she added. “While we wish to avoid an employer-employee framework, there is widespread acknowledgment that negotiation merits consideration.”
‘Revisiting past practices’
Many years prior, even preceding the skillful leadership of Mike Slive and Jim Delaney over the SEC and Big Ten, regulatory actions and probes were initiated by the individual conference administrations.
Numerous officials contend that a system of governance confined to individual conferences offers a means to formulate and implement regulations—pertaining to matters like tampering, eligibility, and roster limits—with less legal examination than what the NCAA currently confronts.
For many, however, this could also signify another outcome: competition restricted to within a conference.
“Federal statutes preclude us from independently establishing nationwide benchmarks,” states Scott Stricklin, the athletic director for Florida. “It appears the sole opportunity to set a standard resides with a smaller contingent of institutions. Our ambition is for this to be a national pastime. Yet, by federal legal definition, it functions as a regional sport that coincidentally garners nationwide interest.”
For many years, conferences functioned in isolation, exercising self-governance, conducting their own inquiries and enforcement, and primarily competing among their own members until the post-season, when bowl contests—affiliated with particular leagues—organized concluding annual showdowns.
“Past practices are resurfacing,” remarked an athletic director from a prominent conference with amusement at the ongoing convention.
Yet, such a framework does not resolve every issue, Sankey concedes, though he noted it is “advantageous to foster a more uniform setting and greater alignment among those in authority when making collective choices.”
“Irrespective of all who propose their concepts, no simple solution exists,” Sankey affirmed.
Speaking from the convention on Tuesday, NCAA president Charlie Baker does not entirely dispute some of these arguments. Indeed, the NCAA intends to conduct what Baker characterized as a “substantial examination” of its rule-making process to “identify areas where deregulation would be logical.” The overwhelming majority of its constituents advocate for national benchmarks concerning academic and eligibility criteria, competitive seasons, and certain game regulations. For all other aspects, he aspires to move towards a more “conference-focused” approach.
“A significant uncertainty concerning this matter is, ‘Is it feasible to establish a national championship without a foundational structure dictating participant involvement?'” he posed.
That holds true.
What if other leagues choose not to embrace and uphold comparable regulations? An athletic director from the SEC suggests it’s “conceivable” to establish a self-governing enforcement body exclusively for the SEC, though this might create complications for nationwide contests.
“Should the Big Ten pursue a divergent course, the system becomes ineffectual,” the official remarked. “Our coaches would be intensely displeased.”
Consequently, certain individuals within the SEC are convinced that intra-conference competition is essential—at some point—if other conferences fail to implement and uphold comparable guidelines.
“I believe we would prefer to compete against institutions that adhere to the regulations,” stated Morehead, the president of Georgia. “I am of the opinion that this strategy would succeed because college football enthusiasts prioritize the SEC. Consider the television viewership from the recent season; our supporters desire to see a regulated framework.”
The SEC secured 13 national football championships between 2006 and 2022. Even without a team participating in the national championship game for the third consecutive year, the conference’s audience figures persistently lead the sport. This season, an SEC team was featured in twelve of the fifteen most-viewed games.
Is it sustainable for the league to only compete internally? The conference might be exchanging legal examination for intense political backlash.
Sankey is aware of this reality. Indeed, during the interview, he spontaneously began discussing his esteem and admiration for nationwide contests, including the NCAA basketball tournament—among the most cherished spectacles in American athletics. Over recent weeks, Sankey has shared with his university presidents an account detailing “our journey to the present circumstances,” according to Keenum, the Mississippi State president.
“Regarding the choices made in the early 2000s, to divest the commissioner’s office of investigatory and regulatory functions, do we intend to introduce any alterations to the prevailing state of affairs?” Keenum queries. “We are engaging in initial, preliminary discussions within our conference, prompted by widespread grievances and the absence of a distinctly defined enforcement and investigative authority.”
Certain parties propose that the scope should extend considerably past a governance framework limited to individual conferences.
Within an extensive report released by Yahoo Sports in June, multiple athletic directors from prominent conferences publicly articulated their endorsement for a collective-negotiation structure as a method to institute guidelines, mandates, and a degree of consistency.
As the NCAA convention progresses at this location, beneath the expansive canopy of the Gaylord National Resort, there appears to be a collective quest for a resolution.
Anything other than the current state.
“Many individuals within this conference are inquiring, ‘What alternative strategy exists?'” states Trev Alberts, the athletic director for Texas A&M. “I would assemble a very select committee, incorporating active coaches. We would then consider all possibilities without reservation. Essentially, you’re asking, ‘If we were to begin anew, what form would it take?’ The more time we allow to pass, the more entrenched the difficulties become.”
