MIRAMAR BEACH, Fla. — At varying points in the last year-plus, since the Southeastern Conference and Big Ten began flexing their combined muscle, a potential scheduling arrangement between the two mega-powers has been publicly downplayed, dismissed and doubted. (By some in the SEC as recently as Monday.) Not anymore.
Now, the SEC’s football coaches are saying out loud that they want all of the Big Ten smoke. At least according to Brian Kelly.
Kelly, coach of the LSU Tigers, told reporters at SEC spring meetings Wednesday that his peers are in favor of scheduling games against the Big Ten annually. “Our first goal would be wanting to play Big Ten teams,” Kelly said. “As coaches, I can speak for the room, we want to play Big Ten teams. … So we’ve made our voice clear. Our ADs know that we would like that. Our commissioner obviously heard us as well.”
That’s already a newsworthy development, but here’s where it really gets interesting—the games could possibly be a play-in-style format that might decide up to eight bids for the College Football Playoff. In that scenario, using the 2024 standings, the play-in matchups might resemble this:
Where would those games be played? And when? Presumably at campus sites on the first weekend of December, traditionally when league championship games are contested. But all of that is just a discussion topic at this point, with no major decisions expected to be made on scheduling this week. (Everything is on hold pending two things: settlement of the House v. NCAA lawsuit that will shape the economics of the sport; and the structure of the CFP starting in 2026, which could be 14 or 16 teams, in various formats.)
There are three ways a high-stakes Big Ten-SEC Challenge could come about: the leagues could stay out of the scheduling process, help facilitate it or mandate it. Sankey says a mandate would be “incredibly difficult” and a “long row to hoe.”
The Big Ten–SEC scheduling scenario is both intriguing and infuriating.
Without question, the matchups would be juicy and lucrative, and they would ratchet up the stakes—could either league dominate to the point of getting six or more wins, and thus six or more bids to a 16-team playoff? But the downside would be the top two conferences guaranteeing themselves a combined half of the playoff field regardless of what happens during the season. It also would further enhance the SEC and Big Ten strength-of-schedule arguments—which has been an incessant drumbeat here—while potentially depriving teams from other leagues the opportunity to play SEC and Big Ten opponents and help themselves with signature victories.
As noted in this space many times—most recently Monday—such a prearranged stacking of the deck would not be in the best interests of the sport as a whole. It would further marginalize the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big 12, Notre Dame and everyone else in the FBS, slotting them into a playoff disadvantage regardless of how many quality teams they might be able to field in a given year. It would be another stake to the heart of the sport as a national entity.
But the Big Ten and SEC reportedly hold nearly all the cards in deciding the future format of the playoff, having been granted decision-making powers provided they have “meaningful consultation” with other conferences and broadcast partner ESPN. Thus this could be the latest iteration of the Golden Rule—those with the gold make the rules, and thus the playoff format of their liking.
The potential Big Ten–SEC Challenge game could also solve a long-running SEC quandary about whether to add a ninth conference matchup of its own. After years of debate, it is believed that the votes are there for a ninth game—but it’s hardly unanimous, at least behind closed doors. (One athletic director said this week that he’s against a nine-game schedule but would publicly support it if outvoted, which he is expected to be.)
Arkansas Razorbacks coach Sam Pittman said he would “rather keep it like it is,” with eight SEC games and no annual matchup with the Big Ten. But if able to choose future options, Pittman said he would prefer to stay at eight SEC games and add a Big Ten opponent.
“I think the fans would enjoy seeing SEC and Big Ten playing either in a play-in-type game or playing the ninth game each year,” Pittman said. “Other than playing nine SEC games—I think the league wants us to go to nine, so how are we going to do it? Are we going to go to nine playing ourself or are we going to go to nine and maybe invite another conference to play at some given weekend? Obviously if you play nine against yourself, you add eight losses to the league.”
The SEC coaches seem ready and willing to play a slate of Big Ten opponents, anticipating something better than a .500 record in those matchups. But if the nonconference slate takes on more heft, there is another dynamic at play for one-fourth of the SEC—would it jeopardize in-state rivalry games against ACC opponents? The season-ending matchups between the Florida Gators and Florida State Seminoles; Clemson Tigers and South Carolina; Georgia and Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets; and Louisville Cardinals and Kentucky Wildcats are cherished rivalry games.
“The Clemson game, for me, I think it’s ironclad,” South Carolina coach Shane Beamer said. “There’s people above me that make those decisions, but I would never want that game to go away. Rivalries and rivalry weekend is what makes this sport great. I know what it means. In South Carolina, there’s not pro sports, that game is a big deal. This isn’t whoever versus whoever.”
Said Kentucky coach Mark Stoops: “I’ve been on the record saying that I enjoy the rivalry and it’s good for our state and it’s important to us. I still feel that way.”
For now, these are all talking points. Nothing more. But the talking about a Big Ten–SEC scheduling arrangement is becoming more real, and with it some scenarios that are both intriguing and infuriating. The debating will continue.
