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 exit in a little over a year. A ninth campus leader plans to depart later this year for a job in the Ivy League.
After the Ohio State Board of Trustees was tipped off, Carter admitted to an “inappropriate relationship” with a woman who wanted to use public resources to benefit her private business. A former U.S. Navy pilot who graduated from and later led the U.S. Naval Academy, Carter had been recruited from the University of Nebraska system, which he led from 2020 until early 2023.
Though details of the incident remain limited, media outlets later reported that the woman in question listed an address on the Ohio State campus for her business, which was incorporated in December 2025, according to a public filing. University officials have said they are looking into the matter.
Carter’s exit comes after his predecessor, Kristina Johnson, who led Ohio State from 2020 through early 2023, also stepped down abruptly under mysterious circumstances. The Columbus Dispatch later reported that she had been pushed out in part over tensions with Les Wexner, a billionaire donor she reportedly sought to sideline at OSU who has since been linked to convicted child predator Jeffrey Epstein. But some sources told the newspaper that she had other points of friction with the board.
By late Wednesday, it appeared Ohio State University had found its next leader: Ravi Bellamkonda, current executive vice president and provost, is expected to be announced as president on a permanent basis at a Board of Trustees meeting on Thursday morning, according to multiple local media outlets.
Big Ten Turnover
Among the four major athletic conferences, none has had higher leadership turnover at their member institutions than the Big Ten, an Inside Higher Ed analysis shows. Of its 18 members, six lost their presidents or chancellors last year for 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 the top job at Columbia University.
Reasons for their departure are as varied as the institutions they served: Some retired after lengthy terms, others left to take new jobs and some resigned amid tensions with faculty or political turmoil. Such turnover reflects the pressures of the modern presidency, experts say.
But is there something specific to the Big Ten that makes its university leaders especially susceptible to the revolving door?
“These are some of the most challenging jobs in the country,” Robert Kelchen, professor and department head for educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, told Inside Higher Ed. “These are massive research universities, many of them in politically contested states, and the athletics piece also plays a role. That is a very challenging part of the enterprise—dealing with athletics, and dealing with the donors that go with that.”
Michael Harris, a professor of higher education at Southern Methodist University, told Inside Higher Ed by email that it’s probably “a coincidence that the Big Ten has seen this level of turnover.” Still, he noted, leading a Big Ten institution is akin to being a small-town mayor, Fortune 500 CEO, hospital director and pro sports franchise owner all at once. Given the complexity, he said, “we probably shouldn’t be shocked when things sometimes end badly.”
Currently, the longest-serving leader of a member institution is Darryll Pines, the president of the University of Maryland, College Park, who has been on the job since July 2020.
Here’s a look at Big Ten departures in 2025 and 2026.
(The Big Ten did not respond to a request for comment about recent turnover.)
Continuity Challenges
Ohio State may have its next president, but Northwestern, the University of Nebraska and UW Madison are all presently seeking new leadership. Such turnover can make long-term strategic planning more difficult.
“Any time that a president leaves, it causes disruption to the institution,” Harris wrote. “When you have successive short tenures, you derail long-term strategy, relationships with legislators and donors, and hurt the ability to sustain momentum on major priorities.”
Turnover can flow from the president down the organizational chart, Harris added, with provosts, vice presidents, deans and other administrators departing in the aftermath of a leadership shake-up.
But the effects of leadership churn don’t stop at the institutional level. The Big Ten—a power player in the rapidly changing and increasingly political world of college athletics—is navigating conversations about media rights, private equity and compensation for athletes. Experts note that maintaining such discussions can be difficult amid high turnover.
“We often talk about the implications for presidential turnover on institutions, but it can be equally disruptive to athletic conferences as well. That particularly matters right now given all of the pressures facing major college athletics. In moments like this, 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 isn’t governed by athletic directors or coaches, but by presidents. Many of the presidents aren’t just learning their campuses, but they’re helping decide what the future of college athletics will look like. And frankly, there’s no time for on-the-job training.”
