SEC Secession From NCAA Would Bring Opportunity, but Risk Too

Last week, Southeastern Conference commissioner Greg Sankey raised eyebrows by saying he’s been asked, “Why are we still in the NCAA?”

The comment was made during SEC spring meetings and in the context of Sankey referencing high-level conference discussions. The four power conferences—the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC—seek to obtain 68% voting power in D-I governance matters. Their ongoing relationship with the NCAA, and the degree of discretion they enjoy, are at stake.

To be clear, Sankey didn’t say the SEC plans to leave the NCAA. He also clarified that the SEC prefers to stay in the NCAA. But he acknowledged the SEC cutting ties with the NCAA is an actual topic.

The commissioner of one of the four power conferences publicly tossing out such a provocative idea is worthy of further examination. 

As a starting point, any conference or school could extinguish its relationship with the NCAA. 

For all its power and influence, the NCAA is only a private, member-organization. In that regard, the NCAA is like the American Council on Education, the Association of American Law Schools or numerous other member organizations in higher ed—including the SEC. Member conferences and schools choose to be considered for NCAA membership, and the NCAA chooses to accept or reject membership applications. The relationship between the NCAA and members is therefore voluntary and contractual.

The NCAA also can’t force a member to do anything. As the late Texas Judge Mack Kidd wrote in NCAA v. Yeo (2003), “the NCAA has no direct procedural power to enforce its rules on individuals” and NCAA member institutions “reserve the right to secede from the NCAA and establish their own eligibility standards.” The SEC could leave the NCAA, provided its exit complies with member rules. The SEC could then create whatever rules the conference and its members wish for athlete eligibility, NIL, transfers, minimum GPA, employment and myriad other topics. Those rules would need to comply with federal and state laws, but that’s true of any rule issued by a higher ed member-organization.

The SEC has the wherewithal to operate as a standalone league. Its member schools are large and prestigious institutions with impressive endowments and state-of-the-art facilities. The SEC enjoys a marketable brand with a national reach with fans. That is evidenced by the conference’s $3 billion media rights deal with ABC and ESPN and by the fact it feeds more players to the NFL than any other conference. The SEC also has the expertise and budget to create an enforcement arm; as big colleges with a lot of institutional know-how, SEC member schools are intimately familiar with conduct matters and application of disciplinary rules. 

The SEC also doesn’t need to be aligned with conferences, most of which function more in line with traditional notions of college sports as played by students who aren’t pro prospects and who, like their classmates, will go on to jobs or grad school. If anything, conference alignment through the NCAA has meant the SEC faces legal bills whenever the NCAA is sued (yet again) for athlete-related antitrust claims.

The SEC could also form a super league with other power conference schools. A super league could function like a pro league, with athletes signing contracts with their schools and with backing from private equity and billionaires. While the House settlement would include power conference (and other) schools sharing 22% of the average power conference athletic media, ticket and sponsorship revenue, with a $20.5 million initial annual cap, a super league could pay the players more and even recognize them as employees. 

At first glance, it might sound like SEC secession is a good idea. A closer look reveals a more complicated decision matrix and five reasons why secession is not such a hot idea.

First, the SEC might be able to leave NCAA membership, but it can’t leave the NCAA as a co-defendant. In the major athlete antitrust cases in recent years, the NCAA is the most notable defendant, but the power conferences are also defendants. They’re all accused of conspiring to limit economic opportunities for athletes. Co-conspirators can’t just quit each other, at least from an antitrust perspective. The SEC and NCAA will remain litigation partners for years to come.

Second, while NCAA policies in recent decades have drawn rebuke and lawsuits—such as denying athletes the chance to use their right of publicity or limiting funding for education-related costs—the NCAA does a lot of things well. It advances academic goals through enforcement of educational requirements, which is important since colleges are fundamentally about learning and are not pro teams. Further, the NCAA provides resources and research on player health, including mental health. It also organizes championships and tournaments for a wide range of sports, most of which are not football or basketball. To that point, while the SEC is most often associated with big-time college football, it also runs championships for 20 other sports, including men’s and women’s cross country and equestrian. Additionally, the SEC, like the NCAA, prides itself in recognizing student athletes’ academic achievements. 

The NCAA is also national. Although the SEC’s reach might be national, it’s a regional entity that doesn’t have as much sway in some parts of the country—including with their elected officials. And don’t forget that it is always the NCAA taking the blame for various grievances against college sports; if the SEC isn’t part of the NCAA, it will face that rebuke.

Third, the NCAA organizes March Madness, which some would argue is the best tournament in U.S. sports outside of the Super Bowl. While the SEC could create its own basketball tournament for its men’s and women’s teams and it would attract the interest of broadcasters, it wouldn’t be the tournament. There might not be Cinderella teams. It might also not entice the interest of people who don’t really follow college sports but who become extremely interested in March Madness every time it arrives.

Fourth, a standalone SEC league or the SEC forming a super league with other breakaway conferences could morph into an entity that looks too much like pro sports. As the NCAA has argued in litigation over the years, consumers are attracted to college sports partly because it is distinctly different from pro sports. The athletes are college students, whose priority is (or should be) advancing toward a degree and graduating. If college sports seem more like the UFL or G League or some other league inferior to the major pro leagues, fans could tune out.

Fifth, the timing of secession doesn’t seem right. The NCAA has been more effective and pragmatic under president Charlie Baker. Through the proposed House settlement, the NCAA has opened the door to greater athlete compensation. At the same time, the NCAA continues to stress the importance of academics and—as shown in ongoing litigation regarding college athletes who want to stay in school for NIL—the transition from college sports into other life pursuits.

The SEC might want to stick with the NCAA.