Does the College Football Playoff appropriately award strength of schedule? That’s a factor being debated as SEC decides schedule format.
CFP selection committee does value strength of schedule – just not as much as some within the SEC would like.
SEC has considered going to nine conference games for more than a decade but has always stayed at eight. The SEC’s 2026 schedule format remains undecided.
Ah, spring. The flowers bloom, the pollen makes us sneeze, we bust out shorts as soon as the temps hit 60 degrees, and the SEC bigwigs debate whether to add a ninth conference game to the schedule.
These traditions must never die.
SEC schools are rekindling their annual scheduling dialogue, a conversation that keeps bubbling up, going on more than a dozen years now. The SEC will play eight conference games next season. The 2026 schedule remains undrawn. SEC schools will vote later this year whether to stay at eight or increase to nine conference games in 2026.
What’s the holdup in going to nine conference games? Well, some within the conference believe the College Football Playoff committee does not assign enough reward to strength of schedule when selecting playoff teams.
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey wants nine conference games, but some athletics directors feel squeamish about risking another loss, after the first 12-team playoff included no three-loss teams.
“Trying to understand how the selection committee for the CFP made decisions is really important,” Sankey said last week on “The Paul Finebaum Show.”
“One of the issues in the room for our athletics directors is, what seemed to matter most (to the selection committee) is the number to the right – the number of losses.
“I think (nine conference games) can be positive for a lot of reasons. You watch the interest around conference games. But, not if that causes us to lose (postseason) opportunities.”
Round and round we go, debating whether the juice of another conference game is worth the squeeze.
SPRING POWER RANKINGS: Big Ten | SEC | ACC | Big 12
LOOKING AHEAD: Our way-too-early college football Top 25 for 2025
Greg Sankey: CFP committee didn’t ignore SEC schedule strength
Let’s clarify a few portions of this debate. The CFP selection committee does value strength of schedule – just not as much as some within the SEC would like. And, not enough to make up for SEC teams losing multiple games to mediocre or bad teams.
Meanwhile, the 2026 playoff format remains undecided, complicating scheduling decisions.
I understand the hesitance to add a ninth conference game. In most cases, that would increase a team’s schedule difficulty, and the cleanest avenue to playoff qualification from a Power Four conference remains going undefeated or suffering just one loss.
Record matters. How could it not? If teams simply got rewarded for losing to tough opponents, the first 12-team playoff would have included 10-loss Mississippi State, which played a brutal schedule.
While record matters, the committee honored schedule strength in its rankings, too. How else do you explain one-loss Indiana being seeded behind four two-loss at-large qualifiers, a list that included two SEC teams? The committee recognized that Indiana played a squishy schedule, but it couldn’t completely ignore a Big Ten team with an 11-1 record on selection day.
“As I recall, we had three-loss teams from the SEC ahead of some two-loss teams from significant conferences,” Sankey told Finebaum, “so I will note there was a recognition on the part of the selection committee on the strength of our league.”
Bingo. Alabama ranked ahead of Miami and Brigham Young on selection day, despite having an inferior record. Mississippi and South Carolina also outranked BYU.
Strength of schedule kept Alabama and Ole Miss in the mix on selection day despite their losses to Vanderbilt and Kentucky, respectively.
So, let’s extinguish this lingering narrative that the CFP ignored schedule strength.
If the playoff featured 14 teams instead of 12 – it might by 2026 – then Alabama would have become the first three-loss qualifier in playoff history. All because off its strength of schedule.
Schedule matters, but so do results.
Alabama lost to two average teams, Vanderbilt and Oklahoma, among its three losses. Ole Miss lost to three teams that finished the season unranked, including pitiful Kentucky.
At 9-3, with unattractive losses on the résumé, each team narrowly missed qualification.
Seven teams managed to beat Oklahoma last season. If Alabama had joined that list, we wouldn’t be having this debate. The Tide would have been in the playoff, giving the SEC four qualifiers, and SMU would have been out.
But, because Oklahoma beat Alabama like a drum, we’re debating whether the selection committee needs to award more credit to a team’s schedule.
Here’s an idea: Want to make the playoff? Don’t lose to Vanderbilt or Kentucky.
Schedule strength only one side of College Football Playoff selection coin
Still, in some corners of the SEC, appetite seems lacking for an additional conference game.
Strength of schedule “needs to be recognized and not have it be two vs. three losses, one vs. two losses, whatever that looks like, as the deciding factor,” Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne recently told reporters. “Not all schedules are created the same.”
True, and not all losses are created the same. Indiana didn’t lose to either Vanderbilt or by 21 points to Oklahoma. Nor did it lose on its home field to putrid Kentucky.
But, the SEC schedule debate continues, because it’s spring, and this marks tradition. Perhaps, there’s a way for the SEC to finally rule on its its 2026 conference schedule.
“Maybe we’ll flip a coin over eight or nine (conference games),” Sankey joked with Finebaum. “ … There are two sides to every coin.”
Indeed, and there are multiple sides to playoff selection. It’s not a one-sided coin determined exclusively by schedule strength.
Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network’s national college football columnist. Email him at BToppmeyer@gannett.com and follow him on X @btoppmeyer. Subscribe to read all of his columns.