The evolving landscape of college football playoffs has brought the SEC’s Greg Sankey and Big 12’s Brett Yormark into sharp focus amid intense negotiations and public sparring over the future format of the College Football Playoff (CFP). Their recent exchanges reveal not only conference power dynamics but also a broader debate about fairness, representation, and progression within collegiate athletics.
Power Struggles and Playoff Proposals: The Heart of the Debate
At the core of this discourse lies a controversial playoff format proposal, which reportedly awards four automatic qualifiers each to the SEC and Big Ten, while allotting only two to the ACC and Big 12. This model has ignited significant displeasure from the ACC and Big 12, with commissioners Brett Yormark and others expressing strong opposition. Their primary concerns revolve around equity and the perceived consolidation of power among the SEC and Big Ten, which dominate the college football landscape both in resources and competitive success.
Greg Sankey, acting not only as SEC commissioner but also effectively as the representative voice of the SEC’s collective interests, has taken a firm stance defending his conference’s position. His pointed responses, including the remarked phrase “I don’t need lectures,” directly challenge the ACC and Big 12 leadership and suggest a degree of frustration or impatience with what he views as criticism that overlooks the SEC’s historical and current stature.
The SEC’s Stance: Strategic Positioning and Assertiveness
Sankey’s rhetoric reflects the SEC’s intent to maintain its influential role in shaping college football’s future. He has expressed openness about the playoff format while simultaneously emphasizing the priority of granting proportional representation to the SEC, which historically has been both a dominant competitor and a revenue powerhouse. Sankey’s remarks reveal a dual strategy: firmly advocating for the SEC’s interests while also projecting readiness to engage in dialogue about the format, as indicated by his “open-mindedness” on certain aspects.
Notably, Sankey has also been vocal about demanding respect for key member institutions, notably Texas and Oklahoma, amid their conference realignments, underscoring the SEC’s desire to project unity and control over its expanding domain.
The Big 12’s Pushback: Calls for Fairness and Balanced Representation
On the other side, Brett Yormark and the Big 12 cast themselves as defenders of competitive equity, challenging the proposed format that favors the SEC and Big Ten with a disproportionate share of automatic playoff bids. Yormark’s statements frequently emphasize fairness and balance, arguing for an expanded playoff that better accommodates a wider range of conferences and champions, including Group of Five teams.
Yormark’s frustration with the slow pace of decision-making and the SEC’s maneuvers also surfaces as a recurring theme, highlighting the tension between trying to protect the Big 12’s standing and countering what is seen as an SEC-driven consolidation of power. The Big 12’s insistence that its champion, and potentially other teams, deserve favorable positioning—such as first-round byes over lesser conferences—further illuminates the conference’s aspirations to remain competitive and relevant amid shifting alliances.
Broader Implications for College Football Governance
This divide between the SEC and Big 12 commissioners mirrors a larger shift in college football governance, where a handful of elite conferences increasingly dominate both the sport’s economic engine and its decision-making processes. The SEC and Big Ten’s dominant positions effectively shape playoff structures, television contracts, and revenue distributions, often at the expense of smaller conferences seeking fair access.
The vocal disagreements and public sparring among commissioners highlight the challenge of balancing tradition, commercial incentives, and the integrity of competition. Introducing an expanded playoff—whether 12, 16, or other formats—poses significant questions about automatic qualifiers, at-large bids, seeding equity, and the inclusion of Group of Five teams, which collectively account for a considerable portion of the college football ecosystem.
Conference Realignment and Political Maneuvering
The ongoing realignment of conferences, with teams like Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Arizona State, BYU, Colorado, and Utah shifting affiliations, adds layers of complexity. Sankey’s demand for “respect” toward departing teams and Yormark’s navigation of these transitions underscore the high stakes involved. Conferences are not just negotiating playoff formats; they are also battling for long-term strategic positioning, membership strength, media rights leverage, and recruiting prowess.
The Public Nature of Commissioner Rivalries
The public nature of the exchanges—remarks in press conferences, statements released nearly simultaneously by rival commissioners, and pointed rebuttals—reflect an increasingly transparent and competitive governance environment. These interactions serve multiple purposes: signaling strength to their own constituencies, influencing public opinion, shaping media narratives, and applying pressure during negotiations.
While such confrontation may appear divisive, it also demonstrates the high level of passion and personal investment from leaders charged with steering college football’s future amid unprecedented change.
Conclusion: Navigating a Transformative College Football Era
The tension between Greg Sankey and Brett Yormark encapsulates the broader challenges facing college football as it transitions to an expanded playoff format amid shifting power balances. Sankey’s assertive defense of the SEC’s privileged position contrasts with Yormark’s calls for fairness and inclusion, underscoring a complex negotiation theatre where tradition, power, and progress intersect.
As these commissioners continue their public and behind-the-scenes discussions, the ultimate shape of the College Football Playoff will not only determine who competes for the national championship but also signal how college football addresses equity, governance, and growth in an era increasingly defined by media influence and conference realignment.
The coming months will be critical in determining whether a consensus can be forged that satisfies the dominant conferences while preserving competitive integrity and opportunity across the entire landscape of college football. This high-stakes interplay between Sankey’s SEC and Yormark’s Big 12 reflects more than mere rivalry; it defines the future architecture of America’s most popular collegiate sport.
