College sports is evolving. Get on board or don’t, but the train is leaving the station and not even the conductor knows where it’s headed.
The ongoing NIL drama is one reason. Another, perhaps bigger reason, is the continued conversation around the College Football Playoff and what its inevitable expansion will look like.
Unsurprisingly, the SEC is at the forefront of that conversation and its certainly trying to use its weight to influence the conversation. That’s the takeaway from recent comments from SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and what Yahoo! Sports’ Ross Dellenger is reporting.
Sankey made a recent appearance on the Paul Finebaum show and the conversation turned towards the possibility of the SEC adding a ninth conference game and Sankey explained why there’s some hesitation.
“What’s important to me is how teams are being evaluated. A team that’s playing two-thirds of their games against teams with winning records, compared to a team that’s played a very small number of their games against winning records in a different setting.
“That raises the issue of how spots are allocated. Let’s think about last year. There are allocations. Clemson was not in the Top 12 (playoff rankings), they were allocated a spot by virtue of being a (conference) champion. Boise State is not in the top four, they’re allocated top four, that moves somebody out. Arizona State’s not in the top four, they’re moved in…So for us, Texas went from No. 3 to No. 5. Tennessee went from hosting to not hosting…It’s difficult to explain and defend that decision-making.”
It’s not difficult to explain. Sankey and the SEC just didn’t like how things played out. It’s not a fault in the format. It’s because the teams in the SEC are really good and upsets happen. (Isn’t that what made the SEC great in the first place?)
The arguments for Alabama and Ole Miss to have been included in the last playoff have already been made. But if the Rebels don’t lose to Kentucky or Florida and Alabama doesn’t lose to Oklahoma or Vanderbilt, they both would’ve been in the playoff and SMU and Indiana don’t make it.
Now, let’s consider what Dellenger recently reported. He wrote that “negotiations among the four power conference commissioners — they have started meeting separately from other CFP leaders — have produced disagreement.” (Shocking, right?) He also reported “there seems to be consensus in moving from 12 to 16…the rub is with the number of automatic qualifying spots for each conference.”
The SEC wants four automatic spots, as does the Big Ten, and the Big 12 and ACC would each get two automatic bids. Another automatic spot would go to the highest-ranked Group of Six conference champion and the final three spots would be at-large bids.
So, theoretically, the SEC could have seven teams in the playoff under that format. It certainly would’ve seen Alabama and Ole Miss in the playoff last season and that’s the goal. The SEC wants as many of its teams in the playoff as it can. Sure, there’s the conference superiority aspect, but also it means more money.
Is it fair? No. Fair would be the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC each get three automatic bids, one for the highest-ranked Group of Six conference champion and three at-large bids.
But read the writing on the walls, or the reports of a memorandum of understanding giving the Big Ten and SEC “majority of control over the new format” and its clear what will happen, as soon as 2026.
We’ll have a 16-team playoff, with the SEC and Big Ten each getting four automatic bids, and then we’ll complain about how unfair it was the Nos. 17-20 didn’t get into the playoff. That’s what always happens. What happens after that depends on what conferences the Nos. 17-20 are in.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
