SEC needs to do the right thing and send Big Ten and its automatic bids packing
Really, though the arguing is enjoyable, and it's what people in and around college football have been doing since the days of leather helmets and presidential commissions that had purpose (see: Teddy Roosevelt, 1905, forward pass). 'Who did you play?' and 'Your coach cheats!' and 'We have academic standards' hold this bizarre tapestry together as much as marching bands and tailgating and absurdly high coaching contract buyouts.
Advertisement
Which is one more reason to reject the 4-4-2-2-1 playoff model (also known as FFTTO, which stands for Football Fans, Turn To Opera) that Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti is trying to ram through with support from the SEC. I'm not sure we need more reasons. It's contrary to the idea of competition, it rewards status over achievement, and it's embarrassing to say out loud. Are those enough?
Here's one more anyway: We must save the College Football Playoff selection committee.
We must keep our Tuesday nights in the fall. We must preserve the opportunity to speculate about what those 13 lucky souls will do. We must retain the right to get angry at them when they inevitably do the wrong thing. We must keep that cherished college football tradition — arguing — alive and robust.
Could the SEC be getting led astray by the Big 10? @joerexrode worries that may be the case… pic.twitter.com/1MAxJr0Wha
— Paul Finebaum (@finebaum) May 27, 2025
I know some of you recoiled at first mention of the selection committee, and I realize framing a CFP format made up mostly of at-large selections as a way to maintain the power of that committee is a good way to get people to dislike that format. But everything in college sports these days is lesser-of-two-evils, so let's play out the greater of two evils known as the FFTTO.
That's four automatic bids for the Big Ten and the SEC, two apiece for the ACC and Big 12 and one for the highest-ranked conference champion outside the Power 4. In a 14-team format, that leaves one bid for either Notre Dame if it's ranked in the top 14, or for an at-large selection. In a 16-team format, you would have two or three at-large selections, depending on Notre Dame.
(And don't ask why we must move on from the 12-team format that worked quite well last season and will complete an era of two years after the 2025 season. Just chalk everything up in this industry to greed, arrogance and incompetence, and you're probably in the neighborhood.)
Advertisement
The selection committee in the FFTTO model picks a team or two at the bottom of the field and seeds them at the end. This is not enough to make Tuesday evenings interesting, and 'Laverne & Shirley' isn't walking through that door. Of much more importance, this means conference standings will dictate the field.
That makes sense in the NFL, with a limited number of teams, with parity, with all games against comparable teams and with divisional foes playing each other twice a year. In college football, with 18 teams in the Big Ten, 17 in the ACC and 16 in the Big 12 and SEC — with teams in the same leagues often playing schedules that are vastly different in overall rigor — it's a joke.
So is the concept of 'play-in' games during championship weekend, the Big Ten and SEC having 3 versus 6 and 4 versus 5 games for automatic bids. So is the idea that the SEC needs this format or compares with the Big Ten in terms of depth of quality programs.
Yes, the Big Ten has won the last two national titles. And yes, these leagues have a tremendous rivalry when it comes to fan bases and resources. But the SEC can fill those four automatic bids with quality and go way past, and it would suffer in some years under this format. Georgia, Texas, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Oklahoma, LSU, Texas A&M, Auburn … the ingredients are there for championship football, and most of those schools have it in their recent history.
The Big Ten has Michigan, Ohio State, Oregon and Penn State, and then other programs have had surges, but nothing suggesting the ability to win a national championship. Indiana was a great story last season, but I'm struggling to get excited for Indiana-Minnesota and Iowa-Illinois on 'Play-In-Game Weekend Brought To You By Zalinsky's Auto Parts.'
Keep the five automatic bids and fill the rest of the field out with nine or 11 at-large selections, depending on whether it goes to 14 or 16. Keep playing conference championship games, with Playoff byes as the primary rewards. That's not exciting, but that's why it's not advisable to go full bloat on your leagues and Playoff field while killing the Pac-12. There are consequences.
Advertisement
Keep playing major nonleague games, because otherwise, the selection committee is going to be light on data to compare the conferences.
And take those nonleague games seriously, because the field is mostly at-large selections and winning those games will mean a lot. In the world of automatic bids, in the world of league standings meaning everything, some coaches might view and approach those games like NFL preseason games.
It would be nice to see the SEC go to nine conference games, too, but if that's going to happen only with four automatic bids? Stay at eight. Shoot, go to seven if we can avoid FFTTO. It would be better for the Power 4 leagues to play the same number of league games, but again, that does not get us to apples for apples.
And then let's make sure the selection committee understands the importance of schedule strength and is armed with the best and most transparent way possible to value it. That the SEC would even consider propping up the Big Ten with the automatic bids is an overreaction to last season, when Indiana and SMU got in over Alabama, Ole Miss and South Carolina.
As seen and heard this week at the SEC spring meetings, the whining over that has not ceased.
I think the committee got it right. You might not. We should all be able to agree that it was very close and that both sides had arguments. That's how we should like it.
Florida athletic director Scott Stricklin told reporters this week that a committee 'is not ideal to choose a postseason,' but he didn't have a better idea. That's because there isn't one, not with this many teams of such varying quality and circumstance.
The SEC can make this right. Commissioner Greg Sankey, sensitive to 'good for the game' jabs from other commissioners and questions from media, can lead the way on something that would warrant those four words.
Advertisement
It was good to learn this week that SEC coaches favor sticking with five automatic bids and going at-large for the rest. They should feel that way. It's better for them. They might complain a lot for millionaires and might overstate the quality of the SEC a bit — you're not playing the Kansas City Chiefs every week, guys — but they're not dumb.
As for their bosses, this is a stickier issue. I've talked to athletic directors in the Big Ten and SEC about the FFTTO, and I can paraphrase the view of the AD as such: 'Yes, I'd prefer competition to earn bids, but knowing that Playoff money will be in the budget every year no matter what is a big deal.'
That's understandable. These jobs are not easy. Every dollar matters. Revenue sharing is coming. Nonrevenue sports are up for review. But that doesn't mean you make your main revenue driver look like pro wrestling.
As the SEC spring meetings wrap up, those of us who still think college football has a lot to offer and has not been burned to the ground have more hope than a few days ago. Sankey handed out info packets to reporters Thursday detailing the SEC's schedule strength superiority over the past decade. This is a bit obnoxious. But the data is relevant. We should keep it in mind.
And Sankey and his athletic directors should leave in the Gulf of Mexico the especially flammable pile of kindling that Petitti has been trying to sell them.
(Photo of Greg Sankey: Todd Kirkland / Getty Images)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Meta Platforms (META) Price Target Raised by Bernstein on AI and Ad Growth
Meta Platforms Inc. (NASDAQ:META) ranks among the . Bernstein analyst Mark Shmulik maintained his Outperform rating on Meta Platforms Inc. (NASDAQ:META) and increased the stock's price target from $700 to $775 on July 22. According to Bernstein's research report, the price target hike highlights Meta's status as 'a clear AI winner,' with positive advertising checks bolstering the company's claims of increasing ad success. The introduction of WhatsApp ads and the ongoing robust increase in Threads adoption have supported Meta's prospects for revenue growth, allaying earlier worries about declining returns on time spent growth. Though it acknowledged the existence of short-term concerns regarding the company's capacity to finance AI infrastructure while preserving free cash flow and earnings per share, Bernstein identified a number of long-term growth drivers for Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ:META) beyond 2025, including wearables, business messaging, generative AI ad creative, and Meta AI. Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ:META) is a renowned technology company known primarily for its flagship platforms Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, as well as its revolutionary advances in augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR). While we acknowledge the potential of META as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. Read More: and Disclosure: None. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump ramps up pressure on the Fed to slash rates to 1% — but would that be risky for US jobs, savings and investments?
Despite President Trump ramping up pressure on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to cut interest rates, the Fed held rates steady at 4.25% to 4.5% on Wednesday, July 30. Trump has been insistent on a major cut all the way down to 1%. Those who support the idea argue that a lower rate would reduce borrowing costs for consumers, mortgages, auto loans and corporations. Governors Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller voted against the rates, the first time since 1993 that multiple governors voted against a rate decision. But critics, including economists, former Fed officials and business leaders, warn that such heavy-handed interference in monetary policy could backfire, risking higher inflation, market instability and long-term damage to the Fed's independence. Here's what Trump's push could mean for your job prospects, investments and savings, and why experts say it's not that simple. Don't miss Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it What experts say a Fed rate cut could mean for your wallet While Trump is pressuring the Fed to slash the federal funds rate, some experts argue that bond yields are far more important to the broader economy. In an interview with Fox Business earlier this year, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the administration is paying closer attention to the 10-year Treasury yield, not the fed funds rate. That distinction matters. The Fed funds rate primarily affects short-term borrowing — like credit cards and personal loans. But long-term borrowing, including mortgages and auto loans, is more closely tied to the yield on government bonds. For example, over the past year, even as the Fed cut its policy rate from 5.5% in September 2024 to 4.5% by August 2025, mortgage rates didn't follow suit. That's because bond yields have climbed, pushing borrowing costs higher, according to The Wall Street Journal. In fact, many economists warn that if the Fed cuts rates too quickly, bond yields could rise even further, potentially driving up mortgage rates and undermining the very goal of making borrowing cheaper. Capital flight and higher inflation In an interview with the Harvard Gazette, Daniel Tarullo, Nomura Professor of International Financial Regulatory Practice at Harvard Law School and former Federal Reserve governor, warned that Trump's efforts to pressure or potentially remove Fed leadership could be deeply counterproductive. He argues that bond yields and investor confidence are shaped by the belief that the central bank will act independently and responsibly, and that ndermining that independence could have serious consequences. The Harvard Gazette reported on the subject in April, saying 'What markets fear is that if a president removes the chair or other members of the Board of Governors, it would be with the intent of having a looser monetary policy. At that point, the markets' trust in the central bank will be substantially undermined, and thus, the central bank's credibility as an inflation fighter will be undermined. Longer-term interest rates will then rise, probably dramatically.' A similar scenario played out in Turkey, where President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan repeatedly pressured the country's central bank to cut rates against economic advice. According to the American Enterprise Institute, the result was a collapse in the value of the Turkish lira and a surge in inflation. In the U.S., there are multiple layers of protection in place, including institutional norms and legal safeguards, that make it difficult for any president to unilaterally reshape Fed leadership or monetary policy. But experts say the pressure alone can still erode market confidence. Read more: Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can What comes next? With Powell's term as Fed chair set to end in May 2026, investors and consumers will see a change in leadership at the central bank in the not-too-distant future. Trump will have the authority to nominate a new chair or choose to re-nominate Powell, and the nominee must be confirmed by the Senate. Still, a new chair wouldn't have the power to set rates alone. The federal funds rate is determined by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which includes the chair, six Fed governors and 12 regional Federal Reserve bank presidents. 'There's no question that the chair is far and away the most important individual on the FOMC,' Tarullo says. 'But it's not the case that the chair can simply dictate what policy is going to be and the rest of the FOMC will fall into line.' For consumers, experts say the takeaway is more complicated than it might seem. While aggressive rate cuts could reduce borrowing costs in the short term, economists warn they could also lead to higher inflation and long-term instability, especially if the Fed's independence is weakened. In their view, unless inflation cools or the economy slows, rates on mortgages, credit cards and auto loans are unlikely to drop significantly anytime soon. What to read next Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Here are 5 simple ways to grow rich with real estate if you don't want to play landlord. And you can even start with as little as $10 Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? Stay in the know. Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise sent straight to your inbox every week for free. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nebraska wide receiver Jacory Barney Jr. named to Paul Hornung Award Watchlist
A rising Husker is now on an award watchlist ahead of the 2025 season. Sophomore wide receiver Jacory Barney Jr. is now on the Paul Hornung Award Watchlist, following his record-setting freshman year. The award is in honor of football Hall of Famer Paul Hornung and is given annually by the Louisville Sports Commission (LSC) to the most versatile player in college football. Hornung tore up the field both in college and on the professional level, winning the Heisman Trophy in 1956 and becoming the No. 1 overall pick in the 1957 NFL Draft. He played in almost every position at Notre Dame, including quarterback, running back, punter, kicker, defensive back, and returner. Hornung continued his versatile career with the Green Bay Packers, serving as a multi-threat offensive back and a prolific kicker. He helped the Packers to four NFL championships, led the league in scoring for three years straight, set the single-season scoring record in 1960 with 176 points, and was named league MVP in 1961. Barney played in all 13 games for Nebraska as a true freshman, starting in four of them. He tied a school record for the most receptions by a Nebraska freshman, hauling in 55 passes for 447 yards. Barney also racked up 130 rushing yards and three touchdowns off 10 carries and returned 14 kickoffs for 285 yards. This helped Barney finish second on the team with 842 all-purpose yards. He ranked third nationally among all FBS freshmen in receptions. 2025 Paul Hornung watch list nominees Vinny Anthony II, Wisconsin Jacory Barney Jr., Nebraska Jadan Baugh, Florida Hank Beatty, Illinois Marcus Bellon, Nevada Davon Booth, Mississippi St. Isaac Brown, Louisville Josh Cameron, Baylor Demond Claiborne, Wake Forest KC Concepcion, Texas A&M Ja'Quez Cross, Arkansas St. Greg Derosiers Jr., Memphis Jacob De Jesus, Cal Dylan Edwards, Kansas St. Brylan Green, Liberty Ty Harding, UMass Eli Heidenreich, Navy Martel Hight, Vanderbilt Makai Jackson, Indiana Quinton Jackson, Rice Kenny Johnson, Pitt Peyton Jones, Duke Parker Kingston, BYU Ismail Mahdi, Arizona Keelan Marion, Miami Willie McCoy, UTSA Easton Messer, FAU Mekhi Mews, Houston Jalen Moss, Arizona St. Jordan Napier, SDSU Jaden Nixon, UCF Trebor Pena, Penn St. Koi Perich, Minnesota Zylan Perry, Louisiana Trayvon Rudolph, Toledo Kam Shanks, Arkansas DT Sheffield, Rutgers Hollywood Smothers, NC State Victor Snow, Buffalo Smith Snowden, Utah Kam Thomas, UTEP Zavion Thomas, LSU Noah Whittington, Oregon Ryan Williams, Alabama Antonio Williams, Clemson Terrez Worthy, Temple Contact/Follow us @CornhuskersWire on X (formerly Twitter), and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Nebraska news, notes, and opinions. This article originally appeared on Cornhuskers Wire: Nebraska wide receiver Jacory Barney Jr. named to award watch list
