College Football Playoff controversy: Ryan Day’s comment, the Big Ten’s proposal and the future of non-conference scheduling
It was one remark out of the thousands uttered over the course of three days — one man’s window into a reality that does not exist, yet. But three weeks later, Ohio State coach Ryan Day’s comment lingers over the fast-approaching regular season that could be the last of its kind.
While addressing the impasse over the College Football Playoff’s future format, Day referenced the Big Ten’s controversial proposal and its potential impact on scheduling.
You know, that proposal: Expand the CFP to 16 teams and allocate four automatic bids to the Big Ten and the SEC each season, two bids to the Big 12 and ACC and one to the top-ranked champion from the remaining conferences. (The other three slots would be granted to at-large teams.)
The 4-4-2-2-1-3 concept — dubbed the AQ model because of the lean into automatic qualifiers — effectively allows the conferences to determine how their playoff participants are selected. It creates the potential for play-in games on championship weekend and eliminates the impact of losses in non-conference games.
Also, it’s opposed by the SEC, ACC and Big 12, which believe results on the field over the course of 14 weeks should determine the CFP field.
“If we’re going to be in a situation where we get four automatic qualifiers,” Day said last month at Big Ten media days in Las Vegas, “then I think it’d be great to have a 10th game against a Power Four team.
“If we’re not going to do that, then I don’t think it makes sense.”
You don’t need to squint to see the emerging outline of a hostage situation. The captives? Dozens of teams in the ACC, Big 12 and SEC.
Day seemed to hint that if the Big Ten doesn’t get its way with the AQ plan, future non-conference matchups against ACC, Big 12 and SEC opponents would be in jeopardy.
After all, the Big Ten plays a nine-game conference schedule. That “10th game” referenced by Day would be a non-conference matchup “against a Power Four team.”
Matchups like Ohio State-Texas and UCLA-Utah in two weeks.
Or Michigan-Oklahoma and Oregon-Oklahoma State in three.
It would be a different sport — a lesser sport — if the Big Ten either declined to schedule future non-conference games against Power Four opponents or canceled the ones already under contract.
And there are a lot under contract.
According to the website fbschedules.com, which tracks non-conference games for years to come, the Big Ten has 75 matchups scheduled over the next decade against the ACC, Big 12, SEC and Notre Dame. They range from intra-state duels (Iowa-Iowa State) to intersectional showdowns (Ohio State-Alabama) to the rekindling of a rivalry that was once at the center of the sport (Nebraska-Oklahoma).
Day’s tone in Las Vegas was candid and thoughtful. Nothing suggested his intent to issue an ultimatum to the rest of the Power Four.
But like so many other Big Ten coaches who took the podium at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center, Day was echoing sentiments expressed (privately and publicly) by commissioner Tony Petitti, the architect of the controversial AQ model.
Which indicates conference administrators and coaches have discussed the Big Ten’s non-conference scheduling strategy in a world where the AQ plan does not exist.
In that world, the CFP field likely would consist of five automatic qualifiers and 11 at-large teams, with the selection committee responsible for 68.8 percent of the participants.
In that world, non-conference losses could matter a great deal.
In that world, Ohio State might rethink its home-and-home series against Alabama (2027-28) and Georgia (2030-31).
Washington might have second thoughts about facing Tennessee in 2029-30.
And USC, which is wary of extending its annual series against Notre Dame, might feel compelled to kiss 99 years of storied history goodbye.
That said, it’s not time to panic. Not yet.
Negotiations over the CFP’s future format are ongoing. Petitti and the SEC’s Greg Sankey have three months to reach an agreement deemed satisfactory by their competing stakeholders.
And therein lies the problem: competing stakeholders.
What works for the SEC coaches and athletic directors doesn’t necessarily work for the Big Ten peers, in part because of the difference in schedule models.
The Big Ten won’t agree to the 5+11 playoff model, with at-large bids at the center of the process, unless the SEC adds a ninth conference game.
Petitti believes, and rightfully so, that the SEC’s existing eight-game model confers an advantage with a committee in charge of selections.
But SEC coaches and administrators have little motivation to add the ninth game. The extra loss would narrow the path to the CFP specifically and the postseason generally, thereby putting performance bonuses and job security at risk.
The power of the SEC brand — and the influence of its media machinery — is such that the conference would benefit from a selection process based largely on subjective factors.
Put another way: Each conference is wholly justified in its current position.
Day’s comment was perhaps more instructive than alarming — a reminder that there’s more riding on the CFP negotiations than the format itself.
The outcome will impact the entire sport throughout the regular season, and across the years.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline