Good morning to all!
Last week began with me in Indianapolis for NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Oversight Committee meetings and concluded with NCAA Division I Cabinet meetings on Friday. Today has me in Las Vegas for the NACDA Convention. Working on behalf of The Big West, whether that is in national committees or conventions, at member institutions or getting the rate opportunity lately to be at my desk, is truly an honor and privilege I do not take for granted each and every day.
Between those meetings, Congress held a hearing on the Protect College Sports Act, national leaders debated the future of college athletics, and Division I announced the end of its participation in the NCAA Convention beginning in 2027.
As I listened to the congressional hearing and followed the national discussion throughout the week, I found myself reflecting on a broader question: How did college athletics arrive at this moment? That reflection ultimately led to the blog post included below.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with my conclusions, I believe it is important that we occasionally step back from the daily headlines and examine the larger forces shaping our industry.
As the landscape continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace, understanding how we arrived here may be just as important as deciding where we will go next.
As I have referred to “Hamilton” in past blogs, this song choice this week is most appropriate “My Shot".
Whether I am in the room where it happens or not, it is important for all voices to be heard.
Let’s get to The Bold Type.
THE BIG WEST BOARD OF DIRECTORS ADVANCES STRATEGIC PRIORITIES DURING ANNUAL SPRING MEETINGS
The Big West Board of Directors continued its focus on bold leadership, long-term conference stability, competitive excellence and strategic positioning as the league prepares to welcome three new members to the fold on July 1, 2026. Learn more about some of the unanimous decisions made by the Board after recommendations passed along from the Council earlier in May as well as the leadership transitions for both groups for the 2026-27 academic year. Read more >>>
CONGRATULATIONS!
- To Cal Poly baseball who represented The Big West in the NCAA Baseball Championship Super Regionals against West Virginia! This was the first appearance in the Super Regionals for the Mustangs and the first for a Big West squad since 2018. Read more >>>
- To the 13 baseball players representing five member institutions selected to the CSC Academic All-District team this week! Read more >>>
- To Cal Poly’s Jon Sioredas, who was been appointed as a member of the NCAA Division I Men's Wrestling Rules Subcommittee! His term of service on the committee will begin September 1, 2026, and continue through August 31, 2030.
FROM NCAA PRESIDENT CHARLIE BAKER ON THE PROTECT COLLEGE SPORTS ACT
This is a defining moment for the future of college sports. With the introduction of a bipartisan legislation package, we have an opportunity to safeguard the student-athlete experience for generations to come. I am grateful Senators Cruz, Cantwell, Coons and Schmitt put forward a bipartisan bill to address many of the challenges college athletes and NCAA schools face, and I look forward to working together with you all, and with Congress, to seize upon this momentum and make improvements where needed. Based on our analysis and the initial feedback from schools, we believe the bill addresses many, but not all, of the priorities student-athlete leaders and institutions have been advocating for.
Most notably, the bill would enshrine into federal law the health, wellness and academic benefits our schools committed to when I became NCAA president. The student-athlete leaders who championed these protections in NCAA bylaws and on Capitol Hill should be proud of this progress. The bill’s provisions to rein in unscrupulous agents and provide data transparency will go a long way to curbing bad behavior that today results in price gouging and broken promises for student-athletes.
At the same time, it is essential that several key provisions be refined to best safeguard the stability of college athletic opportunities. The bill provides stability in critical policy areas including transfers, eligibility and professional status – with targeted anti-trust protections that take on some, but not all, of the conflicting lawsuits that destabilize college sports. It empowers conferences to enforce key provisions of the House settlement but creates an unnecessary hurdle for student-athletes participating in revenue sharing. And it pre-empts many, but not all, state laws that unfairly seek to tilt the playing field for one’s state schools. Critically, the bill does not address employment – the greatest threat our schools cite to sustaining the $4 billion in scholarship opportunities we provide today.
Addressing these areas for improvement will ensure the priorities student-athlete leaders and the NCAA have been championing are comprehensively met. To do that, the NCAA will provide detailed analysis for our member schools to guide the advocacy work that will now be required. In the interim, here is a detailed section by section summary of the bill.
As a former Governor who worked across the aisle for eight years and now as the NCAA president, I understand that getting big stuff done requires compromise. When I started meeting with members of Congress three years ago, I could see the path to a bipartisan deal and now we are even closer. Despite hyper partisanship on so many issues, college sports can cut across party lines, as evidenced by this progress. There is work ahead, and I am thankful we have a bipartisan package we can work on with the exceptional student-athlete leaders who step up to advocate for permanent, positive change through Congress.
We appreciate all the time the senators have dedicated to the issues in college sports and this bill in particular, and we look forward to working with them, student-athletes and all of you to get legislation adopted.
IF THE NCAA MODEL IS BROKEN, WHO BROKE IT?
The following reflects my personal observations from more than three decades working in college athletics, including 21 years in a highly successful FBS conference, as well as service in NCAA governance at both the conference and national levels. As national conversations surrounding the future of college athletics continue to intensify, particularly now in the Senate, I believe it is important to occasionally step back from the headlines, rhetoric, and competing agendas to examine some of the broader questions facing our industry.
As national conversations surrounding the future of college athletics continue to intensify, I believe it is important to occasionally step back from the headlines, rhetoric, and competing agendas to examine some of the broader questions facing our industry.
Over the past several years, a familiar narrative has emerged across college athletics.
The NCAA is broken.
The governance structure no longer works.
The system is outdated.
The model must be fundamentally rebuilt.
Those statements are repeated so frequently that they are often accepted as fact.
But before accepting that premise, it may be worth asking a simple question:
If the NCAA model is broken, who broke it?
That question is not intended to assign blame.
It is intended to examine accountability.
For more than a decade, the conferences most critical of the NCAA have also possessed the greatest authority to shape NCAA policy. The autonomy conferences received enhanced legislative authority in 2014. More recently, the autonomous conferences received weighted voting authority that provides significant influence over the future direction of Division I athletics.
In other words, those arguing most forcefully that the system no longer works have also been among those with the greatest ability to change it.
That reality deserves acknowledgment.
This is not an argument against reform. College athletics should continue to evolve. It always has. The transfer portal, Name, Image and Likeness opportunities, revenue sharing, governance modernization, student-athlete support services, and countless other initiatives demonstrate that change is both possible and necessary.
To be fair, many of the decisions made over the past decade were well-intentioned attempts to address changing legal realities, market forces, and student-athlete expectations. The challenge is not that leaders sought change. The challenge is that those seeking change must also be willing to accept responsibility for the outcomes those changes produced.
When leaders claim the NCAA no longer functions, they should also recognize that many of the policies, structures, and governance models currently under criticism were created, supported, or influenced by those same leadership groups.
The current national conversation often suggests that the most influential conferences remain constrained by an NCAA governance structure that prevents meaningful change. Yet for more than a decade, the autonomy conferences have possessed enhanced legislative authority specifically designed to provide greater flexibility and decision-making power. More recently, those same conferences were granted weighted voting authority that further increased their influence over the future of Division I athletics.
That reality raises an important question. If the current system remains fundamentally flawed, what reforms could not have been pursued through the authority already provided? If the legal environment is unsustainable, what solutions were advanced through the legislative authority already granted? If the NCAA is preventing innovation, what reforms were proposed but could not be accomplished through the governance authority already provided?
Those are not criticisms.
They are reasonable governance questions.
Before we dismiss the NCAA model entirely, it is worth taking a moment to recognize what continues to work remarkably well.
More than 90 national championships are conducted across three divisions every year. Hundreds of millions of dollars are distributed back to member institutions. Playing rules are developed and administered. Academic, leadership, and student-athlete well-being programs are supported. National governance structures bring together institutions of varying sizes, missions, and resources under a common framework.
None of those accomplishments generate daily headlines.
They simply happen.
Year after year.
If the NCAA truly did not work, those outcomes would not be possible.
The conversation becomes even more complicated when college athletics is viewed solely through the lens of major college football.
Too often, the national discussion treats the interests of the College Football Playoff and the largest football conferences as synonymous with the interests of all of college athletics.
They are not.
The NCAA consists of more than 1,100 member institutions across Divisions I, II, and III. More than 1,000 institutions compete outside the Power Four structure. Thousands of student-athletes compete in sports that receive little national attention but remain central to the educational mission of intercollegiate athletics.
Their experiences matter.
Their futures matter.
Their opportunities matter.
Yet when Congress convenes hearings, when federal legislation is discussed, and when national media outlets seek commentary, the conversation often centers almost exclusively on the interests of major college football.
That imbalance creates a distorted picture of college athletics and often overlooks the perspectives of the overwhelming majority of NCAA member institutions.
The vast majority of NCAA institutions continue to believe in national championships. They continue to believe in common playing rules. They continue to believe in shared governance. They continue to believe in opportunities for student-athletes to compete at the highest level while pursuing an education.
Those institutions are not asking for the destruction of the NCAA.
They are asking for stability.
They are asking for clarity.
They are asking for a legal framework that allows rules to be established, enforced, and defended without every major decision immediately becoming the subject of litigation.
Congress has spent considerable time discussing the future of college athletics. Meaningful progress, however, will require more than hearings and headlines. It will require the creation of a legal framework that allows collegiate athletics to govern itself with consistency, fairness, and accountability.
Perhaps the most overlooked reality in college athletics today is the relationship between the NCAA and major college football.
The NCAA does not operate the College Football Playoff.
The NCAA does not control CFP revenues.
The NCAA does not determine CFP governance.
The NCAA does not negotiate bowl agreements.
Yet the NCAA frequently bears the criticism, legal exposure, and public scrutiny generated by issues largely associated with major college football.
At some point, college athletics must honestly evaluate whether the governance structures of major college football and the broader NCAA membership remain aligned.
If one segment of the enterprise seeks increasing autonomy over championships, revenue distribution, governance, scheduling, media rights, and postseason competition, then it is reasonable to ask whether a separate governance structure would better serve both major college football and the remainder of intercollegiate athletics.
Such a discussion should not be viewed as punitive. Nor should it be viewed as divisive.
Rather, it reflects a basic principle of organizational governance: entities function most effectively when authority, responsibility, accountability, and financial consequences remain aligned.
The question is not whether major college football deserves autonomy.
The question is whether the current structure continues to serve either side effectively.
The real question facing college athletics is not whether the NCAA should evolve.
It should.
The real question is whether those demanding the greatest authority are willing to accept the responsibility that comes with it.
For more than a decade, college athletics has granted increasing autonomy, legislative flexibility, and governance influence to its most powerful conferences. More recently, those same conferences have been entrusted with even greater authority over the future of Division I athletics.
If the NCAA model is broken, then those who have exercised the greatest influence over that model should be willing to acknowledge their role in shaping it.
That is not criticism.
That is accountability.
The future of college athletics will not be strengthened by assigning blame to the NCAA for every challenge facing the enterprise. It will be strengthened when leaders accept responsibility for the authority they possess, the decisions they make, and the consequences that follow.
Leadership is not merely the authority to make decisions.
Leadership is also the willingness to accept responsibility for the outcomes.
Good governance requires no less.
The NCAA is not perfect.
No organization is.
But before declaring the model broken, perhaps we should first acknowledge who has been holding the steering wheel—and ask whether they are prepared to accept responsibility for where the road has led.
MEDIA REPORTS ON THE BIG WEST, NCAA AND LEGAL MATTERS
- Cal Poly AD Carter Henderson discussed utilizing his background in journalism and film studies to construct a cohesive departmental narrative, telling Hero Sports' KC Smurthwaite: “I always love the power of story and how it can impact commerce. We’re all building a story. We’re helping our students build identities and stories.” Henderson also emphasized the necessity of building rigid operational systems that consume no more than 85% of executive bandwidth, intentionally preserving the remaining 15% strictly for strategy and long-term scenario planning. While the Mustangs recently secured 11 conference championships across its Olympic sports, Henderson acknowledged the urgent need to elevate the department's highest-visibility programs and capitalize on the opening of the John Madden Center football facility: "I think most athletic departments fall short of their full potential for one of two reasons: either they never develop a clear strategic vision for where they want to go, or they do, but the complexities and demands of the operation overwhelm their ability to execute it. ... I wanted to be at a place I felt like we could do some really special things and grow." (link)
- New York Yankees President Randy Levine, a leader of President Trump’s Council on College Sports, tells SBJ’s Mike Mazzeo the feedback he’s received is the Protect College Sports Act covers 80% of what is needed to solve the problems caused by an NCAA system that is broken and unsustainable. “Are we going to be sending people to college to be student-athletes or professional athletes? That’s basically what it comes down to. Everybody says they want to protect the system and keep student-athletes. Well, the tools are there to do that. It’s their choice.” Levine noted the legislation’s employment component was among the more debated discussion points in the legislation’s drafting. “I personally spoke to 1K student-athletes, and not one of them wanted to be an employee or in a union. They wanted to be student-athletes. That’s not to say there are others who feel differently. But the fact is this bill calls them student-athletes and leaves that decision to the student-athletes and the schools in the future. It doesn’t foreclose anything.” (link)
From Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) on the Protect College Sports Act …
- On pitching voluntary media rights pooling to the SEC and Big Ten: "Commissioner Sankey is not a fan of that particular provision. Greg is a good man and he's a friend. I've talked to him a lot about this. And what I've told him is I said, 'Look, that provision is entirely voluntary. Nobody's going to force the SEC to do this.' And if you look at college sports, virtually all of the revenue that is generated in college sports comes from college football. And the SEC and the Big Ten are the two giant players. And by allowing schools to come together and voluntarily pool their media rights, you have the potential to negotiate a much bigger contract, grow the pie, and have more resources for all of college sports. And what I've told both the SEC and Big Ten is, ‘Listen, for this to work, the other schools are going to have to come to you with an offer that is compelling to you, that is more money for you, that is more revenue for everyone. And no one's forcing you to participate. So, this is an avenue that potentially increases your revenue and at the same time simultaneously can preserve the rest of sports."
- On protecting NIL and formalizing revenue sharing: "So, this bill protects the right, number one, for legitimate, for real NIL. So if a quarterback is selling tennis shoes, you ought to be able to make whatever money you can. You ought to be able to make millions from that if you're selling that many tennis shoes. Secondly, it protects the right of student-athletes to participate in revenue sharing from the schools." (link)
- U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) says on the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show that “I think if Congress doesn’t act, in three to five years, we’re going to see a world where there are 30 to 50 college football programs that are basically a mini-NFL – that is, the G League for the NFL. And then every other program goes away. It basically becomes a glorified high school program without television, without meaningful revenue.” (link)
- More from Portnoy as U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) comments on the super league provision in the Protect College Sports Act: “Well, you’ve heard of too big to fail, right? This is too big for your own good. How could you have a super league and then eight teams that basically, those are the eight teams that make it every year? No one wants to see that. How is that true competition? I mean, we could have named the bill ‘True Competition.’ It’s just as much about how are you going to keep a level playing field among schools and not just have the billionaire boosters basically run the show. This is about saying, ‘We’re not going to let you get too big.’ You just can’t.” Full Q&A. (link)
- More from Cruz, who calls the Protect College Sports Act “the last, best hope” for federal college athletics legislation. While acknowledging the bill will need seven Democrats for cloture, Cruz adds: “But my objective is to not just see it squeak by with 60 votes. I’d like to see a clear mandate. Sports shouldn’t be a partisan issue. In a time of deep partisan division, sports is the one thing that gets us coming together. College sports is a unique American treasure, and college sports today is in crisis.” Also from Cruz: “I’m a Texan and I love the SEC. Some of the very best college football is in the SEC and Big Ten—I want to see both continue to thrive. What I don’t want is to see them merge together and leave everyone else behind. … What I wish the bill said is that college athletes are not employees. But Senate Democrats were unwilling to say that. To get a bill into law, we have to be willing to compromise.” (link)
- The SEC and Big Ten in a joint statement explain that “we do not support the Protect College Sports Act as drafted. The bill leaves critical issues unresolved. It does not meaningfully preempt the patchwork of state laws or provide the protections needed to make and enforce consistent rules, both essential to long-term stability in college athletics. It also shifts ongoing rulemaking to Congress, limiting the ability to adapt quickly as the landscape evolves. Rather than reducing litigation, the bill likely expands it without offering clear alternatives for dispute resolution. Finally, the bill alters the House settlement revenue sharing framework in a way that may result in fewer student-athletes receiving direct revenue share payments. We are committed to working with Senators Cruz and Cantwell and other members of Congress to improve this legislation so that it can provide lasting stability for college athletics." (link)
- The Senate Commerce Committee’s majority spokesman issued the following response: "The SEC and Big Ten agree the current system is broken and that college sports needs a national framework. That's significant. We look forward to receiving constructive feedback from both conferences, but it's vital that Congress fixes the court-induced chaos now rather than allow litigation, NIL bidding wars, and Power 2 consolidation to further destabilize college sports. Inaction will mean the shuttering of storied football and basketball programs across the country and the cancellation of many more Olympic sports, which will rob opportunity from thousands of student athletes." (link)
- “Everyone mad is a sign that it has a chance. Everyone having something not to like means it’s a good compromise.” That’s what one college stakeholder with political experience quipped about the Protect College Sports Act to Yahoo Sports’ Ross Dellenger, who observes that while the legislation feels like it’s on a fast track, questions over the bill linger and concerns over its language loom. The USOPC highlighted one such issue in a letter to lawmakers on Monday – protections in the bill for women and Olympic sports are only triggered if enough schools agree to pool their media rights. “Perhaps the most interesting and notable concerns are raised from those outside of college athletics. Leaders from several players association movements expressed public criticism of a bill that many believe limits athlete movement (transfer rule) and will decrease athlete compensation (hard cap).” While commissioners from the Big 12, ACC and American have indicated support for the legislation, Big Ten and SEC leaders have mostly remained silent — a signal of two leagues holding guarded and even skeptical views of a bill that seems to limit their future ability to merge or expand and opens a path, though voluntary, to pool FBS media rights. More. (link)
- U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) openly targeted the financial dominance of the SEC and Big Ten during yesterday's Protect College Sports Act congressional hearing, according to Yahoo Sports' Ross Dellenger. Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti dismissed any allegations of an impending merger as a "fabrication," while former Alabama Football HC Nick Saban testified in support of the legislation's national governance structure. Dellenger observes that the hearing highlighted an unusual political divide, with the two wealthiest conferences aligning with Democratic lawmakers to oppose the bill, while Cantwell argued the legislation's media pooling provision is required to generate the estimated $4B to $8B necessary to prevent the elimination of Olympic and women's sports programs. Cantwell also emphasized the necessity of federal intervention to protect the ACC and Big 12 from further realignment raids: "The ACC and Big 12 are saying, 'I don't want to be the Pac-12. Don't come and eat my best parts and leave me for scraps.' ... If Senator Cruz and I, who disagree on a lot of things, can figure out how to agree, why can't you guys fix this within your system of conferences and presidents? Why can't you guys figure this out? It wasn't that hard." (link)
- President Donald Trump released a statement on Truth Social offering his full support for the passage of the Protect College Sports Act. From the post, in part: “This Law resolves many of the most urgent issues challenging our Universities and Student-Athletes, stops the chaos and, most importantly, it may be the last chance to save College Sports, and Colleges themselves, before it's too late. … The House has worked long and hard on this issue as well, and I am very grateful to Speaker Mike Johnson and Leader Steve Scalise for their work to fix this very major problem. I urge the House and Senate to come together to pass a final Bipartisan Law, that I can sign this summer, that reflects the views and input of both Chambers. WE HAVE TO SAVE COLLEGE SPORTS!” (link)
- House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) came out today in opposition of the Protect College Sports Act, telling Politico’s Meredith Lee Hill that while he appreciated the work that went into the bill, there are still "big problems" in the House as it relates to the Senate legislation - including the employment status of student-athletes. “Nobody can credibly say they're going to move a bill to address college athletics and have opposition from the two major college athletic conferences. I'm glad they're doing some work on the Senate side, but for the House to be able to take anything up, you got to prevent employment status of the student-athletes. You also don't want to open up all the schools to lawsuits from trial lawyers that would make a much more litigious environment. Those are things that have been big problems on the House side.” (link)
- Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), co-sponsor of the Protect College Sports Act, in an effort to explain pushback from some to the legislation, remarked: “There are people who want to become the organized labor — bargaining unit — who think that chaos is better and somehow the NCAA would show up one day and go ‘Yes, collective bargaining!’” Cantwell doesn’t believe that to be the “best way” to approach the issue in the interim. “I think the commission we set up to look at collective bargaining could be a very big force.” (link)
- SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey and Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti released a statement explaining that “we appreciated today's productive conversation with Senator [Ted] Cruz regarding the Protect College Sports Act. It is clear that we all share the same goal of stabilizing collegiate athletics for the long term. We praised positive elements of the bill, especially those that support student-athlete wellness and regulate agents. The SEC and the Big Ten have been consistent from day one: reform needs to happen, and we remain committed to working with our government partners towards lasting solutions. Our goal today was to make collaborative progress toward improving this bill. We presented concrete solutions to key unresolved challenges, including providing consistent national oversight, ensuring the ability to make and enforce rules, and guaranteeing that student-athletes can maximize revenue share and NIL. These changes are needed to achieve the bill's objectives to bring long term stability to all of college athletics. We reiterated that we do not support this bill in its current form, but look forward to continued constructive dialogue with Senator Cruz and his team.” (link)
- Meanwhile, newly-retired Miami (FL) AD Dan Radakovich insists it wasn’t the unending roller coaster of college athletics that made him decide to retire, telling the South Florida Sun Sentinel’s Tim Reynolds he enjoyed the challenges over his four-plus years leading the Hurricanes, constant as they were. ”Everybody who you would listen to while growing up in this business says, ‘The only constant is change,’ And you just sit there and say you’ll be ready. Well, I don’t think any of the people who stood up on those podiums and talked to us have gone through the last five years. From COVID, to NIL, it hasn’t just been change. It’s been upheaval.” Dealing with all that, and more, will now fall to someone else. Radakovich’s retirement became official as of June 1, although it seems likely he will remain linked to the university in some capacity moving forward. (link)
- MAC Commissioner Jon Steinbrecher recently presented his annual “State of the Conference” address during the league’s spring meetings. Here are some key quotes…
- “I've been observing the continuing evolution of the intercollegiate athletics landscape over the past few years. In particular, the persistent and consistent power grab by the autonomy conferences. I am tired of listening to the complaints of the autonomy conferences who believe they know the best way to run the organization. I'm not sure if the right response to all of this is ‘be careful for what you ask for because you may get it’ or B, ‘karma's a b***h’ because we're now living with what happens when the autonomy conferences make the rules.”
- “The ignoring of rules, which is a polite way of saying cheating, has never been greater. We're not even one year into the implementation of the House settlement, a settlement negotiated by the autonomy conferences with virtually no input from anyone else, and already those very same institutions are ignoring the rules and the framework established to enforce those rules. Because of these behaviors, the upper end of the food chain is in an even more financially unsustainable position than the rest of us. … Not even one year in and there are voices calling for the elimination of the cap and many are trying to circumvent the College Sports Commission from evaluating the legitimacy and value of the third party NIL deals. If you look up the term ungovernable, I am convinced a handful of conference logos pop up and they're all autonomy logos.”
- “Almost everything I read about is the race to generate more revenue because the system is financially unsustainable yet the actions of one end of this food chain tear down the rules that are intended to help bring some level of certainty and control to the expenses, and in fact, endorse efforts to dismantle guardrails that make the costs even greater. In addition to our own self-generated chaos, additional upheaval is being created by interesting state laws and judicial rulings and inability of the federal government to get past partisan warfare and enact laws that could assist in bringing a degree of sanity to our eligibility and transfer rules.” More. (link)
As another week of governance discussions, congressional hearings, legal developments and championship competition comes to a close, one reality remains clear: college athletics continues to evolve at a remarkable pace.
While there is no shortage of opinions regarding where the industry should go next, meaningful progress will ultimately require something that has become increasingly rare—shared responsibility. Strong organizations are not built solely through authority. They are built through accountability, collaboration and a willingness to accept ownership of difficult decisions.
The coming months will bring additional change, additional debate and undoubtedly additional uncertainty. Through it all, The Big West will continue to advocate for student-athletes, support our member institutions and engage constructively in the national conversations shaping the future of Division I athletics.
Thank you for your continued leadership, partnership and commitment to our conference.
Leadership is not measured by the authority we possess, but by the responsibility we are willing to accept.
Have a great week everyone.
Dan