The Playoff Isn’t Broken—Greg Sankey Just Wants to Own It

The SEC commissioner’s push for playoff control isn’t about fixing flaws—it’s about consolidating power.

While it may be the offseason for college football, this week might be one of the sport’s most pivotal moments of the year. The SEC held its annual spring meetings in Destin, Florida, where the playoff format took center stage—and things got ugly fast.

Having been to Destin, it’s ironic that so much ugliness emerged in such a beautiful place. After soaking in the absurdity, let’s break down some of the week’s most telling moments.

Sankey’s Power Move Disguised as Progress

“I don’t need lectures from others about the good of the game… or coordinating press releases about the good of the game,” Greg Sankey said. “You can issue your press statement, but I’m actually looking for ideas to move us forward.”

Of course he doesn’t want lectures—because Sankey doesn’t give a damn about what’s good for the game. This is about how much more leverage the SEC and Big Ten can stack up. When Sankey talks about “moving us forward,” he means moving the Big 12, ACC, and everyone else out of the picture.

He’s reportedly in favor of weighing the strength of schedule even more in the playoff selection process. That conveniently helps a 3- or 4-loss SEC team slide in based on who they lost to, rather than how they actually played.

Florida AD Scott Stricklin echoed the tone: “A committee is not ideal to choose a postseason. I question whether it is appropriate for college football.” Funny, that concern came right after the SEC didn’t get its way.

Why the SEC Is Really Mad

Sankey also said, “It’s clear that not losing becomes in many ways more important than beating the University of Georgia, which two of our teams that were left out did.” He’s referring to Alabama and Ole Miss.

But here’s what he left out: Alabama lost to both Vanderbilt and Oklahoma—teams that went a combined 3–11 in SEC play outside of those games. Ole Miss lost at home to a Kentucky team that didn’t win another SEC game the rest of the year.

Both were left out not because of bias—but because their resumes weren’t strong enough. It’s not anti-SEC. It’s just reality.

This Isn’t a Playoff Fight—It’s a Turf War

Josh Pate recently compared college football to a redwood tree, asking how many chops it would take before it falls. The axe is already swinging. And when the tree does fall, some of these leaders will be standing underneath it.

Unlike politics, fans get no vote. We’re bystanders watching the consolidation of power—and the slow strangling of access for everyone else.

The Real Problem With the Playoff Model

The SEC and Big Ten now want four guaranteed playoff spots each in a proposed 4-4-2-2-1 model. That locks in eight of the 16 spots—half the field—before anyone even takes a snap. Add a few at-large bids, and it’s possible 10 or 11 teams from just two leagues make the cut.

The alternative 5+11 model—supported by the Big 12, ACC, and Group of Five—was shot down. Why? Because the SEC doesn’t want to play nine conference games or risk missing out on exclusive revenue from “play-in” matchups.

It’s not just about the model. It’s about the people shaping it—and what their vision of the sport looks like.

The Big 12, ACC, and Notre Dame: College Football’s Last Resistance

Brett Yormark and the Big 12 bet on good faith and cooperation. That gamble flopped. They conceded to straight seeding, hoping to protect auto-bids down the line. Instead, they empowered the SEC and Big Ten with nothing to show for it.

A Big 12 athletic director put it plainly to Ross Dellenger: “I guess we’re going to war.”

In this war, the Big 12 and ACC showed up with knives while Sankey brought a nuke. The SEC isn’t interested in compromise—it wants control. And unless someone stands up, that’s precisely what they’ll get.