Alright folks, let’s dive straight into some college football chatter. You know the drill—let’s focus on the game itself rather than the off-field drama for once. Just kidding, we can’t really avoid it! You’ve all been curious about things like revenue sharing, the fate of spring games, questions surrounding Greg Sankey, and the never-ending saga of the SEC’s nine-game schedule. All your questions will be addressed, I promise.
But hey, how about we start with a football question for a change?
(These questions have been slightly trimmed down and made clearer.)
So, who’s your bet on for the next SEC team to join the College Football Playoff ranks, just like Tennessee did last year? — Jorge A.
Here’s the thing—if the CFP still had only four slots, Tennessee wouldn’t have made the cut last year, and neither might have Texas. Yet, as it stands now, six SEC teams have found their way to the Playoffs: Alabama’s been there eight times, Georgia and Oklahoma four times each (with Oklahoma still in the Big 12), Texas twice (also with a nod to the Big 12 days), LSU once, and then there’s Tennessee.
Notably absent from this list are Auburn and Florida, who boast three national championships and half a dozen SEC titles between them this century. Auburn hasn’t come close in the CFP era, but if we’d had a 12-team format back then, they might have squeezed in only once, back in 2017, when they ranked seventh in the final CFP standings. On the other hand, Florida would have hit the Playoffs every year from 2018 to 2020, revealing that if the Playoff expansion had come sooner, Dan Mullen might have enjoyed a more favorable stint at Florida. But, oh well, that’s history.
Now, if I’m to hazard a prediction about the next team to make a debut appearance, let’s consider South Carolina. They tick several boxes: a skilled quarterback in LaNorris Sellers, promising defensive talent like Dylan Stewart, and solid guidance under Shane Beamer, who has turned the team around with three winning seasons out of four. The road’s challenging, but the possibility of a 9-3 season or better exists, with home games against the likes of Clemson, Alabama, and Kentucky, and away fixtures at LSU, Alabama, Texas A&M, and Missouri.
Can I confidently claim the Gamecocks will make the Playoff? Not quite, and besides Texas, I’m hesitant to put my chips on any team right now. Everyone’s got weak spots, including the Longhorns, and this conference tends to be its own worst enemy. The SEC has shifted from a couple of powerhouse teams to a wider pool of competitive squads, thanks in part to new name, image, and likeness (NIL) rules and the transfer market which have leveled the playing field.
Auburn and Florida shouldn’t be ruled out either, with Auburn’s sturdy defense and Florida’s ambitious schedule tempered by quarterback DJ Lagway’s potential. Ole Miss might be facing skepticism heading into next season, but counting out Lane Kiffin and company is risky. Missouri and Texas A&M shouldn’t be dismissed either. Let’s not forget, South Carolina was a surprising contender last season, almost making it to the CFP after being picked to finish 13th. The upcoming season might be wide open, so besides Mississippi State, Kentucky, and perhaps Arkansas and Vanderbilt (although Diego Pavia could shake things up), anyone might have a shot.
Shifting gears, are spring games more about team development or are they just a fan event? Do teams ditch them to favor development or limit injuries, even if it means losing some fan engagement and excitement? — Gene S.
Well, the reality is that the spring game isn’t pivotal for player development. It’s merely a component of the 15 spring practices allowed. The NCAA provides for three scrimmages, one being the spring game. When teams like Texas and Nebraska “cancel” their spring games, it often means they’re having those scrimmages, just away from prying eyes. The official line is that it prevents rivals from scouting for talent through the transfer portal—a bit of “you won’t see who we’ve got” going on.
Maybe that’s the true motive. However, another theory suggests it helps keep players in the dark about their standing within the team. The spring game is typically a curtain call for fans and a glimpse of the depth chart. Coaches often split the first-team offense and defense between sides, wanting to reward players with starting time in this public, often scrutinized, setting. If players feel sidelined, the spring game could prompt thoughts of transferring.
By skipping a public game, coaches can spread out starts and playtime across those scrimmages. Without that singular, revealing spring game, players might not feel the same pressure—or so the theory suggests.
That said, other coaches appreciate seeing how newer players handle themselves in front of a crowd, valuing it as a fair trade-off against potential risks. There’s also a school of thought that this public showcase at the end of spring practices serves as a motivating factor.
So, when the SEC eventually shifts to a nine-game format, which teams might channel their football funds into other sports instead? For instance, could Vanderbilt decide to enhance baseball, basketball, or softball instead of competing head-to-head with the SEC football giants? — Brett S.
Honestly, it might be a universal trend, with or without the ninth game. The real transformation comes from the expected House settlement.
Last week, Georgia’s athletic director Josh Brooks mentioned the settlement’s potential, allowing new scholarships to count towards revenue sharing. He revealed Georgia’s plans to add “more than 100” scholarships in non-football sports, and hinted that other SEC schools might follow suit. This comes after SEC ADs met in New Orleans, so you can bet information was exchanged. We’re yet to see if this extends to football-like scholarship caps for other sports, but certain sports are poised for gains.
Baseball and softball are major SEC players, both looking at big leaps from their current scholarship counts: baseball from 11.7 to 34, softball from 12 to 25. Women’s gymnastics, another SEC favorite, jumps from 12 to 20. Soccer sees a rise in both men’s and women’s scholarships, and volleyball goes up for both men and women (though fewer SEC schools sponsor men’s volleyball or soccer). Track and field teams also benefit from these changes.
How long this situation persists is uncertain. It remains to be seen whether schools can count these scholarships as “new” each year, or if they’re only considered new once. Schools might already be telling some athletes there’s no spot next year, but initially, we’ll see a surge in scholarships for key sports.
And finally, is Greg Sankey college sports’ villain-in-chief? Does he exploit college football’s inherent advantages without any regard for competition’s integrity? — Phil T.
You don’t hold back! (Safe to assume you’re not cheering for the SEC.)
While there’s a lot to unpack about Greg Sankey, we’ll save those thoughts for another time. However, here are a couple of points:
– Sankey’s done well in his role as SEC commissioner. He’s not responsible for other conferences, and the SEC is his focus. Although critiques exist, like over TV deals or the nine-game schedule, Sankey’s decade-long tenure amid a volatile period for college sports speaks volumes. His value is recognized, hence his longevity.
– On a broader scale, Sankey spearheaded the 12-team CFP model creation—a move beneficial not just for the SEC but for the whole sport. While it also promised more revenue, Sankey envisaged the benefits at a national level. He wanted the expansion in place by 2023, but the Alliance—left out of certain SEC-centric discussions—delayed it out of frustration. Sankey hasn’t let this go, reminding everyone when he can. His message since seems: I tried to help; now you’re on your own.
These points aren’t to defend Sankey outright, but rather to provide context. As I said, a deeper dive into his role is on the horizon.
Now, with the potential nine-game conference schedule, who will Georgia face regularly? — Brad T.
For starters, it’s not happening just yet. I’m betting it will, but such forecasts have been wrong before. In fact, a couple of years back, the projected annual opponents looked something like:
Alabama: Auburn, LSU, Tennessee
Arkansas: Missouri, Texas, Ole Miss
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Florida: Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, Kentucky
Kentucky: Georgia, Mississippi State, South Carolina
LSU: Alabama, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Mississippi State: Kentucky, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Missouri: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Vanderbilt
Oklahoma: Florida, Missouri, Texas
Ole Miss: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State
South Carolina: Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee
Tennessee: Alabama, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Texas: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: LSU, Mississippi State, Texas
Vanderbilt: Auburn, Missouri, Tennessee
You might notice many of these matchups were part of the eight-game schedules from the past two years. (20 of the 24 proposed annual games made it.) The SEC initially used a mix of traditional rivalries and a 10-year record formula to balance each team’s matchups. Given the passage of time, they might adjust this formula now.
Future iterations might revisit this every four years, so while we call them permanent opponents now, perhaps “annual opponents” is a better term. Remember, the traditional rivalries—Alabama-Tennessee, Georgia-Auburn, Texas-Texas A&M—aren’t going anywhere unless the schools decide so. These rivalries are ratings gold, so for once, we can tip our hats to TV networks.
(Top photo of LaNorris Sellers: Jacob Kupferman / Getty Images)
