
SEC quarterback rankings: Arch Manning headlines loaded list
The SEC features the nation's best batch of college football quarterbacks, with Arch Manning, Garrett Nussmeier and DJ Lagway included in the top tier.
How good is this crop of SEC quarterbacks? Consider, the quarterback ranked last on this list owns a victory as a starter against Nick Saban's Alabama.
And the No. 1 quarterback on my list? Well, he requires no introduction.
The SEC became the nation's best conference because of its superiority at the line of scrimmage, punishing running backs and speed on the perimeter. Somewhere along the way, though, this conference began attracting the best quarterback talent, too.
That's especially reflected this season.
Consider this list as a collection of tiers. The top five quarterbacks compromise the top tier, and each would rank highly on a national list of quarterbacks. The middle tier offers stability and parity, and the quarterbacks ranked Nos. 6 through 9 could be scrambled into a different order.
Five projected starters transferred to their new schools this past offseason. Some schools, including Alabama, Georgia, Missouri and Tennessee, have not named a starter. The quarterbacks listed reflect our best estimation of the team's starter.
Here's how I rank this impressive batch of SEC quarterbacks:
1. Arch Manning (Texas)
Manning is far from the most proven quarterback on this list, even if he's got the most famous surname. This ranking is based on Manning's potential for a lofty ceiling after he looked the part of budding star in two spot starts and backup opportunities last season. He should be ready to break out in Year 3 playing for Steve Sarkisian, one of the nation's top quarterback developers. Manning's arm is sharp, and his mobility and size are an X-factor, although he must improve his internal clock of knowing when to scramble when under duress.
2. Garrett Nussmeier (LSU)
If you want to know what scouts mean when they say a quarterback has a 'live arm,' watch Nussmeier sling a pass toward the sideline. He's got zip. He needs to reduce his throws into impossible windows and stop telegraphing to the defense where he's going with the ball. His 12 interceptions tied for the most in the SEC, but his 29 touchdown passes ranked just two off the conference lead. He's an established veteran with a big arm, and he's the SEC's returning leader in passing yards. Plus, he's surrounded by a talented receivers.
PLAYOFF TALKS: As Big Ten, SEC squabble, the College Football Playoff wins
SO, THERE'S A CHANCE?: Five college football sleepers that could contend for national championship
3. LaNorris Sellers (South Carolina)
Sellers steadily improved throughout his redshirt freshman season, to the point that he threw for 353 yards and five touchdowns in a November triumph over Missouri. He's an excellent runner, too. Ask Clemson about that. His quarterback efficiency rating in conference games leads all SEC returning quarterbacks. He's accurate, but he needs to improve his processing time. Ball security is his other area for improvement after he fumbled 11 times. If he speeds up his decision-making, he should see those fumble numbers reduce.
4. DJ Lagway (Florida)
Lagway is a big play waiting to happen. He throws a good deep ball and averaged 10 yards per pass attempt as a true freshman. He should make more plays with his legs, too, after a hamstring injury slowed him last season. Injuries are a concern. A throwing shoulder injury limited his spring practice participation. By May, though, he was throwing three times per week. Along with his health, he needs to improve his midrange accuracy and reduce interceptions. He threw nine picks in 192 pass attempts last year, but he oozes upside.
5. John Mateer (Oklahoma)
Mateer produced awesome stat lines last season at Washington State. He passed for more than 3,100 yards and rushed for more than 800. He's efficient, as well as tough, strong and incredibly athletic. He can throw on the move and from multiple arm angles. He's got plenty of tools in his belt. Why not rank him higher? He's unproven against SEC competition. Two of his worst passing performances last year came in his two games against Power Four competition.
6. Austin Simmons (Mississippi)
Rebels coach Lane Kiffin describes Simmons as a 'really talented thrower' with 'a high ceiling." You'd likely hear no argument from Kirby Smart. Simmons looked the part in a relief appearance against Georgia that resulted in a touchdown drive. He threw just 32 passes as a backup last season but looked good doing so. He played college baseball before opting to focus exclusively on football. On the mound, he fired fastballs that topped 90 mph. Is he ready to be the guy in a system that asks a lot of the quarterback? That's the question he must answer.
7. Diego Pavia (Vanderbilt)
Vanderbilt's Tasmanian Devil of a quarterback runs on moxie, and he's at his best when facing the state of Alabama. This cocksure sixth-year senior spurred Vanderbilt's upsets of Alabama and Auburn, and he previously beat the Tigers while quarterbacking New Mexico State. Pavia values possession, throwing only four interceptions last year. He's a good runner, but the hits he absorbed took a toll. Pavia passed for fewer than 190 yards in each of his final six games. He lacks top-end arm strength, but he has a nose for playmaking.
8. Marcel Reed (Texas A&M)
Would the real Reed please stand up? The Aggie ignited in September after giving the offensive keys to Reed but fizzled in November, as Reed threw six interceptions in his final five games. The quick-footed Reed showed an ability to extend plays and knife through defenses. He'll need to improve his consistency from the pocket and polish his deep ball. Texas A&M returned a lot of production. As Reed goes (or doesn't go), so will the Aggies.
9. Taylen Green (Arkansas)
Green is a mobile, hard-nosed runner with a strong arm. He can challenge defenses with downfield strikes. He became more accurate as the season progressed and flourished in an October upset of Tennessee, despite the Vols boasting one of the SEC's top defenses. His next steps are to improve decision-making, navigating through his progressions and sharpening his midrange throws.
10. Gunner Stockton (Georgia)
The Bulldogs rallied around Stockton after he took the reins midway through the SEC Championship. It's easy to picture him becoming Georgia's heartbeat. He doesn't match predecessor Carsen Beck's arm talent, but he's more mobile, and there's a certain "Je ne sais quoi" about him that appeals to his teammates. He flashed accuracy when his line protected him, and he's skilled in play-action. Whether he'll stretch defenses downfield remains a question.
11. Ty Simpson (Alabama)
Simpson hasn't proven himself yet. A former five-star recruit, he's entering Year 4 at Alabama and he's thrown just 50 career passes, with a 58% completion clip. A natural pocket passer, he possesses some mobility, too, and improvisational skills. Coach Kalen DeBoer desires more consistency from Simpson, the quarterback who's first in line to replace predecessor Jalen Milroe.
12. Blake Shapen (Mississippi State)
Shapen looked sharp as Mississippi State's quarterback for four games last September before a shoulder injury shelved him for the rest of the season. He's back for a sixth season, and the former Baylor quarterback grasps coach Jeff Lebby's offense. Shapen's return offers the Bulldogs reason for optimism, considering he completed 68.5% of his passes before the injury.
13. Jackson Arnold (Auburn)
Arnold struggled as Oklahoma's starter, losing his job before regaining it and starting in the Sooners' upset of Alabama. That result must give Auburn hope that the junior shouldn't be written off after a rough season playing behind a porous Oklahoma offensive line. Arnold struggled to connect consistently on throws beyond about 10 yards. Arm strength and mobility are assets. Maybe, this former five-star recruit will regain his confidence at Auburn, where he'll have a better offensive line and receivers.
14. Beau Pribula (Missouri)
In Pribula's most extensive playing time as a Penn State backup, he showed a steady hand in relief of injured Drew Allar in a win against Wisconsin. He's a quality pickup for Missouri, which needed to replace starter Brady Cook. Pribula hasn't been named for the job, but he seems like he'd be the front-runner in a competition with Sam Horn, Missouri's seldom-used backup. Pribula is an electrifying runner who pairs athleticism with toughness. His running ability provided Penn State with an effective wrinkle to its system. To become a starter, he must prove himself as a consistent pocket passer.
15. Joey Aguilar (Tennessee)
Aguilar showed a fearless streak while starting at Appalachian State. A best-case scenario for Tennessee is that he develops into something like what Pavia became for Vanderbilt. Aguilar can extend plays outside the pocket. Fearless can't mean reckless, though. He led the nation in interceptions at App State. Aguilar previously transferred to UCLA, but he left for Tennessee on the backside of the Bruins plundering Nico Iamaleava from the Vols. Aguilar's preseason checklist must include improving pocket poise, ball security and learning a new offense at warp speed.
16. Zach Calzada (Kentucky)
Calzada started in Texas A&M's upset of Alabama, way back in 2021, and he now prepares for his seventh season with his fourth program. Calzada never developed enough midrange accuracy at Texas A&M, but he threw a good deep ball, and he's coming off a monster season with Incarnate Word of the Championship Subdivision. He's more intriguing than plenty of past Kentucky quarterbacks.
Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network's national college football columnist. Email him at BToppmeyer@gannett.com and follow him on X @btoppmeyer.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
34 minutes ago
- USA Today
Arch Manning and 5 college QBs Cowboys fans should track if things go bad in 2025
The Dallas Cowboys have a difficult schedule stacked atop many questions about just how good the roster was in 2024 before all of the injuries. There are questions about their former star cornerback who can't stay healthy, the offensive line is in the middle of a major retool, and the best player on the team is entering a contract season. But Dallas did address several issues, most notably that the team was in disarray thanks to the lame-duck coaching status of Mike McCarthy. Internally, the front office and players seem to have embraced the early stages of the Brian Schottenheimer regime, but time will tell if that is fool's gold or an actual fruitful situation. The dynamic between McCarthy and quarterback Dak Prescott didn't seem healthy over the last two seasons. Prescott's assault on the MVP award came after a ton of issues that were ironed out during the 2023 bye week, and they seemed to engulf the team in the first half of 2024 as well. Now, all eyes will be on the 10-year veteran with his third head coach. But what if things don't work out? Odds project the Cowboys to be a bottom-10 team in 2025 and if that comes to fruition, it stands to reason the club may want to hit the ground running on a rebuild. The team is locked in with Prescott's contract, and though it could conceivably eat $56 million in dead money by trading him following the year, it's more than likely any move in a different direction wouldn't happen until the 2027 offseason. But that doesn't mean the Cowboys have to wait. If Dallas has a healthy season with Prescott under center and still fails to make the playoffs, it wouldn't be beyond reason for the front office to start to make alternative plans. That could include drafting a quarterback if the team ends up with a pick in the top 10, or near to it. If Texas' Arch Manning declares for the draft, he's likely going to be the No. 1 overall pick. Dallas would have to trade a king's ransom to select him and in this scenario that wouldn't include Prescott, so he's most likely out. Cade Klubnik from Clemson, Drew Allar from Penn State, Garrett Nussmeier from LSU, LaNorris Sellers from South Carolina, and Fernando Mendoza from Indiana are five other quarterbacks who Cowboys fans should start tracking come the fall. Arch Manning, Texas Two aspects stand out to me. First: This guy has it all, talent-wise. I'm not saying he's Lamar Jackson as a runner or that he has Josh Allen's arm, but Arch is tooled up. His combination of prototypical size, mobility, an excellent release, and his natural accuracy—it's all there for him to be a great player. The ball snaps off his hand and he's both slippery and strong in the pocket, showing the ability to extend passing plays and break away from defenders in the open field as a runner. And the second, more important thing: In that small sample, I saw a young player who was learning from his failures, progressing quickly, and loosening his grip on needing to be perfect. The more he played, the fewer negative notes I had, and the more impressed I was at his ability to avoid making the same mistake twice. - Todd McShay Cade Klubnik, Clemson Klubnik enters the season as my No. 1 QB. In 2024, he threw for 3,639 yards, 36 touchdowns and six interceptions, highlighted by a gutsy performance against Texas in the College Football Playoff (336 passing yards, three TDs, one INT). Klubnik reminds me of Baker Mayfield -- whom Cleveland selected with the No. 1 pick in 2018 -- in terms of arm strength, mobility and playmaking awareness. - Matt Miller Drew Allar, Penn State Penn State quarterback Drew Allar's rare combination of prototypical size, experience and production makes him one of the buzziest prospects in college football entering the 2025 season. There was some speculation last winter that he might enter the 2025 NFL Draft, but Allar announced in December his intention to return for his senior year with the Nittany Lions. Allar has ideal size and arm strength. He has a big, sturdy frame and can generate outstanding velocity with very little effort. He's at his best on drive throws, especially on deep in-cutting routes. Most big-armed college quarterbacks tend to throw late, but Allar anticipates well and gets the ball out early. He quickly moves through his progression, working the full field and often finding his third option. - Daniel Jeremiah Garrett Nussmeier, LSU There is a lot to like about Nussmeier's game. It's easy to notice how in command he is by the way he orchestrates the offense at the line of scrimmage. He lines everyone up properly and directs traffic based on what he sees from the defense. He's a quick processor, regularly racing through progressions to find his third option. He has a tight/compact delivery and throws a soft/catchable ball. I love his toughness to hang in the pocket and deliver strikes when absorbing big hits. He's a clunky mover, but he still manages to evade free runners at times, creating outside of the play structure. He has excellent touch on the deep ball and is also adept on over/under throws (over linebackers/under safeties). - Daniel Jeremiah LaNorris Sellers, South Carolina Sellers has the blend of size, mobility, and arm strength that NFL teams covet in a quarterback. He made tremendous strides after a rocky start to 2024, his first year as full-time starter. He's talented, he's smart, he's hardworking, and he's a leader—so there's every reason to buy his stock at this point. While I'm thrilled to see the next steps in his growth, it's important to keep perspective of where he is in his development. Sellers has only 12 career starts entering 2025 and will have fewer than 30 starts by the end of 2025 (and maybe only 25 or so starts). So it begs the question whether his best interest will be to leave early for the '26 draft or return for one more season at South Carolina. NFL Comp: Jalen Hurts - McShay Fernando Mendoza, Indiana First and foremost, Mendoza checks the box for size at the position. Listed at 6-foot-5, 225 pounds, Mendoza has long limbs and a frame that he can grow into even more. What first pops off the screen in Mendoza's play is the zip he can put on the football. Every throw is available in the playbook. His long levers don't elongate his operation, opening up quick game throws and packaged plays like bubbles and flats. He can push the ball outside the numbers with ease and maintain accuracy even as he drives the football, opening up downfield concepts and intermediate throws. - Nate Tice Follow Cowboys Wire on Facebook to join in on the conversation with fellow fans!


USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Andrew Mukuba shares his gameplan for becoming one of the NFL's top safeties
Andrew Mukuba is already thinking like one of the game's elite players. So, how good is Andrew Mukuba? It is becoming more evident that conversations about the Philadelphia Eagles' safety all lead back to that question. He's a second-round pick, the 64th player taken during the most recent NFL Draft. He's expected to fill the void created by C.J. Gardner-Johnson's departure. Lance Zierlein gave him a grade of 6.20 in his pre-draft profile, meaning he believes Mukuba will eventually become an average starter. 'Average' isn't how many describe his game, though. He may have been taken at the end of Round 2, but some draft pundits gave him late first-round grades. Some have called him undersized. At six feet tall, he stands an inch taller than Gardner-Johnson and two inches taller than Sydney Brown, but he's 20 pounds lighter than both of them. He's a former collegiate teammate of both Will Shipley and Jeremiah Trotter Jr. "You have to be able to do everything – cover in the passing game, support the run, tackle, and you have to know everybody's assignments and where you are supposed to be. It is important to learn the defense, and that is the first priority. You do that, and then your physical ability takes care of itself." Those were Mukuba's words as he spoke with Eagles insider Dave Spadaro about what is required to be a great NFL safety. That sounds about right. Mukuba has proven his mettle collegiately in both the ACC and SEC. He earned ACC Defensive Rookie of the Year, Third-Team All-ACC honors, and Freshman All-American honors in 2021. He was named a Third-Team All-SEC honoree in 2024. None of that will help him at football's highest level. The good news, however, is that his mindset will. What does he promise that Birds fans will see in his performance? Eagles fans will undoubtedly love his answer: "There are guys like Budda Baker (Arizona Cardinals) and Brian Branch (Detroit Lions) who are similar in size to me and they have been guys I've kind of patterned myself after. I'm going to be aggressive and smart and play with everything I have, all my heart." That's a great start! "I have a lot of energy and always have had energy, and so for me to go out on the field and have fun, it's kind of like being in the park with your friends playing ball and being physical and helping my team win. That's all that matters – helping the Eagles win. I want to do my part, perfect my role, and enjoy everything about being a Philadelphia Eagle." Forget everything you've heard about his size or his tendency to miss tackles. That's all we had to read. He's going to be fine. Rarely are players polished when they reach the NFL. Most have something they need to work on. It's no different than Drew Mukuba, but everything seen and heard seems to be a step in the right direction. With his mindset, he will be fine. There's no doubt about it.


Fox Sports
an hour ago
- Fox Sports
Tony Petitti Seeks More Meaningful Games In CFP Expansion: 'Bigger Is Better'
There aren't many things I'm more passionate about than the College Football Playoff. As discussions about expanding the playoff field continue, I've drawn my line in the sand on what should be done to help preserve the greatness of our sport. So, I decided to meet up with Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti in New York City recently and find out where his mind is at in playoff expansion talks for the most recent episode of "Big Noon Conversations." Petitti, along with SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, are among the two major power brokers in the CFP expansion discussion as several ideas have been thrown out there about expanding to 14 or 16 teams. Here are some highlights from my conversation with Petitti. Parts of this interview were edited for clarity and brevity. Klatt: As the commissioner of the Big Ten, what are your objectives for the future of the CFP and its format? Petitti: The first thing is, it goes right back to representing the Big Ten, because that's my job. There isn't a commissioner of college football, like you pointed out. So each of us, when we get in that room, we are looking at trying to work together to come to the right solution for all of us. But ultimately, my job is to represent the 18 institutions in the Big Ten — our football, our coaches, our players, the way we do things. We start from a place where we're not always going to be aligned. There might be different ideas in different conferences. We have an obligation to try to come together, to work these things out. But the goal for me, right from the beginning, I really felt strongly about this, and maybe it's my experience coming from MLB, I really believe that you've got to have a postseason format that makes the regular season better. I want more teams to feel like they're chasing that opportunity to compete for a national championship. Teams can get hot late in the season. The fact that they lose a game early shouldn't disqualify them, those types of things. So, to play more meaningful conference games as late as possible. I think you see that in the professional sports model — they try to keep as many teams alive for as long as possible, especially when you get into a world when you condition fans to think about this great new playoff that we've created, they're going to focus on achieving that. The extent that teams don't have the opportunity to get there, it's going to eventually hurt. We want to make sure we have the interest, that teams can break through, have a remarkable season, qualify and play. We just believe strongly that conference record is the backbone of all of that — how you play during the season, qualify off your conference record. That's sort of the best way we believe. So, if I could boil it down, your main objective would be to keep more teams relevant in the season and playing meaningful games later in the year? That's right. … I look at Ohio State last year. Ohio State lost two Big Ten conference games. Technically, they finished fourth in the conference at 7-2, and were clearly, by the end of the playoff run, the best team in the country. I think it's an indication of why it's hard to figure this stuff out during the course of a season. One thing I'll also say that's really important is, within the Big Ten, you have 17 available opponents. You play nine of them. Even within a schedule, there are discrepancies in the strength of schedule. You just don't know who's going to be strong and who's not when you play them, the rub of that luck of the schedule or when you play teams, who is healthy when you play them. The idea we've had about playing play-in games is a way to sort of accommodate the fact that we're not playing that much of a common schedule, even within the league, let alone trying to be compared to the SEC, Big 12 and ACC. The idea of having a championship game with those two teams in, and then playing our sixth-seeded team vs. our third [seed] and our fifth [seed] vs. our fourth [seed], which is the idea we've been talking about. I think it's just a way to also normalize your conference schedule. It really is hard to sometimes tell the difference between our own teams, because a lot of times they don't play each other. I've got four criteria that I think need to be hit for the reformatting of the CFP. I love yours and mine fits in with one of yours. I think we need to increase fan base engagement and increase the valuable or meaningful games that we play — Encourage them. That's right. I think we need to minimize the power of the committee and I think we need to maintain more conferences being relevant. What you have put forth is a 16-team playoff with a 4-4-2-2-1-3 — four automatic bids for the Big Ten, four automatic bids for the SEC, two automatic bids for the ACC, two automatic bids for the Big 12, three at-large bids and one for the Group of 5. Why that model? I understand there was controversy about how many AQs (automatic qualifiers) one league gets or another. Let's put that aside for now. I think we're trying to focus on, at least within the Big Ten, we're not asking to be handed anything. We're playing non-conference games. We want to play tough play-in games to get there, and we want to create an incentive for our schools to schedule more non-conference, because if you're qualifying off your conference record — So, you're trying to build a system that creates tougher games? Yeah, I want to play more. I think, theoretically, the goal is to play more non-conference games, because if you're qualifying for the CFP off your conference record and then a play-in game, the fact that you play a tough SEC or ACC or Big 12 team and maybe get beat on the road, whatever the result is, that might impact your seeding down the road, but it's not going to impact your access. There are three at-larges, so it does a little bit. But at the end of the day, that loss isn't fatal. You can finish 7-2 in the Big Ten, like Ohio State, and if you lost a non-conference game with a 9-3 record, they're in the tournament because a 7-2 record is almost certainly going to get you into a play-in game in the Big Ten. As great as college football is, and it's great, there's just more on the table we can do. I think fans want to see these non-conference games early in the season. I think we can do more of it. Everybody's pointing to that Texas-Ohio State game, which is going to get tremendous attention. We want more of that. We want to incentivize that and not create a sense of, "Does winning that game help you more or does losing that game hurt you more?" That's what coaches and ADs are going to be faced with. I don't understand how you compare 10-win teams in one league to a nine-win team in another; that nine-win team could clearly be better. I just think it's very, very difficult. Mainly, getting back to what I suggested, there isn't much head-to-head, and there really isn't a lot of crossover, at least in our league, because we play non-conference games, we don't play that many games against the SEC. I'd like to actually play more, because I think it's just better for fans. So, I agree with you overall. Now, there are some things that I will maybe disagree with. The baseline should be building a system that goes from a selection-based model to an access-based model. We should be trying to minimize the committee. We should be trying to create a defined path and access to the College Football Playoff, which then would create not only more meaningful games, but more fan bases engaged deep into the season. Now, one of the things that everyone immediately points out is then, well, why do you get four automatic spots and the ACC and the Big 12 only get two? We've made a decision about what we think is appropriate for us and what you should have on the at-large side, and it's based on historic strength and where we think programs are. Are there other ideas that we would consider? I think we've been pretty open, and we just communicated this in a recent meeting we had. We're open to ideas. I just think ultimately, it's going to be very hard to sort of figure out how you expand the field, because the alternative to this system is expanding the field and giving the committee more to do. If you go to 16 and you have 11 at large, you've just added even more decision-making. The answer is, "Well, at that point it gets to be easy, because you'll cover everybody." No, the more spots you put into the system, the more difficult decisions you're facing. Teams start to look more alike. We're looking to kind of do exactly what you said, which is to reduce the role of the committee. Let them focus on seeding and the last three at-large spots. If everybody's playing play-in games, I don't want to speak for the ACC, Big 12 or SEC about how they would qualify in an AQ world, but we've done some modeling that you could have somewhere between 40 and 50 teams after Week 13 that are either in the play-in position or one game back. That's a lot of teams still alive. Some of them might be less realistic chances than others, but they're all sort of playing and you don't want to get into that mode where you lost that third game and you're not [in it]. I worry that, as the CFP gets better and better, missing it and where you go after that gets to be harder. Was there any argument or reason or data point given in the recent meetings that convinced you at all that the 5+11 model (one automatic qualifier from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Group of 5; 11 at-large bids) might be feasible? We've been a proponent for a certain system for about a year now, and obviously, we want to hear other ideas if they are out there. We'll study everything that's sent our way. If we need independent help to evaluate it, we'll go get it. I just haven't seen anything yet, and then communicating back. And it's not me. It's not my voice. It's the voice of the Big Ten. It's 18 athletic directors and coaches who have to be convinced that this is fair to expand. That's where we are. Is there something that shows that the metrics can be applied? We haven't heard anything yet. It doesn't mean that someone won't suggest something. We think bigger is better. I think 12 is not enough teams given the size of the teams that are competing. You look at professional leagues, they go somewhere between 40% and 50% of their teams qualifying for the postseason. We're way below that, even at 16. I think we want to be really careful. We want to be open-minded. I think we come in — skeptical might be the word. Like, how are you going to make something back? When I talk to Warde Manuel, the AD at Michigan who was the chair of the committee, when I talked with him about, "Hey, did you feel like you didn't have enough?" That's not what I get back. I don't get back from him, "Hey, if only we had more data, we could do this even better." It's not that. It's like, "We have a lot already." At the end of the day, you're making comparisons, you're bunching teams together, and you're making a decision collectively with a bunch of other people who were working really hard. That's different than winning a game 31-27 on the field. If I were in the room, I would say 14 is better than 16 because 16 is redundant. It's a safety that's unnecessary because you'd have that play-in weekend. Is it redundant to have the three at-large spots? I think it does a couple of things. One, it does protect a third-place team in the Big Ten who lost one game and gets caught at home in a close game and loses to have one more opportunity to get in. You're right. You want to call that redundant, it's definitely a safety net to get one more chance at it. But I think it does something else that you talked about before. It increases the chance of others from outside the A4 (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC) to get in, if you have more at-larges. I think the 16[-team model] that we've heard about is playing some games early, like a 16-13, 15-14 weekend, and then preserving the bye. One of the things that I really liked about 14 is rewarding two teams with byes. If you can find a format with 16 that still does that — this way, when we're all playing these conference championship games, if that's what we end up doing, there's really a lot at stake there. I think having the catch-all may be a safety net everybody wants. I get back to the total number 16. I was originally like you. I was really more focused on 14. But then when talking to the guys about the opportunity to come, it does provide some opportunities outside of the A4 to have a couple more bites at the apple. You said you'd be open to adjusting your 16-team model. One of the ideas is a 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 model, where there are basically five spots allotted between the ACC and Big 12. I've spoken with those commissioners, specifically Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark, and he said it's just a tough pill to swallow, to say, "Hey, you're going to get half the spots that we get." Would you be open to a 2.5 model? I've read about it, but I want to be fair and be open-minded and not kind of preordain anything because it hasn't been presented. I haven't seen any real substantive conversation about that model. So I don't really know. The right way to do this is to make sure that you know every league is there. There are still three at-large [bids in the 4-4-2-2-1-3 model]. There's an opportunity to get more than two, and there's an opportunity for us to get more than four potentially. That's another reason when you ask me, "Why 16?" It does help with that initial thing. Depending on where you sit, there are many people who will hate this. We've seen it and I understand why. It's the idea we're starting from something different. I do push back when people say you aren't earning your spots. I think we're earning our spots, playing nine tough games and going through a really tough play-in. I think that's earning your spot. I love Notre Dame and Notre Dame is great for the sport. Yet, there are always these carve-outs for them and specifically for the playoff as it expands. What do we do with Notre Dame? We've all agreed that they should have their path to access. I don't think anybody's suggesting that we change that for them. That's not something that they'd be obligated to do. No matter what the format change is, the Big Ten and SEC have to come together and make a suggestion, and then the others weigh in. We take that feedback, decide what we want to incorporate. But there are certain parameters that are guaranteed, like, we can't come up with a format that says the conference champions aren't in. That's not what we agreed to. Even with the discretion that we have together with the SEC, there are parameters that we agree to on certain things. And part of that is Notre Dame's access, and I'm fine with that. Do you see yourself or any of the institutions you represent agreeing to a 5+11 model at any point? It's way too early because we haven't even seen a proposal of what it would be. We haven't seen some key things: How many conference games is everybody playing? We haven't seen what the criteria [is for] the committee. If you're going to increase the role of a selection committee, I don't think anybody in the group — whether it's the ACC, Big 12, SEC or us, believes that you can keep it the same and that you would be OK with that. So I think we've got to do work there. What was your sentiment, and the Big Ten's sentiment overall, about home games in the playoff? Would you like to see more in the future? I was fortunate to be at Penn State when they played SMU, and then go that night to Columbus to watch Ohio State play Tennessee. The environments were great. Home games are great. The Tennessee fans traveled. That was some environment. There were a lot of folks on both sides there, and I think that riled up the Ohio State fans that were there. This is an area where there are a lot of things to balance. There's the great tradition of the bowl games and staying connected to the bowl games, which is really important. There are also coaches who say, "Wait, I didn't get a chance to host a game. I was seeded high, but I didn't get that chance." I think one of the things that'll hopefully correct a little bit of the problems last year is going to the straight seeding. I think that was a really needed change. I think it makes it tough when you're moving teams up and down a lot of lines based on parameters instead of the real assessment. So that'll help, but I think more to come and see how this evolves. But if you do go to 16 [teams], you are playing more campus games because you'll have more first-round games. So you may not have later-round games, but you'll have more first-round games [on campus]. 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