The SEC Championship Game is looming, and with it comes a familiar cloud of uncertainty surrounding how the College Football Playoff Selection Committee actually values these conference title matchups. It’s a question that’s been simmering for years, but as we head into a weekend where Alabama and Georgia are set to square off once again, the stakes feel even murkier.
Here’s the heart of the issue: does playing a 13th game help you, hurt you, or simply check a box?
For teams like Alabama, who’ve battled through a brutal SEC schedule and now have to face the No. 1 team in the nation, the cost of playing one more game is real. Meanwhile, a team like Miami-or any other squad that didn’t qualify for its conference title game-sits at home, risk-free, with their résumé already locked in. No injuries, no upset potential, no chance to play their way out of contention.
That’s the dilemma. If the committee views the 13th game as just another data point, then fine-treat it like any of the 12 before it. But if it carries outsized weight, if a loss in that game can knock a playoff-caliber team off the bubble, then we need to be honest about what’s really going on here.
Because if that’s the case-if Alabama loses a close one to Georgia and gets left out-it raises a bigger question: why play the game at all?
There’s no denying that conference championship games were once revolutionary. The SEC was the first to do it back in 1992, and it was a game-changer-literally and financially.
It created a spectacle, a winner-take-all showdown that added drama to the end of the season. But that was three decades ago.
The sport has evolved, and the postseason structure has changed with it.
Now, with a 12-team playoff field, the logic behind these games is harder to defend. Georgia is likely already locked into a top-four seed and a first-round bye.
Alabama, by contrast, has everything to lose. If the Tide win, they might punch their ticket.
If they lose-even in a close, hard-fought battle-they could be out entirely. That’s a tough pill to swallow for a team that’s done everything right since an early-season stumble.
Coaches aren’t judged on whether they played for conference titles. They’re judged on playoff appearances and national championships.
That’s the bar. And when a team risks everything in a game that doesn’t offer equal stakes for both sides, it starts to feel less like a reward and more like a trap.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t about protecting Alabama. The same logic would apply if the roles were reversed.
In fact, the broader point is that the entire structure of conference title games feels outdated in this new playoff era. With no more divisions in many conferences and unbalanced schedules across the board, these games don’t always pit the two best teams against each other.
And when they do, they sometimes punish one of them for showing up.
Look at college basketball. Regular season conference champions are crowned without the need for a final, winner-take-all game.
Why is football different? Why does it cling to this idea that a 13th game is sacred, when it’s really just another revenue stream?
If conferences insist on keeping these games for the money-because let’s be honest, that’s a big part of it-then maybe it’s time to rethink who plays in them. Instead of matching the top two teams, maybe it’s a chance for bubble teams to make their final case for an at-large bid.
Let the top team rest. Let them secure their spot and avoid unnecessary risk.
The Alabama-Georgia matchup is going to be must-watch football. The last time these two met in Athens, it was a heavyweight bout worthy of the hype. But once the final whistle blows, we’ll be right back in the same place-debating what the game meant, who deserves what, and whether the committee is consistent in how it applies its criteria.
And that’s the real frustration. Because even if Alabama wins or loses close and still makes the playoff, it doesn’t solve the problem. It just delays the inevitable: a season where a team plays its way out of the playoff in a conference title game, while another team that didn’t have to show up gets in.
That’s not just unfair-it’s avoidable. And in a sport that prides itself on competition, that contradiction is getting harder to ignore.