Missouri’s Eli Drinkwitz blamed Big Ten scheduling advantages for the conference’s recent College Football Playoff dominance at SEC Media Days.
The Tigers coach argued the Big Ten’s success stems from weaker non-conference requirements compared to other Power Four conferences.
“I think there were some great decisions by their leadership,” Drinkwitz said. “There are some things we look back on in the SEC, and maybe we shouldn’t have done it that way.”
Drinkwitz pointed to scheduling cycles as a key factor in playoff matchups and draws.
“There’s also cycles to college football. And once you get into expanded playoffs, it’s all about match-ups and draws and our match-ups and draws haven’t been as good as we obviously wanted them to be in order to be successful.”
He made his clearest point about non-conference scheduling requirements.
“Obviously, when you don’t play an A4 (Power 4) game as one of your non-conference games, that was the quote you were looking for. It’s pretty obvious.”
The Big Ten remains the only Power Four conference that doesn’t require members to schedule non-conference opponents from the SEC, Big 12 or ACC.
But Drinkwitz’s argument faces scrutiny when examining actual playoff results. Indiana went undefeated last season despite facing teams like Old Dominion, Kennesaw State and Indiana State in non-conference play. The Hoosiers proved their worth in playoff games that mattered most.
The SEC has struggled in recent playoff performance.
The conference posted a 3-8 record in College Football Playoff games over the past three seasons. That’s despite the SEC’s reputation for stronger scheduling throughout the regular season.
The SEC previously faced criticism for scheduling cupcake games during regular seasons. Conference teams often loaded up on easier opponents before facing tougher league play.
Drinkwitz acknowledged the scheduling debate but emphasized finishing strong matters most. Until teams hoist championship trophies, questions about playoff preparation remain.
The expanded playoff format has created new dynamics around scheduling and seeding. Conference leaders continue evaluating whether non-conference requirements provide competitive advantages or disadvantages in the current system.
