- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 544,742
- Reaction score
- 47
As college football barrels toward a new era with a 16-team College Football Playoff (CFP) on the horizon for 2026, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey is making it clear: the Southeastern Conference is not interested in lectures about the “good of the game” from rival leagues.
“I don’t need lectures from others about the good of the game,” Sankey said during the opening session of the SEC’s annual spring meetings, addressing recent criticism from ACC and Big 12 leaders. “(The SEC) didn’t need the playoff. That was for the good of the game.”
Sankey’s comments come after ACC and Big 12 commissioners, whose conferences are set to receive less access and revenue under the new CFP model, issued statements last week emphasizing that their decisions are made in the “best interest of the sport.” The statements, delivered to CBS Sports, appeared coordinated and struck a nerve with Sankey, who has played a central role in shaping the playoff’s expansion.
Sankey, along with Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti, now holds significant influence over the CFP’s future—a power granted by the very conferences now voicing objections. “You can issue your press statements, but I’m actually looking for ideas to move us forward,” Sankey said, noting the lack of substantive alternatives from other leagues.
The tension is rooted in the new CFP format, which proposes 13 automatic qualifiers: four each for the SEC and Big Ten, two each for the ACC and Big 12, one for the Group of Six, and three at-large spots. ACC and Big 12 leaders argue this structure limits their access and financial share, while Sankey points to past moves—such as the failed “Alliance” between the ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12, and the raids on smaller conferences—as evidence of self-interest from his counterparts.
For Sankey, the stakes go beyond playoff berths. SEC presidents and athletic directors have voiced frustration over what they see as political compromises in the CFP process, particularly when teams with weaker résumés earn playoff spots over higher-ranked SEC programs. “Our athletic directors are telling me we’ve given too much away (in the CFP) to arrive at these political compromises,” Sankey said. “How many of those compromises does it take?”
The backdrop to these discussions is the looming approval of the House case, which could usher in pay-for-play in college sports and intensify the need for new revenue streams. As the SEC debates expanding to a nine-game conference schedule, Sankey questioned the logic of making such a move when the CFP selection committee seems to favor win totals over strength of schedule.
Ultimately, Sankey’s message was clear: the SEC has the leverage and is prepared to use it if necessary. “We actually can take our ball and go home,” he said, referencing past discussions about the SEC potentially staging its own playoff.
“Ultimately, I recognize I’m the one who ends up in front of the podium, explaining not just myself, but ourselves,” Sankey said. “So yeah, good luck to me.”
This article originally appeared on Longhorns Wire: College Football power struggle: Sankey rebukes ACC, Big 12 Over CFP
Continue reading...
“I don’t need lectures from others about the good of the game,” Sankey said during the opening session of the SEC’s annual spring meetings, addressing recent criticism from ACC and Big 12 leaders. “(The SEC) didn’t need the playoff. That was for the good of the game.”
Sankey’s comments come after ACC and Big 12 commissioners, whose conferences are set to receive less access and revenue under the new CFP model, issued statements last week emphasizing that their decisions are made in the “best interest of the sport.” The statements, delivered to CBS Sports, appeared coordinated and struck a nerve with Sankey, who has played a central role in shaping the playoff’s expansion.
Sankey, along with Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti, now holds significant influence over the CFP’s future—a power granted by the very conferences now voicing objections. “You can issue your press statements, but I’m actually looking for ideas to move us forward,” Sankey said, noting the lack of substantive alternatives from other leagues.
The tension is rooted in the new CFP format, which proposes 13 automatic qualifiers: four each for the SEC and Big Ten, two each for the ACC and Big 12, one for the Group of Six, and three at-large spots. ACC and Big 12 leaders argue this structure limits their access and financial share, while Sankey points to past moves—such as the failed “Alliance” between the ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12, and the raids on smaller conferences—as evidence of self-interest from his counterparts.
For Sankey, the stakes go beyond playoff berths. SEC presidents and athletic directors have voiced frustration over what they see as political compromises in the CFP process, particularly when teams with weaker résumés earn playoff spots over higher-ranked SEC programs. “Our athletic directors are telling me we’ve given too much away (in the CFP) to arrive at these political compromises,” Sankey said. “How many of those compromises does it take?”
The backdrop to these discussions is the looming approval of the House case, which could usher in pay-for-play in college sports and intensify the need for new revenue streams. As the SEC debates expanding to a nine-game conference schedule, Sankey questioned the logic of making such a move when the CFP selection committee seems to favor win totals over strength of schedule.
Ultimately, Sankey’s message was clear: the SEC has the leverage and is prepared to use it if necessary. “We actually can take our ball and go home,” he said, referencing past discussions about the SEC potentially staging its own playoff.
“Ultimately, I recognize I’m the one who ends up in front of the podium, explaining not just myself, but ourselves,” Sankey said. “So yeah, good luck to me.”
This article originally appeared on Longhorns Wire: College Football power struggle: Sankey rebukes ACC, Big 12 Over CFP
Continue reading...
