Power Four Proposal Seeks Control of NCAA Championships, Revenue

Power Four leagues propose governing NCAA tournaments like March Madness, fueling fears of limited mid-major opportunities and a growing sport divide.

Dec 30, 2024; Los Angeles, CA, USA; Ohio State Buckeyes and Oregon Ducks helmets with the College Football Playoff (CFP) logo on the Big Ten Network stage during Rose Bowl media day at Sheraton Grand LA. Mandatory Credit: Kirby Lee-Imagn Images / Kirby Lee-Imagn Images

College sports is on the brink of a seismic shift, and the latest working document circulating among the Power Four conferences are looking to redefine the governance of NCAA championships.

The proposal, obtained by Yahoo Sports Ross Dellenger, outlines a vision for the most powerful leagues to take control of postseason events, including the lucrative men’s and women’s basketball tournaments. While the document is still in its early stages, its implications are profound, signaling a bid for greater autonomy as the future of college athletics hangs in the balance.

Under this proposal, the power conferences would gain the authority to manage postseason championships, currently under the NCAA’s purview. This includes control over tournament formats, revenue distribution, and the selection committee process.

These changes echo the framework laid out in NCAA President Charlie Baker’s “Project DI,” which similarly called for a subdivision of high-revenue schools with expanded rule-making powers. Both plans reflect a growing recognition of the gap between the sport’s elite programs and everyone else, though the power conferences’ proposal takes the concept a step further by seeking control of the NCAA’s crown jewels: its championships.

The potential changes could drastically impact March Madness, the NCAA’s most celebrated event and its biggest financial driver. The men’s tournament alone generates nearly $1 billion annually, funding athletic programs across divisions. ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips underscored the importance of maintaining broad access to the tournament, calling it a “national treasure.” Meanwhile, SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey highlighted the value of the Cinderella stories that have become synonymous with the event, stating, “The basketball tournament is a national and American experience… the Cinderella stories are part of the fabric.”

Despite assurances that the essence of March Madness will remain intact, fears are mounting that the proposal could limit opportunities for mid-major programs, potentially reducing their share of the tournament’s lucrative revenues. These concerns are exacerbated by growing tensions between the Power Five and other Division I conferences, with some leaders warning of an eventual split.

Much like Project DI, the power conferences’ plan highlights the fractured state of the NCAA. Both proposals reflect a move toward deregulation, granting elite programs more control over critical decisions like athlete compensation and tournament management. However, this shift raises questions about the NCAA’s long-term role. If the power conferences can enforce their own rules and operate their own championships, what need remains for the national association?

The timing of the proposal is no coincidence. With the House v. NCAA settlement nearing final approval and revenue-sharing models on the horizon, the power conferences are positioning themselves to shape the future of college athletics. However, adopting such a plan would likely require a vote from the full Division I membership, a steep hurdle given the resistance from non-Power Four programs. If consensus isn’t reached, a breakaway remains on the table, though such a move would face legal and logistical challenges due to agreements binding the conferences to the NCAA through 2035.

As the annual NCAA convention approaches, the proposal sets the stage for heated debates about the sport’s future. Will this working document lead to a more streamlined and effective governance model, or will it accelerate the growing divide between the haves and have-nots of college sports? Either way, the push for control underscores a central truth about the current state of college athletics: change is no longer optional—it’s inevitable.