Ad Disclosure
Any conference decision-maker who says that they’re acting ‘for the good of the sport’ is lying to you
Published:
Every conference decision-maker is doing their thing.
By “thing,” I mean trying to get as many Playoff paths as possible. Greg Sankey’s attempts to criticize the credibility of the selection committee might fall on deaf ears — he continued to suggest that a trio of 9-3 SEC teams got robbed because 11-1 ACC/Big Ten teams made the field — but he’s doing his “thing” to ensure SEC presidents and athletic directors that no matter how a season plays out, the SEC will be guaranteed a certain piece of that $1.3 billion Playoff pie.
Sankey is trying to do right by his conference administrators. ACC commissioner Jim Phillips is also trying to do right by his member schools by not just caving to the Big Ten/SEC and their 4-4-2-2-1 proposal. Nobody would expect that. Imagine if Phillips or Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark got to the podium and said “well, the Big Ten and SEC have clearly been the better conferences during the Playoff era, and based on all of their moves, they’re poised to continue that.”
That’s not happening. That’s an acknowledgment of failure. We’ve never had that, some would argue.
Actually, we have.
You see, there’s a reason why the “Group of 5” has been at the mercy of the Power Conferences. It’s because the Group of 5 doesn’t play from the same deck that the Power Conferences do when it comes to resources. That’s why the Group of 5 isn’t sitting there demanding that the Mountain West and the Sun Belt get auto bids.
The ACC and Big 12 are not “acting in the best interest of the sport” by resisting the 4-4-2-2-1 model; they’re merely acting out of their own competitive interests, which happens to coincide with what purists of the sport want. That is, a system that isn’t slanted in favor of certain Power Conferences. Never mind the fact that the selection committee just gave more than half (7) of the 12 bids to Big Ten/SEC schools, or that the Big Ten/SEC have had at least half the Playoff field all but once in 11 years of the system.
The ACC and Big 12 are pretending that they’re doing right by the fan of the sport by fighting for a format that both stuffs their pockets while putting as many at-large spots into play as possible. This quote from Phillips last week came after the “straight seeding” tweak was made for the Playoff (via ESPN):
“We all have a responsibility to serve our constituents while also being mindful as to what’s best for college football,” ACC commissioner Jim Phillips told ESPN. “Today’s decision was done in the best interest of the sport. It may not always benefit the ACC, but it was the right decision and that’s a responsibility I take very seriously.”
This was the statement that Phillips released to CBS Sports:
Today’s decision was done in the best interest of the sport,” ACC commissioner Jim Phillips told CBS Sports in a written statement. “It may not always benefit the ACC but it was the right decision and that’s a responsibility I take very seriously.”
… Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark echoed Phillips’ sentiments, telling CBS Sports in a statement that he hopes what’s best for the sport “continues to be the priority in any discussions moving forward.”
Sankey took exception to those comments and said at SEC Spring Meetings that he “didn’t need lectures from others about the good of the game” and that he doesn’t “lecture others about good of the game.”
He might’ve misspoken by talking about coordinating press releases about the good of the game when Yormark and Phillips released statements* to CBS Sports and ESPN, but his point is a fair one.
Sankey is being blunt about it. That’s why his reaction was met with resistance. We all want to live in a world in which our decision-makers are strictly acting for the good of the sport. You could spin virtually every other significant decision as something that was done “for good the of the sport,” even if it had major financial benefits.
We once lived in a time in which Herschel Walker and eventual-national champion Georgia weren’t on national TV until November. We’re now living in a time in which you can stream any FBS game if you have a smart TV and the subsequent apps. TV contracts and conference networks were created to cash in on the cable boom, but did they benefit the consumer? Absolutely.
We once lived in a time in which an undefeated SEC team (2004 Auburn) didn’t even get a chance to play for a national championship. We’re now living in a time in which that team would’ve had a clear path to play for a title with 3-4 more elite matchups in store.
We once lived in a time in which we watched guys like Todd Gurley get suspended by the NCAA for accepting autograph money. We’re now living in a time in which that player will never have to be suspended for earning something that any non-athlete could earn.
You could spin all of those modernizations as “for the good of the sport” while also acknowledging the other impact of it. On the surface, you could spin a 16-team Playoff as “for the good of the sport.” But an acknowledgment of a divide within the Power Conferences is easy to spin as “for the greed of the sport.” It’d be adding a tier to the sport that hasn’t previously existed. At least not in an official capacity.
The ACC, Big 12 and any other non-Big Ten/SEC decision-maker could prove to be wise to resist that. Alternatively, they could watch the Big Ten and SEC create their own championship and be left as the clear second tier of the sport, which would inevitably lump in the Group of 5 schools. That’s at least what’s being threatened.
The Big Ten and SEC having a championship can’t be spun as a move for the good of the sport. At the same time, the ACC and Big 12 aren’t being asked to throw out 2 decades worth of history and pretend that everyone is competing on the same level. That’s what’s being tasked from the Big Ten and SEC, neither of whom want to worry about a subjective party determining it had a “bad” year and is only worthy of 2-3 Playoff spots. You could claim that defeats the potential for ebbs and flows in a sport that’s often cyclical in nature, but you could also claim that taking some power away from the ever-scrutinized selection committee and acknowledging a multi-decade truth isn’t going to be the death of college football. Maybe both things are true.
Nobody wants to get left behind. Everyone has a job to do. As much as many wish one of those jobs was “commissioner of college football,” that position won’t exist in a power structure that currently gives athletic directors, presidents and conference commissioners all the power. It’s a utopian solution.
The only safe bet is that all parties will continue to push forth on the path that’s best for their needs. If that solution eventually yields benefits that are for the good of the game, just know this.
Any conference decision-maker who claims to be acting for the good of the sport is lying to your face.
Connor O'Gara is the senior national columnist for Saturday Down South. He's a member of the Football Writers Association of America. After spending his entire life living in B1G country, he moved to the South in 2015.
