We can all breathe a giant sign of relief: Finally, the SEC is moving to a nine-game conference football schedule.
Stop the presses!
It only took them four years of debating, arguing and posturing.
But what does this move mean for the greater landscape of college football?
For one, it means fewer SEC games against non-power conference opponents in FBS and those in FCS, as the league will retain its requirement for schools to play at least one non-conference game against a fellow power league team or Notre Dame (yes, that means 10 power league games).
But the move’s most notable impact may lie with the future of the College Football Playoff format.
Let’s first start off with a fact: This may not mean anything immediately for the CFP format, and there is unlikely to be any agreement on a future format very soon.
Yes, the SEC’s decision may ease and make more productive conversations with Big Ten officials over a future format, but it doesn’t mean Big Ten leaders will jump to agree with the proposed “5+11” format that the SEC, ACC and Big 12 have openly supported.
In fact, on Thursday, one Big Ten official told Yahoo Sports that while the SEC’s move is a positive step, the league has more concerns, most notably related to the CFP selection committee’s criteria of choosing what would be 11 at-large playoff teams.
Remember, according to an agreement that all the FBS conferences signed last year, the Big Ten and SEC hold authority over future CFP formats as long as they have “meaningful” conversation with the ACC and Big 12.
The disagreement between the two conferences lingers. One wants more at-large selections and another wants more automatic qualifiers. The Big Ten proposed 16 and even 28-team formats that grant an unequal number of AQs to specific leagues, as many as four to each the SEC and Big Ten in a 16-team model circulated this past season and seven AQs for the two leagues in a model that emerged last week.
The ACC and Big 12, along with the SEC, have thrown their collective weight behind the 5+11 model, and so have the Group of Six conferences plus Notre Dame. It’s put the Big Ten on an island and has resulted in an impasse in CFP format negotiations.
The SEC’s desire for a 5+11 format “remains” after the move to a nine-game conference schedule, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey told Paul Finebaum on his show on Thursday. “There are other ideas that have been talked about. We haven't taken positions on those. Lot of work to be done,” he said.
The most recent “other” idea is a 24 or 28-team format circulated last week by Big Ten leaders. While some SEC school executives are interested in exploring such a model, many others — especially the league’s room of presidents — are turned off by such a large postseason field, to the point that one quipped recently, “It’s a non-starter.”
Is the SEC’s move to nine games a compromise to the Big Ten to get that conference on board with the 5+11 model? After all, Big Ten administrators and coaches have made it clear that they were against a move to a format with such a big at-large pool if the SEC remained at eight conference games. They believe the league would have an advantage in landing those at-large spots (they were probably right on that thinking, by the way).
But it may take weeks or months for the Big Ten to gather enough support to push aside its administrators and coaches’ desire to have a more NFL-like field with automatic qualifiers.
However, the SEC’s move to nine wasn’t only for CFP reasons, of course.
Money is at play here. As previously reported, the schools are in line to receive additional revenue from ESPN to play an extra conference game, as much as $5 million a school annually. At the most financially stressful time in college sports, any new money is welcomed.
There’s something else, too. The shift to nine provides the league with the ability to sell tickets to another SEC game, to include such a game in season ticket packages and to generate more sponsorship and advertising dollars for that game.
They’ll play one another more too. The nine-game schedule will follow a “3-6” model, where each school plays three permanent opponents and six rotating each year, assuring each of the 16 schools play the other at least once in a two-year span.
By the way, the SEC, at least years ago when this “3-6” model was selected, planned to choose each school’s permanent opponents based on three considerations: (1) primary and secondary rivalries; (2) geography; and (3) equity. How do you solve the equity consideration? It's pretty simple actually: The SEC’s original plan was to use the last 10 years of win-loss records to create tiers and then pair schools that way. But the most important component, probably, is historic rivalries.
Anyway, back to the impact nationally.
Thursday’s decision, for many, came as a surprise.
“That came out of nowhere,” said one SEC leader.
“I wonder what changed?” pondered another.
Momentum grew in the spring for a nine-game schedule, coinciding with the Big Ten and SEC’s discussion over the “4-4-2-2-1” CFP format that leaned heavily on automatic qualifiers. However, SEC coaches in May rejected the format, and many believed that the league would likely remain at eight conference games.
What changed this week?
The CFP announced an adjustment to its selection committee criteria in choosing at-large teams, more heavily weighing games against top programs. Was it enough to tip the scales among a split room of athletic directors debating, for four years, between eight and nine games? Perhaps.
Either way, they got there.
And now the question lingers: Will the Big Ten come around on the 16-team format that everyone else wants?
Comments