Texas A&M coach Mike Elko recently told reporters that the conversation surrounding the College Football Playoff is less about competitive fairness and more about personal and institutional gain. He pointed out that every stakeholder — from individual coaches to entire conferences — has a vested interest in shaping a format that protects their own power, revenue streams and job security.
Self‑Serving Proposals
Elko’s comments come as the sport’s leadership landscape is littered with competing visions. Some advocates champion an expanded 12‑team bracket, while others push for a 40‑team model that would guarantee more schools a postseason berth. The coach noted that such proposals often reflect the ambitions of the groups that would benefit most, rather than a consensus on what is best for the sport as a whole.
When asked about the broader governance of college football, Elko expressed skepticism that a single governing body could ever emerge. He suggested that the sport would be better served by a chief executive officer and a board to oversee major decisions, but acknowledged that the entrenched self‑preservation instincts of powerful conferences make such a restructuring highly unlikely.
The coach also offered a tongue‑in‑cheek solution to the dilemma: a 40‑team playoff that would, in his view, provide job security for coaches whose teams might otherwise miss the cut. He admitted, however, that a larger field would not automatically resolve the underlying issues of fairness, competitiveness or the concentration of influence among a handful of conferences.
Elko’s observations echo the sentiments of his peers. University of Tennessee coach Josh Heupel, Cincinnati’s Will Stein and Arkansas’ Eliah Drinkwitz have each voiced similar concerns about how self‑interest can shape playoff discussions. Meanwhile, major conferences such as the SEC, Big Ten, and the networks that broadcast the games continue to lobby for formats that protect their own interests, reinforcing the cycle of competing agendas.