College football is standing at a crossroads - and the cracks in its governance are no longer subtle. What’s unfolding behind the scenes is a power shift that’s been brewing for years, and now, it’s starting to boil over.
At the heart of the issue is a growing divide between the sport’s biggest programs and the rest of the field. Programs that have thrived in the current chaotic landscape - where NIL deals and transfer rules have opened the floodgates - aren’t exactly lining up to embrace regulation.
But here’s the catch: those same programs still rely on the powerhouses to fill stadiums, drive ratings, and give their seasons meaning. And the powerhouses?
They’re starting to flex.
Georgia President Jere Morehead didn’t mince words this week. Speaking to Yahoo Sports, he laid down what felt like an ultimatum: if the College Sports Commission (CSC) can’t enforce the House settlement, if the NCAA won’t clamp down on tampering, and if Congress doesn’t move on the SCORE Act, then the SEC may have no choice but to go its own way.
“We have to go our own way to create some rules,” Morehead said. That’s not a threat.
That’s a warning shot from someone who’s been at the core of NCAA leadership.
Morehead’s frustration isn’t isolated. SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey echoed the sentiment, though he stopped short of calling for a full-on breakaway.
“Big problems are not solved in big rooms filled with people,” he said - a not-so-subtle jab at the slow-moving machinery of the NCAA and its governing bodies. The message is clear: patience is wearing thin.
The underlying tension is this - the current system is unsustainable. Programs are already finding creative ways around the proposed $20.5 million roster spending cap, often through third-party collectives that operate in legal gray areas.
One Big Ten administrator put it bluntly: “We are money laundering.” That’s not hyperbole - that’s a candid look at how far things have gone.
Tampering is another wildfire spreading across the sport. Mississippi State President Mark Keenum called it “widespread.”
Wisconsin even took Miami to court over it. The NCAA processed 95 tampering cases this year alone, but enforcement is toothless.
A 2024 ruling from a Tennessee judge effectively gave booster collectives the green light to contact recruits directly. That makes prosecution nearly impossible - and the rules nearly meaningless.
The CSC was supposed to be the answer - a new body with the authority to enforce spending caps and bring some order to the chaos. But it’s already stumbled.
Twice, it’s failed to get all 68 power programs to sign on to its participation agreement. CSC CEO Bryan Seeley made a public plea this week, urging schools to sign what he called “foundational” documents.
But as Tennessee AD Danny White pointed out, there’s hesitation. “The CSC is probably a little gun shy because we basically just fired the NCAA,” he said.
That’s the kind of institutional uncertainty that makes real reform difficult.
Meanwhile, the SEC is sitting in a position of strength. Twelve of the top 15 most-watched games this season featured an SEC team.
From 2006 to 2022, the league claimed 13 national titles. The numbers speak for themselves: the SEC has the brand power, the fan base, and the product to go solo if it really wants to.
But there’s a tradeoff. Breaking away might solve some legal headaches - particularly around antitrust - but it opens the door to political backlash and questions about fairness and access.
And that’s where the existential question comes in. Texas A&M AD Trev Alberts asked it plainly: “What is Plan B?”
Because right now, the system is teetering. The programs that have benefited most from the current free-for-all may not have the staying power once regulations kick in.
As Graham Coffey put it, some of those programs could quickly fade into irrelevance the moment a cap or leveling mechanism takes hold.
We’re not just talking about tweaks to the rulebook. This is about the very structure of college football - who governs it, who benefits, and who gets left behind.
The SEC and other power programs are no longer content to wait for the NCAA or Congress to act. And if they decide to draw a line in the sand, the rest of the sport will have to decide which side they’re on.
The reckoning is no longer a distant possibility. It’s knocking on the door.