Each SDS roundtable discussion involves the SDS staff providing individual answers and comments to questions covering a wide range of sports and non-sports topics. In this discussion, we ask the question: Does college football need a czar? And if so, who should it be?

A bit of background …

This czar concept is not new. Mike Krzyzewski has been calling for a college basketball commissioner for more than a decade. With so much uncertainty surrounding the college football season, the battle cry for one voice to set policy has resurfaced. Each conference has a commissioner. Do we need a football czar? If so, who should it be?

Jon Cooper, SDS co-founder

The only way college football gets a czar would be if it pulls away from the NCAA’s umbrella. I don’t see that happening in the near future, although there has been much discussion of it recently with the COVID-19 pandemic.

I like conferences being able to make their own decisions, and this year is the perfect example. As things stand right now, the SEC is likely going to play college football. The same can’t be said for the Pac-12. Statements by the governors of California and Oregon have called into question the viability of playing the 2020 season, etc. So, while historically I’ve thought that college football needs a commissioner or top decision-maker, I actually like the conferences being autonomous.

However, if things progressed and moved in this direction, I would elect Nick Saban, post-retirement from Alabama football obviously. Saban’s love for the game, the players and doing what’s right for college football has never been questioned. He knows the ins and outs of coaching and what players go through. He would be absolutely perfect. Outside of Saban, I have a surprise pick — Kirk Herbstreit.

Kevin Duffey, SDS co-founder

I despise the idea of a college football czar, mostly because I hate the idea of some sort of “nationalization” of college football. College football is beautifully messy with its independent, regional conferences. The last thing college football needs is to just be a lesser version of the NFL with its hyper-corporate obsession over uniformity and parity.

Incidentally, it’s also why I strongly push back on the idea of an expansion of the Playoff. Frankly, the national Playoff expansion goes hand-in-hand with a nationalization of the sport we love. As the Playoff becomes the larger focus, the regionality of the sport gets undermined. While that might seem laughable to SEC fans (because in part, it is), understand that not every conference has as strong of a culture and identity as the SEC.

While the SEC would indeed have its culture and identity stay intact the longest of any conference, conferences would absolutely be undermined by this continual movement toward treating college football as a single entity rather than a collection of distinct groups.

I’ve long said that the messy postseason of college football is a feature, not a bug, of the sport, and the same goes for the lack of a single, national authority. You want some sort of huge, structural change for the sport? You’re going to have to convince conference commissioners and university presidents from all over the place. Not easy to do, of course. And in the meantime, us fans will continue to rage on Twitter and in stadium parking lots about how our conference and part of the country is so much better than yours. College football. It’s the best.

Connor O’Gara, Senior national columnist

Steve Spurrier.

I want someone who has legitimate passion for the sport who has everyone’s attention the second he walks into a room. I want someone who can weigh on in things like the number of conference games and be decisive. Spurrier is undoubtedly decisive. And what I like about him as that he has experienced what it’s like to be an elite player and an elite coach. He has been in an administrative role the past few years, so he knows how to deal with athletic directors and boosters, who tend to have a big say in these decisions.

Spurrier would act in the best interest of the sport, and not for the best interest of his bank account. There’s no question that the general public wouldn’t view him as a villain like Roger Goodell.

Well, maybe Tennessee fans would.

Michael Bratton, News editor

Does college football really need a czar? Things seem to be working out really well for the SEC without one. Maybe things aren’t as well in the rest of the conferences, but that’s not something a czar is going to fix.

I’m not a fan of the “it just means more” slogan but the reason the SEC lords over college football has more to do with the passion and intensity of the fan bases found across the SEC. A few programs outside the SEC have fan bases that can rival the best in the SEC but not a collection of them.

College football is a regional sport, I don’t think a czar is going to do much to change that and I’m not sure it needs to be changed.

Adam Spencer, Newsletter editor

I’m sure this answer will go over just great, but I’m going with Condoleezza Rice. She doesn’t exactly have a huge financial stake in the season happening, which is important. If you leave it up to Greg Sankey or Mark Emmert or any other person who is dependent on college sports for at least part of their salary, you aren’t going to get impartial decisions.

Rice has experience as George W. Bush’s Secretary of State, so she’s used to listening to experts and forming opinions that carry great weight. She clearly loves college sports, too, as she once served on the College Football Playoff selection committee and has been involved in sports since leaving the political world.

Thus, she’s the perfect person to have leading the way. She would love to see college football played this fall, but she has the experience necessary to make the tough decisions as they arise.

Chris Wright, Executive editor

First things first: What power, exactly, would a college football czar have?

This isn’t a professional sport, which can operate independently from every other professional sport. The NBA doesn’t need the NFL’s permission to play games, or to set policy regarding contracts, salary caps and draft eligibility, etc. It is its own entity.

The NCAA is exactly the opposite. So until the Power 5 conference break away from the NCAA — something I’ve said for years would be best for all parties involved — a college football commissioner would be little more than a figurehead.

A commissioner, in this specific case as it relates to the pandemic, could say, “We’re opening the first weekend in September,” but the edict has no effect unless governors and school presidents agree. Those decisions will not be made by any single athletic administrator. Those decisions will be made at much higher pay grades.

Idealistically, I love the concept of a single voice for each sport, someone who could create rules to allow transfers, allow undrafted players to return to school, create a uniformed suspension system, etc. But it doesn’t work in college because the teams answer to schools, who answer to conferences who ultimately answer to the NCAA.

Having said all of that, if you want a face of the organization, I’d go with Oliver Luck. He’s considerably younger than someone like Spurrier, is even more respected as a corporate leader and has decades of experience running various teams and leagues.

I will say, the idea of Spurrier finding unique ways to jab at Tennessee, Georgia and Florida State would be hilarious.