Alliance surrendered its CFP power to SEC. So why would kings of college football be accommodating in next expansion talks?

The two most common reasons to walk away from a proposed business deal are that a) you no longer want to be in that business/deal or b) when negotiations inevitably resume, you believe you can get more favorable terms.

Last week, the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 — or “The Alliance” as they call themselves — bailed on a proposed expansion of the College Football Playoff from four teams to 12. Seven conferences — most notably the SEC — and Notre Dame were in favor of the proposal.

Since expansion currently requires unanimity, the 8-3 vote assures that the four-team playoff will remain intact for the next four seasons — through fall 2025. Had the expansion been agreed to, the new plan might have begun in 2023.

With the original 12-year contract coming to an end, there is nothing in place after 2025. Conferences are thus free to do as they wish. A unanimous vote is no longer needed to set something up. The 2026 season and beyond is very much unknown.

The Alliance certainly wants to be in the national playoff business. If it weren't in the playoffs, then it'd miss out on the revenue and marketing opportunity, and recruiting would immediately be decimated.

As such, we can eliminate option A as the reason it voted no.

So does the Alliance believe it can get a better deal? If so, that is a very big gamble, which we discuss on the latest edition of the "College Football Enquirer" podcast.

By walking away now, the Alliance increased the power of the SEC and its commissioner, Greg Sankey.

The SEC no longer has to work with all of the other leagues, but the other leagues almost certainly have to work with it. The conference is indispensable to a national playoff. It’s the only league to appear in all eight of the playoffs (and twice it placed two teams in) and won five titles. Prior to the playoff, it won seven of the final eight BCS championships.

It has the best programs and a plurality of the best players. Only the Big Ten can rival it in terms of passionate fans and television revenue.

It will also add Oklahoma and Texas in the next few years as a massive new $3 billion television deal kicks in.

Essentially, the Alliance has given up its veto power at a time when the SEC is set to only increase its influence over the sport.

Sankey may not hold all the cards, but he holds a great deal of them. He also appears to have willing allies in Notre Dame, the Big 12 and five smaller conferences.

So can the Alliance get a better deal in, say, two years (or sooner) when negotiations for the future of the playoff begin? And was giving up a very balanced 12-team playoff that the SEC was offering worth delaying things two seasons?

Sankey was one of four people who wrote the 12-team playoff plan. He was adamant that the SEC didn’t need expansion — it's clearly doing fine — but wanted to be part of aiding the sport across the country.

Things such as allowing for six automatic bids to conference champions were designed to do that. It was a lifeline to not just the smaller conferences but to the Alliance, which have consistently had champs not make the field (the Pac-12 hasn’t gotten a bid since 2016).

The plan was initially heralded by all. Then it got blocked. That's going to sting. Sankey repeatedly warned that there was no guarantee that the 12-team plan would still be on the table if expansion was delayed.

Did the Alliance think that was a bluff? Maybe it will be, but Sankey is promising to review all options now.

“We have to rethink formats,” Sankey said. “A wholesale evaluation of our position.”

College football is at its best when the entire country is competitive — not just geographically, but at all levels. The sport is about the fabric of traditions, rivalries and action.

But the SEC is under no obligation to continue to aid in that, especially when its last plan wasn’t enacted. The publicly stated reasons are confusing as well.

The Pac-12 was pushing for the interests of the Rose Bowl. The Big Ten wanted all five “power conferences” to have an automatic bid, not just the top six conference champions, which is a distinction with little difference. The ACC just wanted to take more time to evaluate how name, image and likeness, and the transfer portal work out, which is understandable but, again, risky.

The SEC will have options.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, it took its soon-to-be 16 team league and held its own eight-team playoff, top two from each four-team quad (sort of like the NFL’s AFC or NFC).

Then it could have its winner play the winner of the top two teams from the Notre Dame/Big 12/Group of 5 in a sort of “national title” contest. A nine-game “SEC playoff” might be worth close to a billion per year, generate enormous attention (and thus NIL opportunities for recruits) and no longer allow the Alliance to draft off the SEC’s power.

Possible? Sure. Probably? Maybe not, but also maybe. Or something else could be designed. Or the SEC could try to expand again and go to 20 teams. Or pick off one Alliance conference (hello, Pac-12) for its group. Who knows?

Maybe the old deal is sitting there. But it may not. That’s the kind of uncertainty ahead. That's the kind power that the Alliance gave the SEC.