SEC, B10: No private funds; football not ‘broken’

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Following an “unprecedented” meeting between the SEC and Big Ten on Thursday, the commissioners of both conferences addressed multiple weighty issues facing college athletics and strongly pushed back on recent pitches from private equity groups to help offset increased expenses that will result from the NCAA’s expected House settlement.

It was an important united front from two of the most powerful people in college sports, as any drastic changes that would include private equity are unlikely to garner national support without the backing of the SEC and Big Ten.

“I have yet to see a single thing in any plan that I’ve learned details about that contains things that we couldn’t do ourselves and our A4 colleagues as well,” Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti said. “At the end of the day, there’s a strong commitment that you have the ability to do all of this ourselves.

“… The notion that college football is broken — what we do is broken — is just not right.”

In February, the SEC and Big Ten announced the formation of a joint advisory group, and this one-day meeting at the Grand Hyatt was a continuation of that — albeit with legal counsel present to make sure both conferences weren’t crossing any lines that could be construed as collusion.

“Our legal counsel is very skilled at this point in defining the boundaries of what we can talk about and what we cannot talk about,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said.

With the SEC now at 16 teams and the Big Ten at 18 following expansion, they are now the largest, wealthiest conferences in the country. And Sankey and Petitti have the bulk of control over the future format of the College Football Playoff in 2026 and beyond.

Yet even with the optics of Thursday’s meeting — and the written guarantee of separation in both power and wealth in the newest CFP contract — Sankey said the perception that the SEC and Big Ten are pulling away from everyone else in college athletics with this partnership is inaccurate. He said he realized there was “plenty of commentary about the two of us meeting,” but he reiterated both leagues “accept the responsibility of leadership.”

“We talk regularly with our other two colleagues in the autonomy groups,” he said, referencing Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark and ACC commissioner Jim Phillips. “Do we bring everybody together? It was hard enough to schedule two conferences of athletics directors. I can’t imagine trying to schedule four.

“We’ll share from this with our colleagues. This is the start of a conversation for us. I don’t think that perception is consistent with our conversation today, where we recognize we’re part of a bigger ecosystem, but we’re also interested in what we might be able to achieve together.”

With all 34 athletic directors from the supersized conferences gathered in a meeting room, the conversation focused largely on the looming House settlement, which recently received preliminary approval, but there was also interest from both leagues in finding a way to schedule more football games against each other.

“Is there a way for us to be intentional about our scheduling?” said Sankey, who was in Ann Arbor last month to see Texas at Michigan. “Just an incredible experience, and you stand on the sideline prior to kickoff thinking, what if we can do this more with our nonconference games? We respect where we have in-state rivalries that take place in nonconference scheduling, but we had a real general conversation about the what-ifs in football and basketball.”

Petitti said part of the discussion is about those games being scheduled organically on campus through athletic directors having conversations.

“The question is there a structure where the two league offices work together to create more of those matchups?” Petitti said. “We had a pretty big discussion about the path to play each other more — see if you can figure out how you can actually do it; decide what games you want, how many — but that’s a broad discussion.”

Sankey said some athletic directors in the room pointed out some games being played this year were scheduled a decade ago, “almost a point of encouragement to say, ‘let’s not wait that long.'”

Leaders in both leagues also discussed the pending roster limits and future of NCAA governance, with Sankey saying “it has to change.” At a recent Division I Council meeting, Sankey said he told the room that “the Division I Council doesn’t work, given what’s changing around us.”

“The board of directors at the Division I level has to change, and it has to change rapidly,” Sankey said. “That’s the view of my conference membership, our presidents and chancellors. I shared that perspective, but I don’t think we’re alone. I don’t think it’s just two conferences that share that.”

Sankey and Petitti agreed they both want to see the 12-team CFP field unfold before they make any determinations about what could change when the next contract begins in 2026.

“This just has to go incredibly well,” Sankey said. “This has to be a successful launch. This isn’t the time to talk about governance in ’26 or the format in ’26, but immediate implementation is in front of us.”

Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione said the meetings were productive, with “considerable time” focused on the implementation of the House settlement.

“It was an opportunity to learn from each other and have important conversations,” Castiglione said. “It was good to get in a room and compare notes with other athletics directors who face common challenges.”