Scottie’s comments really forced us all to look within. Huge. What fulfills you? College football? Same. Same brother. More on that below.

Golf (and tennis) relative to the other sports don’t follow a playoff or title game format. I think Scott’s comments are a reflection of the Tour schedule as much as anything. Winning the Open (or any major) is less climactic (and perhaps fulfilling), than winning the Super Bowl because you still have to play next week. Win the World Series and you’re guaranteed months of glory, relaxation, revelling in your accomplishment. Your name in lights at every pool party this side of Cabo. Win the Open? Take a week off, but then head to Greensboro for the Wyndham Championship. Yikes. Show goes on though. KMARK goes on.

Time to talk politics. I’ve held off as long as I could before bringing up the P word. Let’s get into the wheelin and dealin between the SEC and Big 10, how it impacts the College Football Playoff, and what it means for the future of collegiate athletics.

To set the scene, the Big 10 is waging war against the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 to secure 4 guaranteed spots in a future 16-team college football playoff. The Big 10 feels that the depth of their conference (and the fact that teams play 9 conference games) should guarantee them at least 4 placements (up from 1) in the Playoffs. Why does this matter? Conferences receive a minimum of $3m for each team in the playoff. That number escalates per round. Like all collegiate athletic changes, follow the money.

Is the SEC on board? No, not currently. Commissioner Greg Sankey rejected the Big 10’s thinking this week and is adamant about protecting his conference’s current 8 game conference plus 4 non-conference game format. Why? The SEC (and ACC, Big 12) have a handful of unique rivalry games that could be compromised if the SEC decided to play 9 conference opponents per year. Think FSU-Florida. Or Oklahoma-Oklahoma State, Clemson-South Carolina, Georgia-Georgia Tech. Typically, the SEC and Big 10 have worked in concert to secure their dominance over the rest of college football. This disagreement represents one of the first breaks in their strategic alignment.

The 8 vs 9 conference game argument is largely ancillary to the 4 guaranteed spots issue. Consider that the bottom 4ish teams in a 16-team playoff are destined to be 9-3 or even 8-4. The Big 10 though is hoping to effectively guarantee a 9-3 team from their conference squeezes into the Playoff (and secures $3m bones). They’re posturing that it’d be difficult to rank their teams relative to the SEC if their teams play an additional competitive conference game while the SEC plays a cupcake to rack up an incremental win. Is a 9-3 Big 10 team more deserving of the 15th seed than a 9-3 SEC squad? Who the fuck knows. Here’s what should matter (they’re not asking me):

- Protect rivalries

- Protect the regular season

- Give money to players

If these conferences can keep that vision in mind, whether they end up with guaranteed spots, 12 or 16 team playoffs, or none of the above, then the sport will be in a good place. Lose the vision and lose everything. For now, commissioners from all conferences have until December to cut a deal. Keep watching this space and I’ll see if I can weasle into any backrooms of regional steakhouses for scoops.