Latest news with #Yormark
Fox Sports
4 hours ago
- Business
- Fox Sports
Why the 5+11 CFP format fails to meet objectives fans should want
I'm starting to feel very pessimistic about what some of the leaders in college football want to do with the sport. My optimism surrounding the future of college football is waning because I'm not sensing from some of these groups that they understand what's going on, and they're not considering you — the fans. In case you missed it, the discussion surrounding the College Football Playoff expansion took another turn this week. There was some momentum behind the push for a 16-team CFP with a format that features the five-highest-ranked conference champions getting an automatic bid, while the 11 remaining spots would be at-large bids (5+11 model). Last week, I shared my thoughts on which direction the CFP should go with expansion. While I'd prefer a 14-team CFP over a 16-team one, it seems evident that it will be expanded to 16 teams. In that scenario, I'd like to see a format with the Big Ten and SEC each getting four automatic qualifying spots, the ACC and Big 12 both getting two automatic qualifying spots, an automatic bid for the highest-ranked Group of 5 champion and three at-large bids/Notre Dame. However, the recent push for the 5+11 model picked up steam at the Big 12 and SEC conference meetings last week. Frankly, it's awful for college football on so many different levels. I have a ton of respect for Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark, and I think he's a smart guy, but I also disagreed with him when he co-signed the 5+11 model while speaking with reporters last week. "In talking to our [athletic directors] and coaches … the 5+11 model might not be ideal for the conference, but it's good for college football and it's what's fair," Yormark said. "We don't want any gimmes. We want to earn it on the field. That was the direction of the key stakeholder group, the ADs and the coaches, and I feel very comfortable with that. I feel the same way, and I've been very outspoken about it." That doesn't make sense, quite frankly. How can you earn it on the field when the CFP committee determines nearly the entire field? The 5+11 certainly hurts the Big 12, which would in turn hurt the sport because we need more conferences to be relevant. If we opt to go with the 5+11 model, we'd get four things: One, the entire sport is going to be determined in the boardroom and be committee-driven (which fans want that?); Two, we're going to lose valuable non-conference games; Three, you'd lose out on the possibility of having a conference championship play-in weekend (more on that here); Four, you'd have a massive amount of politicking and propaganda being pushed. (In fact, that final point was already being put into practice by the SEC at its conference meetings in Florida this past week, as it distributed an analytics packet that touted how tough the regular-season conference schedule is at its conference meetings.) Is this what we're going to be as a sport going forward? We should take the sport out of the boardroom and define the criteria a little more clearly on what it should take to make the CFP. The 5+11 model fails on every single level to drive the sport forward. Here are the six objectives I think must be considered when the CFP determines what format and model to use for expansion. 1. Increase fan base engagement As I've mentioned with some of the previous models they've thrown out with the 16-team CFP, you'd increase fan base engagement by increasing the probability that your team is playing meaningful games late in the season. In the 5+11 model, we're going to have rankings every week, so we're going to minimize the number of teams that feel like they have a relevant and defined path toward getting in. That would be particularly true if you play in the "wrong conference" where your team can only lose once, while it's OK for teams from other conferences to lose four games. 2. Increase meaningful games If we had a play-in weekend within conferences, each of the power conferences could have multiple games with a CFP spot on the line on the same weekend. If we went with the 5+11 model, we'd miss out on the idea of the third-place and sixth-place teams or the fourth-place and fifth-place teams in the Big Ten or SEC battling for one of the conference's automatic qualifying spots because of the 11 at-large bids. 3. Increase valuable non-conference games If this sport is solely determined in a boardroom and the committee decides who gets into the CFP, we're going to have what's happened already: athletic directors and teams getting rid of valuable non-conference games. Tennessee and Nebraska just called off their series because of this. The future of USC and Notre Dame's rivalry is also in question because of this. When there's a committee involved, the idea is to have as many wins as possible. The best way to get as many wins as possible is to have as easy of a schedule as possible. The committee has never really shown a willingness to honor teams for challenging themselves in non-conference play. The 5+11 model would fail to protect teams from challenging themselves in the non-conference slate. 4. Minimize or eliminate the committee Nobody wants all this committee-driven drama late in the year, with teams politicking and sending out analytics packets to prove their case. When nearly three-quarters of the field is made up of at-large bids, you're only going to see more of that. Having as many automatic qualifiers as possible would tone down the committee's influence beyond seeding. 5. Define a clear path In the other 16-team models, there's a clear path for teams to reach the CFP. They know they either need to win their conference championship game, finish within a certain spot in the standings or win one of the conference championship weekend play-in games. With the 5+11 model, the only clear path to making the CFP is to be one of the five highest-ranked conference champions. If you're not one of those five teams, you're hoping the committee likes your résumé. 6. Keep more conferences relevant This is vital for the health of the sport. It's important that the ACC and Big 12 remain relevant. Yet, if you go with the 5+11 model, the Big Ten and SEC will get more participants into the CFP. That means those conferences will continue to generate more revenue and power, further creating a fork in the road between those conferences and the rest. Simply put, the 5+11 model fails every objective, and it falls short of the other models. Far be it from me to disagree with smart people, but I don't see how the 5+11 model is "good for college football" and "fair." If I were Yormark or ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, I'd take a 14-team format that guaranteed my conference two spots right now. If the Big Ten and SEC really press those two conferences to accept a 16-team format, the ACC and Big 12 should ask for five guaranteed spots between the two conferences. Ultimately, I want the sport to be better for you, the fans. If the CFP expansion meets these objectives, it would do that. I'm concerned, though, about the recent push for the 5+11 model, which certainly wouldn't. Joel Klatt is FOX Sports' lead college football game analyst and the host of the podcast " The Joel Klatt Show. " Follow him at @joelklatt and subscribe to the "Joel Klatt Show" on YouTube . Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily. recommended Get more from College Football Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more
USA Today
3 days ago
- Sport
- USA Today
Rick George, Brett Yormark push for 16-team College Football Playoff
Rick George, Brett Yormark push for 16-team College Football Playoff Talks of expanding the College Football Playoff to 16 teams are gaining momentum just a season after Ohio State won the first iteration of the 12-team format. Although expansion talk is still in its early stages, Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark has been a vocal supporter of greater access and fairness in the playoff structure. Colorado athletic director Rick George joined Yormark in supporting expansion in hopes of giving the Big 12 programs more chances at claiming a playoff spot. George and Yormark advocate for a 5+11 model—five automatic bids for conference champions (four Power Four, one for the top Group of Five/Six team) and 11 at-large bids. "More access is better for the Big 12 for sure," Yormark said in an ESPN interview last week. "But I'm also about fairness... we want to earn it on the field. And I'm adamant about that." Yormark added that fans want a true playoff system rather than an invitational that rewards the Big 10 and SEC. He also called last season's inaugural 12-team playoff "fantastic." George echoed Yormark's stance on social media, backing a 16-team expansion and the 5+11 structure. His support reflects Colorado's position within the playoff landscape: an up-and-coming program but one likely not to make a 12-team playoff barring a tremendous season. The Buffaloes have never made the CFP in either the four or 12-team formats. Last season, Colorado finished No. 23 in the final CFP rankings. In 2024, only the conference champion, Arizona State, earned an automatic spot. The fact that a talented second-place Big 12 team rarely would make the 12-team playoff sparked renewed interest within the conference for further expansion, especially in a league known for its competitiveness and depth rather than a few elite programs. Yormark believes the 5+11 format promotes merit-based selection. However, he acknowledged the plan needs backing from the sport's most powerful conferences: the SEC and Big Ten. "They have a great responsibility to do what's right for college football, not just for two conferences," Yormark said. With limited postseason access and a growing gap in national influence between the SEC, Big Ten and other top conferences, leaders like George are expected to continue pushing for a broader CFP—one that gives programs like Colorado a realistic shot at making it in.
NBC Sports
4 days ago
- Sport
- NBC Sports
In college playoff debate, the Arizona St coach with everything to lose says he'll take his chances
When it comes to the future of the College Football Playoff, there were as many opinions as there were coaches on hand at the Southeastern Conference and Big 12 meetings in Florida this week. Perhaps the most eye-opening came from some of those with the most to lose — Kenny Dillingham of Arizona State and Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark. The consensus at their meetings, which wrapped up in Orlando on Friday, was a preference for a format, starting in 2026, that would include 16 teams — five of them automatic bids to the highest-rated conference champions and the other 11 awarded as at-large spots. That would be paired with a straight-seeding model that has already been adopted for next season's playoff. Had last season's playoff used straight seeding, the Big 12 champion Sun Devils would have been seeded 11th, not fourth. Instead of a bye, they would have been stuck with a first-round road game at eventual national champion Ohio State. But Dillingham said the change for the upcoming season is fine with him, and if the increasingly popular 5-11 model takes hold for 2026, that's fine, too. 'Last season, maybe we didn't earn the right to be the fourth seed. Maybe we earned the right to be the eighth seed,' said the coach, whose team was ranked 12th, but still received the fourth seed and a first-round bye before losing to Texas 39-31. 'I believe you earn your way to those seeds, so I'm also in support of the 5-plus-11, that same thought process.' The SEC and Big Ten will decide the format for the playoff starting in 2026, which is when ESPN's new $7.8 billion contract kicks in. Yormark said the SEC and Big Ten 'have a great responsibility that goes with it to do what's right for college football and not to do anything that just benefits two conferences. And I have a lot of faith in the process.' The 5-11 system could be less advantageous for the Big 12, which would get two automatic bids under the other system being floated, the 4-4-2-2-1 model in which the SEC and Big Ten each would receive four and the Big 12 and ACC would get two. The best argument for that plan might have come from Florida AD Scott Stricklin at the SEC meetings: 'I think anything we can do to make the postseason more objective and less subjective is going to be better,' he said, pointing to the notion that the more at-large berths there are, the more the preferences of the selection committee come into play. Yormark said the Big 12 would be willing to take its chances with more at-large bids. 'We want to earn it on the field,' Yormark said. 'The 5-11 might not be ideal for the conference, but it's good for college football, and it's what's fair.' Dillingham was on the same page. 'Every year is a new year, and you never know who's going to be good in college football, especially with the volume going through the (transfer) portal,' he said. 'So anything that creates an open platform for teams like our guys last year to prove that they do belong, I'm in support of.' Expanded March Madness NCAA President Charlie Baker made his most definitive statement yet about expanding the men's basketball tournament from its current 68 teams to 72 or 76, saying it's a decision that needs to come in the next few months. SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has long been in favor of that expansion, so long as it's done a certain way. His model would bring more at-large teams – presumably from big conferences -- into the main draw of 64. It would push more automatic qualifiers from weaker leagues into what would be an increased number of so-called 'play-in' games, what's known now as the First Four. He used the example of North Carolina State in 2024 as a team that was seeded 11th (the Wolfpack didn't have to play a play-in game but often an 11th seed does) and made the Final Four. 'I don't think all the 10- and 11-type seeds should just be placed in the First Four,' Sankey said at the SEC meetings in the Florida Panhandle. 'That's my opinion. You could go ask my colleagues in the AQ conferences what should happen and I'm certain they'd want the split to continue.' Walk-on walk-outs A few SEC coaches hedged when asked what they were telling walk-on football players who were in jeopardy of losing their roster spots under terms of the multibillion-dollar lawsuit settlement that is hung up on the issue of roster limits. 'Certainly it's challenging for us to manage our roster,' Texas A&M coach Mike Elko said. 'But it's more challenging for a 19-year-old to not know what his place on a football team is as we head into the summer.' Under terms of a reworked agreement, football rosters would be limited to 105 players, all of whom would be eligible for scholarships, though walk-on players who had roster spots before would not count against the limit. Kansas coach Lance Leipold conceded that many decisions had already been made regardless of how the settlement works out. Indeed, some of his walk-ons had already left, as the Jayhawks made preparations for the upcoming season with the expectation the settlement would be approved. 'When a walk-on maybe decides that now that their roster spot might be in jeopardy, he has a chance to go somewhere else where he may see more real playing time in games, you got to be happy for him,' he said. 'I guess we all wish we had a little bit more clarity sooner.' One window too many From locker rooms to the commissioner's office, the Big 12 is unified in its stance on transfer portal timing. Rather than two transfer windows, including a 20-day slot with the college football playoff in sight in December, the Big 12 is pushing for one window in January. 'As coaches, we unanimously support one portal window, and that is in January,' Leipold said. 'You're signing most of your guys in December. You know what your roster will be like to start the second semester, and you have the opportunity to work and develop and build those relationships and evaluate your team and get ready for the next season.' Coaches can find solace in knowing their commissioner will fight for the cause. Adjusting the portal windows is one of many items on the list of topics Yormark will discuss with fellow Power Four commissioners in the coming weeks. 'We discussed the portal window with the coaches,' Yormark said. 'We know what their preference is. We'll discuss that amongst the Power Four commissioners here shortly, but I advocate for their position. They want a January portal, and we'll discuss that again with our peers and see where we can land this thing.' The Power Four wants more There are plenty of ongoing disputes between the NCAA's most dominant conferences, but a desire for more control isn't one of them. Rumors of the SEC separating from the NCAA may have gained momentum, but Sankey is willing to settle for more autonomy, at least for now. Instead of the original 65%, Sankey argued that the Power Four conferences owning 68% of the vote in the proposed NCAA governance model is more optimal. Yormark was on the same page. 'There is an appetite and desire to have a little bit more autonomy, a little bit more control in decision-making,' Yormark said. 'In what's currently being discussed, I think we will land in a very desirable place. We understand the importance of being part of the institution and also being very collegial with our peers. But at the same time, we do feel that when it comes to control and autonomy, that there needs to be a little bit of a shift to the A4, at least more so than what currently exists.' By the sounds of it, the Power Four may have the NCAA president on their side. 'Charlie Baker has been terrific throughout the process. He has listened to all the key stakeholder groups, but he does recognize that not everyone looks the same, operates the same, and there needs to be a bit of an adjustment and a modernization of what's being done there in the NCAA as a whole is, like you said, but also as it relates to the power four,' Yormark said.
San Francisco Chronicle
4 days ago
- Sport
- San Francisco Chronicle
In college playoff debate, the Arizona St coach with everything to lose says he'll take his chances
When it comes to the future of the College Football Playoff, there were as many opinions as there were coaches on hand at the Southeastern Conference and Big 12 meetings in Florida this week. Perhaps the most eye-opening came from some of those with the most to lose — Kenny Dillingham of Arizona State and Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark. The consensus at their meetings, which wrapped up in Orlando on Friday, was a preference for a format, starting in 2026, that would include 16 teams — five of them automatic bids to the highest-rated conference champions and the other 11 awarded as at-large spots. That would be paired with a straight-seeding model that has already been adopted for next season's playoff. Had last season's playoff used straight seeding, the Big 12 champion Sun Devils would have been seeded 11th, not fourth. Instead of a bye, they would have been stuck with a first-round road game at eventual national champion Ohio State. But Dillingham said the change for the upcoming season is fine with him, and if the increasingly popular 5-11 model takes hold for 2026, that's fine, too. 'Last season, maybe we didn't earn the right to be the fourth seed. Maybe we earned the right to be the eighth seed,' said the coach, whose team was ranked 12th, but still received the fourth seed and a first-round bye before losing to Texas 39-31. 'I believe you earn your way to those seeds, so I'm also in support of the 5-plus-11, that same thought process.' The SEC and Big Ten will decide the format for the playoff starting in 2026, which is when ESPN's new $7.8 billion contract kicks in. Yormark said the SEC and Big Ten 'have a great responsibility that goes with it to do what's right for college football and not to do anything that just benefits two conferences. And I have a lot of faith in the process.' The 5-11 system could be less advantageous for the Big 12, which would get two automatic bids under the other system being floated, the 4-4-2-2-1 model in which the SEC and Big Ten each would receive four and the Big 12 and ACC would get two. The best argument for that plan might have come from Florida AD Scott Stricklin at the SEC meetings: 'I think anything we can do to make the postseason more objective and less subjective is going to be better,' he said, pointing to the notion that the more at-large berths there are, the more the preferences of the selection committee come into play. Yormark said the Big 12 would be willing to take its chances with more at-large bids. 'We want to earn it on the field,' Yormark said. 'The 5-11 might not be ideal for the conference, but it's good for college football, and it's what's fair.' Dillingham was on the same page. 'Every year is a new year, and you never know who's going to be good in college football, especially with the volume going through the (transfer) portal,' he said. 'So anything that creates an open platform for teams like our guys last year to prove that they do belong, I'm in support of.' Expanded March Madness NCAA President Charlie Baker made his most definitive statement yet about expanding the men's basketball tournament from its current 68 teams to 72 or 76, saying it's a decision that needs to come in the next few months. SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has long been in favor of that expansion, so long as it's done a certain way. His model would bring more at-large teams – presumably from big conferences -- into the main draw of 64. It would push more automatic qualifiers from weaker leagues into what would be an increased number of so-called 'play-in' games, what's known now as the First Four. He used the example of North Carolina State in 2024 as a team that was seeded 11th (the Wolfpack didn't have to play a play-in game but often an 11th seed does) and made the Final Four. 'I don't think all the 10- and 11-type seeds should just be placed in the First Four,' Sankey said at the SEC meetings in the Florida Panhandle. 'That's my opinion. You could go ask my colleagues in the AQ conferences what should happen and I'm certain they'd want the split to continue.' Walk-on walk-outs A few SEC coaches hedged when asked what they were telling walk-on football players who were in jeopardy of losing their roster spots under terms of the multibillion-dollar lawsuit settlement that is hung up on the issue of roster limits. 'Certainly it's challenging for us to manage our roster,' Texas A&M coach Mike Elko said. 'But it's more challenging for a 19-year-old to not know what his place on a football team is as we head into the summer.' Under terms of a reworked agreement, football rosters would be limited to 105 players, all of whom would be eligible for scholarships, though walk-on players who had roster spots before would not count against the limit. Kansas coach Lance Leipold conceded that many decisions had already been made regardless of how the settlement works out. Indeed, some of his walk-ons had already left, as the Jayhawks made preparations for the upcoming season with the expectation the settlement would be approved. 'When a walk-on maybe decides that now that their roster spot might be in jeopardy, he has a chance to go somewhere else where he may see more real playing time in games, you got to be happy for him," he said. "I guess we all wish we had a little bit more clarity sooner.' One window too many From locker rooms to the commissioner's office, the Big 12 is unified in its stance on transfer portal timing. Rather than two transfer windows, including a 20-day slot with the college football playoff in sight in December, the Big 12 is pushing for one window in January. 'As coaches, we unanimously support one portal window, and that is in January,' Leipold said. 'You're signing most of your guys in December. You know what your roster will be like to start the second semester, and you have the opportunity to work and develop and build those relationships and evaluate your team and get ready for the next season.' Coaches can find solace in knowing their commissioner will fight for the cause. Adjusting the portal windows is one of many items on the list of topics Yormark will discuss with fellow Power Four commissioners in the coming weeks. 'We discussed the portal window with the coaches,' Yormark said. 'We know what their preference is. We'll discuss that amongst the Power Four commissioners here shortly, but I advocate for their position. They want a January portal, and we'll discuss that again with our peers and see where we can land this thing.' The Power Four wants more There are plenty of ongoing disputes between the NCAA's most dominant conferences, but a desire for more control isn't one of them. Rumors of the SEC separating from the NCAA may have gained momentum, but Sankey is willing to settle for more autonomy, at least for now. Instead of the original 65%, Sankey argued that the Power Four conferences owning 68% of the vote in the proposed NCAA governance model is more optimal. Yormark was on the same page. 'There is an appetite and desire to have a little bit more autonomy, a little bit more control in decision-making,' Yormark said. 'In what's currently being discussed, I think we will land in a very desirable place. We understand the importance of being part of the institution and also being very collegial with our peers. But at the same time, we do feel that when it comes to control and autonomy, that there needs to be a little bit of a shift to the A4, at least more so than what currently exists.' By the sounds of it, the Power Four may have the NCAA president on their side. 'Charlie Baker has been terrific throughout the process. He has listened to all the key stakeholder groups, but he does recognize that not everyone looks the same, operates the same, and there needs to be a bit of an adjustment and a modernization of what's being done there in the NCAA as a whole is, like you said, but also as it relates to the power four," Yormark said.
4 days ago
- Sport
In college playoff debate, the Arizona St coach with everything to lose says he'll take his chances
When it comes to the future of the College Football Playoff, there were as many opinions as there were coaches on hand at the Southeastern Conference and Big 12 meetings in Florida this week. Perhaps the most eye-opening came from some of those with the most to lose — Kenny Dillingham of Arizona State and Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark. The consensus at their meetings, which wrapped up in Orlando on Friday, was a preference for a format, starting in 2026, that would include 16 teams — five of them automatic bids to the highest-rated conference champions and the other 11 awarded as at-large spots. That would be paired with a straight-seeding model that has already been adopted for next season's playoff. Had last season's playoff used straight seeding, the Big 12 champion Sun Devils would have been seeded 11th, not fourth. Instead of a bye, they would have been stuck with a first-round road game at eventual national champion Ohio State. But Dillingham said the change for the upcoming season is fine with him, and if the increasingly popular 5-11 model takes hold for 2026, that's fine, too. 'Last season, maybe we didn't earn the right to be the fourth seed. Maybe we earned the right to be the eighth seed,' said the coach, whose team was ranked 12th, but still received the fourth seed and a first-round bye before losing to Texas 39-31. 'I believe you earn your way to those seeds, so I'm also in support of the 5-plus-11, that same thought process.' The SEC and Big Ten will decide the format for the playoff starting in 2026, which is when ESPN's new $7.8 billion contract kicks in. Yormark said the SEC and Big Ten 'have a great responsibility that goes with it to do what's right for college football and not to do anything that just benefits two conferences. And I have a lot of faith in the process.' The 5-11 system could be less advantageous for the Big 12, which would get two automatic bids under the other system being floated, the 4-4-2-2-1 model in which the SEC and Big Ten each would receive four and the Big 12 and ACC would get two. The best argument for that plan might have come from Florida AD Scott Stricklin at the SEC meetings: 'I think anything we can do to make the postseason more objective and less subjective is going to be better,' he said, pointing to the notion that the more at-large berths there are, the more the preferences of the selection committee come into play. Yormark said the Big 12 would be willing to take its chances with more at-large bids. 'We want to earn it on the field,' Yormark said. 'The 5-11 might not be ideal for the conference, but it's good for college football, and it's what's fair.' Dillingham was on the same page. 'Every year is a new year, and you never know who's going to be good in college football, especially with the volume going through the (transfer) portal,' he said. 'So anything that creates an open platform for teams like our guys last year to prove that they do belong, I'm in support of.' NCAA President Charlie Baker made his most definitive statement yet about expanding the men's basketball tournament from its current 68 teams to 72 or 76, saying it's a decision that needs to come in the next few months. SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has long been in favor of that expansion, so long as it's done a certain way. His model would bring more at-large teams – presumably from big conferences -- into the main draw of 64. It would push more automatic qualifiers from weaker leagues into what would be an increased number of so-called 'play-in' games, what's known now as the First Four. He used the example of North Carolina State in 2024 as a team that was seeded 11th (the Wolfpack didn't have to play a play-in game but often an 11th seed does) and made the Final Four. 'I don't think all the 10- and 11-type seeds should just be placed in the First Four,' Sankey said at the SEC meetings in the Florida Panhandle. 'That's my opinion. You could go ask my colleagues in the AQ conferences what should happen and I'm certain they'd want the split to continue.' A few SEC coaches hedged when asked what they were telling walk-on football players who were in jeopardy of losing their roster spots under terms of the multibillion-dollar lawsuit settlement that is hung up on the issue of roster limits. 'Certainly it's challenging for us to manage our roster,' Texas A&M coach Mike Elko said. 'But it's more challenging for a 19-year-old to not know what his place on a football team is as we head into the summer.' Under terms of a reworked agreement, football rosters would be limited to 105 players, all of whom would be eligible for scholarships, though walk-on players who had roster spots before would not count against the limit. Kansas coach Lance Leipold conceded that many decisions had already been made regardless of how the settlement works out. Indeed, some of his walk-ons had already left, as the Jayhawks made preparations for the upcoming season with the expectation the settlement would be approved. 'When a walk-on maybe decides that now that their roster spot might be in jeopardy, he has a chance to go somewhere else where he may see more real playing time in games, you got to be happy for him," he said. "I guess we all wish we had a little bit more clarity sooner.' From locker rooms to the commissioner's office, the Big 12 is unified in its stance on transfer portal timing. Rather than two transfer windows, including a 20-day slot with the college football playoff in sight in December, the Big 12 is pushing for one window in January. 'As coaches, we unanimously support one portal window, and that is in January,' Leipold said. 'You're signing most of your guys in December. You know what your roster will be like to start the second semester, and you have the opportunity to work and develop and build those relationships and evaluate your team and get ready for the next season.' Coaches can find solace in knowing their commissioner will fight for the cause. Adjusting the portal windows is one of many items on the list of topics Yormark will discuss with fellow Power Four commissioners in the coming weeks. 'We discussed the portal window with the coaches,' Yormark said. 'We know what their preference is. We'll discuss that amongst the Power Four commissioners here shortly, but I advocate for their position. They want a January portal, and we'll discuss that again with our peers and see where we can land this thing.' There are plenty of ongoing disputes between the NCAA's most dominant conferences, but a desire for more control isn't one of them. Rumors of the SEC separating from the NCAA may have gained momentum, but Sankey is willing to settle for more autonomy, at least for now. Instead of the original 65%, Sankey argued that the Power Four conferences owning 68% of the vote in the proposed NCAA governance model is more optimal. Yormark was on the same page. 'There is an appetite and desire to have a little bit more autonomy, a little bit more control in decision-making,' Yormark said. 'In what's currently being discussed, I think we will land in a very desirable place. We understand the importance of being part of the institution and also being very collegial with our peers. But at the same time, we do feel that when it comes to control and autonomy, that there needs to be a little bit of a shift to the A4, at least more so than what currently exists.' By the sounds of it, the Power Four may have the NCAA president on their side. 'Charlie Baker has been terrific throughout the process. He has listened to all the key stakeholder groups, but he does recognize that not everyone looks the same, operates the same, and there needs to be a bit of an adjustment and a modernization of what's being done there in the NCAA as a whole is, like you said, but also as it relates to the power four," Yormark said.
