Blatant Homerism: Playoff dickering is a battle to shape college football's future
You know that thing where two people are fighting over something picayune, but the argument is really just a proxy for a bigger problem?
We’re currently witnessing a version of that right now as opposing factions in college sports spar overt the format of the College Football Playoff. What looks like a fight over how many guaranteed spots each conference deserves in the postseason tournament is actually a battle over the future of the sport entirely.
To understand what is happening, we need to recognize that teams in the SEC and ACC currently gain an advantage in CFP positioning by only playing eight conference games. Relative to the Big 12 and Big Ten, which play nine conference games, half the teams in the SEC and ACC avoid a guaranteed loss versus another team in the conference and pick up a likely win against an overmatched conference opponent.
Ultimately, that means SEC teams maximize their win-loss records to impress the CFP selection committee members at the end of the season: A team is 10-2 instead of 9-3, 9-3 instead of 8-4, and on down the line. It also improves the win-loss records of their opponents, giving them a stronger case with the selection committee. On top of that, getting that extra assured win helps all the teams in the conference when it comes to things like qualifying for bowl games, keeping boosters happy, and selling their programs on the recruiting trail.
In the so-called 5+11 format for the CFP field, the eight-game conference schedule maximizes the number of likely bids for the SEC each year. In 2024, for example, the final CFP rankings indicate six SEC teams would have qualified for the 16-team field: Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Ole Miss, and South Carolina.
Sounds like a good deal for the SEC. But there’s a better one on the table.
On its face, the “4+4+2+2” model backed by the B1G would seem less appealing to the SEC. Staking out 13 or 14 of the 16 spots in the field automatically appears to limit the upside for the conference in the postseason. So why is the SEC backing the 4+4+2+2? Money and eyeballs.
If the SEC gets a minimum of four assured spots in the CFP, the incentive to inflate its members’ records falls off quickly. Instead, the conference can start capitalizing on opportunities to maximize revenue by:
Replacing a body bag game on every team’s schedule with a lucrative ninth contest against a conference opponent in its TV inventory;
Setting up a play-in weekend of high-stakes games to determine which SEC members earn the conference’s guaranteed bids; and
Creating a box-office bonanza of a scheduling agreement with the B1G for annual non-conference games.
Although the 4+4+2+2 model may not maximize the postseason opportunities for the SEC, it would facilitate the conference’s ability to expand its market power even more. Meanwhile, the 4+4+2+2 would further cement the Big 12 and ACC as backwater conferences. And when ESPN and Fox are deciding where to spend their money for broadcasting rights, they would inevitably divert resources away from the other leagues to fund the two power conferences.
The SEC’s objectives for this process aren’t lost on the shot callers at the other conferences.
Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark is campaigning for the 5+11 model for a reason. And stakeholders at the B1G have effectively boxed the SEC into a corner by making their cooperation on issues like a scheduling agreement contingent on the SEC moving to nine conference games. Some B1G athletic directors even floated that their support for the 5+11 structure would require that the SEC goes to nine conference games, which seems like the worst of all worlds for the SEC.
As such, the SEC and B1G look like they are aligned on the 4+4+2+2 model. Maybe they can ram those changes through? If that is their plan, however, they should prepare for the possibility that lawmkers, the courts, and public opinion all stand to play roles in the final outcome.
In fact, don’t rule out the possibility that all this haggling ultimately produces no change at all to the CFP for the time being.