College athletics leaders are at it again, acting out of self-interest

In that regard, he’s no different from any of the other college athletics power brokers in this eventful spring, when the industry seems to be making massive pivots daily. It does not seem like a case of good guys vs. bad guys. There are just parties looking out for their own interests.

Whether it’s the NCAA, conferences, schools, administrators, coaches, athletes or some other group, it seems all the same. The prevailing attitude is to protect or enhance what’s theirs.

For example, the ACC is not in favor of the so-called 4-4-2-2-1 model for the expanded playoff — four bids for the Big Ten and SEC, two for the ACC and Big 12 and one for the highest-ranked conference champion outside of the power conferences (with three at-large bids) — and with good reason.

Why should one conference get twice as many automatic spots as another, even if it has demonstrated a pattern of success as the SEC has?

While it hasn’t had a team in the CFP Championship game in the past two seasons, the SEC probably will continue to field dominant teams annually. But to be able to reserve four spots at the table is ludicrous, which is the ACC’s issue — sort of.

“I remain steadfast about fairness in the system and access,” ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips said at the end of his conference’s spring meetings.

And what does fairness look like for the ACC?

According to Ross Dellenger of Yahoo Sports, ACC athletic directors discussed how the conference could increase its number of automatic qualifier spots from two to three.

The high-minded ACC’s issue isn’t that the SEC (along with the Big Ten) is trying to corner the market. It’s that it’s not giving the ACC a big enough cut.

Three cheers for sportsmanship! That’s two cheers for the ACC, and the remaining cheer can be divided among the Sun Belt, Mountain West and Conference USA.

A funny development here, though, is that seemingly out of the blue this week, the SEC began showing interest in a model in which the five highest ranked conference champions get automatic bids and the remaining 11 go to at-large teams, known as 5+11.

On its face, it could be read that the SEC had misgivings about the unfairness of 4-4-2-2-1 and wanted to make the CFP more equitable for everyone.

But you know that SEC administrators and coaches haven’t suddenly contracted a raging case of magnanimity.

It’s like when the jerk in your work group starts handing out compliments. Only the most gullible co-worker wouldn’t be highly suspicious. (By the way, my colleague Doug Roberson does a great job covering Atlanta United.)

The SEC’s motivation is its belief the 5+11 format could actually help get more of its teams into the playoff than the 4-4-2-2-1 model. After all, if the ACC and Big 12 have two spots each, that’s four spots Sankey’s mighty squadrons can’t have.

And if the SEC can have its way and come off looking like dandy sportsmen, what a deft power move that would be.

In another facet of this momentous spring, football coaches are pushing for one transfer portal window instead of the two that currently exist. If the lone window were in January, Georgia coach Kirby Smart told media at the SEC spring meetings in Miramar Beach, Florida, it could help build cohesion for the season ahead.

“You train those guys, you lift, you prepare, you do meetings and all this preparation, and then that’s your team,” Smart said.

It makes sense and would add a measure of stability to a sport needing it. And so would a rule that would allow coaches to switch jobs only during a similarly confined window.

And you know the coaches — they’re in it for the kids. So of course they’d get behind a rule like that.

Sure.

Who else is living out the maxim that, while there’s no “I” in “team,” there is in “win”?

Lawmakers in Tennessee.

As a settlement of the House lawsuit against the NCAA nears completion that will establish a revenue-sharing salary cap for athletes but also attempt to eliminate name, image and likeness deals that essentially are pay for play, the state of Tennessee passed a law earlier in May that essentially protects the state’s universities from being penalized for not following the settlement’s restrictions on compensating athletes.

First, it really is a new world if Vanderbilt is going to be a renegade institution.

But, to the point at hand, as college athletics tries to establish a new order and stabilize a chaotic system, what an opportune moment for a state government to undercut this precarious balance in order to benefit the schools in its state (and their legions of fans, who also happen to be voters).

As Tulane sports law professor Gabe Feldman told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Whatever state passes a new law has the ability to change governance of college sports.”

Go Vols.

The problem across the board — or at least one of them — is oversight. In the matter of trying to get a handle on athlete compensation, any attempt by the NCAA to limit it likely will end up in a lawsuit, probably with the NCAA losing again.

With the CFP, there is no one charged with acting in the best interest of the game — all the decision makers have their own turf to protect. The idea of a college football czar has promise, but the SEC and Big Ten have no incentive to give up any of their power.

A flawed system threatens again to damage a game so many of us love.

Thankfully, it hasn’t succeeded yet.