SEC football coaches want Big Ten schedule agreement
After spending two days holed up in a beachside resort for the league's annual spring meetings, SEC coaches decided to drastically alter the narrative from this painfully parliamentary offseason.
The coaches want to play the Big Ten once a season. As soon as possible.
"I think I can speak for the room when I say that's our first goal as coaches," said LSU coach Brian Kelly said. "But you gotta get a partner who says we're in for that, too."
USA TODAY Sports reported last October that the SEC and Big Ten were talking about a scheduling agreement, one that would significantly increase media rights revenue as a stand alone regular season series. A Big Ten official, speaking in December on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the discussions, said the series may not begin until later this decade or the early 2030s because of logistics.
But in the fluid environment of college sports, where the world revolves around generating revenue to help offset pay for play, what's concrete one month is mailable the next. Especially for the two super conferences quickly coalescing and gaining further separation from the rest of college football.
The ultimate goal of any scheduling agreement would be a straight 16 vs. 16 format, but there are obstacles. While Kelly said he was speaking for the entire group of coaches, that's theoretically.
CRYING EYES: SEC coaches complain as college football burns around them
ADULTS NEEDED: College sports 'leaders' acting like children in CFP squabble
They all want to play a game against the Big Ten, but not all in the same manner. Like everything of late in college football, nothing lives in a vacuum.
There are tentacles and unintended consequences to every decision. It begins with the SEC schedule debate (eight or nine games?), and includes the College Football Playoff selection committee (do Big Ten games strengthen resumes?).
If the league sticks with eight games, coaches are full-go on playing a non-conference game against the Big Ten. If the league moves to nine conference games, that could be a problem for the four SEC schools (Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina) with current annual rivalry games against an in-state ACC school.
Playing nine conference games, an annual rivalry game and a game against the Big Ten would leave those four teams with one flexible game on the schedule. Washington, Oregon, Iowa and Southern California are in similar situations in the Big Ten, which currently plays nine conference games.
In other words, a simple 16 vs. 16 schedule agreement might be difficult to execute. But an agreement that includes a majority of the schools from each conference would still generate significant revenue and attention.
"I'm all for it, but it'd be like the Kansas City Chiefs playing the Green Bay Packers for an 18th regular season game," South Carolina coach Shane Beamer said. "And the other teams aren't."
Any schedule agreement also depends on the most perplexing issue of the moment: the College Football Playoff selection committee. Specifically, metrics used to select teams.
Many in the SEC believe they were unfairly penalized for playing in the most competitive conference in college football. Losses, they said, held more weight than wins -- no matter the strength of the conference.
There must be a process, SEC officials say, where the selection committee votes within the subtleties of the season. Case in point: Indiana.
The Hoosiers won 11 games in 2024, but beat one team with a winning record and received an at-large berth. While a rotating Big Ten schedule gave Indiana a favorable draw, the selection committee could have weighed that factor -- instead of simply rewarding the Hoosiers for winning games.
Then there's SMU, which had two losses in a conference that was 3-8 vs. the SEC in the regular season, and was selected ahead of three-loss Alabama, Ole Miss and South Carolina.
The 10 Football Bowl Subdivision conferences that make up the CFP already showed a willingness to change formats after only one season of the 12-team structure. The CFP last week eliminated automatic byes for the highest-ranked four conference champions, and instituted a straight-seed process for the 2025 season.
Maybe friction from the offseason will filter into the selection committee room, too, where the human condition typically outweighs other objective and subjective factors.
Or maybe it's as simple as winning games that matter, and another non-conference win over a Big Ten team would go a long way in the eyes of the committee. Especially against the conference that has won the last two national titles.
"We want to show we have the depth in this league from top to bottom," Kelly said. "And we are the premier league in the country."
Finally, a return to football normalcy.
Until the next legal hurdle, anyway.
Matt Hayes is the senior national college football writer for USA TODAY Sports Network. Follow him on X at @MattHayesCFB.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
CNN's black sheep issues blistering reality check over who he thinks should lead the Democratic Party
CNN pundit Scott Jennings has mercilessly mocked the ailing Democratic Party while musing about the lack of viable candidates to become their next leader. Conservative commentator Jennings, 47, who is somewhat of a black sheep on the left-leaning channel, poked fun at several top Democrats for being too radical or incompetent to stand a chance at orchestrating the floundering party's comeback. He took aim specifically at Wes Moore's communication skills, and Tim Walz, who he said 'is a special mixture of extreme buffoonery and a mean spirit', after the duo appeared at a Democratic rally in South Carolina the day before. Jennings spoke on CNN's State of the Union show Sunday morning while sitting beside Democrat Representative for Michigan Debbie Dingell, whose summary of where her party is heading prompted his brutal takedown. 'Democrats have to stop being against Donald Trump and start being for something. We've got to lay out our agenda for what we're going to do,' Dingell said. Jennings disagreed, saying the Democrats 'are for things'. 'I'll defend the Democrats,' he said. 'They are for things: illegal aliens. You're for boys in girl's sports. I mean, you are for things,' he added as Dingell repeatedly said 'no, no.' 'That's why you have such struggles right now in your party, because you're not for anything that's on the right side of any of the 80/20 issues that are driving this cultural divide in America,' Jennings continued. 'I think Wes Moore is actually a pretty talented communicator. The other person who spoke in South Carolina, Tim Walz, is a special mixture of extreme buffoonery and a mean spirit, which is a toxic brew. He is not the future of the Democratic Party. 'Moore is interesting. Moore is interesting, probably more interesting than some of the radicals you have out there - Crockett, AOC - I mean, those are the true leaders of your party right now.' 'But you'd probably be better off replacing them with Moore.' Minnesota Governor Walz used his appearance at the South Carolina rally on Saturday to encourage his supporters at the South Carolina rally to 'bully the s*** out of Donald Trump. The 2024 vice presidential candidate slammed the President and told the crowd to bully Trump, bestowing him the nickname the 'cruel man,' claiming that liberals 'need to be meaner.' Walz branded Trump a 'wannabe dictator' and 'existential threat' to democracy and he urged his fellow Democrats to abandon their usual approach and get tough with Trump. It comes as a recent CNN poll indicated that liberals believe New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the person who best reflects the party's key principles. However, there wasn't a clear winner and many respondents had no opinion at all. The survey asked Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independent voters which politician best reflects the core values of the Democratic Party today. Ten percent of voters chose AOC while former Vice President Kamala Harris was a close second with nine percent of the votes. Sanders came in third with eight percent while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries was placed fourth with six percent. Former President Barack Obama and Texas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett were tied for fifth with four percent. California Governor Gavin Newsom, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were all tied at two percent. Another fifteen Democrats including some lawmakers and governors each received one percent of the votes, while a whopping 26 percent of respondents had no opinion. Trump allies greeted the results of the poll as good news as the progressive Democratic congresswoman has long been accused of being too far left by moderates. Conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro also shared the poll on his show, dubbing the results 'brutal' for Democrats. He claimed the New York Congresswoman is 'totally out of touch with most Americans.' The survey conducted March 6-9 included 1,206 respondents and has a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points.
Daily Mail
19 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Tim Walz encourages liberals to BULLY Trump as he gives president vicious nickname
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has encouraged a crowd of Democratic activists to 'bully the s*** out of' Donald Trump in a profanity-filled speech over the weekend. The 2024 vice presidential candidate slammed the President and told the crowd to bully Trump, bestowing him the nickname the 'cruel man,' as liberals 'need to be meaner.' The 61-year-old politician delivered the inflammatory remarks as keynote speaker at the South Carolina Democratic Party state convention in Columbia on Saturday. Walz branded Trump a 'wannabe dictator' and 'existential threat' to democracy and he urged his fellow Democrats to abandon their usual approach and get tough with Trump. '"Oh, the Governor's being mean," well, maybe it's time for us to be a little meaner, maybe it's time for us to be a little more fierce,' Walz said. 'We have to ferociously push back on this,' he continued. The former schoolteacher used his educational background to justify his aggressive stance. He explained that while children who bully deserve patience and understanding, adults require a different approach. 'And again, I'll speak to my teacher colleagues in here,' he said. 'The thing that bothers a teacher more than anything is to watch a bully, he continued. 'And when it's a child you talk to him and you tell him why bullying is wrong. 'But when it's an adult like Donald Trump, you bully the s*** out of him back.' 'You push back, you make sure they know it's not there. 'Because at heart, this is a weak, cruel man that takes it out and punches down on people.' The Minnesota Democrat went further - calling the President as a fundamental threat to American democracy. 'Donald Trump is the existential threat that we knew was coming,' Walz said while calling him a 'wannabe dictator.' 'What they don't want to do is stand toe-to-toe and punch back with someone who's calling him out for what they do who's being there.' 'Damnit, we should be able to have some fun and be joyful,' Walz said. 'We've got the guts, and we need to have it to push back on the bullies and the greed.' In March, the American people laughed off the idea of failed Vice Presidential candidate taking over the Oval Office after he suggested he might run for president in 2028. The 60-year-old Minnesota governor did not rule out the idea of taking on Republicans in the next presidential election when pressed by the New Yorker. 'Look I never had an ambition to be President or Vice President. I was honored to be asked,' he said. 'If I feel like I can serve, I will. And if nationally, people are like, "Dude we tried you and look how that worked out," I'm good with that.'
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- The Herald Scotland
CFP, March Madness don't need to expand. Why are leaders pushing it?
But after months of debate on both fronts, what's become clear is that expansion is going to happen for no reason other than a vapid sense of inertia sprung from the bruised egos of sports executives - who subconsciously understand their own fundamental weakness and ineffectiveness are to blame for the spiral of chaos that college sports can't seem to escape. At least when they push a button to expand a postseason, it feels like they're doing something. That's an explanation. It's not a reason. When the NFL expanded its playoffs from 12 to 14 in 2020, changing its format for the first time in three decades, the obvious factor was an influx of money: Hundreds of millions of dollars, in fact, half of which gets split with players. When the NBA shook up its postseason and created the play-in tournament, the primary motivation was to keep more teams competitive late in the season and discourage tanking. Those are sensible reasons everyone can understand. But neither Baker nor one of the prominent conference commissioners like the SEC's Greg Sankey or the Big Ten's Tony Petitti have been able to articulate a clear and concise mission statement for what expansion of either tournament is supposed to accomplish. They just want to do it. Here's how thin the rationale is regarding March Madness: Speaking with reporters in Orlando, Baker cited the committee snubbing Missouri Valley Conference regular-season champion Indiana State in 2024 despite a 32-7 record, suggesting an expansion would get the NCAA tournament closer to including the "best" 68 teams. Of course, the NCAA tournament has always worked this way. Excellent mid-major teams that lose in their conference tournament often don't get in. And as the track record of the tournament clearly shows, the vast majority of bids in an expanded field would go to power conference teams with questionable records. The push to expand March Madness precedes Baker's tenure, which began in March 2023. In fact, you can trace the momentum back to March of 2022 when Texas A&M was left out despite a late-season surge to the championship game of the SEC tournament, converting Sankey into a public proponent of expansion. But the idea that tournament spots are being filled by automatic qualifiers from mid-major conferences with less chance to do damage in the tournament than Texas A&M's 2022 team, for instance, isn't new. It's part of the deal, and there's no real demand to move the cut line other than from those who are inconvenienced by it. In fact, one of the big obstacles to March Madness expansion - and the reason it didn't happen years ago - is that there's not a huge pot of television money out there for a few more games between mediocre basketball teams on Tuesday and Wednesday of tournament week. Not only is expansion unlikely to boost profits in a significant way, it's an open question whether the NCAA can expand the tournament without diluting the shares of its revenue distribution model, which are worth about $2 million per team per round. A similar dynamic is at play in the CFP debate. 12-team CFP worked; trashing it makes no sense There were clear incentives for the conference commissioners when they first floated expanding the football tournament from four to 12 teams back in 2021. Not only had TV ratings leveled off, perhaps due to many of the same programs populating the field year after year, but going to 12 would both guarantee access for all the power conference champions and set the table for a $1.3 billion per year contract with ABC/ESPN beginning in 2026 - nearly triple the original 12-year deal that established the CFP. But that's where things get murky. Even before the first 12-team playoff last year, conference commissioners were *already* batting around a 14-team model for 2026. That has now morphed into a likely 16-team bracket. The financial terms of the TV deal, however, will not change in a significant way, whether they land at 12, 14 or 16. So why do it? Not because it's a great business proposition - in fact, there's a legitimate concern about playoff oversaturation and potential second-order effects - but because the more you expand access, the more access everyone wants. That's what we have seen over the last week, especially from the SEC meetings as Sankey and others in the league launched a breathtaking, shameless propaganda effort attempting to rewrite recent history. Getting a mere three teams into last year's 12-team playoff while the Big Ten won its second straight title seems to have done a psychological number on those folks. Rather than admit the truth - the SEC didn't have an amazing year in 2024 and the playing field nationally has been leveled to some extent by NIL and the transfer portal - they are arguing to shape the next CFP format based on a level of conference strength that certainly existed in the past but hasn't in the NIL/transfer portal era. One prominent athletics director, Florida's Scott Stricklin, questioned whether the football bracket should be chosen by committee. Another unnamed administrator went so far as to muse that the SEC and Big Ten should think about just holding their own playoff, according to Yahoo! Sports. If you take a step back and look at what's happening from a 30,000-foot view, it smacks of famed political scientist Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History," where he writes about how the triumph of Western liberalism and consumerism has unwittingly created this kind of regressive condition that shows up in so many facets of life and culture. "If men cannot struggle on behalf of a just cause because that just cause was victorious in an earlier generation," he wrote, "then they will struggle against the just cause. They will struggle for the sake of struggle. They will struggle, in other words, out of a certain boredom: for they cannot imagine living in a world without struggle." That kind of feels like what's going on here. Aside from a small adjustment in how it was seeded, nothing about the 12-team playoff seemed problematic. If anything, it was widely praised for delivering what the original expansion proponents wanted: Geographic diversity, representation for the four power conferences and the Group of Five, first-round playoff games in college venues and a lot of interesting games from the quarterfinals on. In other words, it worked. And there is no obvious reason - financial or otherwise - to have chucked it in the trash already while the four power conferences launch a war amongst themselves about how much access gets allocated to each conference, and by whom. The angst is especially confusing from the SEC, which just got a record 14 bids to the men's basketball tournament (including national champion Florida), has eight of the 16 national seeds for the baseball tournament and five of the eight teams in the Women's College World Series. They're doing just fine, and there is a long track record of being justly rewarded when their teams perform at the highest level. There's little doubt that will happen again in football regardless of which playoff system gets implemented. It just didn't happen last year because the SEC, for once, did not deserve it. But the Big Ten and the SEC are, as Fukuyama wrote, struggling for the sake of struggle. The more power they have amassed by reshaping the landscape through realignment, the more they claim the system is broken. Some believe their end game is a separation from the NCAA, creating a world where they don't have to share a business partnership with conferences and schools they believe aren't bringing as much value to the table. The reality, though, is that any such move would draw a level of scrutiny - legal and political - they are not currently prepared to handle, not to mention the arduous work of building out the infrastructure for all kinds of unglamorous stuff the NCAA already provides. So instead, they wage war against problems that don't really exist, reach for solutions that create actual problems and then fail to solve the problems right in front of their face. The push to expand the NCAA tournament and the CFP are merely symptoms of an affluenza swallowing the highest levels of college sports. Knowing they've failed miserably to execute on the important issues they truly need to solve to ensure the long-term health of their business, the likes of Sankey and Petitti and many others have elevated tedium to a crisis. So a crisis is what they shall have.
