SEC Conference Schedule Defended Imperfectly by Rece Davis
In the world of college football, the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and the Big Ten Conference often find themselves at odds, and one of the most contentious topics is the differences in their conference and non-conference schedules.
The SEC, with its eight-game conference schedule and four non-conference games, tends to provide its teams with more opportunities for easier wins outside conference play. This is due to the extra non-conference game, which often pits SEC teams against weaker or Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) level opponents. This additional game can serve as a "cupcake" week late in the season, providing rest and reducing the likelihood of additional losses, helping SEC teams pad their records.
On the other hand, the Big Ten's nine-game, tougher conference schedule means its teams face a harder slate of Power Five opponents more often. This results in more games against Power Four teams (Power Five conferences plus Notre Dame), increasing strength of schedule but also the risk of losses.
As a result, the SEC's strength of schedule can appear less rigorous internally, as the fewer conference games mean fewer difficult in-conference matchups, offset by multiple non-conference games that often include less competitive teams. Conversely, the Big Ten's schedule features more games against top teams, enhancing strength of schedule and potentially better preparing its teams for post-season play.
However, the SEC's approach can result in stronger win-loss records that may overstate actual team quality, affecting playoff considerations. For instance, a top SEC team playing an FCS team might have a win probability of 95% or higher, while a top Big Ten school playing a team like Maryland could have a win probability of 60-75%.
This scheduling difference underlies some current tensions in playoff expansion talks, with the Big Ten claiming the SEC's fewer conference games and easier non-conference scheduling artificially boost their teams' resumes.
For example, Indiana, a team criticized for its scheduling, had the 8th best strength of record in college football last year, according to ESPN's analytics. The extra non-conference game provides opportunities for extra rest, an extra home game, and the chance to boost resumes by adding an extra win.
The number of games played in the Big Ten (9) versus the SEC (8) directly impacts win-loss records. A 9-3 team in the Big Ten is often ranked in the top 15, while an 8-4 team might not be ranked at all. This discrepancy has led to criticism, with ESPN college football commentator Rece Davis stating that the argument about the number of games played is the "dumbest argument of all" between the conferences.
However, this perspective is not widely accepted. Critics argue that the difference in conference and non-conference games impacts intra-conference records and makes it harder to compare records and strength of schedule. For instance, Ole Miss in 2024, a top SEC team, obliterated four weak teams in non-conference play and went 5-3 in the SEC. Replacing a non-conference team with another SEC team could have dropped their record to 8-4.
In summary, the SEC's extra non-conference game combined with fewer conference games tends to boost win totals and can ease strength of schedule compared to the Big Ten’s structure, which emphasizes a tougher nine-game conference slate resulting in stronger schedules but fewer "padding" wins. This debate continues to shape the landscape of college football, with implications for team rankings, playoff considerations, and conference reputations.
A football fan might question the legitimacy of an SEC team's win-loss record, as their tendency to schedule more football games against weaker opponents could potentially artificially inflate their record. On the other hand, Big Ten teams often face a tougher schedule of Power Five opponents, increasing the risk of losses but also enhancing their strength of schedule.
