After diving into all the content from SNL’s 50th anniversary shindig last weekend, it dawned on me that our mailbag will celebrate its 25th anniversary in 2027. Guess it’s time to start brainstorming for the inevitable reunion special.
We should definitely bring back some of our frequent mailbag subjects — like Nick Saban, Dabo Swinney, Kirby Smart, perhaps even Charlie Weis and Brian Ferentz. And why not? Bring in the comedic flair of Larry David and the crew from “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.”
However, considering the countless words I’ve penned on topics like the BCS/College Football Playoff and conference realignment, I wouldn’t be surprised if the front row ends up being a who’s who of current and former conference commissioners.
Side note: I’ve trimmed down the submitted questions for brevity and clarity.
Is Greg Sankey responsible for all the issues we’re facing now, or is he merely a scapegoat? — David B.
I’ve ribbed Sankey quite a bit over the years, especially over his attempts to inflate the NCAA basketball tournament. But laying all of college football’s woes at his feet wouldn’t be entirely fair. Over the years, he’s shown some consideration for the sport’s greater good. Notably, he was instrumental in crafting the original 12-team Playoff. Nobody can argue it was a pure SEC move to give the Group of 5 an automatic berth or limit first-round byes to conference champs.
Perhaps eyes should shift more northward (and westward). The Big Ten, for instance, has gone through commissioners more concerned with their conference’s TV gains than anything else. Kevin Warren’s short leadership stint seemed especially focused on handing over a lot of control to Fox Sports, even inviting them into negotiations in 2022, setting the path for USC/UCLA, and figuring out ways to bring Oregon and Washington into the fold. Warren’s alignment with the ill-fated Alliance frustrated Sankey, likely prompting Sankey’s shift towards a more power-centric role.
Enter Tony Petitti, who manages to make Warren look rather virtuous by comparison. Petitti, with his TV executive background, has designs on bloating the inventory to maximize content. He’s been championing, behind closed doors, this 14-team/four-auto berth proposal. His ultimate dream? A “play-in tournament” he can sell to networks to rake in cash. Whether this guts the credibility of the broader CFP setup, doesn’t seem to bother him.
Sankey has been the go-to target for criticism because the SEC consistently dominates on the field. He’s been the high-profile face, speaking to the media regularly. Meanwhile, Petitti keeps a much lower profile, dodging most of the scrutiny. It’ll be interesting to see if that changes soon.
Switching gears, most of the buzz about moving to a 14-team Playoff centers on SEC and Big Ten power plays. But doesn’t this shift largely eliminate subjective rankings? What do you think is the better method for Playoff determination: committee rankings or conference standings? — Eric, Chicago
That’s a legitimate observation, especially after last season when the committee appeared to dismiss schedule strength entirely. The issue, however, is these conferences are neither small nor unified in their approach. They aren’t exactly 10-team, round-robin leagues. Nor are they like the NFL with a consistent scheduling model.
We’re looking at conferences with 16 to 18 teams and vastly varying schedules. Take last season’s Big Ten: Purdue faced all five teams that landed in the AP Top 25, while Indiana played against just one. Are these conference standings actually any more scientific than those committee rankings?
Moreover, even if this shift takes place, the committee will still have a role, its rankings underpinning the Playoff bracket—determining seedings and remaining at-large spots—yet we discard them selectively for certain purposes? It sounds off-kilter. Imagine two SEC teams both ending 9-3, one at fourth place ranked No. 18 and the other at fifth ranked No. 12, the latter earning an at-large spot. This inconsistency complicates matters.
Despite constant complaints about the committee, notably from athletic directors and coaches, it’s curious there hasn’t been more dialogue about revisiting the selection criteria. The present vague wording, established a dozen years ago for a four-team setup, still governs today. Why not revise it to emphasize schedule strength as a paramount factor, differentiate between a tough nonconference loss versus faltering against a bottom-tier league team, and so on?
In basketball, the committee’s decisions may sometimes baffle, yet everyone understands the importance of NET rankings, Quad 1 victories, and nonconference schedule strength. Football, a dozen years into this, remains largely in the dark.
In the good ol’ days, my team, Oklahoma State, never seemed poised for a national championship run. Sure, it was possible, but the odds weren’t in our favor, considering challenges like recruiting, facilities, media coverage, geography, and donor support—though 2011 was a close call. Has the landscape truly shifted so much further against programs like ours? Are we just cheering to avoid losses now? — Mike S.
Oklahoma State makes for an interesting example. It, alongside Oregon with Nike mogul Phil Knight, managed to rise to national prominence pre-NIL mostly due to one generous benefactor, the late T. Boone Pickens. Imagining Oklahoma State’s current collective presence had Pickens been around is an intriguing thought.
Has the bias against non-Big Ten and SEC teams grown? Certainly. But does this really alter Oklahoma State’s consistent outlook each year? If anything, the Cowboys probably have a better shot at cracking a 12-team Playoff than they ever did with the previous four-team version. They nearly secured a spot in the 2021 Big 12 title showdown against Baylor. Winning their conference secures them a slot now, and they’re no longer pitted against Oklahoma and Texas within the same league.
A truly longshot scenario seems the 2011 one, where they floated at No. 3 in the BCS standings (they ought to have been No. 2), standing on the precipice of a national title game berth. Fast forward today, Oklahoma State has the potential to reach the Playoff, but can they notch multiple victories to vie for a national title? Likely not.
Were I a fan of such programs, Playoff access wouldn’t perturb me as much as watching how regular-season games drift to secondary viewing windows. Big 12 games nearly vanished from ABC broadcasts last year, overshadowed by the SEC. Oklahoma State, an exception only because of their Week 2 match against Arkansas, found half of its games showcased on FS1, ESPN2, or ESPN-plus.
With the Big Ten and SEC predominating prime television spots, the Big 12 is starting to feel like a mid-major basketball conference — hidden during the season but popping up with several NCAA Tournament entrants. Case in point: How many fans beyond the Big 12 witnessed last season’s Arizona State campaign before their conference title appearance? A mere 10 percent sound too generous?
That’s part of why many perceive the landscape as stacked.
When do the Big Ten and SEC risk antitrust challenges as they expand into mega conferences, crowding out the Big 12, ACC, and Group of 5 from the CFP? — Stephen O., New Orleans
Great query! I actually chatted with a lawyer friend on this very topic. But we might be discussing this a year too late. Back in February 2024, other conferences consented to the revamped CFP contract, essentially yielding to the Power 2’s stipulations for unequal revenue and format control. The ideal moment for objections was then, though the rest possibly felt they depended more on Big Ten and SEC involvement than the reverse.
Even so, history does see various state attorneys general or congressional figures rallying for institutions perceived as slighted. Recently, they target the NCAA in antitrust lawsuits, but they once avidly hounded the BCS.
Remember when Utah, while in the Mountain West, finished unbeaten in 2008? The state’s attorney general, Mark Shurtleff, stirred quite the fuss about suing the BCS for potential monopoly violations. He never took it to court, but his musings started a ripple — eventually igniting interest from the Justice Department’s antitrust segment until future regulatory attention waned post-BCS as the CFP emerged.
For an expert opinion — preferably someone with a JD — to weigh in on whether two influential conferences, instead of the CFP body itself, could invoke similar scrutiny would be enlightening.
Typically, I appreciate your CFB commentary. But this week felt like you missed your mark. Year after year, the Big Ten and SEC are not just opinion features but stand as the top, most dominant leagues. So yes, both likely warrant four Playoff spots. — Jim Pendergast, Virginia Beach, Va.
They churn out more CFP-ready squads than others, highlighting precisely why there’s no necessity for automatic spots.
About those mind-blowing expenses on transfers, like Texas Tech’s $10 million spurge for 17 players this off-season — is there growing unease or rage at schools potentially upsetting the "fair value" marketplace and continually raising the price ceiling? — Ryan K., Lexington, Ky.
Oh, there’s definitely some concern. But not to worry, the House settlement looms! It’s here to rescue everyone.
Only kidding a little.
A strange combination of hope and naivety sees many college officials pin their dreams on the House settlement, anticipated by April, to regulate the NIL dynamics. Primarily, it introduces revenue-sharing, whereby institutions can spend $20.5 million on rosters (in all sports) sans the dependency on alumni or donor contributions. Additionally, a new “NIL clearinghouse” as finalised by the settlement steps in. In a recent letter to supporters, South Carolina AD Jeremiah Donati elaborated:
“As written now, NIL landscapes will transform post July 1, once new rules are activated. Each third-party deal with student-athletes exceeding $600 undergoes an independent fair-market-value evaluation per instance. Offers surpassing FMV — after a clearinghouse review — won’t be permissible for athletes to take.”
You read correctly — a deloitte-run clearinghouse intends to advise players against accepting million-dollar offers from Collective X, deeming them worth just a fraction of that amount. Naturally, this foreshadows a lawsuit avalanche.
University executives persist in thinking the student-athlete market uniquely operates unlike virtually all others nationwide, including their own surroundings. Not a dime of AD, coaching, or employee salaries awaits similar third-party review or approval.
For what feels like the millionth time, the sole legitimisation to regulate athlete earnings, halting overtime rising costs, lies in collective bargaining. Acknowledging athletes as employees becomes an integral step. Yet they are reluctant to traverse that path.
Turning to Florida State, after last season’s heavy buzz and subsequent crash — is this the warning tale we’ll see more slightly often with this portal and NIL era? Any potentially hyped teams you predict to replicate FSU’s narrative this year? — Mike H.
Undoubtedly, it’s now expected, albeit likely not identical in magnitude to FSU’s nosedive from 13-1 to 2-10 — that reads more like a unique anomaly over two decades.
Assessing cultural and team dynamics is tricky for those outside a program. FSU’s chemistry suffered with the departure of its core, featuring players like Jordan Travis and Jared Verse heading to the NFL. Back in the day, seasoned players mentored their successors ready to replace them. Today, that practice feels bygone as fresh talents exploring the transfer portal hastens and newcomers might not seamlessly integrate with current team members.
On paper, if any team parallels last year’s FSU, it’s Ohio State. The Buckeyes are in a rebuilding phase following their title run, with key leaders gone and both coordinators replaced. Despite this, there’s an automatic assumption everything will be alright because it’s Ohio State. However, unlike FSU, Ohio State possesses a long history of reloading talent successfully for two decades. Their journey isn’t facing the same sudden stumble Mike Norvell encountered with FSU’s brief peak before disaster took hold.
A resounding certainty tells me Jeremiah Smith, Caleb Downs, and co. won’t replicate a 2-10 season.
Oregon warrants attention too. Dan Lanning’s portal-heavy reliance for quarterbacks seems fruitful, but one off year missing preferred transfers could turn results sour. That reckoning might come this year.
And then there’s Ole Miss, where Lane Kiffin seems determined to bypass player development in favor of perpetually repeating the transfer cycle. Last season’s 9-3 record saw as many as 17 transfers starting, including stars adorning multi-year stints like Jaxson Dart and Jared Ivey — many departing post-season. With a fresh crop of transfers stepping in, it easily casts a double-digit shadow across starting roles, defensive spots in particular.
I’ll call it now — Ole Miss tops my early predictions to flip from double-digit wins to missing out on bowl selection entirely. But they won’t be alone.
Beyond Clemson and Florida State, are there any other universities that would hike TV revenue for the Big Ten or SEC upon joining? — Nick, Charleston, S.C.
Excluding Notre Dame? None spring to mind immediately. Considering FSU and Clemson, they aren’t necessarily ahead either. The Big Ten witnessed no revenue boon with adding Oregon and Washington — they join in sharing half, spanning six years. FSU and Clemson represent potentially larger brands, but they’re hardly on par with Oklahoma or Texas.
It’s my belief that the Big Ten stands to gain more value from Florida State and Clemson than the SEC, already deeply rooted in the region, not presently begging for national championship contenders. The SEC gains an FSU or Clemson match-up akin to Tennessee-LSU in appeal. Contrastingly, the Big Ten entering the southern stage boosts appeal. Ohio State vs. Florida State? Clemson vs. Michigan? These broadcasts easily lure 8 to 10 million viewers.
As for potential additions, Miami a couple decades ago stood unmatched — not so now, where their brand is notably deflated. North Carolina garners admiration, but rarely as a sought-after program within the national football spotlight; basketball dominance doesn’t carry over primarily revenue-wise.
Can you envision how swiftly the Big Ten navigational commercial would air if Hawaii joined?
(Feature photo credit: Jeffrey Vest / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
