NASHVILLE, Tenn. – The leaders of College Sports Inc., Greg Sankey and Tony Petitti, visibly displayed their influence on Thursday. While there was no dramatic symbolism like a horse’s head on the table, their intentions were clear.

If Sankey and Petitti don’t receive what they’re after, serious consequences could follow for the College Football Playoff.

Both leaders, representing the SEC and Big Ten, indicated they would assess the current playoff format for this year and next while planning for a redesigned format in 2026 and beyond.

Though they didn’t make outright threats to the playoff selection committee, their subtle hints couldn’t be ignored: Grant us the at-large bids and preferred seeds, or expect them to alter the playoff structure to benefit their leagues.

This initial 12-team playoff format is merely a temporary phase, without any assurances it will survive past the 2025 season.

The fate of the playoff format from 2026 onwards is firmly in the hands of Sankey and Petitti. While other conferences technically have a voice, it’s more of a soft whisper. Control over the future playoff structure was tightly grasped by these two last spring.

Therefore, this season’s playoff serves as a crucial test, one that Sankey and Petitti will carefully evaluate.

“This just has to go incredibly well,” stated Sankey. “We need a successful launch.”

Picture a member of the playoff selection committee holding a sign that reads: Must Select B1G and SEC Teams, or Face My Doom. Have Mercy on My Soul!

SEC, Big Ten Implicitly Pressure Playoff Selection Committee

If this trial run of the expanded playoff yields favorable results for the SEC and Big Ten, there might be a chance for this format to persist. Conversely, if the selection committee fails to comply with their wishes, expect significant changes to the selection rules.

There’s rampant speculation that the two leagues could break away from the rest and create their own system. But why create a new structure when they already dominate the current landscape and keep other conferences under their thumb?

If the ACC, Big 12, or others decide to confront Sankey and Petitti about their influence over the playoff, they might find themselves in a tough situation. If they don’t comply, the SEC and Big Ten have the option to take their teams and form a new playoff and leave the rest scrambling for scraps.

Within this established framework, what could future playoff changes entail? Imagine a scenario where the Big Ten and SEC claim three to four automatic bids each for their conferences before even stepping onto the field.

If the selection committee fails to satisfy the preferences of Sankey and Petitti in December, almost anything could happen.

It would be quite the distressing twist to see a playoff that includes several conferences in name, yet more than half of the spots reserved for just two. Throw merit out the window and embrace an aristocracy.

Sankey previously managed to maneuver one-loss Alabama into the final four-team playoff over undefeated Florida State last season without any trouble, but this time he – along with Petitti – holds the reins to the playoff’s future. The only endorsement needed from Sankey hinges on a subtle acknowledgment of dominance.

Would you want that ominous token to rest in your bed?

The 13-member playoff selection committee will award their seven at-large bids in December while facing immense pressure, with Sankey and Petitti holding the power to influence the outcome.

It’s obvious who would be favored for the final playoff berth if there’s a tie between 10-2 Texas A&M and 11-2 Clemson. Enjoy your 11-seed, Aggies, awarded by 13 decision-makers under the thumb of two powerful leaders.

Greg Sankey and Tony Petitti Assert Dominance Over College Football Playoff

Sankey and Petitti gathered for a summit on Thursday with athletics directors from their conferences. Afterward, they faced a small group of national reporters in a display of unity and authority.

I directly asked Sankey and Petitti several times what they needed to happen this season to endorse the continuation of the current playoff format, which allocates five bids for conference champions and seven for at-large teams.

They skillfully sidestepped my inquiries, but Petitti shared a few insights.

“We’re monitoring how the committee assesses strength of schedule,” Petitti mentioned, emphasizing the need for fairness in evaluation from the selection committee.

He also highlighted the high-stakes matchups within the last month of the Big Ten season. Matchups like Ohio State vs. Penn State, Oregon vs. Michigan, and Michigan vs. Ohio State will be critical.

It’s clear that he does not want the top-performing teams in the Big Ten to be unduly penalized for losing against strong opponents in late-season games.

Could the Big Ten and SEC be seeking to grab a significant number of the at-large bids? Imagine if these two conferences collaborated to secure six out of the seven available bids, and even managed to stake their claim to three or all four of the first-round host sites.

While members of the playoff selection committee have some autonomy—yes, that’s true—it seems they must also consider the powerful influence lurking in the background.

If the playoff committee were to overlook the demands of the B1G and SEC, they might be faced with serious repercussions.