NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The two most powerful people in college athletics shared a room here Thursday after an unprecedented joint meeting of their school athletic directors.
Seated at a nondescript table before a dozen media members, commissioners Greg Sankey of the SEC and Tony Petitti of the Big Ten answered questions for nearly an hour about the ballyhooed gathering of their top leaders.
They couldn’t have looked more dissimilar — Sankey, in his blue-checkered sport coat, white-collared shirt and dress shoes; Petitti, in white Nike kicks, a sweater pullover and black ankle socks.
Their competing fashion styles aside, their similarities brought them to this place: the Grand Hyatt in the busting capital of country music, where administrators of the nation’s most powerful and richest leagues gathered for a somewhat historic meeting.
While no decisions were made, all of the topics expected to be discussed at this seven-hour summit Thursday were discussed: the future format of the College Football Playoff; a regular season football and basketball scheduling arrangement between the two leagues; and a post-House settlement governance and enforcement entity.
Over the near hour-long meeting with reporters in a second-floor conference room, the two men shared details of the talks as their athletic directors hustled out of the main lobby entrance below.
Sankey and Petitti assured the country that, no, their conferences are not planning to separate from the rest of college athletics. They sharply criticized several outside proposals that would reshape college athletics. And they will wait until after the completion of this year’s inaugural expanded CFP before making real decisions on playoff format, scheduling partnerships and postseason bowls.
But what was left unsaid here is perhaps more jarring than anything said.
Put simply: The SEC and Big Ten plan to reshape college athletics. They are the drivers of the car now, the operators of the machinery, the captains of the ship.
For the most part, they believe they are in control of the future playoff format (not the other eight FBS leagues). They will oversee the implementation of a new enforcement model under the impending revenue-sharing concept (not the NCAA). And they could — most believe they will — overhaul the way in which their schools participate in the postseason (bowls?).
Thursday’s meeting, while not producing real decisions, is a clear first step to eventually reaching those decisions. It is a leap forward to change, a jump to transformation in the most volatile era in the history of the industry.
Buckle up. The road is bumpy.
“Those who have the gold make the rules,” said one Big 12 athletic director.
These potential jarring changes are only a discussion point for now. Decisions are weeks, months, perhaps even years away.
But it is clear what the end of the road is: A guarantee for more spots in the playoff (multiple automatic qualifiers per league maybe), which permits them to play tougher regular season schedules (presumably against one another) and paves the way for, perhaps, a conference play-in tournament into the CFP at the end of the regular season. All of that generating more revenue for schools at a time when administrators are clawing for cash in the age of athlete revenue sharing.
Many of those revenue-producing concepts are embedded in proposals for a remade college sports landscape that were recently announced (College Sports Tomorrow) and revealed (Project Rudy).
A miffed Sankey offered sharp criticism about that timing: “I don’t think it’s coincidence that they ramped up their public relations scheme around our meeting.”
Most, if not all, of the concepts proposed can be done by the two leagues or the power conferences as a whole, says Petitti: “I have yet to see anything in any plan that we couldn’t do ourselves. It’s basically scheduling more good games and reorganize the way you play those games.”
There’s more, too, along this road of change. Division I governance will be subdivided and the power conferences will, more than ever, gain exclusive authority around their own rules and policy-making. They’ll choose a third-party enforcement arm and clearinghouse intended to achieve the top goal of the settlement: Eliminate the unwieldy system of booster pay.
And what of bowl games? It remains uncertain. But, as one leader told Yahoo Sports recently, “the days of schools losing money by playing in bowl games is over.”
Buckle up, down this bumpy road we go.
The “catalyst” for much of this change, Petitti acknowledges, is related to the House settlement, which will usher in direct school revenue sharing to their athletes. The settlement is likely the final dividing line between the haves and the have-nots, the last straw in college athletics. The camel’s back is breaking.
“It requires so many things to change,” Petitti said.
What he didn’t say is clear: College athletics must evolve and operate as more of a professional and business entity. That’s because it is. If you are paying players directly, you are a business.
“If you are a business,” says one high-level administrator, “you make business decisions.”
College sports has changed, is changing and will change. Though decisions were left for later, Thursday’s meeting served as another reminder: The SEC and Big Ten are in control of the change that awaits.
They are driving the car down this bumpy road we call college sports. Will they eventually veer off together? Or will they tow everyone along? Will they end at a place of compromise? Or one of divide?
“This is a start of a conversation,” Sankey said.
