The SEC’s Annual Springtime Ritual: A Ninth Conference Game Debate

Ah, spring. The season of blossoming flowers, persistent pollen, and the eager unveiling of shorts at the first hint of warmth. It’s also the time for another beloved tradition in the Southeastern Conference: the recurring debate over adding a ninth conference game to the football schedule. This conversation has been bubbling beneath the surface for over a decade, and it’s back in full force this year.

Currently, SEC teams play eight conference games each season. However, the 2026 schedule is still a blank canvas, waiting for the conference to decide whether to maintain the status quo or venture into the uncharted territory of nine conference matchups. A vote later this year will determine the fate of the 2026 schedule.

So, what’s holding up the seemingly inevitable expansion to nine conference games? The answer, as is often the case in college football, is complex and intertwined with the College Football Playoff (CFP). Some within the SEC believe that the CFP selection committee doesn’t adequately reward strength of schedule when choosing playoff participants.

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey is a vocal proponent of the nine-game model. However, several athletic directors are hesitant, fearing that an additional conference game will increase the likelihood of another loss, potentially jeopardizing their team’s playoff aspirations. The recent 12-team playoff, which excluded any teams with three losses, has heightened these concerns.

"Trying to understand how the selection committee for the CFP made decisions is really important," Sankey said on "The Paul Finebaum Show." He further elaborated that athletic directors believe the committee places undue emphasis on the number of losses a team accumulates.

Sankey acknowledged the potential benefits of a ninth conference game, citing the increased interest and excitement surrounding these matchups. However, he cautioned that adding a game should not come at the expense of postseason opportunities.

The heart of the debate revolves around the question of whether the added value of an extra conference game outweighs the risk of another loss. It’s a perennial question with no easy answer.

The common narrative that the CFP selection committee ignores schedule strength isn’t entirely accurate. While the committee does consider strength of schedule, it doesn’t give it the same weight that some in the SEC would prefer. A challenging schedule cannot fully compensate for multiple losses against mediocre or struggling teams.

The uncertainty surrounding the 2026 playoff format adds another layer of complexity to the scheduling decisions. Until the format is finalized, it’s difficult to assess the potential impact of a ninth conference game on a team’s playoff chances.

The reluctance to embrace a ninth conference game is understandable. In most cases, it would make a team’s schedule more difficult, and the most direct route to playoff qualification from a Power Four conference remains achieving an undefeated season or suffering only one loss.

Record matters. To suggest otherwise would be absurd. If teams were rewarded solely for playing tough opponents, regardless of their record, then a team with a losing record and difficult schedule would be consistently rewarded. The current system, for all its flaws, acknowledges the importance of winning games.

While record is paramount, the committee does consider schedule strength. The case of one-loss Indiana being seeded behind several two-loss at-large qualifiers demonstrates this point. The committee recognized that Indiana’s schedule was relatively weak, but it couldn’t completely dismiss a Big Ten team with an 11-1 record.

Sankey pointed out that the committee ranked three-loss SEC teams ahead of two-loss teams from other conferences, highlighting the recognition given to the strength of the SEC. For instance, Alabama ranked higher than Miami and Brigham Young, despite having a worse record.

Strength of schedule played a role in keeping Alabama and Ole Miss in playoff contention despite their losses. Had their schedules been weaker, those losses would likely have been more detrimental.

The narrative that the CFP completely disregarded schedule strength is demonstrably false. The committee balances record and schedule difficulty in its evaluation process.

If the playoff expanded to 14 teams instead of 12, as might be the case by 2026, Alabama might have become the first three-loss team to qualify for the playoff, largely due to its demanding schedule.

Schedule matters, but so do results. Alabama suffered losses to two average teams, and Ole Miss lost to three teams that ultimately finished the season unranked, illustrating the importance of avoiding bad losses.

The simplest solution to the playoff dilemma is to avoid losing to Vanderbilt or Kentucky. However, such a solution is far easier said than done in the unpredictable world of college football.

Despite the evidence suggesting that the CFP considers schedule strength, some within the SEC remain unconvinced. Alabama Athletic Director Greg Byrne emphasized that schedule strength should be a significant factor in the committee’s decisions.

Byrne’s point is valid. Not all schedules are created equal, and neither are all losses. A loss to a top-ranked team is far different than a loss to a struggling program.

However, the SEC schedule debate continues, driven by tradition and the desire to optimize playoff positioning. Perhaps, the SEC will eventually reach a consensus on its 2026 conference schedule.

As Sankey quipped, the decision might come down to a coin flip. He wisely observed that there are always two sides to every coin, and playoff selection is a multi-faceted process that considers a variety of factors, not just schedule strength.