“We will have a response.”

Hey, remember that simple question I asked the other dayWell

The Realignment War of 2021 has begun, and this time, there is a particularly precious battleground: the expanded playoff model.

Conferences are scrambling and schools are jockeying, all of them tossed into a tizzy of action by the SEC’s bold play—stockpiling more of the nation’s richest college football programs.

It’s clear who the bad guys are this go-around: commissioner Greg Sankey and the Southeastern Conference, brandished by some here as the person and the entity that helped destroy a conference, pushed college football into a mess of disruption and compromised the expansion model.

Sankey was on the four-person working group that created the 12-team proposal, leading some around college athletics to question his motives as one of few who knew that his league could soon expand.

“It’s fishy,” says one.

“It’s insider trading,” says another.

While some say the SEC wisely and secretly leaped ahead of everyone else in the next wave of realignment, others describe the move as unnecessary and harmful to college sports. The SEC burned already charred bridges and even ruined personal relationships, they say.

As a result, high-level decision-makers are contemplating a retaliatory move. Does the Pac-12, Big Ten and others form an alliance against the big, bad SEC?

Only if that doesn’t cost them money.


UPDATE:  More carefully worded righteous indignation here ($$).

“It creates some concern about the way the 12-team proposal was constructed, with a limited number of folks in the room and imperfect information between the people who were in the room,” new Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff told The Athletic. “The proper process is: Everybody who has a say should have a say, and everybody should be operating with the same information.”

But, the money.

“This isn’t about throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” Kliavkoff said. “This is about tweaking it and making sure that issues — if the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 had been in the room, they would have been addressed already — but because they weren’t and this was a two-year process, we need a couple of months to actually collect those. We’ll work collaboratively.”

What, does he think Sankey would have told them what he was up to if only they were there?


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, SEC Football

18 responses to ““We will have a response.”

  1. Hogbody Spradlin

    To quote a great American:
    “Of course you realize this means war!”

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Godawg

    “Does the Pac-12, Big Ten and others form an alliance against the big, bad SEC?”

    Bring it bitches!

    Liked by 2 people

  3. akascuba

    What to do if your negotiating with Greg Sankey.


  4. They are all posturing on holding up CFP expansion. The size of the checks Mickey will be writing each of the conferences will provide some solace.

    No one who says this is happening due to CFP expansion has answered the question about whether the 5th and 6th best team in the newly expanded SEC will get spots over the 2nd and 3rd best teams in particular of the B1G and possibly the ACC.

    Let’s go back to 2017:
    Current SEC: Georgia (3 seed), Alabama (#5), Auburn (#7)
    Future SEC: OU, UGA, Bama, Auburn (ND didn’t qualify)

    Current – Bama (1), Georgia (6), Florida (10), LSU (11)
    Future – Bama, OU, UGA, UF, LSU

    Current – LSU (1), Georgia (5), Florida (9), Auburn (12)
    Future – LSU, OU, UGA, UF, Auburn (Auburn stays in because ND doesn’t qualify)

    All of this assumes no cannibalism and ND not making the field in some years which may not be reasonable assumptions. Does this give the league more opportunity to get virtually the same slices of the pie? Probably. Will it give them the opportunity to expand the number of slices? Maybe.


  5. Ran A

    One of the more laughable narratives out there, that somehow the SEC betrayed everyone else by looking after the SEC. Because we know how magnanimous the Big 10, ACC and PAC 10 would have been. At the end of the day, the bigger conferences will be fine. Or at least the better schools in the bigger conferences. They’ll be an ‘A’ league and ‘B’ league – but they’ll keep playing football and have other sports at their schools.

    The one’s that are really affected are the smaller schools. There are 125 to 130 or so Division one football programs. Let’s say that the SEC, Big 10, Pac 12 and ACC all end up with 16 teams. That’s 64 or 1/2 of the schools.

    Just my opinion:

    This group is going to demand a larger cut of the money and a smaller cut to the NCAA. In fact, I think it wll be significantly smaller. And if they disagree, they’ll leave and start their own league. Either way, these smaller schools are going to be faced with significantly reduced budgets and facing Title 9 requirements, programs will simply go away. And with a straight face, the people bitching now, will be the same people that will blame the SEC for the demise of these programs…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Tony BarnFart

      You didn’t know that it’s the fault of Birmingham suits that nobody gives a shit to buy tickets to women field hockey games in Manhattan, Kansas ?


  6. 79dawg

    Did I miss something where the contract for a 12-team CFP has been signed and executed??? I don’t believe its chiseled in stone if the other 3 conferences all have their feelings hurt so badly….

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Man we’re going to need more chee$e to go with all of this whine.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. ASEF

    These guys when justifying their salaries: “It’s a business.”

    These guys when they look like inept businessmen: “It’s supposed to be a collegiate collaboration!”

    Liked by 7 people

  9. classiccitycanine

    Sounds like sour grapes from the greedy losers who got outmaneuvered by the greedy winners.


  10. Texas Dawg

    All of this realignment was coming whether we liked it or not. I am not particularly happy about it (other then UGA will play out here in TX more often) but the MOUSE is driving things now and we just live in his world. Sankey did the smart thing to get out ahead of it. He could be proactive and position the SEC with the best possible seat at the table. On the other hand, he could be reactive and scramble to make the best chicken salad out of the left over chicken shit. I’ll take option #1.

    Liked by 4 people

    • ASEF

      Combine that with utterly inept leadership from the B1G, ACC, and P12 recently. Clown shows. If I’m the SEC, I’m looking the antics of my “business partners” and thinking, *”Screw this. You’re on your own.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • miltondawg

        Which is worse: (1) What happened the last week with the announcement of OU and UT to the SEC in light of Sankey’s working on a 12 team playoff, or (2) Sankey leading the charge to a 12 team playoff in a real push to get it done ASAP, getting the other conferences to ink the deal, and then the announcement of OU and UT to the SEC in 2025? All things considered, the other conferences should be thankful it played out the way it did instead of the way that it could have.


  11. rigger92

    I posted a comment somewhere around here last week wondering if the chicken or the egg came first. If Sankey was in talks with OU/TX before the playoff talks started then yeah, he went in the game with two aces in his pocket. Thing is, everyone that follows CFB knew that the playoff would go to at least 8 as soon as they could make it so. That they want 12 is just the bonus that Sankey was counting on. He wins either way, but as far as I know, all of the conference commissioners knew that playoff expansion is the goal and they had every right to position themselves as well.

    At this point I don’t really invest too much thought into it, it is what it is. I think OU/TX gain the most benefit out of this deal and the SEC founding members get far less. Money aside, we get interesting games and likely tougher schedules. They get back into a competitive conference and will attract better players and coaches likely revitalizing programs that had hit their ceiling for years in a boring conference. Problem now is, as EE states above, will the committee select that deep into the SEC to rescue TX and get them a playoff spot over B1G/PAC runner up’s? SEC runner up and #3 should be locks, which points to TX as being on the fence, unless they improve enough quickly as OU is in a much better place right now to be ranked over TX. This is when I kind of zone out and think it is what it is. Doesn’t help Georgia, unless money is what help Georgia needs. I don’t see how more money is critical to my team winning the SEC, unless it’s to pay the ref’s to call a fair game.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Tony BarnFart

    I’d love for Georgia to win the whole thing before the conference and playoff expand. If for nothing else than to say we got one under the older regime. I’m not sure what Georgia really gets (other than a financial windfall) out of having Texas and OU as conference mates when we clearly have the clout to schedule them anyway and had done just that.

    As for the whiners, I would argue this likely leans towards giving them MORE slots in the expanded playoff. You were always going to have the same raw number of contenders between the current ones in the SEC and OU and Texas. From a purely playoff standpoint, it only helps the others to have that same number of raw teams under a single conference label, where almost by definition an automatic bid and possible bye just got freed up. OU / Texas’ slot in the playoff just went from an autobid lock to an hours long at-large debate in the war room.


  13. Cope Rowell