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

ROSEMONT, Ill. – At the Big Ten's headquarters in this Chicago suburb, the industry's most powerful executives gathered this week: the Division I conference commissioners.

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

According to people familiar with the plans, the top principals of the two most influential NCAA conferences will meet together, in what is seen as a continuation of their partnership announced in February.

The meeting is a significant and historic event and is considered one of the few joint meetings between athletic directors from two major conferences in NCAA history. Amid a period of transformation within the industry, the meeting comes at a sensitive time in college sports, as the Big Ten and SEC have distanced themselves financially from the rest of the industry in a way that, as they merge, is causing fear among some.

However, those attending the meeting do not expect any far-reaching decisions to be made and believe this is just a next step in a partnership the two conferences entered into six months ago with the creation of a joint board of directors.

Athletic directors are expected to begin a discussion on a range of issues that they have largely left within their individual leagues. These issues include the House settlement case, a new third-party (non-NCAA) enforcement model, the future of the College Football Playoff format and, most notably, a regular-season and postseason scheduling agreement.

The leagues' commissioners, Greg Sankey of the SEC and Tony Petitti of the Big Ten, are expected to attend the AD meeting, as are senior conference staff.

From the outside, the proposed meeting is perhaps more symbolic than anything else – two groups that have been feuding for years are now meeting in person to address some of the industry's most pressing issues. Internally, the one-day session could bring progress on several key issues from a joint group of executives with more authority than perhaps any other as power shifts from the NCAA's age-old national governance model to its more prominent conferences.

Make an appointment

Most interesting of the expected topics is a regular-season football scheduling partnership and a revamped non-playoff bowl lineup with arranged interleague matchups. Conference scheduling is not unprecedented. For example, the SEC is part of the annual ACC-SEC Basketball Challenge.

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

Discussions are expected to extend beyond the regular season and there is the possibility of an “overhauled postseason” for those programs that do not advance to the CFP. Administrators are exploring ways to organize more matchups that bring together teams from the two leagues, as opposed to their current bowl agreement pairings. The bowl contracts expire after the 2025 season.

All of this is an attempt to generate untapped revenue at a time when schools are poised to spend more than $20 million annually on an athlete revenue-sharing approach tied to the House antitrust settlement is.

To that end, SEC school leaders continue to have intense discussions about adding a ninth conference game starting in 2026 (the Big Ten already plays nine). The conference is somewhat divided on the concept, and a requirement for every ninth division game is receiving additional revenue from ESPN, the league's media rights holder.

Subscribe College football investigators To Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you listen.

Future CFP format

Under the new CFP agreement, the Big Ten and SEC have the authority to decide a future format, although decisions are expected to be made in consultation with ESPN and the other two power leagues.

In the spring, FBS leaders agreed with ESPN to extend the CFP contract for another six years, through 2031 (the original contract ran through 2025).

Although the format had not yet been finalized, there were certain “protections” in place, including an automatic spot for the champion of the four power conferences and the top-ranked Group of Five team; a field of 12 or 14 teams; and qualification guarantees for independents like Notre Dame regarding their place in the rankings. For 2024 and 2025, the format is set to a 5+7 12-team model, granting automatic qualifying spots to the five highest-ranked champions and seven overall spots to the next-ranked teams.

However, it is expected that the future format will be shaped by the two leagues from 2026. Conference delegates Kerry Kenny of the Big Ten and Charlie Hussey of the SEC have been exploring not only a format but also a possible change in the selection process as it relates to the committee, multiple sources tell Yahoo Sports.

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

In an interview with Yahoo Sports from Big Ten Football Media Days in July, Petitti suggested such a model is not off the table. Petitti said if the frontrunners “get the postseason right,” his league and others could then have the opportunity to “play stronger non-conference games.”

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

New enforcement and governance

Under the House deal, the NCAA and the energy conferences are creating a new enforcement body to regulate the concept of revenue sharing and a new DI governance model – two topics expected to be discussed at next month's meeting.

A new enforcement arm will have a clearinghouse that approves or rejects agreements between athletes and third parties, such as boosters or booster collectives. In seeking to hire outside entities to oversee the administrative and enforcement systems – not the NCAA – energy conference leaders have seen presentations from some of the world's largest professional services firms, such as PricewaterhouseCoopers.

However, any new enforcement agency requires approval of the House settlement. At a Sept. 5 hearing, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who presided over the case in California, did not grant approval to the settlement because she objected to the settlement's provision that governs and limits booster payments. Lawyers for the House plaintiffs expect to file a brief clarifying the provision by Thursday.

As for a new governance model, college leaders have explored the concept of re-dividing FBS/DI to give the power conferences more authority over off-field legislative matters in a long-awaited and publicized move.

However, in interviews over the past few months, Sankey and Petitti both strongly rejected any notion that a new governance model and the creation of their joint advisory board was a step toward a split from the governing body of college sports. They say the Big Ten and SEC remain prominent members of the NCAA, both in governance and in domestic competition. Their joint effort has no unilateral authority and they have “no motivation to simply declare anything,” Sankey said in the spring.

However, many in college sports view the House case as the final wedge between the haves and have-nots, leading to what is often referred to as “the great divide.”