In the ever-evolving landscape of college football, tradition is colliding with transformation, and nowhere is that clash more visible than in the escalating feud between the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and the Big Ten over scheduling philosophies. Big 10 media days were active and interesting, highlighting key points that have kept the CFP from expanding to 16 teams. The rift between two of the biggest conferences in the sport has only grown since certain words were said. Let’s dive into it:
The Roots of the Rivalry
The SEC and Big Ten have long stood as the powerhouses of college football, each boasting historic programs, passionate fan bases, and a lion’s share of the sport’s media attention. While their battles have traditionally played out on New Year’s Day bowls and the NFL Draft board, a new front has emerged: the regular season schedule.
The reasoning of this feud brewing up? Competitive equity and television dominance. As both conferences expand, most recently with the SEC adding Texas and Oklahoma, and the Big Ten welcoming USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington, their approaches to scheduling have diverged dramatically. The added depth and talent from the incoming teams have made both conferences feel like they’re entitled to lesser competition scheduling outside of their conference foes.
Scheduling Philosophies: Clash of Titans
The SEC has historically favored an eight-game conference schedule, allowing its teams to schedule four non-conference games. This often includes at least one FCS opponent and a few Group of Five programs. Critics argue that these pad win totals and protect playoff bids, while SEC loyalists claim it allows for more regional matchups and less wear-and-tear in a brutal conference slate.
Conversely, the Big Ten has leaned into a more competitive model. With a nine-game conference schedule and normally a tougher out of conference slate, the Big Ten touts strength-of-schedule as a badge of honor. But the trade-off has been clear: more losses among top-tier teams, and potentially fewer playoff berths under the current system. Less playoff berths means less money for the conference and the universities. There also doesn’t seem to be much incentive when it comes to adding tougher teams to face when it could also bang up those teams even more. Instead the look for more “bye” weeks to hear their teams up for conference play.
SEC has been considered the top conference by many analysts over the years with the Big 10 chasing them. The scripts are flipping or at least evening a little more. Could this be because of the NIL, better coaching/school prestige, etc. Could be a bunch of different factors but the easiest rule change should be every conference plays the same amount of conference games. Whether that’s 7,8, or 9 the number needs to be the same for equal scheduling.
The Playoff Picture Problem
The debate has only intensified with the advent of the 12-team College Football Playoff starting in 2024. Big Ten schools worry that their rugged schedules will hurt seeding and reduce the number of bids they receive, especially if SEC teams coast through softer slates with fewer losses. This has only been talked about more and more because of how unpredictable the CFP committee has been. Do they value the number of wins? Do they value the strength of schedule? Do they value more name brand programs for the business side of things? That’s the biggest issue with this in reality. There’s no clear cut formula for who gets in and why. Teams are using previous years as indicators to see what formula can work to better set their team up for a run at the CFP. This goes into why Curt Cignetti said what he said at Big 10 media days:
"Here's the bottom line: we picked up an extra home game, and we play nine conference games...So, we figured we would just adopt SEC scheduling philosophy. Some people don't like it. I'm more focused in on those nine conference games."Curt Cignetti
This was brought up when a media member questioned why Indiana took Virginia off their schedule for the upcoming couple of seasons, leaving them with no Power 4 opponents until 2030 when they play Notre Dame. Right or wrong, he does have a point on the aspect of scheduling non-conference games as easier opponents because that’s what helped them get in last year, more wins the better. But the fact he went after the SEC didn’t make sense because they’re scheduling is no cake walk by any means, and you can argue the non-conference games some SEC teams have are much harder than the Big 10.
Conferences teaming up on SEC
The SEC and Big 10 shouldn’t be bashing each other but more so coming together to take the power away from the CFP committee. They’re the ones stirring the pot and then sitting back eating popcorn watching the fireworks go off. It seems like it’s an everybody against SEC approach with even ACC teams taking swings. Rhett Lashlee, coach of SMU, questioned the depth of the SEC with this quote:
"You look at our league, we had like four 10-win teams, two playoff teams, a handful of nine-win teams, 13 bowl teams, there’s just not a lot of easy wins on the schedule. And there’s other leagues that claim depth. But like, the SEC has had the same six schools win the championship since 1964. The same six. Not a single one has been different since 1964. That’s top-heavy to me. That’s not depth."Rhett Lashlee
Now ACC teams shouldn’t be getting involved just yet until they fix the quality of teams they have coming out of their conference, but it just goes to show that at the end of the day there needs to be a formula or a guideline of what’s measured and why for teams to follow when it comes to how to make the CFP. The sport would be so much better and would create more competition throughout.
For SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, the priority is positioning his schools for postseason success. “We’re not going to apologize for putting our teams in the best position to compete,” he said earlier this year. Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti, meanwhile, has stressed the importance of a “true strength of schedule” as a benchmark for greatness.
That’s another thing with this scheduling debate: teams shouldn’t have the luxury of making their schedule. They get to essentially choose their non-conference games so they can go with less challenging teams if they want to. In no other professional sport does the teams in the league get to choose their schedule. The conference games are the conference games, like in-division games, but there should be a better system for how the rest of the schedule gets filled out. A quadrant like structure, very similar to college basketball, sounds like a good idea to resemble for this.
Teams from the previous year get put into a quadrant and then get randomly selected by a college football boardroom to see who versus whom for the rest of their schedule. It would be a step in the right direction to make the game much better for viewership and competition. College football isn’t a professional sport but the business part of it is starting to make it feel like one so let’s run it as such as well.
In conclusion, the scheduling debate will continue until something is changed. There needs to be an actual College football committee, better formula for how teams make the CFP, all teams plays same number of conference games, and better system for the actual scheduling of the non conference games itself. A lot to unfold but these are just a few options of ways to better the sport.