Latest news with #GregSankey
The Herald Scotland
7 hours ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
CFP, March Madness don't need to expand. Why are leaders pushing it?
But after months of debate on both fronts, what's become clear is that expansion is going to happen for no reason other than a vapid sense of inertia sprung from the bruised egos of sports executives - who subconsciously understand their own fundamental weakness and ineffectiveness are to blame for the spiral of chaos that college sports can't seem to escape. At least when they push a button to expand a postseason, it feels like they're doing something. That's an explanation. It's not a reason. When the NFL expanded its playoffs from 12 to 14 in 2020, changing its format for the first time in three decades, the obvious factor was an influx of money: Hundreds of millions of dollars, in fact, half of which gets split with players. When the NBA shook up its postseason and created the play-in tournament, the primary motivation was to keep more teams competitive late in the season and discourage tanking. Those are sensible reasons everyone can understand. But neither Baker nor one of the prominent conference commissioners like the SEC's Greg Sankey or the Big Ten's Tony Petitti have been able to articulate a clear and concise mission statement for what expansion of either tournament is supposed to accomplish. They just want to do it. Here's how thin the rationale is regarding March Madness: Speaking with reporters in Orlando, Baker cited the committee snubbing Missouri Valley Conference regular-season champion Indiana State in 2024 despite a 32-7 record, suggesting an expansion would get the NCAA tournament closer to including the "best" 68 teams. Of course, the NCAA tournament has always worked this way. Excellent mid-major teams that lose in their conference tournament often don't get in. And as the track record of the tournament clearly shows, the vast majority of bids in an expanded field would go to power conference teams with questionable records. The push to expand March Madness precedes Baker's tenure, which began in March 2023. In fact, you can trace the momentum back to March of 2022 when Texas A&M was left out despite a late-season surge to the championship game of the SEC tournament, converting Sankey into a public proponent of expansion. But the idea that tournament spots are being filled by automatic qualifiers from mid-major conferences with less chance to do damage in the tournament than Texas A&M's 2022 team, for instance, isn't new. It's part of the deal, and there's no real demand to move the cut line other than from those who are inconvenienced by it. In fact, one of the big obstacles to March Madness expansion - and the reason it didn't happen years ago - is that there's not a huge pot of television money out there for a few more games between mediocre basketball teams on Tuesday and Wednesday of tournament week. Not only is expansion unlikely to boost profits in a significant way, it's an open question whether the NCAA can expand the tournament without diluting the shares of its revenue distribution model, which are worth about $2 million per team per round. A similar dynamic is at play in the CFP debate. 12-team CFP worked; trashing it makes no sense There were clear incentives for the conference commissioners when they first floated expanding the football tournament from four to 12 teams back in 2021. Not only had TV ratings leveled off, perhaps due to many of the same programs populating the field year after year, but going to 12 would both guarantee access for all the power conference champions and set the table for a $1.3 billion per year contract with ABC/ESPN beginning in 2026 - nearly triple the original 12-year deal that established the CFP. But that's where things get murky. Even before the first 12-team playoff last year, conference commissioners were *already* batting around a 14-team model for 2026. That has now morphed into a likely 16-team bracket. The financial terms of the TV deal, however, will not change in a significant way, whether they land at 12, 14 or 16. So why do it? Not because it's a great business proposition - in fact, there's a legitimate concern about playoff oversaturation and potential second-order effects - but because the more you expand access, the more access everyone wants. That's what we have seen over the last week, especially from the SEC meetings as Sankey and others in the league launched a breathtaking, shameless propaganda effort attempting to rewrite recent history. Getting a mere three teams into last year's 12-team playoff while the Big Ten won its second straight title seems to have done a psychological number on those folks. Rather than admit the truth - the SEC didn't have an amazing year in 2024 and the playing field nationally has been leveled to some extent by NIL and the transfer portal - they are arguing to shape the next CFP format based on a level of conference strength that certainly existed in the past but hasn't in the NIL/transfer portal era. One prominent athletics director, Florida's Scott Stricklin, questioned whether the football bracket should be chosen by committee. Another unnamed administrator went so far as to muse that the SEC and Big Ten should think about just holding their own playoff, according to Yahoo! Sports. If you take a step back and look at what's happening from a 30,000-foot view, it smacks of famed political scientist Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History," where he writes about how the triumph of Western liberalism and consumerism has unwittingly created this kind of regressive condition that shows up in so many facets of life and culture. "If men cannot struggle on behalf of a just cause because that just cause was victorious in an earlier generation," he wrote, "then they will struggle against the just cause. They will struggle for the sake of struggle. They will struggle, in other words, out of a certain boredom: for they cannot imagine living in a world without struggle." That kind of feels like what's going on here. Aside from a small adjustment in how it was seeded, nothing about the 12-team playoff seemed problematic. If anything, it was widely praised for delivering what the original expansion proponents wanted: Geographic diversity, representation for the four power conferences and the Group of Five, first-round playoff games in college venues and a lot of interesting games from the quarterfinals on. In other words, it worked. And there is no obvious reason - financial or otherwise - to have chucked it in the trash already while the four power conferences launch a war amongst themselves about how much access gets allocated to each conference, and by whom. The angst is especially confusing from the SEC, which just got a record 14 bids to the men's basketball tournament (including national champion Florida), has eight of the 16 national seeds for the baseball tournament and five of the eight teams in the Women's College World Series. They're doing just fine, and there is a long track record of being justly rewarded when their teams perform at the highest level. There's little doubt that will happen again in football regardless of which playoff system gets implemented. It just didn't happen last year because the SEC, for once, did not deserve it. But the Big Ten and the SEC are, as Fukuyama wrote, struggling for the sake of struggle. The more power they have amassed by reshaping the landscape through realignment, the more they claim the system is broken. Some believe their end game is a separation from the NCAA, creating a world where they don't have to share a business partnership with conferences and schools they believe aren't bringing as much value to the table. The reality, though, is that any such move would draw a level of scrutiny - legal and political - they are not currently prepared to handle, not to mention the arduous work of building out the infrastructure for all kinds of unglamorous stuff the NCAA already provides. So instead, they wage war against problems that don't really exist, reach for solutions that create actual problems and then fail to solve the problems right in front of their face. The push to expand the NCAA tournament and the CFP are merely symptoms of an affluenza swallowing the highest levels of college sports. Knowing they've failed miserably to execute on the important issues they truly need to solve to ensure the long-term health of their business, the likes of Sankey and Petitti and many others have elevated tedium to a crisis. So a crisis is what they shall have.
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- Sport
- The Herald Scotland
Lane Kiffin's College Football Playoff plan sounds tempting
Kiffin's playoff plan looks like this: Sixteen teams. Four rounds. No automatic bids. Every team must earn at-large selection. The selection process would involve analytics, combined with a human element. This wasn't my first time hearing Kiffin's idea. He ran this plan past me when we spoke in March. At the time, I didn't love Kiffin's idea. I detect no irreparable flaw with the current 12-team playoff. I didn't hate his idea, though. And I'm starting to like it more. In the months since Kiffin first floated his idea, the possibility a 16-team playoff beginning as soon as 2026 has gained steam across conferences. While the future format continues to be debated, it's clear that expansion is likely coming, in some shape and form. I'm beginning to relinquish my grip on the 12-team playoff and accept the reality of a 16-team future. As I listened to SEC muckety-mucks debate the merits of the leading 16-team ideas at the conference's spring meetings here this week, it struck me that maybe Kiffin's proposal remains the best 16-team proposal. CFP DEBATE: How SECs Greg Sankey has chance to be hero instead of villain FRIENDLY FOES?: LSU's Brian Kelly issues schedule challenge to Big Ten Kiffin's idea certainly trumps the 4+4+2+2+1 model the Big Ten favors. That rigged math equation would preassign four auto-bids to the Big Ten, plus four more to the SEC, two to the Big 12, two to the ACC, one to the top remaining conference champion, and then leave three at-large bids. This crock of a plan would reward preseason conference prestige as much as in-season results. No thanks. Someone, please shove this Big Ten brainchild into the woodchipper, and scatter the ashes on the surface of the sun. Kiffin's plan more closely resembles the 5+11 model that the Big 12 publicly supports. The ACC also reportedly favors a 5+11 system, and some SEC coaches took a shine to the idea this week, even while SEC athletic directors collectively seem more interested in the auto-bid plan favored by the Big Ten. In the 5+11 model, the top five conference champions would secure bids, leaving 11 at-large bids. That model would produce brackets that likely would resemble Kiffin's plan, but the Ole Miss coach prefers no auto-bids. So, let's play out his idea with a look in the rearview mirror. Here's how the bracket would have looked in Kiffin's model last season, using the final CFP rankings as the guide for determining the 16 qualifiers. No. 16 Clemson at No. 1 Oregon Critics of a 16-team playoff say there aren't 16 teams deserving of playoff and that too many first-round games would be duds. But, here we have the Big Ten champion against the ACC champion. Dan Lanning vs. Dabo Swinney. This would have been appointment viewing, not a dud. No. 15 South Carolina at No. 2 Georgia SEC expansion and the elimination of divisions took the Georgia-South Carolina rivalry off the schedule in 2024. Could a red-hot Gamecocks team have upset a Georgia squad starting Gunnar Stockton? It's plausible. No. 14 Ole Miss at No. 3 Texas Conferences are so big now that teams don't play half the other teams in their own league. Here we have another matchup of two SEC teams that didn't play in the regular season. The Jekyll-and-Hyde Rebels whipped Georgia but lost to Kentucky. If the good version of Ole Miss showed its face, this game could have been a doozy. No. 13 Miami at No. 4 Penn State Are you liking these matchups yet? How about this one, pitting Cam Ward against Penn State's stout defense. In the playoff that actually happened, Penn State waltzed to the semifinals by beating SMU and Boise State. This billing with Miami would have been a better matchup. No. 12 Arizona State at No. 5 Notre Dame In the playoff, the Sun Devils gave Texas all it could handle in an overtime loss in the playoff quarterfinals. In this revised bracket, Cam Skattebo would have tested the strength of Notre Dame's defense. Chalk this up as another game I would've enjoyed seeing. No. 11 Alabama at No. 6 Ohio State Holy, moly. What a dream matchup of two college football monsters. Ohio State proved throughout the postseason it was the nation's best team. If Alabama couldn't score a touchdown against Oklahoma, I don't see how it could have solved Ohio State's defense. The game probably wouldn't have lived up to the hype. No. 10 SMU at No. 7 Tennessee The Vols looked pitiful in a playoff loss at Ohio State, but this draw at Neyland Stadium probably would have produced a much different fate. The committee flubbed by awarding SMU a playoff spot. Ten-win Brigham Young, which beat SMU during the regular season, possessed better credentials, but I digress. Alas, we'll live with the committee's choice and figure SMU-Tennessee at least wouldn't have been any worse than what we saw in the playoff with SMU-Penn State or Tennessee-Ohio State. No. 9 Boise State at No. 8 Indiana I detect upset potential. Indiana built its playoff case by consistently beating bad or mediocre teams. That's not nothing, but Boise State showed in a 37-34 loss at Oregon in September it's up for a challenge. This matchup featuring Heisman Trophy runner-up Ashton Jeanty would have pitted an O.G. Cinderella, Boise State, against the 2024 slipper-wearing Hoosiers. No perfect College Football Playoff plan The Kiffin plan and the 5+11 model would have produced the same qualifiers last season. In the 5+11 construct, auto bids would have gone to Oregon, Georgia, Boise State, Arizona State and Clemson. Once I assigned teams to Kiffin's idea and saw the matchups, I liked his plan more. I daresay these first-round matchups, on the whole, would have been better in quality than those served up in last season's 12-team playoff. "There's still flaws in every system," Kiffin said, "but the best system should be 16, and it should be the 16 best" teams. "Get rid of automatics, and figure out a system to get the best 16 teams in." Doesn't sound half bad. The man with the tan cooked up a worthy plan. Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network's national college football columnist. Email him at BToppmeyer@ and follow him on X @btoppmeyer.
USA Today
2 days ago
- Sport
- USA Today
SEC changes fines for field and court storming if schools don't enact safety measures
SEC changes fines for field and court storming if schools don't enact safety measures The SEC conference has officially changed its policy on field and court storming events ahead of the 2025-26 academic year, according to conference commissioner Greg Sankey in his final press conference at the league's spring meetings. According to his announcement, violations of the SEC's access to competition area policy will incite a flat fee of $500,000, instead of the escalating fee schedule set in 2023. However, the caveat is that if schools allow visiting teams and officials to exit the field of play before fans rush the field or court, a fine will not be handed out. "We'll welcome your celebration," Sankey offered. "Let's let the team, the visiting institutions depart." The commish noted that the increased frequency of court and field rushes in the past three years invoked "meaningful conversation" about a policy change. "If you are the one rushed, no matter how problematic the situation is, if it's only the first time on campus, it's $100,000," he said. "It may be a lot more. So the motivation was field rushing is field rushing, the first time or the 18th time. We'll offer an outlet of a delayed field rush where (we) let the visitors exit, let the officials exit. Then you go. That goes to zero." Sankey said that in order to avoid the fines, there must be a no-interaction "period" between a visiting team and the rushing team's fans. The $500,000 fee will continue to go to the visiting team if incurred. If the field or court storm happens during a non-conference game, Sankey said the fine will continue to go to the conference's post-graduate scholarship fund. In a May 28 press conference, Sankey said football field storms could be harder to police than basketball, which he still called not easy. "I don't think any of it is easy," Sankey said. "It has to be done with intent." Follow us @GatorsWire on X, formerly known as Twitter, as well as Bluesky, and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Florida Gators news, notes and opinions.
Reuters
2 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
SEC says all fines for storming field, court now $500K
May 30 - Host teams in the Southeastern Conference whose fans storm the field or the court after an upset will now face a set fine of $500,000, commissioner Greg Sankey announced on Thursday at the SEC's spring meetings. The SEC had previously implemented an escalating fine system, starting at $100,000 for a first offense. The fine would then increase to $250,000 for a second offense, then all future offenses would cost the host program $500,000 apiece. "The motivation was 'field rushing is field rushing, the first time or the 18th time,'" Sankey said. "The random nature of, if you're the one getting rushed, it doesn't feel good. It might be the first time (it happened) there, but it might be your sixth time in a row, literally." The SEC will also have the option to waive the fine if the opponent and the officiating crew are allowed to vacate the field before it is rushed by fans. Per SEC policy, "institutions shall limit access to competition areas to participating student-athletes, coaches, officials, support personnel and properly credentialed or authorized individuals at all times. For the safety of participants and spectators alike, at no time before, during or after a contest may spectators enter the competition area." One of the more memorable field stormings occurred last October, when Vanderbilt shocked then-No. 1 Alabama in Nashville, with fans tearing down the goal posts and carrying them to the Cumberland River. That cost Vanderbilt $100,000, which went to Alabama. The Crimson Tide also received $100,000 apiece from Tennessee and Oklahoma after both host programs upset Alabama last season. Ole Miss coach Lane Kiffin recently said he understands why fans rush the field after an upset, but he is concerned with the safety of players and coaches when the storming occurs. "The fan storming thing is a little tough," Kiffin said. "They don't do it in the NFL. I get it. It's pretty cool, but then it can be aggravating because they're storming and you're worried about them hitting you, what's going on, what are they gonna do? "It's very invasive at that point. But I think if they could just let everybody out and then let the fans on so they can tear the goal post down, because that stuff is cool." --Field Level Media
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
SEC ups field and court storming fines to $500,000 for each violation
Fans rushed the field at the end of Oklahoma's win over Alabama near the end of the 2024 season. (Photo by) Fines are increasing for field and court stormings in the SEC. The conference's presidents and chancellors voted at the league's spring meetings Thursday to raise the fines for a field storming or court storming to $500,000. Advertisement Before 2025, field and court storming fines were given on an escalating basis. In the penultimate week of the regular season, Oklahoma was fined $100,000 on two separate occasions for its fans running on the field at the end of the Sooners' upset win over Alabama. Fans rushed the field before the game was over and then when the game was officially over to get the two fines. That loss effectively eliminated Alabama from the College Football Playoff. The Tide's exclusion from the 12-team format has led to the topic of future CFP formats dominating the discussion at the spring meetings. $100,000 had been the fine for the first time a school's fans had invaded and $250,000 was the fine for a second infraction. A $500,000 fine was only given for a school's third court or field storming of the season. Though the new penalties are much higher than the previous fines, there's a caveat attached going forward. SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said the league has the ability to not issue a fine if fans come onto the court or field after the visiting team and the game officials has exited. The fines were implemented in an attempt to protect the losing road teams; when a school is fined, the money is paid to the team who was on the other end of the storming.
