If they agreed it would be done but they disagree and it sounds like there’s also disagreement between SEC administrators and head coaches. I still can’t tell who’se pressuring SEC for nine game conference schedule in this discussion. I assume it’s the BIG 10 because they play nine and think SEC teams overall records are being fluffed by the extra noncon game?
Huge eyeroll though in this shit:
“There's a sense among some athletic directors in the SEC and ACC that moving to nine conference games is feasible -- if the committee doesn't penalize teams for losing two or three games against strong opponents.”
Jesus fuck, everyone knows the top of the SEC is usually very strong but they’re acting like the ninth game for everyone will be UGA. Nobody is getting the top three in a nine game schedule, and if it happens for some reason, maybe just win one? And regardless, a two loss SEC team is already getting in over a 2 loss Big XII team and even a 1 loss team most of the time. SOS is being considered whether it’s on paper or not. And the whole point of expanding to 16 is that the first team out regardless of conference has no realistic chance at winning it all anyway.
And extra lol at this:
"I know last year I talked about a lot of what I read was two versus three losses, and that was concerning," Byrne said. "Granted, ultimately, it's up to you and the play you have on the field, and you have to recognize that, but I also do believe that when you looked at the bullet points for the CFP, strength of schedule was the first bullet point listed.”
Bama lost to 3-6 Vandy and 2-6 OU dipshit. SOS considerations wasn’t your problem last year, so yeah, beat the mid teams on your fucking schedule or shut the fuck up.