Joel Klatt Expects Big Ten–SEC Scheduling Pact If CFP Expands to 24 Teams
College football’s next playoff expansion may do more than double the postseason field. It could also reshape the regular-season schedule for Indiana and every other Big Ten program.
FOX Sports analyst Joel Klatt expects the Big Ten and SEC to pursue a scheduling agreement if the College Football Playoff expands from 12 to 24 teams. FootballScoop reported Klatt’s projection as the sport moves closer to a larger playoff for the 2027 season.
The important distinction: a Big Ten–SEC pact has not been formally announced. Klatt is describing what he believes will follow if the 24-team format becomes official. The playoff itself also still needs final approval, despite reports of a handshake agreement between the CFP and ESPN.
Why a scheduling pact makes sense
The SEC has made schedule strength part of its playoff-expansion position. Commissioner Greg Sankey has pushed for Power Four teams to play 10 qualifying games against other power-conference opponents or Notre Dame to remain playoff-eligible.
The SEC began a nine-game conference schedule in 2026 and requires each member to play another high-quality nonconference opponent. The Big Ten already plays nine league games, but it does not currently impose the same conference-wide requirement for an additional power opponent.
A Big Ten–SEC agreement could close that gap. Each school could play one game against the other conference, creating a more consistent 10-game power schedule and giving the playoff committee more direct evidence when comparing teams from the two leagues.
It would also create valuable television inventory. A 24-team playoff is expected to eliminate conference championship games, so regular-season matchups between the sport’s two richest conferences could replace some of the premium programming and revenue lost in December.
What it could mean for Indiana
For the Hoosiers, the most obvious change would be a recurring SEC opponent on the schedule. Depending on the model, that could mean rotating home-and-home series, centrally assigned matchups, or games selected partly for competitive balance and television value.
The appeal is obvious. Indiana–Tennessee, Indiana–Kentucky, Indiana–Auburn or Indiana–Ole Miss would create national attention, strong home crowds and measurable recruiting value. Curt Cignetti’s program would have an annual opportunity to strengthen its playoff résumé against the conference most often used as the national standard.
But the tradeoff matters. A required SEC game would reduce scheduling flexibility, especially for programs trying to preserve rivalries or balance seven home dates. It could also produce significant year-to-year strength-of-schedule differences unless the conferences develop a fair rotation system.
A 24-team field changes the risk calculation
Coaches have traditionally worried that a difficult nonconference loss could end a championship run before league play begins. A 24-team playoff changes that calculation. Teams would have more margin for error, making athletic directors more willing to schedule meaningful September games.
That is the best argument for the alliance: if the playoff is going to grow, use the added access to improve the regular season. Fans should get more games that settle conference debates on the field instead of leaving every comparison to rankings, computer models and television arguments.
The danger is that expansion could make those same games feel less urgent. If three-loss teams routinely reach the playoff, a blockbuster Big Ten–SEC matchup may become entertaining without being decisive. The sport’s leaders must protect the value of Saturday even as they create more postseason inventory.
Coach Griff’s Take
I’m in favor of more Big Ten–SEC games, but only if the standard is equal for everyone. If strength of schedule is going to influence playoff selection, every contender should be asked to build its résumé under comparable rules.
An annual interconference game would give Indiana a national measuring stick and give fans the matchups they have been asking for. The rotation must be transparent, competitive balance has to matter, and traditional rivalries cannot become collateral damage.
Most importantly, a 24-team playoff cannot be allowed to turn the regular season into a long qualifying tournament. Bigger is not automatically better. The right model creates better Saturdays, rewards teams that challenge themselves and preserves consequences when they lose.
— Coach Griff
Fast, Physical & Relentless.
Sources: FootballScoop; College Football Playoff; CBS Sports; SEC.
