The SEC spends too much of its football schedule on easy street. That’s the Big Ten’s stance, as articulated recently by Illinois coach Bret Bielema. Bielema conveyed the mood of his conference when he called on the SEC to play a ninth conference game.
If the Big Ten successfully strong-arms the SEC into reducing its number of cupcake opponents, that will be a win for college football.
The stubborn persistence of non-conference pushover games remains one of this sport’s lamest elements, and no conference plays more patsies than the SEC.
The surest way to reduce the number of cupcakes would be to increase the number of conference games. It’s not the only way, but it’s the firmest path. Left to their own devices, some schools will pursue the greatest number of non-conference cakewalks.
So, I wish the Big Ten luck in its mission to bend the SEC toward nine conference games, a figure that would match the number played by the Big Ten and Big 12.
And yet, I wonder whether the Big Ten will come to regret trying to bully the SEC on its schedule. Because, I see this ending one of two ways.
Possibility 1: The SEC will dig in its heels, rebuff the Big Ten, and remain at eight conference games.
If this occurs, it will show that the Big Ten doesn’t possess the power it must think it has to influence other conferences. Wouldn’t be the first time this happened, either. Remember when the Big Ten chose to cancel its 2020 season amid the pandemic. How’d that turn out? The SEC decided it would play in 2020, and the Big Ten came crawling back to play a truncated season, revealing itself a follower in 2020, not a leader.
More recently, the Big Ten supported a playoff format rigged with a stacked deck of auto bids. When the SEC soured on the plan, the Big Ten’s idea withered on the vine.
Possibility 2: The SEC will accept the Big Ten’s challenge to play a ninth conference game and reap the reward by building strength of schedule metrics that dwarf most of the Big Ten.
The SEC repeatedly has proven itself too chicken to add a ninth conference game. The reasons change, but the result remains the same: Eight conference games. The SEC’s reluctance to add another conference game amounts to an irrational fear of the boogeyman. If it ever takes the plunge, it would learn that the rewards offset outweigh the risks.
The SEC waged an offseason propaganda campaign claiming that the College Football Playoff selection committee does not value its schedule strength. That’s hogwash.
In truth, the CFP committee has repeatedly valued the SEC’s schedule strength. If the playoff had included 16 teams last season, the SEC would have qualified three 9-3 teams and six teams total, while no other conference supplied a three-loss team.
The SEC wishes for the selection process to evolve so that strength of schedule metrics are weighted even more in the future, when determining at-large playoff bids. If it achieves that mission and also beefs up its schedule with another conference game, while the playoff expands to 16 teams, look out, Big Ten. The runway would be greased for a cavalcade of 9-3 playoff teams from the SEC.
Plus, adding another conference game would help distinguish the SEC’s wheat from its chaff, helping ensure that the best SEC teams made the playoff.
As it is, the Big Ten owns one upper-hand on the SEC in the rhetoric wars that surround at-large bids: Its membership plays one extra conference game, and most of its members play 10 Power Four opponents, while most SEC teams play nine Power Four foes.
If the SEC adds a ninth conference game, the Big Ten would surrender that upper-hand.
By trying to persuade the SEC to expand its conference schedule, though, the Big Ten must believe another potential outcome exists.
Such as:
Possibility 3: A ninth SEC game would cause the conference to buckle under the weight of its collective strength, losses will mount, thereby reducing the number of SEC teams with playoff résumés and allowing more access for the Big Ten.
Is this possible? Yes.
Probable? No.
The committee already values strength of schedule, and the SEC’s scheduling would be beyond reproach if it added another conference game.
Vanderbilt shocking Alabama and Kentucky upsetting a top-five opponent on the road are exceptions in the SEC, not rules. Despite those results in 2024, Alabama and Mississippi would have qualified for a 16-team playoff as three-loss teams. Now, imagine if Alabama and Ole Miss had inserted another win against an SEC opponent in place of a blowout against Championship Subdivision roadkill.
That would have enhanced each team’s credentials, and yet, that’s what the Big Ten seems to want. It calls on the SEC to enhance its collective strength of schedule, at an inflection point when strength of schedule could be valued more than ever in the playoff selection process.
Careful what you wish for, Big Ten. In 2020, when teams played conference-only schedules, the SEC put four teams in the top nine of the final CFP rankings. Playing more SEC games sure didn’t hamper the league that year.
If the Big Ten gets its way, and the SEC adds another conference game in place of a cupcake, that would buoy college football. Just don’t think it helps the Big Ten.
Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network’s national college football columnist. Email him at BToppmeyer@gannett.com and follow him on X @btoppmeyer.