The SEC is finally, mercifully, moving to nine conference games. In the conclusion of a debate that has raged for years and yet somehow felt even longer, the SEC will move to a nine-game conference schedule beginning in 2026. The move brings more money to the 16 SEC schools (more on that later), a better rotation of teams coming through every SEC campus and more high-quality games for fans everywhere to enjoy.
With any major decision like this, however, there are some who will benefit more than others. Let’s have a look at some of the biggest winners and losers from the SEC’s big move that was announced on Thursday.
Winner: Fans everywhere
Whether you are a fan of one of the 16 SEC schools or just a general college football fan, you should be rejoicing over Thursday’s news. With the SEC now playing nine conference games, while still requiring a 10th Power Four nonconference opponent, fans everywhere will get more big games that matter. It’s TBD on what games SEC schools will now drop (don’t assume it’ll be all the FCS ones just yet), but even if it’s trading a Group of Six opponent for another SEC one, it is a win for the sport.
Relatedly, the SEC’s move to nine games allows it to improve its schedule to rotate teams through other campuses better. In a famous example, Texas A&M still hasn’t hosted Georgia at Kyle Field despite joining the conference in 2012. Now, SEC schools are guaranteed to play every SEC school at least once every two years and will host every SEC school at least once every four years, according to SEC commissioner Greg Sankey.
If there’s one slightly negative caveat: Removing non-SEC games and adding more conference games will likely continue the ticket hike trend and making it even more expensive for average fans to afford to take their families to a game.
SEC adopts nine-game conference slate starting in 2026 as CFP metrics shift emphasis on schedule strength
Cody Nagel
Loser: SEC teams just trying to make a bowl
The math just got harder for the programs whose sights are set more on just making a bowl game than qualifying for the College Football Playoff. For the programs in the bottom quadrant of the conference, the path to get to at least six wins got more challenging. Sure, the extra $5 million or so each SEC school will get for an additional conference game is helpful, but it is difficult to consistently fill stadiums and get donors to pay for increasingly more expensive tickets when you aren’t winning.
It is something I frequently think about when schools make moves solely for financial reasons. The debut of the revenue share era and the accompanying $20.5 million annual hit has ADs everywhere scrounging for more money, but no school has ever hung a banner for generating the most revenue. You do that for championships. And when the powerhouses like Texas, Alabama and Georgia are getting that same extra money as you, it doesn’t positively change the equation for the schools at the bottom.
Winner: Preserving rivalry games
One of the fears behind the SEC moving to more conference games is it would disincentivize teams from maintaining rivalry games against non-SEC Power Four opponents. Think South Carolina-Clemson, Kentucky-Louisville, Florida-Florida State and Georgia-Georgia Tech.
Shane Beamer, who has steadfastly stated he wants to keep the Clemson game, laid out the concerns to CBS Sports earlier this year.
“The only issue I have is I just want it to be balanced for everyone in the conference because everyone does not play a nonconference rival like we do when we have Clemson every year,” Beamer told CBS Sports. “So, in my mind, we’re playing nine Power Four games as it is plus we play Virginia Tech this year, so we got 10. Next year we got Miami and Clemson, so we’re already playing 10 Power Four games. If we play a ninth conference game, now we have 11. That’s great if we’re playing nine conference games, but I would hope that everybody in our league is playing the same number of Power Four opponents as we are each year because, if not, then it is a competitive disadvantage to our program.”
In making every SEC team play a 10th game against a Power Four opponent or Notre Dame, it makes it that much easier for those SEC teams to keep those treasured rivalry games against in-state non-SEC opponents. Now, will South Carolina want to keep scheduling games like Miami and Virginia Tech on top of Clemson and nine conference games? That remains to be seen. But it is good for the sport that these games that matter 365 days a year in those states aren’t lost in the search for more money like so many already have because of realignment.
Additionally, Sankey and the SEC league office understand how much the inter-SEC rivalries matter to people. In a 3 rivalries + 6 rotating opponents schedule, SEC teams should get to keep the games their fans care about most. So, don’t worry about losing the Iron Bowl or Egg Bowl.
Winner and loser: Big Ten
This is one of those glass half-full or half-empty scenarios. In one sense, you could argue the Big Ten’s repeated comments, publicly and privately, about wanting the SEC to move to nine conference games had an impact and the conference got what it wanted. The ACC is expected to eventually follow suit, as well. This is a win for everyone, but especially the Big Ten, which has been playing nine conference games since 2016. Indiana’s Curt Cignetti is no doubt smiling somewhere about it.
But where it trends into putting the Big Ten in the loser category is the conference just lost its best piece of leverage in the CFP expansion debate. The Big Ten has made clear it didn’t have any interest in endorsing a 5 conference champions + 11 at-large teams model if the SEC and ACC still were playing eight conference games. It has also been a big reason why the conference has preferred the automatic qualifier model so the selection committee doesn’t have to weigh unequal conference schedules when deciding at-large teams.
With the SEC now moving to equal footing, it could crank up the pressure on the Big Ten to join the rest of the power conferences on the 5 + 11 model. The Big Ten has steadfastly pushed back against that — it has even recently explored 24 and 28-team playoff models — but if Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti can’t sway Sankey back to his side on AQ Island, the Big Ten will either have to join the club or stand alone as the one conference preventing a move to an expanded playoff.
Big Ten’s radical idea for College Football Playoff expansion frustrates execs, piques interest from ADs
Brandon Marcello
Moving to nine conference games and an AQ model previously had momentum within the SEC, so it is possible that the conference can get back to that position. But it is worth noting that in Sankey’s first public comments after the announcement, he told the “Paul Finebaum Show” that the 5+11 model is where the conference support is currently.
“From a conference standpoint, we would support moving to 16,” Sankey said. “We would support maximizing the at-large which by contract or by agreement we have five conference champions so that 11 team at-large model within a 16-team format still looms large in our thinking
Loser: SEC coaches
The SEC’s 16 football coaches collectively really, really didn’t want to move to nine conference games, and they made that very clear down in Destin, Florida, for the conference’s annual spring meetings. It was so forceful it stymied what at the time felt like unstoppable momentum for adding another conference game. As CBS Sports reported at the time, multiple SEC ADs banking on the extra money of a ninth conference game were left frustrated over how it played out.
These coaches were already bothered by the CFP Selection Committee not rewarding their tough schedules — we’ll see how much the recent metrics tweaks appease them — and they know they are judged by wins and losses. Adding another really challenging game doesn’t benefit many of them.
“I’m certain that our coaches are concerned about the competitive aspect,” Sankey said Thursday. “We’ve got to continue to improve the selection process for the postseason.”
Now this is where the great Don Draper’s quote of “That’s what the money’s for” surely applies for guys making upwards of $10 million now. But it’ll never cease to be interesting to me that coaches we deify and are treated as the biggest celebrities on campus often can’t get what they actually want when it comes to these big decisions.
Ultimately, the desire from the league and its ADs to make more money outranked the football coach concerns.
Read the full article here
