The SEC, Big Ten, and Big 12 are already at nine games, leaving the ACC as the outlier with eight.
There are obvious ripple effects on power ratings, strength of schedule (SOS), and polling.
Fewer high-profile OOC matchups (e.g. SEC vs. Big Ten or ACC) mean rating systems—whether algorithmic (e.g., SP+, FPI) or human-driven (AP Poll, CFP committee)—have even scarcer direct comparison points across conferences.
This amplifies reliance on transitive logic, like "Team A beat Team B, who lost to Team C in another league," which introduces more variance and guesswork.
Your serve King.
I remember the years before marquee early-season kickoff-type OOC games were regularly undertaken and teams more seldomly went outside their conferences or regions to schedule higher-value games. Even now, some teams don't do it.
-The relative paucity of such games in the past did not prevent the cream from rising to the top, but the scintillation factor when Alabama's toughest non-conference opponent was Louisiana-Monroe admittedly was not as great as with those occasional games against a Notre Dame or a Southern Cal.
There was always guesswork and biases involved in polling, some of it ridiculous, that the bowl season at least somewhat normed, but much subjectivity in the rankings was inevitable. Conference bowl tie-ins also kept the presumptive top teams from playing each other at the end. The BCS and previous CFP format largely addressed that shortcoming.
I believe that, in this digital age, it is possible to fairly assess relative team and schedule strengths - even on a sliding basis (injuries, etc.) - and arrive at some justifiable comparative ratings from which to derive CFP rankings. I don't think that adding a conference game, or even taking one away, would affect that capability with assiduous use of currently available tools.
Many teams don't get opportunities to play the glitzy OOC games anyway, or haven't been inclined to do so. If the available tools aren't used, that would be the fault of conference and CFP leadership. It would be derelict now not to lean heavily on such data since greater playoff inclusiveness has brought lesser teams from weaker conferences into consideration and seedings are already a contentious issue. On the other hand, I think we are in a better position now to analyze legitimate indicators of quality than we ever have been, and obviously, the public is watching and judging the process.
This is an aside, but I also thing the ACC, as big as it has become, will be going to nine games. It makes financial sense and practical sense from a comparative standpoint. Those teams they added need to be circulated quickly and with greater regularity that an eight-game schedule allows.
