For those who crave the latest in college football news, The Athletic’s “Until Saturday” newsletter is your go-to source. To stay in the loop, make sure it lands in your inbox by signing up.
First off, a quick reminder: no leap day is coming up next week, as the next leap year isn’t until 2028.
In an intriguing meeting held yesterday in New Orleans, the representatives of the Big Ten and SEC came together to push forward their agenda of expanding influence. Naturally, The Athletic was there to capture every critical moment and glean five essential insights.
Let’s kick things off with the most immediate changes before diving into the less pressing decisions—though that’s based on my personal assessment:
1. There’s significant support from both conferences to overhaul the College Football Playoff (CFP) seeding process. The aim is to eliminate the awkward first-round byes granted to conference champions. If last season’s seeding had relied solely on committee rankings under the new 12-team format, No. 1 seed Oregon would have enjoyed a bye then faced the victor of No. 8 Indiana vs. No. 9 Boise State, sidestepping an immediate clash with a fired-up Ohio State.
Discussions could lead to changes as early as next week when the Power 2 join talks with other FBS commissioners. While it may seem beneficial to retain byes for conference champions, the power these two leagues wield allows them to prioritize their preferences over others’ CFP interests.
Notre Dame’s athletic director, Pete Bevacqua, also influences CFP decisions. Under the favored system of the Power 2, independent teams like Notre Dame would qualify for byes, and last year, they were just an NIU game away from securing one.
2. There’s chatter about CFP play-in games being held alongside—or even replacing—conference championships if the CFP expands significantly. This idea anticipates these leagues granting themselves multiple automatic bids. In this scenario, slots could be on the line in matchups such as a Big Ten No. 3 vs. No. 6 showdown just before Selection Sunday.
On a more whimsical note:
“The SEC might go further, envisioning four play-in matches: No. 1 vs. No. 8, No. 4 vs. No. 5, No. 2 vs. No. 7, and No. 3 vs. No. 6.” The prospect of South Carolina knocking Texas out pre-playoff sounds thrilling! Yet, this would likely still allow Texas to snag an at-large spot.
3. The SEC is inching closer to implementing a nine-game schedule. Automatic bids could mitigate worries about losses harming contenders’ chances, a narrative sure to surface whenever Alabama faces detrimental defeats.
4. Sadly, we’re still not seeing an annual Big Ten-SEC Challenge. Naturally, this means a missed matchup between potential rivals like UCLA and Mississippi State in football.
5. Finally, an ironic stalemate remains in college sports’ longest-standing issue: without collective bargaining, regulating transfers effectively remains impossible. For now, the Power 2 are choosing to delay action. More details follow below.
That wraps up the key insights. In a whimsical retort, perhaps the MAC and CUSA should convene to dictate who they deem Playoff-worthy!
Now, let’s dive into Quick Snaps:
🫵 Cam Ward boldly called out teams that might pass on drafting him, maintaining confidence over his play in the Pop-Tarts Bowl.
💪 Ward’s a pivotal figure in the NFL Draft, but here’s the kicker: as many as four tight ends might go in the first round. That’s pretty rare.
📝 A forthcoming House v. NCAA settlement reveals Title IX won’t impact how schools could remunerate players, yet it would still apply to any new scholarship limits.
👀 Illinois, typically in the top-50 for recruiting, has impressively climbed to No. 6 for 2026. Grace Raynor delves deeper into this success story.
🐝 Among former NFL stars taking up coaching at HBCUs, Clinton Portis joins DeSean Jackson’s Delaware State Hornets staff.
In light of these developments, let’s not forget that deep-rooted competitive spirit between the Big Ten and SEC. Fueled by a conversation from the “Until Saturday” podcast, I prompted you to choose which team you’d back to win a College Football All-Star game: the South or the World. I left it to each of you to define what counts as Southern.
The poll results are intriguing: despite other regions claiming the last two national titles, many of you favor the South. I’d be curious about a 2020 Alabama vs. 2020 World matchup, given Alabama’s outstanding roster at the time.
Finally, here’s Stewart Mandel’s insight from this week’s newsletter:
Mandel’s Mailbag
Max Olson recently reported that Texas Tech invested $10 million in 17 transfers this offseason. Can this escalate the “fair value” market price, and is it causing unrest among other schools? — Ryan K., Lexington, Ky.
Many college administrators are placing high hopes on the upcoming House settlement, potentially approved in April, to help rein in the NIL market. This settlement, featuring a revenue-sharing component, could allow schools to spend directly from a $20.5 million pool for their roster (across all sports), minimizing dependence on fan/booster contributions. Additionally, the settlement proposes a new “NIL clearinghouse.” Here’s how South Carolina’s AD, Jeremiah Donati, described it to fans recently:
“The settlement stipulates that any third-party deals exceeding $600 will undergo an independent fair-market-value review. Deals judged as excessive won’t be permissible for athletes.”
So, athletes may face restrictions if a clearinghouse decides a $1 million offer is only worth $200,000. This could lead to legal challenges.
There’s a lingering belief that college sports markets should work differently from other markets, but no such limitations govern ADs or coaching salaries. For the umpteenth time, limiting athlete earnings, thus controlling escalating costs, requires collective bargaining. But this would mean acknowledging athletes as employees, something schools aren’t keen on doing.
For full insights, check out Stewart’s comprehensive mailbag.
📫 Enjoy “Until Saturday”? Explore other newsletters by The Athletic.
(Top photo: Sean M. Haffey / Getty Images)
