SEC, Big Ten officials to meet on CFP format, House case, scheduling agreement

Ross Dellenger

ROSEMONT, Ill. — Within Big Ten headquarters in this Chicago suburb this week, the industry’s most powerful leaders gathered: the Division I conference commissioners.

But next month, in Nashville, Tennessee, perhaps an equally influential group convenes: the Big Ten and SEC athletic directors.

In what is viewed as a continuation of their announced partnership in February, the top school administrators from the two most powerful NCAA conferences are scheduled to jointly meet, according to those familiar with the plans.

The meeting is a significant and historic occurrence, believed to be one of the few joint gatherings of athletic directors from two major conferences in NCAA history. Amid a transformational period within the industry, the meeting comes at a sensitive time within college sports, as the Big Ten and SEC have distanced themselves financially from the rest of the industry in a way that strikes fear, for some, in their coalescence.

However, those briefed on the meeting do not expect impactful decisions to be made and believe this to be only a next step in a partnership that the two conferences entered six months ago with the creation of a joint board.

Athletic directors are expected to begin discussion about a range of topics that they have mostly, so far, kept within their individual leagues. Those topics include the House settlement case, a new third-party (not NCAA) enforcement model, the future of the College Football Playoff format and — most noteworthy of them all — a regular-season and postseason scheduling arrangement.

Commissioners of the leagues, SEC’s Greg Sankey and Big Ten’s Tony Petitti, are both expected to join the AD meeting as well as high-ranking conference staff members.

From the outside, the scheduled meeting is perhaps more symbolic in nature than anything else — two groups, for years warring with one another, now gathering in person to tackle some of the most pressing issues within the industry. On the inside, the one-day session may produce steps forward on several key issues from a joint group of leaders who hold more authority than perhaps any other, as power shifts from the NCAA’s age-old national governance model to its more prominent conferences.

Most interesting among the expected topics is a football scheduling partnership for the regular season as well as a reimagined non-playoff bowl lineup featuring arranged matchups between the leagues. Conference schedule agreements are not unprecedented. The SEC, for example, is part of the annual ACC-SEC basketball challenge.

Such moves are expected to generate additional revenue to the leagues, presumably from television networks seeking matchups of the biggest brands in the sport. The two highest-rated college football games over the first four weeks of the season have been games between the two conferences: Texas-Michigan (9.19 million viewers) and USC-LSU (8.2 million).

Discussions are expected to go beyond the regular season with the possibility of what officials describe as an “overhauled postseason” for those programs not advancing to the CFP. Administrators are exploring ways to arrange more matchups that pair teams from the two leagues as opposed to their current bowl agreement pairings. The bowl agreements expire after the 2025 season.

All of it is an effort to generate untapped revenue at a time when schools are bracing to spend more than $20 million annually in an athlete revenue-sharing concept tied to the House antitrust settlement.

To that end, SEC school executives continue to hold deep discussions about adding a ninth conference game starting in 2026 (the Big Ten already plays nine). The conference is somewhat split on the concept, and a requirement for any ninth league game involves receiving extra revenue from ESPN, the league’s media rights holder.

Subscribe to College Football Enquirer on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you listen.

As part of the new CFP agreement, the Big Ten and SEC hold decision-making powers over a future format, though decisions are expected to be made in consultation with ESPN and the other two power leagues.

In the spring, FBS leaders struck an agreement with ESPN to extend the CFP contract for another six years through 2031 (the original contract went through 2025).

While the format was not finalized, certain “protections” were, including an automatic spot for the champion of the four power conferences and highest-ranked Group of Five team; a 12 or 14-team field; and qualification guarantees for independents like Notre Dame related to their place in the rankings. For 2024 and 2025, the format is set as a 5+7, 12-team model, which grants automatic qualifying spots to the five highest-ranked champions and seven at-large spots to the next highest-ranked teams.

However, the future format starting in 2026 is expected to be shaped by the two leagues. Deputies of the conferences, Kerry Kenny of the Big Ten and Charlie Hussey of the SEC, have been exploring not just a format but a potential change in the selection process with regards to the committee, multiple sources tell Yahoo Sports.

During CFP negotiations in the spring, the Big Ten proposed a 14-team playoff featuring multiple automatic qualifiers for the power conferences: three each for the SEC and Big Ten; two each for the ACC and Big 12; one reserved for the best G5 champion; and three at-large spots. The 3-3-2-2-1 concept received backlash from leaders of the ACC and Big 12.

In an interview with Yahoo Sports from Big Ten football media days in July, Petitti suggested that such a model isn’t off the table. Petitti said if leaders “get the postseason right,” his league and others could then have the ability to “play stronger non-conference matchups.”

“This is all connected,” Petitti said. “Look, there are differences between pro models in playoff formats and what’s traditional in college sports, but there’s a lot to be said about keeping teams alive late in the season to have a chance to compete. I don’t think that’s controversial.”

As part of the House settlement, the NCAA and power conferences are creating a new enforcement entity to regulate the revenue-sharing concept as well as a new DI governance model — two issues expected to be explored at next month’s meeting.

A new enforcement arm will feature a clearinghouse that will approve or reject agreements between athletes and third parties, such as boosters or booster collectives. Seeking to hire outside entities to oversee the management and enforcement systems — not the NCAA — power conference officials have seen presentations from some of the world’s largest professional service providers, such as PricewaterhouseCoopers.

However, any new enforcement entity is subject to the approval of the House settlement. At a hearing Sept. 5, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, overseeing the case in California, did not grant approval of the settlement, as she took exception to the provision in the settlement that regulates and limits booster payments. House plaintiff lawyers are expecting to file a brief by Thursday to clarify the provision.

As for a new governance model, college leaders have been exploring the concept of again subdividing FBS/DI to grant more authority over off-field legislative matters to the power conferences in a long-expected and publicized move.

However, in interviews over the past several months, Sankey and Petitti both strongly rebuke any notion that a new governance model and the creation of their joint advisory board is a move toward a breakaway from the college sports’ governing body. The Big Ten and SEC remain prominent members of the NCAA, both in governance and national competition, they say. Their joint effort does not hold unilateral authority and they will have “no motivation to simply declare” anything, Sankey said in the spring.

That said, many around college sports view the House case as the final wedge between the haves and have-nots, leading to what’s often termed as The Great Split.

Advertisement