After years of talk and speculation about when/if it would happen, the SEC announced today that it's going to a nine-game conference schedule for football. The coaches had actually been the ones pushing for it, so you know they're not gonna be too upset, even if it means fewer 70-3 wins over Mercer. And it'll make everyone else happy, too. ESPN gets eight more SEC conference games, the Big Ten can stop whining about the SEC playing one fewer conference game than them, and the in-state rivalry games against ACC teams (which had been the sticking point) won't be affected.
Strength of schedule is a key component considered by the College Football Playoff selection committee. The SEC had already put in a provision that you must play one non-conference game against the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 or Notre Dame. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Louisville are all in the ACC, so that provision was already being met by their in-state rivals anyway. What it does mean for the SEC schools, really, is replacing a guarantee game (at home) with another conference game. Which obviously means (likely) eight additional losses, which is one thing they won't like.
While it's been a topic of discussion for a while, the timing of this isn't a coincidence. ESPN is launching its direct-to-consumer streaming service very soon. One of ESPN's biggest properties is SEC football. They just got eight more SEC conference games for that service. Yes, they traded 16 non-conference games for them, but people would much rather see Alabama-Texas than LSU-Lamar, so is that even really a loss?
This makes a lot of sense for the SEC schools for a lot of reasons. The first and most obvious is that it means they'll play everybody else in the league at home at least once every four years. Under the division structure, they'd play the same teams every year and sometimes go more than a decade with a team from the other division not visiting their stadium. More than 10 years without playing a conference opponent at home! That's just absurd!
From a competitive standpoint, there was some inherent unfairness in that. Teams like Mississippi State would have to play Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M AND Mississippi every year while maybe not playing Vanderbilt. On the flip side, Georgia's opponents in the SEC East included Vanderbilt, South Carolina and Kentucky. I know it's the SEC and everyone is good, but even the best leagues have teams at the bottom. Likewise, Alabama's a Top 10 team every year, so they weren't exactly the easiest opponent for SEC West teams.
Frankly, they probably should've done this last year when Texas and Oklahoma joined the SEC. I know they were talking about it then. Because setting up a nine-game schedule with 16 teams is actually pretty easy. They'll play three permanent opponents (which may not necessarily be permanent), while the other 12 will be six on, six off. I thought it would be a two-year cycle, but it looks like the six they play and the six they don't play will flip every year. So, they're playing everybody at least once every two years, which is actually much better.
Three permanent opponents preserves the big rivalries, too. They couldn't just do one permanent opponent. Because some schools have more than one rival they want to play annually. And, seriously, how could you decide between Oklahoma and Texas A&M for the permanent rival of Texas? LSU would also like to play both of those schools annually, as well as probably Alabama. Florida-Georgia and Florida-Tennessee, etc. So, figuring out two permanent opponents for each team is actually pretty easy.
Not every team necessarily has a third natural rival, though. That's why having that third "permanent" opponent possibly change isn't a bad idea. You aren't touching Auburn-Alabama or Georgia-Florida. That's obvious. But, it's very easy to envision them basing that third "permanent" matchup on games they want to make sure happen every year. That could mean Alabama-Georgia, then, if Georgia and Texas are the two best teams, you swap that out for Georgia-Texas. I like that they're giving themselves some flexibility on that.
The expanded College Football Playoff and the emphasis on strength of schedule are key points here, too. The SEC was hesitant to add a conference game when it was four-team playoff because a second loss (even to a Top 5 opponent) would kill your playoff chances. And the SEC is guaranteed to have a collective eight additional losses starting next season. That's offset, though, because the committee values a road loss to a good team more than beating up on an FCS team at home now.
I do feel somewhat bad for those FCS or lower-level FBS teams who'll likely end up getting dropped from SEC schedules as a result. For a long time, I was a big critic of guarantee games. But they're a vital source of revenue for the team receiving that guarantee. Traveling to Arkansas to lose by 40 (or more) is worth it for the exposure. And because of the impact it has on their budget. The money brought in from guarantee games is one of the biggest sources of funding for those Athletic Departments (not just the football programs).
What's interesting, though, is how every SEC team except for Mississippi State only had three non-conference games scheduled for next season, allowing them to make this change effective in 2026. Whether the nine-game conference slate was already in the works and was only just made public today, I don't know. But the fact that they all had an open weekend where another conference game could be inserted seems to be more than a convenient coincidence. And I'm sure the SEC will work the dates so that they can all still play their ACC rival in the final game like they always do.
You have to think the disagreement with the Big Ten over the composition of the College Football Playoff moving forward came into play here, too. The Big Ten's big issue was how not everybody was playing the same number of conference games. That's no longer the case, at least in regards to the SEC. The ACC is sticking with eight conference games for now, but don't be surprised if they add a ninth soon, too. And, don't forget, the ACC has the scheduling agreement with Notre Dame, which is an ACC school in every other sport. However, the ACC is much less of a factor in the Big Ten's stance than the SEC was.
Now that they've eliminated a major sticking point, this likely means the College Football Playoff will, indeed, expand beyond 12 teams. And it'll probably be closer to the SEC/Big 12/ACC's preferred format with five automatic bids and the rest at-large. The Big Ten's whole thing about wanting a guaranteed number of bids per conference was obviously self-serving, but their stance was based on having that additional conference game the SEC didn't have. Can't make that argument anymore!
So, while not overly surprising, this is still a positive development across the board. The SEC had been thinking about it for a long time. Now they finally pulled the trigger. The nine-game SEC schedule that was seen as inevitable will soon become a reality. Which is a win for all involved (even if eight teams will end up with an extra loss).
No comments:
Post a Comment