“There are three ways we can go — stay out of it, facilitate more of it or create a mandate.”
On SEC-Big Ten scheduling, Sankey laid out three options: stay out of it, facilitate more games, or mandate them. He called a mandate incredibly difficult.
Greg Sankey
- Role(s) as quoted
- SEC commissioner
- Person type
- Conference executives
- Entries
- 16 (May 28, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026)
- Topics
- Governance & legislation (11) Structure: super league & divisions (5) Playoff & bowls (4) Scheduling & calendar (3) Eligibility (3) Transfer portal (3) Pay, NIL & revenue sharing (2) Rivalries & tradition (1)
In the Ideas index
- 2. Power 4 breakaway, super league or separate top division (SEC and Big Ten position)
- 5. A hard salary or revenue cap (Complications or opponents)
- 6. A federal law, national NIL standard or antitrust protection (Undecided)
- 8. Eligibility: five-year clock, JUCO years, draft age (Uniform national eligibility rules)
- 9. Playoff expansion to 16, 24 or more teams (Opponents or cautious)
- 12. Scheduling: standardize schedules, reward tough non-conference games (Mentioned)
- 13. Preserve rivalries; geography-based conferences via pooled media rights (Skeptic of pooling)
- 18. Regulate agents (Mentioned)
All entries (oldest first)
No verbatim quote recorded for this entry; summary of the source only.
At 2025 SEC Media Days, Sankey defended the CFP memorandum of understanding that gives the SEC and Big Ten decision-making authority on the format. He said that without an agreement the 5+7 12-team model could simply stay.
“If there's a point in which we cannot do so, I think that conversation -- Is there something that you do alone? -- I think that starts to generate more and more interest.”
On The Paul Finebaum Show, Sankey said breaking away wasn't a good idea for now, but that great frustration over the lack of enforceable guardrails could build interest in the SEC going it alone if collective problem-solving fails.
“So that's, I think the answer is the antitrust piece is the inherent problem in trying to create caps and limits.”
Asked why the House ruling wasn't appealed, Sankey pointed to the 9-0 Supreme Court loss in Alston and said antitrust law is the core obstacle to creating caps and limits.
“I think the notion that we would simply rush to say we support is not the appropriate position.”
On The Paul Finebaum Show, denied any SEC–Big Ten merger or super league plan, calling claims by Protect College Sports Act backers 'not consistent with the truth'; declined to endorse the bill yet and questioned voluntary media-rights pooling.
No verbatim quote recorded for this entry; summary of the source only.
At SEC Media Days, acknowledged 'real' discussions of governance breakaway options that could distance the SEC from the NCAA, then walked back talk of actually breaking away.
“We're not interested in finding the easiest path, we are focused on finding the right path.”
Opening SEC Media Days, Sankey pushed back on a 24-team CFP. He said there is no clear evidence of media interest, the calendar is already strained, and the sport needs to find the right path rather than the easiest one.
“I do not believe that is a leverage point. I think that's just honest communication.”
Sankey said SEC talk of breaking away is real and not a bargaining tactic. He described it as a sign of deep frustration over how national rules on tampering, the House settlement and eligibility are being enforced.
No verbatim quote recorded for this entry; summary of the source only.
In his media days address, Sankey laid out the national standards he wants, including health and safety, scholarship protections, oversight of agents, athlete participation in governance, and uniform eligibility and transfer rules.
“Like, does academics matter or not? If it does, then the fact that we've got people transferring six times during a college career is unacceptable.”
In a Puck interview, Sankey said the sport has to decide whether academics matter, and backed the Protect College Sports Act's eligibility limits and transfer restrictions.
“I think the notion of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for combined media rights in this environment is a nice story to tell, but it's really about control.”
Said the part of the Protect College Sports Act he dislikes is pooled media rights, calling the promise that some 130 programs would triple their money 'fiction'.
“So why don't we have more of our own regulatory process driven at that level? That's what self-governance is. It's not about breakaway.”
Said SEC 'self-governance' means writing more of its own rules among its 16 schools, not breaking away from the NCAA.
“We've looked at it and said CFP selection decisions are negatively impacting regular-season scheduling, particularly big non-conference games. That needs to be addressed first”
On a 24-team playoff, Sankey said the SEC's concerns are economics and the December grind, and that CFP selection's effect on nonconference scheduling must be fixed first.
“If change is not accessed or not achieved at that national level, there will be more and more conversation about how we as a conference function and our own decision-making. We have had rules in the past that apply only to our conference that are more restrictive generally than what might happen nationally. That type of conversation has been initiated, and I would expect it to continue, but we'll wait to see what happens at the congressional level.”
At SEC basketball media days, warned that if Congress fails to set national standards, the SEC will look harder at writing its own, more restrictive conference-only rules, and said those talks have already started.
“I think I've always communicated that we've never said no that won't happen, that won't be a point of support. I think there's an openness to playoff expansion on our part -- I think certainly there's an openness. Attitudes change over time and perspectives change, and so we'll see where that leads us from a final decision standpoint.”
Long a skeptic of a 24-team College Football Playoff, said the SEC has an openness to expansion and expects a final decision 'probably sooner rather than later,' ahead of the Dec. 1 deadline.
“We gathered our athletics directors in mid-September to look even more deeply at the issues. Resulted in the tabling, which means it's not right now. We'll see what happens with the congressional activity. We also have some court decisions on transfer issues that have to be considered. I'm, if you will, agnostic on whether or not it comes back, but I think tabling was the right action at this point.”
After SEC presidents tabled a proposal to make intraconference transfers sit out a season, said tabling was the right call while Congress and pending court rulings on transfers play out, and that he is agnostic on whether it returns.