The SEC needs a nine-game conference schedule

Beyond the transfers, the head coaches, the stadium reductions and the backhanders to recruits, the NCAA can change something else that would really take the sport a step forward: The schedules.

The ACC and SEC play 8 in-conference games and 4 non-conference games, while the Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big XII all play nine.

Gus Malzahn and Nick Saban both expressed a preference for nine games. In fact, Nick Saban has been lobbying for it since 2012, while Gus Malzahn last year admitted he’s had a Damascus experience on scheduling (probably because Auburn’s is so arduous year after year): “Nine I think is best for us moving forward to make the schedules more equal across the conference.”

Kirby Smart of Georgia – also one of the SEC’s most powerful coaches – joined the ‘pro’ shout. He said: “I think it [would be] a good thing, but I think you will have teams with more losses. Does it affect a team getting in the playoff? I don’t know, but I know you have a lot more games to get up for, a lot more good rivalry games. It’s not just about travelling, it’s just as much about the atmosphere of playing an SEC opponent, I think you are playing more comparable teams to your talent level, I think it’s important for college football.”

Other coaches haven’t expressed an opinion – possibly because half of them lost their jobs after the 2017 season, and the new ones have yet to have a voice. The only time that voters voted to keep the schedule as-is was 2013. Will Muschamp, while he was at Florida, said that it was likely to move to nine games in 2013, but never happened.

The ACC has done the same. While this isn’t a huge surprise bearing in mind the ACC and SEC are two of the biggest superpower conferences in college football right now (although the ACC Network is still going to be minor compared to the SEC Network and the Big Ten Network (that may well turn around during basketball season), it has to change.

For the fans! 

Why? Because not only are Big Ten, Big XII and Pac-12 looking at tougher, in-conference schedules which have in the end worked out nicely for the ACC and SEC, which have captured the last four National Championships. Both Clemson and Alabama in the last four days have lost less than five games. Combined.

Also in the SEC, the way that the rivalries work is rather stupid. What could be more dislikeable than putting together one permanent rival and one division rival?

It means that the likes of Alabama and Georgia hardly play each other in the regular season, and teams like Auburn get royally screwed because they have to play Georgia – and Alabama – every season.

We get that SEC fans like their rivalries. We love them too. If it was a nine-game format, the Iron Bowl will still exist. So will the Egg Bowl, the World’s Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party, and LSU vs Alabama. We can still have the major cross-divisional rivalries like the Deep South’s Oldest Rivalry (Auburn vs Georgia) and the Third Saturday in October, but we can also have one more cross-divisional games, which means the fans (probably quite important) get to see more East vs West games (which may reverse the trend of declining attendances, too), which will also be good for the ones that pay the bills – the SEC Network, CBS or ESPN.

Why should the SEC and ACC changing their schedules change college football in general? Easy. It shuts up the argument altogether. It makes for equality between FBS Conferences, shutting up the whole “we play more in-conference games than you”, because the other one (“We play in a more difficult conference than you”) becomes null and void. Not only that, it’s an easier job for the College Football Play-Off Committee to work out who’s should be ‘in’ with a flat schedule, and also, it pretty much shuts-up massive controversy.

What about the NCAA?

The NCAA will argue that ‘scheduling is not our business’, but that’s absolute crap. If the NCAA is happy to govern everything else, then why not govern one of the key aspects of the game? Not only that, but why are the conferences letting coaches or Athletic Directors – who all have biases on this subject but may well be fired before the next vote comes out (the SEC last voted on it in 2013 and ACC ADs voted on it in 2016) – vote on this altogether. The NCAA should mandate this and that would be that.

The ones that will suffer, inevitably, will be the smaller non-FBS schools, which rely on coming to a stadium and getting the living crap beaten out of them for $1 million (there are quite a few exceptions.

But unfortunately, college football is not a charity. Smaller FCS schools will still make their money. But unless there will be less of them. Will this lead to a shutdown of smaller programs? Sadly, probably. But will it be better for college football as a whole we see more and more in-conference rivalries? Definitely.