The SEC and Big 10 are close to successfully completing a 3-step action plan that enables them to obtain near monopoly power over the college football world. One of the casualties of this plan is likely the CU – Nebraska rivalry.
In this blog post, we’re going to take a high-level look at how the SEC and Big 10 have systematically entrenched themselves in position to control college football, what that means to future college football schedules, and why this new development is likely to cost fans future Colorado-Nebraska rivalry games. We’ll conclude with a look at what Colorado and the Big 12 can do to maintain relevance in a difficult landscape.
First, though, let’s look at how the Big 10 and SEC successfully entrenched themselves atop the college football world.
Step #1: SEC and Big Ten obtain financial and creative control over the henhouse
Most fans know that several years ago, college football power brokers agreed to end the 4-team playoff sytem and instead expand the college football playoff to 12 teams. Less known, however, is that during related negotiations, the SEC and Big 10 threatened to create their own postseason system if they were not granted a majority of the college football playoff revenue and full authority over the playoff format going forward. With this threat looming in the background, all of the FBS league commissioners and Notre Dame capitulated and agreed to expand the playoff to 12 teams and later signing a memorandum of understanding (1) changing the playoff distribution model to disproportionately benefit SEC and Big 10 teams, and (2) handing all future control of the playoff over to the SEC and Big 10 beginning in 2026.
Under the old 4-team conference playoff formula, the “Power 5” conferences evenly split 80% of the BCS playoff annual revenue, with Notre Dame and all other G5 conferences splitting the remaining 20% of revenue. This NFL-like approach to revenue sharing ensured that all “Power 5” conference teams had the same playoff revenue and therefore maintained a modicum of financial parity among “Power 5” conferences. It’s reasonable to believe that equal revenue sharing is best for business — the NFL is the biggest sports league in the United States in large part due of the parity between and among teams. This gives a fan in, say, Milwaukee hope that the Green Bay Packers can make the Super Bowl the next year despite the financial inequality between the Green Bay, Wisconsin market and the New York (err, New Jersey) market.
As a result of the newly implemented playoff agreement, however, equal revenue sharing was thrown out and the playoff distribution formula was blown up to benefit the SEC and Big 10. Now, the SEC and the Big 10 each receive 29% of college football playoff revenue, while the ACC gets 17.1% of revenue and the Big 12 receives 14.7% (the ACC has 18 teams whereas the Big 12 has 16 teams, which accounts for the difference between the ACC and Big 12). Remaining revenue is distributed to Notre Dame (about 1%) and the 64 Group of Five teams (about 9%).
As a result of this change, the SEC and Big 10 have seen their annual playoff distributions triple or quadruple, per Ross Dellinger at Yahoo! Sports. This gap has helped create a financial chasm between the SEC / Big 10 and the rest of college football’s conferences. And it’s going to get worse.
Step #2: Engineer the playoff system so that SEC and Big 10 teams are entrenched in the college football playoff
Now that the SEC and Big 10 control the college football playoff (technically speaking, they don’t have full control until 2026 but they have incredible leverage now given their impending full control), the first change that they’re discussing is a doozy — expanding the college football playoff, and giving the SEC and Big 10 control over 60% of the playoff spots.
Here’s what’s being discussed: a 14-team model that would grant 4 automatic qualifiers to the SEC and Big 10, with 2 qualifiers to the Big 12 and ACC, one to the highest-ranked Group of Five champion and one to an at-large (which would be Notre Dame if Notre Dame finished in the top 9). The top 2 teams will receive byes in the tournament – and, of course, the Big 10 and SEC are discussing giving themselves the byes. There are alternatives being discussed (including a 16-team model with 3 at-large spots) but the 14-team model is the “most likely path,” per Dellinger.
I can hear some of you saying – John, this is a good thing for Colorado! A 2ndplayoff spot for the Big 12 is good news! In a vacuum, maybe you’re right. But we don’t live in a vacuum, and this move further separates the Big 10 and SEC from the rest of college football. This entrenchment ensures that the financial gap will continue to grow. Getting “more” does nothing to help close a revenue gap that is only growing larger and larger and that threatens to dim the interest of college football fans around the country whose school can’t compete with the Iowas or Missouris of the world, let alone the Michigans or Alabamas of the world. Also, do we really need to see Iowa in the playoffs?
Ironically, a knight in shining armor might be the television execs. Though they have not publicly commented, ESPN executives have expressed to at least some college leaders real apprehension about a format that provides such lopsided automatic access. As one powerbroker put it, “You are going to alienate part of the country.” Uhh, you think?
Step #3: SEC and Big 10 create a scheduling alliance that effectively eliminates Big 12 and ACC teams from future schedules
One of the most heated debates within college athletics recently is the SEC’s conference schedule. The league is seriously exploring moving from eight to nine league games. A ninth SEC conference game would give the SEC the same number of conference games as the Big 10, creating scheduling parity between the leagues. The SEC would then enter into a scheduling alliance with the Big 10. The scheduling alliance, though still in the discussion stages per Ross Dellinger, would pit SEC and Big Ten teams against one another in annual games to be sold as a separate television package.
Though ESPN and Fox already own the home games of SEC and Big Ten schools, respectively, the scheduling arrangement — if it generates big-time matchups (think Texas-Michigan, LSU-Oregon and Georgia-Ohio State) — could be worth annually well into eight figures for the leagues to presumably split. And if nothing else, we’ve learned that the Big 10 and the SEC’s need for more money appears to be insatiable.
Last July from Big Ten football media days, commissioner Tony Petitti told Yahoo! sports that, 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,” he said.
It’s step 3 in a 3-step process, after all.
So what does this mean for the CU-Nebraska rivalry?
Jon Wilner in a recent column pointed out that the Big 10 – SEC scheduling alliance would likely threaten any future matchups between the Big 10 or SEC, on one hand, and the Big 12 or ACC, on the other hand. With just 2 openings on their 12-game regular-season schedules to fill, the Big 10 and SEC will fill it with games against lower-level teams and avoid threatening their college football playoff resumes.
According to Wilner, it’s probable — no, likely — that the Big 10 and SEC teams would buy their future Big 12 and ACC opponents out of any game they have already scheduled against them. And while Big 12 and ACC schools would presumably be fine with their paydays, it would leave them with holes in their future schedule.
And it will leave Colorado without Nebraska, and Nebraska without Colorado. Despite some of the Nebraska fans’ insistence that Oklahoma is Nebraska’s biggest rival, the truth is that Nebraska and Colorado are each others’ biggest rival and that they have been ever since Bill McCartney showed up and proclaimed that it’s better to be dead than red. And while there are no meetings currently scheduled between the two programs, there’s been talk about the teams playing in the third week of 2029 as well as September 2032 and 2033 (the teams each have open windows in those times). As a result of these changes, those talks will probably not continue.
And the CU-Nebraska games that fans have loved for years and years? It’s likely they go the way of the Dodo. All because of the greed of 2 conferences.
What should Big 12 do? Big 12 – ACC Scheduling Alliance
As a result of the future holes in scheduling, the Big 12 and ACC should explore a scheduling alliance where each team from the Big 12 plays one team from the ACC every season. Wilner writes:
“Home-and-home series don’t cost anything. Add the cancellation penalties collected from the SEC and Big Ten schools and the situation, while deeply unfortunate, would at least become revenue-positive.
But buying one-off home games against Group of Five and FCS programs is expensive — more than $1 million per game in some cases. And if they know Big 12 and ACC schools are desperate, the price could rise.”
It’s also possible that the Big 12 and ACC could sell this newly agreed series of games to TV networks. Folks from around the country would tune in to see Deion Sanders lead the Buffs against his alma mater and Florida State, or to see Miami and BYU play in a newly updated “Convicts vs. Catholics / Mormons” game. While CU vs. Miami wouldn’t be the same as Nebraska, it’s still a game that people will tune into.
Concluding Thoughts
The value that Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Alabama, Texas and Georgia bring is what gives the SEC and Big 10 all of its leverage. Never mind that Purdue, Northwestern, Rutgers, Maryland, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt and South Carolina also benefit. And teams from those markets, and other markets, should know that their day is coming. One day, Ohio State will wake up and ask, “Why is Purdue making the same amount of money as me?” Then the conferences will turn on their own, and start cutting from within….but that’s a discussion for another day. Just don’t tell us we didn’t warn you.
Money will ruin college athletics. Also, I’m old.
I’m afraid you’re right on both counts.