Could a 24-team CFP lead to more B1G-SEC matchups?

How about a regular commitment to play each other?

Listening to college athletic higher ups is kinda like looking at an iceberg.

There’s a lot under the surface.

Take this as a teaser:

On the surface it’s, “Oooh!”, and “Wow!”, and “Whoo hoo!”

Yeah, that’s the headline. Consider:

• there is no 24-team playoff….yet
• if/when there is one, there are a lot of details to work out
• nobody is doing anything that will hurt themselves in the process

Joel Klatt went on the radio in Texas and said,

“There are scheduling agreements that are in place once this thing expands officially,” Klatt said. “The next thing that will happen almost immediately is we’re going to get scheduling agreements between the SEC and the Big Ten — top-end matchups, mid-tier matchups, low-end matchups — and we’re going to be expanding the valuable matchups in the non-conference, far surpassing what we have now.”

“….agreements that are in place….”

“….next thing that will happen almost immediately….”

Well, that’s it. It’s official. We’ll be playing an SEC team beginning tomorrow….or every year. Or not. Per the article.

On3’s Brett McMurphy followed up with a Big Ten source, who tapped the brakes a touch and said talk of immediate announcements “seems extreme.”

McMurphy, citing the Big Ten source, noted there are “lots of logistics, current entanglements to be worked out. Maybe some games (in 2027), but anything holistic seems to have a longer path.”

Lots of logistics. Never saw that coming! Pete Thamel went further investigating, citing Big Ten chief operating officer Kerry Kenny saying that there is “not a specific SEC-Big Ten scheduling agreement being announced.” That being said, when the playoff expands to 24 teams the league is committed to an annual non-conference game against a power conference opponent. That is something that the Big Ten has been pushing for a while.

“If you get to 24, we’re going to put our money where our mouth is,” commissioner Tony Petitti said. “We’re going to do what we said, which is we’re going to improve our schedules. I’m totally comfortable doing that as a commitment.”

Meanwhile down south, one of the SEC’s concerns with an expanded CFP was making sure that teams were being judged fairly; read balanced schedules making it possible to evaluate teams against each other. It has been the position of SEC commissioner Greg Sankey that teams play ten games against power conference opponents as part of any expanded playoff arrangement. Apparently, Petitti and the Big Ten are on board with that.

“I think Greg is right,” Petitti said. “His position is about doing things that strengthen the game. If you’re saying 24 unlocks this, then what’s the commitment to actually do it? I think as a league we’re ready to have that conversation and try to make those commitments. To me, it would be a great result if we had more access to the playoff and at the same time we’re talking about playing the games that you want to see these first couple weeks of the season.”

Let’s play “Make a B1G-SEC Schedule”

It is still all speculative, but it sounds like something is going to happen eventually. Would it mean an SEC game every year for every team? That would make sense and help to better judge teams’ qualifications for the playoff. It would also possibly be a step closer to a “super conference” without actually doing it. You could, as a thought, just hold open dates, one Saturday when every SEC team plays a Big Ten team (yes, I know, it’s 16 vs 18; maybe a really good SEC team plays two meh Big Ten teams at the same time). The actual pairings could be made at the end of season A for season B the following fall; 1st place SEC vs 1st place B1G, 2nd place SEC vs 2nd place B1G, and so on. And if we used last year’s conference finishes for that, what would we have this year?

• Indiana vs. Alabama
• Ohio State vs. Georgia
• Oregon vs. Ole Miss
• Michigan vs Texas A&M
• USC vs. Oklahoma
• Iowa vs. Texas
• Illinois vs. Vanderbilt
• Washington vs. Missouri
• Minnesota vs. Tennessee
• Nebraska vs. LSU
• Northwestern vs. Kentucky
• Penn State vs. Florida
• UCLA vs. Auburn
• Rutgers vs. Mississippi State
• Wisconsin vs. South Carolina
• Maryland vs. Arkansas

That leaves Purdue and Michigan State on the outside looking in. Maybe the conference arranges for another game for those two teams, paying the guarantee for the visitor.

Problems? Of course. Look at UCLA, the 13th place team last year; this year they are a very different team with Bob Chesney at the helm. And Alabama certainly doesn’t look like world beaters and facing tOSU, nor do Michigan or Oklahoma look the same.

But, it’s a thought. And a starting point.