Greg Sankey should kick the Tennessee Volunteers out of the SEC

The proposal that Greg Sankey, commissioner of the SEC, should consider expelling the Tennessee Volunteers from the conference is a highly contentious and provocative notion that warrants careful examination. Historically, the SEC has prided itself on maintaining a competitive, cohesive, and principled league driven by tradition, excellence, and integrity. While Tennessee is one of the league’s founding members with a storied football history, recent conduct, administrative controversies, or other issues could be perceived as reasons to seriously debate their continued membership. This essay explores the rationale behind such a drastic measure, considering the league’s standards, the specific circumstances that might justify it, potential consequences, and the broader implications for college athletics governance. Ultimately, while expulsion is an extreme step, analyzing whether it could be justified involves weighing violations of league principles against the importance of unity and competitive integrity.

**Historical Context of Tennessee in the SEC**

Since joining the SEC in 1933, Tennessee has been an integral part of the league’s identity. The Volunteers boast multiple conference championships, national titles, and a passionate fan base that has contributed to the league’s prestige. Over the decades, Tennessee has produced numerous NFL stars and remains a traditional powerhouse, especially in football. As a founding member, Tennessee’s presence has been woven into the fabric of SEC history and culture, representing a storied rivalry with schools like Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.

However, history also shows that the league’s standards have evolved, and the conference has occasionally taken disciplinary actions when member institutions have violated rules or engaged in conduct damaging to the league’s reputation. The league’s governance structure, led by Sankey, emphasizes integrity, compliance with NCAA rules, and maintaining a level playing field. When violations occur, sanctions are typically administered—ranging from fines and probation to postseason bans—rather than expulsion. The question is whether Tennessee’s current or recent actions justify the unprecedented step of removing them from the league altogether.

**Potential Grounds for Expulsion**

To argue that Sankey should expel Tennessee, one must identify significant violations or behaviors that fundamentally undermine the league’s integrity or threaten its reputation. Possible grounds could include:

1. **Serious NCAA Violations or Ethical Breaches**

If Tennessee were found guilty of extensive recruiting violations, academic misconduct, or other NCAA infractions that compromise the integrity of college sports, the league might consider more severe sanctions. While the NCAA primarily enforces rules, the SEC could impose league-specific disciplinary measures if violations are egregious.

2. **Repeated or Willful Disregard for League Policies**

Persistent non-compliance, failure to cooperate with investigations, or blatant disregard for league regulations could erode trust. If Tennessee demonstrated ongoing misconduct or resistance to league authority, this might justify more drastic action.

3. **Actions That Damage the League’s Image**

Behavior that tarnishes the SEC’s reputation, such as involvement in scandals, criminal activities, or actions that threaten the league’s standing nationally, could be grounds for expulsion.

4. **Legal or Political Interference**

If Tennessee’s actions involve illegal or politically sensitive issues that jeopardize the league’s standing or relationships with NCAA, state authorities, or sponsors, league leadership might consider severe sanctions.

5. **Unilateral Actions or Defiance**

If Tennessee were to act independently in ways that conflict with SEC decisions—such as attempting to break away from league agreements or engaging in conduct that undermines league cohesion—expulsion could be contemplated.

**Assessing the Justification for Expulsion**

In practice, expelling a member from the SEC is an extraordinary measure. The league’s constitution and governance structures do not specify expulsion procedures, but it would undoubtedly require a consensus among member schools and a compelling justification. Historically, sanctions have been punitive but not exclusionary; this reflects the importance of unity in a league driven by shared interests and traditions.

For Sankey to justify expulsion, the evidence of misconduct must be severe, systemic, and demonstrate that Tennessee’s continued membership would threaten the league’s core principles or operations. Examples could include significant violations of NCAA rules coupled with a pattern of defiance, or actions that publicly and permanently damage the league’s reputation.

**Counterarguments and Risks of Expulsion**

While the rationale for expulsion might seem straightforward in extreme cases, the reality is complex:

– **Legal and Contractual Complications:** Membership agreements, shared revenue, and legal obligations make expulsion complicated and costly. Schools have vested interests, and legal challenges could ensue.

– **Precedent and League Stability:** Expelling a founding or long-standing member could destabilize the league, set a dangerous precedent, and fragment the SEC’s cohesion.

– **Impact on Competition and Revenue:** Tennessee’s departure could diminish the league’s competitive balance, reduce TV ratings, and negatively impact conference revenue.

– **Reputation and Morale:** Such a drastic action might send a negative message about the league’s standards and governance, potentially discouraging future compliance or leading to internal discord.

**Possible Alternatives to Expulsion**

Instead of expulsion, the league could consider escalating sanctions, increasing oversight, or implementing reforms. These measures might include probation, postseason bans, or increased league oversight, which could serve as more appropriate disciplinary tools without the chaos of removal.

**Broader Implications for College Sports Governance**

The question of whether Sankey should expel Tennessee also touches on broader issues:

– **League Sovereignty vs. Institutional Autonomy:** College sports are governed by complex arrangements involving NCAA rules, conference agreements, and institutional rights. Expulsion challenges these norms.

– **Consistency and Fairness:** Ensuring consistent application of standards is vital. Selective or inconsistent punishments could undermine league credibility.

– **Message to Other Members:** How the league handles Tennessee sets a precedent for disciplinary action against other members, impacting future governance.

**Conclusion**

While the idea that Greg Sankey should expel Tennessee from the SEC is provocative, it ultimately hinges on the severity of the violations, the league’s core values, and the broader implications for stability and reputation. Given the league’s emphasis on tradition, cohesion, and fair play, expulsion would be an ultimate measure reserved for the most egregious circumstances—such as systemic violations that threaten the integrity of college athletics or the league’s reputation. Absent such extreme violations, it is more prudent for the SEC to pursue disciplinary actions within established governance frameworks, balancing accountability with the importance of unity. Nonetheless, contemplating such a measure underscores the critical importance of maintaining standards, integrity, and shared purpose within one of college sports’ most prestigious leagues.