theinfohub

In the evolving world of college football, scheduling has become a critical component of team success, fan engagement, and overall competition. The intricacies of scheduling are a delicate balance, with conference obligations, regional rivalries, and national aspirations often dictating matchups. However, recent developments have shed light on an emerging issue—programs backing out of high-profile non-conference games, seemingly influenced by the growing weight of College Football Playoff (CFP) implications. The cancellations of highly anticipated matchups between Nebraska and Tennessee, as well as Wake Forest and Ole Miss, have drawn ire and frustration from a key figure in college football: SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey.

Sankey, who has played an integral role in the growth and development of the Southeastern Conference (SEC), has been vocal in pointing to the College Football Playoff committee’s decision-making as a contributing factor to the cancellations. These games, which would have added excitement and intrigue to the non-conference slate, were scrapped in large part because programs feared their chances of making the coveted playoff were jeopardized by scheduling such tough matchups.

In this blog post, we’ll examine the controversy surrounding the cancellations of these series, how Greg Sankey has placed the blame squarely on the College Football Playoff committee, and why this issue could have long-lasting effects on college football’s scheduling practices in the years to come.

### Nebraska and Wake Forest Canceling Series with Tennessee and Ole Miss

The first domino to fall was Nebraska’s decision to cancel its planned home-and-home series with Tennessee. Originally scheduled for 2024 and 2025, this non-conference showdown was expected to bring together two proud programs from Power Five conferences. However, Nebraska announced that it would no longer participate in these games, citing a desire to “align schedules more effectively with long-term goals.”

Similarly, Wake Forest opted to pull out of a series with Ole Miss, scheduled for the same years. The Demon Deacons, who have made significant strides in recent years under head coach Dave Clawson, were set to face Ole Miss in what would have been a compelling matchup between two programs that have found success in different ways. But in light of the increased significance of strength of schedule for Playoff consideration, Wake Forest too decided to cancel the series.

In both cases, the decision was not about the programs being unable to field competitive teams or concerns over regional matchups. Instead, the cancellations seem to have been influenced by the fact that each of these teams faced the possibility of a tough road ahead in terms of scheduling. Playing a high-profile non-conference opponent such as Tennessee or Ole Miss would likely lower their chances of securing a spot in the College Football Playoff, as strength of schedule is one of the major factors used by the committee to assess playoff viability.

### Greg Sankey’s Criticism of the College Football Playoff Committee

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has been a strong advocate for a larger playoff format, one that would potentially reduce the pressure on teams to avoid difficult non-conference matchups. Sankey has been at the forefront of the push to expand the Playoff, arguing that a broader postseason would better reflect the diversity and talent across college football, while allowing for more teams to have a legitimate shot at competing for the national championship.

However, Sankey’s frustration has boiled over in recent months, particularly with regard to the cancellations of the Nebraska-Tennessee and Wake Forest-Ole Miss series. According to Sankey, the current 4-team College Football Playoff structure has encouraged programs to prioritize avoiding difficult non-conference games for fear that one loss could be the difference between a Playoff berth and missing out on the national championship conversation entirely.

Sankey has pointed out that when a program like Nebraska or Wake Forest cancels a tough matchup, it’s not because they are unwilling to compete—it’s because they fear the Playoff committee’s emphasis on strength of schedule will penalize them for taking on a tough opponent outside their conference. With the Playoff committee’s decision-making focusing heavily on record and strength of schedule, the incentive for these programs to schedule tough non-conference games diminishes, leading to the cancelation of matchups that would have been beneficial for fans and college football in general.

### The Pressure of the College Football Playoff on Scheduling

The crux of the issue lies in the way the College Football Playoff has influenced the broader culture of college football. Under the current system, which rewards a strong record in a Power Five conference and an impressive strength of schedule, programs are incentivized to avoid non-conference games that could result in a loss. This is particularly true for teams that don’t traditionally dominate their conferences, as one loss can end a team’s Playoff hopes.

For schools like Nebraska, Wake Forest, and others, a high-profile non-conference game is viewed as a potential risk—a risk that could derail their Playoff hopes if they suffer a defeat. This creates a dilemma: teams are forced to balance scheduling for long-term program growth with the short-term desire to secure a spot in the playoff conversation. By eliminating tough non-conference games, these programs hope to ensure they remain within striking distance of the Playoff, avoiding the negative impact of a loss outside their conference schedule.

This situation has led to a broader debate in college football about the fairness of the Playoff system. Critics argue that the current model rewards a team’s ability to navigate a relatively weak schedule while penalizing teams that take risks by scheduling tough non-conference opponents. Sankey has been vocal about these concerns, suggesting that the Playoff committee’s focus on strength of schedule and the current 4-team structure are contributing factors in this trend of avoiding difficult matchups.

### The Impact on College Football’s Identity and Fan Experience

The broader implications of these scheduling changes extend beyond the programs themselves. One of the most exciting aspects of college football is the opportunity for fans to see unique matchups between programs from different conferences. These games help build rivalries, create memorable moments, and enhance the national appeal of the sport.

By eliminating games like Nebraska-Tennessee and Wake Forest-Ole Miss, college football risks losing some of the excitement and unpredictability that has made the sport so beloved. While conference championships and league rivalries will always be a central part of college football, it’s the non-conference games that allow teams from different regions to test themselves against each other, often leading to thrilling games and unexpected upsets.

This is where Sankey’s concerns are particularly relevant. As the SEC Commissioner, Sankey understands the value of a competitive, diverse college football landscape. His call for an expanded playoff system reflects a desire to preserve the integrity of non-conference games and ensure that all teams, regardless of conference, have an opportunity to play for a national championship without being penalized for scheduling tough opponents.

### Moving Forward: The Case for Expansion

Ultimately, Sankey believes that expanding the College Football Playoff will reduce the pressure on teams to avoid high-profile non-conference matchups. By allowing more teams to participate in the postseason, the emphasis on strength of schedule will be lessened, and teams will be more willing to schedule games that are good for the sport and the fans.

For college football to continue thriving in a way that attracts fans, recruits, and television deals, it is essential to create a system where competition is encouraged and celebrated, not avoided. Greg Sankey’s push for Playoff expansion could very well be the key to ensuring that future generations of college football fans get to enjoy the full spectrum of the sport, from regional rivalries to national showdowns.

In the end, the cancellations of these high-profile non-conference games highlight a systemic problem that, if left unchecked, could continue to impact the sport. If the College Football Playoff committee can adjust its approach and embrace an expanded postseason, it might be the solution that allows college football to once again prioritize competition over qualification.