Why Big Ten provides an answer to SEC's scheduling question
The SEC's scheduling debate will renew when the conference's spring meetings begin later this month.
It's that age-old question of whether to stick with eight conference games or bump up to nine.
Advertisement
Maybe, that's the wrong question, though, and the SEC should be asking: Would a Big Ten-SEC challenge be better than a ninth conference game?
On this edition of "SEC Football Unfiltered," a podcast from the USA TODAY Network, hosts Blake Toppmeyer and John Adams debate the merit of adding a ninth SEC game versus sticking with the status quo.
Retaining the eight-game format would sacrifice the annual nature of some secondary rivalries. But, could containing the SEC schedule to eight games encourage the conference to pursue more bold non-conference scheduling?
Subscribe to SEC Football Unfiltered
iTunes | Google Play | Spotify
Advertisement
Is that worth it? Well, that depends.
TOPPMEYER: College football fans, donors drove the clown car in NIL era, but was that so bad?
ADAMS: Kentucky and Vanderbilt should stop wasting money on football
SEC football schedule format
Toppmeyer and Adams are intrigued by the idea of an SEC-Big Ten football challenge – so intrigued, that they like the concept of an interconference clash better than a ninth SEC game.
Toppmeyer: I've long supported the idea of the SEC increasing to nine conference games, which would put it in line with the Big Ten and Big 12. Also, a ninth conference game would work in tandem of my other wish-list item: that every SEC team would play a minimum of 10 games against power-conference opponents.
Advertisement
Nine SEC games + one non-conference games = 10 real games and only two cupcakes.
But, if the SEC collectively would consider eight SEC games + one challenge game against a Big Ten opponent + one additional non-conference game for a total of 10 real games, I might go for that idea. In fact, I'm picturing four of these SEC-B1G challenge games unfolding on each of the first four Saturdays of the season, spicying up the September schedule.
Adams: If the SEC wants to prove its supremacy, what better way than to put it on the line throughout 16 non-conference games against the Big Ten? Consider what happened in basketball. The SEC skunked the ACC in the SEC-ACC challenge. That sent a loud signal that the SEC was legit, and it charted the course for the SEC to qualify 14 teams for the NCAA Tournament.
Advertisement
For football, I usually tend to think the more conference games, the better. But, the more I think about this blue-sky idea of an SEC-B1G challenge, the more I think I'd rather see Vanderbilt put it on the line against Northwestern than play Missouri in a ninth SEC game.
Where to listen to SEC Football Unfiltered
Apple
Spotify
iHeart
Google
Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network's national college football columnist. John Adams is the senior sports columnist for the Knoxville News Sentinel. Subscribe to the SEC Football Unfiltered podcast, and check out the SEC Unfiltered newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Why Big Ten provides an answer to SEC's scheduling question
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
TruGolf to Paricipate in the '2025 Virtual Tech Conference: Discover the Innovations Reshaping Tomorrow' Conference Presented by Maxim Group LLC on Wednesday, June 4th at 3:00 PM EDT
Salt Lake City, Utah, June 03, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- TruGolf Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRUG), a leading golf technology company, announced today that Brenner Adams, TruGolf's Chief Growth Officer will present at the '2025 Virtual Tech Conference: Discover the Innovations Reshaping Tomorrow,' presented by Maxim Group LLC, tomorrow, June 4th at 3:00 PM EDT. The Conference will be live on M-Vest. To attend, follow this link to register for this virtual event. About TruGolf Holdings TruGolf is a golf technology company, committed to making golf, easy. From innovative uses for AI to build content and enhance its image and spatial analysis, to gamified golf improvement plans, TruGolf is an industry leader in the growing technological revolution in the sport of golf. Since its founding, TruGolf has redefined what is possible in golf through technology. TruGolf's suite of Hardware, Software, and Web Products make it easier to Play, Improve, and Enjoy the game of golf. Forward-Looking Statements Some of the statements in this release are forward-looking statements, which involve risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements include, without limitation, whether the Company's compliance plan will be accepted by Nasdaq and the Company's expected future cash needs. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable as of the date made, expectations may prove to have been materially different from the results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. The Company has attempted to identify forward-looking statements by terminology including ''believes,'' ''estimates,'' ''anticipates,'' ''expects,'' ''plans,'' ''projects,'' ''intends,'' ''potential,'' ''may,'' ''could,'' ''might,'' ''will,'' ''should,'' ''approximately'' or other words that convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes to identify these forward-looking statements. These statements are only predictions and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors. Any forward-looking statements contained in this release speak only as of its date. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements contained in this release to reflect events or circumstances occurring after its date or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. More detailed information about the risks and uncertainties affecting the Company is contained under the heading "Risk Factors" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K and subsequently filed Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K filed with the SEC, which are available on the SEC's website, For more information about our products and upcoming innovations, please visit Media Contacts: TruGolf: Michael Bacal: Phone: 917-886-9071; mbacal@ Web: LinkedIn: @TruGolfSign in to access your portfolio
Fox Sports
an hour ago
- Fox Sports
Why the 5+11 CFP format fails to meet objectives fans should want
I'm starting to feel very pessimistic about what some of the leaders in college football want to do with the sport. My optimism surrounding the future of college football is waning because I'm not sensing from some of these groups that they understand what's going on, and they're not considering you — the fans. In case you missed it, the discussion surrounding the College Football Playoff expansion took another turn this week. There was some momentum behind the push for a 16-team CFP with a format that features the five-highest-ranked conference champions getting an automatic bid, while the 11 remaining spots would be at-large bids (5+11 model). Last week, I shared my thoughts on which direction the CFP should go with expansion. While I'd prefer a 14-team CFP over a 16-team one, it seems evident that it will be expanded to 16 teams. In that scenario, I'd like to see a format with the Big Ten and SEC each getting four automatic qualifying spots, the ACC and Big 12 both getting two automatic qualifying spots, an automatic bid for the highest-ranked Group of 5 champion and three at-large bids/Notre Dame. However, the recent push for the 5+11 model picked up steam at the Big 12 and SEC conference meetings last week. Frankly, it's awful for college football on so many different levels. I have a ton of respect for Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark, and I think he's a smart guy, but I also disagreed with him when he co-signed the 5+11 model while speaking with reporters last week. "In talking to our [athletic directors] and coaches … the 5+11 model might not be ideal for the conference, but it's good for college football and it's what's fair," Yormark said. "We don't want any gimmes. We want to earn it on the field. That was the direction of the key stakeholder group, the ADs and the coaches, and I feel very comfortable with that. I feel the same way, and I've been very outspoken about it." That doesn't make sense, quite frankly. How can you earn it on the field when the CFP committee determines nearly the entire field? The 5+11 certainly hurts the Big 12, which would in turn hurt the sport because we need more conferences to be relevant. If we opt to go with the 5+11 model, we'd get four things: One, the entire sport is going to be determined in the boardroom and be committee-driven (which fans want that?); Two, we're going to lose valuable non-conference games; Three, you'd lose out on the possibility of having a conference championship play-in weekend (more on that here); Four, you'd have a massive amount of politicking and propaganda being pushed. (In fact, that final point was already being put into practice by the SEC at its conference meetings in Florida this past week, as it distributed an analytics packet that touted how tough the regular-season conference schedule is at its conference meetings.) Is this what we're going to be as a sport going forward? We should take the sport out of the boardroom and define the criteria a little more clearly on what it should take to make the CFP. The 5+11 model fails on every single level to drive the sport forward. Here are the six objectives I think must be considered when the CFP determines what format and model to use for expansion. 1. Increase fan base engagement As I've mentioned with some of the previous models they've thrown out with the 16-team CFP, you'd increase fan base engagement by increasing the probability that your team is playing meaningful games late in the season. In the 5+11 model, we're going to have rankings every week, so we're going to minimize the number of teams that feel like they have a relevant and defined path toward getting in. That would be particularly true if you play in the "wrong conference" where your team can only lose once, while it's OK for teams from other conferences to lose four games. 2. Increase meaningful games If we had a play-in weekend within conferences, each of the power conferences could have multiple games with a CFP spot on the line on the same weekend. If we went with the 5+11 model, we'd miss out on the idea of the third-place and sixth-place teams or the fourth-place and fifth-place teams in the Big Ten or SEC battling for one of the conference's automatic qualifying spots because of the 11 at-large bids. 3. Increase valuable non-conference games If this sport is solely determined in a boardroom and the committee decides who gets into the CFP, we're going to have what's happened already: athletic directors and teams getting rid of valuable non-conference games. Tennessee and Nebraska just called off their series because of this. The future of USC and Notre Dame's rivalry is also in question because of this. When there's a committee involved, the idea is to have as many wins as possible. The best way to get as many wins as possible is to have as easy of a schedule as possible. The committee has never really shown a willingness to honor teams for challenging themselves in non-conference play. The 5+11 model would fail to protect teams from challenging themselves in the non-conference slate. 4. Minimize or eliminate the committee Nobody wants all this committee-driven drama late in the year, with teams politicking and sending out analytics packets to prove their case. When nearly three-quarters of the field is made up of at-large bids, you're only going to see more of that. Having as many automatic qualifiers as possible would tone down the committee's influence beyond seeding. 5. Define a clear path In the other 16-team models, there's a clear path for teams to reach the CFP. They know they either need to win their conference championship game, finish within a certain spot in the standings or win one of the conference championship weekend play-in games. With the 5+11 model, the only clear path to making the CFP is to be one of the five highest-ranked conference champions. If you're not one of those five teams, you're hoping the committee likes your résumé. 6. Keep more conferences relevant This is vital for the health of the sport. It's important that the ACC and Big 12 remain relevant. Yet, if you go with the 5+11 model, the Big Ten and SEC will get more participants into the CFP. That means those conferences will continue to generate more revenue and power, further creating a fork in the road between those conferences and the rest. Simply put, the 5+11 model fails every objective, and it falls short of the other models. Far be it from me to disagree with smart people, but I don't see how the 5+11 model is "good for college football" and "fair." If I were Yormark or ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, I'd take a 14-team format that guaranteed my conference two spots right now. If the Big Ten and SEC really press those two conferences to accept a 16-team format, the ACC and Big 12 should ask for five guaranteed spots between the two conferences. Ultimately, I want the sport to be better for you, the fans. If the CFP expansion meets these objectives, it would do that. I'm concerned, though, about the recent push for the 5+11 model, which certainly wouldn't. Joel Klatt is FOX Sports' lead college football game analyst and the host of the podcast " The Joel Klatt Show. " Follow him at @joelklatt and subscribe to the "Joel Klatt Show" on YouTube . Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily. recommended Get more from College Football Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Greg Sankey leaves SEC Spring Meetings with final message to College Football Playoff committee
MIRAMAR BEACH, Fla. — As SEC commissioner Greg Sankey arrived for his final press conference at the league's spring meetings, sheets of data were passed around showing one key finding, a finding the conference made clear on the sheets' title: "A Regular Season Gauntlet." During the SEC Spring Meetings, conversations about College Football Playoff format and about the possible extension of the league's conference schedule from eight to nine games raged on, but no definitive decisions were made. Advertisement The SEC still has no 2026 schedule set. Sankey said he has a "date-ish" in mind to determine the league's 2026 schedule, but that "dates are movable." In his final message of spring meetings, Sankey preached a desire to understand the CFP's criteria for strength of schedule, showing multiple data points that showcased that the SEC has to navigate a strength of schedule completely different than the Big Ten, the Big 12 and the ACC. "This thing is not like any other," Sankey said. "So that makes me wonder how do we analyze the strength of schedule? How playing a highly-ranked opponent is not just a game, but it's a game against a highly-ranked opponent, even in a conference setting. I think the number of those games too. Anybody in the football world — so I'm not a football coach, didn't play football — will identify the week after week after week of those high-level games is a really big factor in the team's win and loss records. We're just different in this universe." Sankey said the SEC Spring Meetings included conversations about several models, including a "5+11" model that would include five automatic bids for conference champions and six at-large bids. According to a report from Yahoo, Big Ten athletic directors were said to not support the model if the SEC were to remain at only eight conference games. Advertisement For Sankey, that's where the strength of schedule criteria for the CFP comes into play. "I think it suggests the need for consideration, and I do think there is a need for change," Sankey said. "How do you explain some of the decisions that have been made? I'll go back to Georgia a year-and-a-half ago. Georgia was a two-time defending national champion. They lost one game in our championship game against Alabama. Not a lot of noise about them. Being undefeated was never an expectation for being selected into the four-team (CFP). That just isn't perfect criteria. Otherwise, North Dakota State would be in. "How do you make those decisions? And it's hard. And we trust the committee to do that. And I respect the people in there. This isn't a criticism of the people. This is a wanting to understand the decisions. And we have to have better clarity on the criteria that informs those decisions." Leaving Miramar Beach, Florida, Sankey said he feels the SEC is closer to what it wants out of the CFP moving forward. Therefore, he feels the SEC has moved closer on a decision to play either eight or nine conference games. Advertisement And as conversations continue, without a CFP format secured in 2026 and without a league schedule set in 2026, Sankey understands the SEC's role. "We're kind of important," Sankey said. "We've been important in that decision." Colin Gay covers Alabama football for The Tuscaloosa News, part of the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at cgay@ or follow him @_ColinGay on X, formerly known as Twitter. This article originally appeared on The Tuscaloosa News: Greg Sankey leaves SEC Spring Meetings with final message to CFP committee
