When Ohio State University president Ted Carter stepped down last week, he became the eighth president or chancellor in the 18-member Big Ten conference to leave in a little more than a year. The ninth-grader plans to leave later this year to work in the Ivy League.
After the Ohio State Board of Supervisors was notified, Carter admitted to an “inappropriate relationship” with a woman who wanted to use public resources to benefit her private business. A former US Navy pilot who graduated and later led the US Naval Academy, Carter was hired by the University of Nebraska program, which he led from 2020 until early 2023.
Although the details of the incident remain limited, the media later reported that the woman in question listed the Ohio State campus address for her business, which was incorporated in December 2025, according to the file. University officials said they are looking into the matter.
Carter’s exit comes after her predecessor, Kristina Johnson, who led Ohio State from 2020 to early 2023, also abruptly stepped down under mysterious circumstances. The Columbus Dispatch He later reported that he was fired in part because of a disagreement with Les Wexner, the billionaire donor who reportedly wanted to withdraw from OSU and who has been linked to the Jeffrey Epstein child abuse case. But other sources told this newspaper that he has other points of contention with the board.
Late Wednesday, Ohio State University appears to have found its next leader: Ravi Bellamkonda, vice president and attorney, is expected to be announced as permanent president at a meeting of the Board of Trustees Thursday morning, according to local media.
Big Ten Turnover
Of the four major sports conferences, none has had a higher number of leaders at its member institutions than the Big Ten, Within Higher Ed analysis shows. Of its 18 members, six lost their presidents or chancellors last year due to various reasons. Two others—the University of Nebraska at Lincoln and Ohio State—saw their leaders depart this year. The University of Wisconsin at Madison will soon join those ranks when Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin leaves at the end of the academic year to take a top job at Columbia University.
The reasons for their departure are as varied as the institutions they worked in: Some retired after long months, others left to take up new jobs and others resigned amid intellectual disputes or political upheavals. Such exchanges reflect the pressures of the modern presidency, experts say.
But is there something specific about the Big Ten that makes its university leaders so easy on the revolving door?
“These are some of the most challenging jobs in the country,” Robert Kelchen, professor and head of the department of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, told. Within Higher Ed. “These are large research universities, many of them in politically competitive districts, and the athletics sector plays a big role as well. That’s the challenging part of the business—dealing with athletics, and dealing with the sponsors that go along with that.”
Michael Harris, professor of higher education at Southern Methodist University, said Within Higher Ed via email that perhaps it was “a coincidence that the Big Ten saw this level of interest.” Still, he noted, leading a Big Ten institution is like being the mayor of a small town, the CEO of a Fortune 500, a hospital administrator and the owner of a pro sports franchise all at the same time. Because of the complexity, he said, “we probably shouldn’t panic when sometimes things end badly.”
Currently, the longest-serving leader at the member institution is Darryll Pines, president of the University of Maryland, College Park, who has served since July 2020.
Here’s a look at the Big Ten’s departures in 2025 and 2026.
(The Big Ten did not respond to a request for comment about the latest earnings.)
Challenges to progress
Ohio State may have its next president, but Northwestern, the University of Nebraska and UW Madison are all currently looking for new leadership. Such profits can make long-term strategic planning very difficult.
“Whenever a president leaves, it causes chaos at the center,” Harris wrote. “When you have short successions, you disrupt long-term strategy, relationships with legislators and donors, and you hurt the ability to sustain momentum on priorities.”
Income can flow from the president down the organizational chart, Harris added, with provosts, vice presidents, deans and other administrators leaving after a leadership shakeup.
But the results of the leadership mix are not limited to the institutional level. The Big Ten—a powerful player in the rapidly changing and growing political world of college athletics—is navigating debates about media rights, private equity and athlete compensation. Experts note that maintaining such negotiations can be difficult in the midst of high turnover.
“We often talk about the effects of a president’s profit on institutions, but it can be equally disruptive to athletic conferences. That’s especially important right now given all the pressure facing major college sports. In times like these, stable leadership can really make a difference, and unfortunately the Big Ten doesn’t have that right now,” Harris wrote.
He added that “the Big Ten is not ruled by athletic directors or coaches, but by presidents. Many presidents not only read their campuses, but they help decide what the future of a college athlete will be. And frankly, there’s no time for on-the-job training.”
