Published
6 months agoon
By
adminAbout This Podcast
Health care and how much it costs is scary. But youre not alone with this stuff, and knowledge is power. An Arm and a Leg is a podcast about these issues, and is co-produced by KFF Health News.VISIT ARMANDALEGSHOW.COM
Federal law requires that all nonprofit hospitals have financial assistance policies also known as charity care to reduce or expunge peoples medical bills. New research from Dollar For, an organization dedicated to helping people get access to charity care, suggests that fewer than one-third of people who qualify for charity care actually receive it.
An Arm and a Leg host Dan Weissmann talks with Dollar For founder Jared Walker about its recent work, and how new state programs targeting medical debt in places like North Carolina may change the way hospitals approach charity care.
Plus, a listener from New York shares a helpful resource for navigating charity care appeals. Dan Weissmann @danweissmann Host and producer of "An Arm and a Leg." Previously, Dan was a staff reporter for Marketplace and Chicago's WBEZ. His work also appears on All Things Considered, Marketplace, the BBC, 99 Percent Invisible, and Reveal, from the Center for Investigative Reporting. Credits Emily Pisacreta Producer Claire Davenport Producer Adam Raymonda Audio wizard Ellen Weiss Editor Click to open the Transcript Transcript: New Lessons in the Fight for Charity Care Note: An Arm and a Leg uses speech-recognition software to generate transcripts, which may contain errors. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast.
Dan: Hey there–
Clara lives in New York City with her husband Remy and their family. And, recently, over the course of a year, they had some … medical encounters. At hospitals.
Nothing super-dramatic: Remy broke his ankle in August of last year. Hello, emergency room. Hello, ER bill.
They had a second baby in November 2023 a boy! who ended up needing to spend a day in neonatal intensive care. He’s fine. They named him Isaac.
And one night early this year, Isaac just… wasn’t looking good. Lethargic. Had a fever.
Clara: We decided to give him Tylenol. Um, and he spit it all back out.
Dan: They took his temp again. A hundred and three point five.
Clara: We started Googling, um, what is like dangerously high fever for a baby
Dan: And yep. For a baby that little, a hundred three point five is starting to get iffy. Like possible risk of seizure. But it was late at night. No pediatrician, no urgent care. Hello new, unwelcome questions.
Clara: The last thing you want to be thinking about is, Oh shit, this is going to be really expensive. You want to be thinking about, let’s go to the ER right now, make sure he doesn’t have a seizure.
Dan: So they went. And the folks at the ER gave Isaac more tylenol, he didn’t spit it out, his fever went down. They went home, relieved about Isaac and a little anxious about the bills.
After insurance, they were looking at more than eight thousand dollars. Clara didn’t think her family could afford anything like that.
And the billing office didn’t offer super-encouraging advice.
Clara: basically every time I’ve called, they said, why don’t you start making small payments now so it doesn’t go into collections.
Dan: However. Clara listens to An Arm and a Leg. Where we’ve been talking about something called charity care for years. This summer, we asked listeners to send us their bills and tell us about their experience with charity care. Clara was one of the folks who responded.
Just to recap: Federal law requires all nonprofit hospitals to have charity care policies, also called financial assistance.
To reduce people’s bills, or even forgive them entirely, if their income falls below a level the hospital sets.
We’ve been super-interested in charity care here for almost four years, ever since a guy named Jared Walker blew up on TikTok spreading the word and offering to help people apply, through the nonprofit he runs, Dollar For.
Since then, we’ve learned a LOT about charity care. Dollar For has grown from an infinitesimally tiny organization — basically Jared, not getting paid much -to a small one, with 15 people on staff.
Jared says they’ve helped people with thousands of applications and helped to clear millions of dollars in hospital bills.
And in the past year, they’ve been up to a LOT and theyve been learning alot. Before we pick up Clara’s story which ends with her offering a new resource we can share let’s get a big download from Jared.
This is An Arm and a Leg, a show about why health care costs so freaking much, and what we can maybe do about it. I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter, and I like a challenge. So the job we’ve chosen on this show is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life- and bring you a show that’s entertaining, empowering and useful.
In early 2024, Dollar For put out a couple of big research reports documenting how much charity care doesn’t get awarded. And why people don’t receive it.
Jared: I feel like for a long time we have been looking around at the experts, right? Who are the experts? And where can we find them and what can we ask them?
Dan: Finally, they undertook a major research project of their own. They analyzed thousands of IRS filings from nonprofit hospitals, and compared what they found to a study from the state of Maryland based on even more precise data.
And they hired a firm to survey a sample of more than 11 hundred people. Then ran focus groups to dig in for more detail.
Jared: I think that what these reports have just revealed is like, we are the experts like dollar for actually knows more than everyone else about this.
Dan: The amount of charity care that hospitals do not give to people who qualify for it?
The data analysis produced a number: 14 billion dollars. Which Jared and his colleagues say is a conservative estimate.
The survey showed that more than half of people who qualify for charity care do not get it. About two thirds of those folks do not know that it exists. Some people who know about it just don’t apply. And some who do get rejected, even though they qualify.
Their conclusion: We found that only 29% of patients with hospital bills they cannot afford are able to learn about, apply for, and receive charity care. None of which surprised Jared.
Jared: It’s like, Oh, like our assumptions have been correct on this. Like people don’t know about charity care. The process sucks. Um, a lot of people that should get it, don’t get it. Um, and hospitals have put all the pain and all of the responsibility on the patient
Dan: Those topline findings put Dollar For’s accomplishments in context.
Jared: Like we have submitted over 20, 000 of these financial assistance applications.
Dan: 20, 000 people. That’s spectacular. That’s I know you’re counting the money. How much money is it that you’re talking about so far?
Jared: I think we’re closing in on 70 million, 70 million in medical debt relief. So
Dan: Right. It’s a start.
Jared: there you go.
Dan: Its a start.
Jared: It sounds great, and then you see the 14 billion number and you’re like, oh, shoot. What are we doing? What are we doing?
Dan: laugh crying emoji.
Jared: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Dan: And so, for most of the year, Jared and his team have been testing a strategy to take on a 14 billion dollar problem.
Jared: We have spent the year trying to work with hospitals. We came at this how do we put a dent in the 14 billion? If it’s not going to be through TikTok, and it’s not going to be through individual patint advocacy, then what if we moved further upstream, and instead of patients finding out about us one to three months after they get a bill, what if they heard about us at the hospital?
Dan: Jared envisioned patients getting evaluated for charity care, and getting referred to Dollar For for help applying, before they check out. He thought
Jared: Maybe we could make a bigger dent into that 14 billion. And, I think that that was wishful thinking.
Dan: Wishful thinking. That’s how Jared now describes his hopes that hospitals would see that they could do better by patients, with his help, and sign right up to work with him.
Jared: Um, well they haven’t, Dan. So, we don’t have, uh, you know, we’ve got one hospital.
We’ve got one hospital. I don’t know if there’s a smaller hospital in the United States. It is Catalina Island Health. It is a small hospital on an island off the coast of California
And when patients go in there, they tell them about Dollar For, and they send them over. Um, that was what we were hoping to do with these larger systems.
Dan: Jared talked to a lot of hospitals. He went to conferences for hospital revenue-department administrators. He didn’t get a lot of traction
Jared: You know, this is one thing where I’m like, I don’t want to be totally unfair to the hospitals.
They’re huge entities that you can’t just move quickly like that.
it is going to take a lot more on their end than it would on our end, we could spin up one of these partnerships in a week.
And. They’re going to need a lot of time and it’s going to, you know, how do we implement this? Um, you know, with a small Catalina Island hospital it was easy, but if you’re talking to Ascension
Dan: Ascension Healthcare– a big Catholic hospital system. A hundred thirty-six hospitals. More than a hundred thirty thousand employees. Across 18 states, plus DC. Jared says they might get thousands of charity care applications a month. A deal to steer folks to Jared isnt a simple handshake arrangement.
Jared: How do you, how do you do that? You know, how do you implement that? I mean, it’s a pain in the ass. And these hospitals, and more so, hospitals are not motivated to figure this out.
Dan: Yeah. Right.
Jared: Unless you’re in North Carolina,
Dan: North Carolina. In 2023, North Carolina expanded Medicaid. In July 2024, Governor Roy Cooper announced a program that would use Medicaid money to reward hospitals for forgiving Medical debt.
Gov. Roy Cooper: under this program. Hospitals can earn more by forgiving medical debt than trying to collect it. This is a win win win.
Dan: Under the program, hospitals can get more Medicaid dollars if they meet certain conditions. One, forgive a bunch of existing medical debts. Another: Make sure their charity care policies protect patients who meet income threhholds set by the state.
A third: they have to pro-actively identify patients who are eligible for charity care — and notify those patients before sending a bill, maybe even before they leave the hospital.
Jared: I’m very excited to see how that looks in the future. Because if you remember, the big four, like our shit list, is Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina.
Dan: Jared’s shit list. The states where, over the years, he has heard from the greatest number of people who have difficulty getting hospital charity care. Where he often has to fight hardest to help them get it.
Jareds shit list, the big four, were the four biggest states (by population) that had rejected the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
Because of how the ACA was written, no Medicaid expansion means a lot more people who don’t have a lot of money and just don’t have ANY insurance at all.
It’s a giant problem. And North Carolina was one of those states where it was toughest.
Jared: And in, you know, the span of a year, North Carolina has expanded Medicaid, and created one of the best medical debt charity care policies in the country.
This law essentially says that they have to identify them early. So that’s like on paper, you know, it sounds amazing.
Dan: Onpaper it sounds amazing. We’ll come back to that. But first, let’s make clear: This wasn’t a sudden transformation. The governor, Roy Cooper, who we heard in that clip? He spent like seven years pushing the state to expand Medicaid.
The legislature finally agreed in 2023. And then Cooper and his team spent months this year figuring out how to bake medical-debt relief into the plan. It took a ton of maneuvering.
Our pals at KFF Health News covered the process. Here’s Ames Alexander, who reported that story with Noam Levy, describing the process on a public radio show called “Due South.”
Coopers team started out by trying to quietly bounce their ideas off a few hospitals..
Ames Alexander KFF Health News: But then word got back to the hospital industry’s powerful lobbying group. That’s the North Carolina Healthcare Association. And the Association was not at all happy about it. .
Dan: They raised a stink. And claimed the whole thing would be illegal, the feds shouldn’t approve it.
Cooper and his health secretary Cody Kinsley got kept going– and they did get the feds to sign off on the plan. So it was legal.
But it wasn’t mandatory. They were offering hospitals money, but those hospitals needed to say yes. And that didn’t happen right away.
Ames Alexander KFF Health News: When Cooper and Kinsley unveiled this plan on July 1st, there wasn’t a single hospital official who would join them there for the press conference. Ultimately, though, all 99 of the state’s hospitals signed on. And it’s not, it’s not really hard to understand why they stood to lose a lot of federal money.
Dan: Lose OUT on a ton of NEW federal money. A ton. According to KFF’s reporting, a single hospital system stands to gain like 800 million dollars a year for participating.
And you know, thinking about that — how much money hospitals were considering turning down — kind of puts into perspective Jared’s experience trying to get them to work with him. He wasn’t offering anybody 800 million dollars a year.I said to Jared: Seems like this would be hard to replicate elsewhere. Other states aren’t going to be able to put that kind of new federal money on the table. And Jared said:
Jared: I think before like, Oh, can we replicate it? I’m just like, how do we make it? How do we make it work in North Carolina?
Dan: That is: How to make sure when it gets implemented, that it really works? Remember, Jared said before: This all sounds amazing ON PAPER. We’ll have some of his caveats after the break. Plus the rest of Clara’s story.
An Arm and a Leg is a co-production of Public Road Productions and KFF Health News — that’s a nonprofit newsroom covering health issues in America. KFF’s reporters do amazing work — you just heard one of them breaking down how North Carolina put that deal together. I’m honored to work with them.
Jared loves the idea behind North Carolina’s initiative on charity care: Hospitals have to screen people while they’re on site, and let them know before they leave the hospital what kind of help they may be eligible for.
Jared: Making sure that a patient knows what is available to them before they leave is very powerful. , like, that’s where the responsibility should be. Um, but how do you do it? And what happens if you don’t? Right?
Dan: In other words, Jared says, the devil is in implementation, and in systems of accountability. He’s seen what happens when those systems are pourous.
Jared: In Oregon, they had that law that was like, Oh, you can’t sue patients without first checking to see if they’re eligible for charity care. . And then you find all these people that are being sued that were never screened.
Dan: Yeah, Oregonpassed a law in 2019 that required hospitals to evaluate patients for charity care before they could be sued over a bill. Jared’s colleague Eli Rushbanks analyzed a sample of hospital-bill lawsuits in one county. He could only see patients income in a few of them– but in almost half of those, that income was definitely low enough that the debt shouldve been forgiven.
He also took a big-picture look: In the years after the law took effect, two thirds of hospitals gave out LESS charity care than they had given before. Probably not what lawmakers had hoped for.
Hospitals in North Carolina will have two years to fully implement the screening requirement, called “presumptive eligibility.”
Some hospitals around the country already use automated systems for this: They check your credit, pull other data. Some of them use AI.
Jared says he’s seen some hospitals over-rely on the tech.
Jared: Some hospitals that are using presumptive eligibility tools will use that as a way to say, Oh, we already screened you. You can’t apply, but the patient is sitting there going, well, I’m eligible.
Your tool must have got it wrong. Cause these things are not a hundred percent accurate, or think of something like this, you lose your job, or maybe you’re at the hospital because you just gave birth to another human. So now you’re a household of four. It’s a four instead of three.
And obviously the presumptive eligibility tool isn’t going to be able to know that and calculate that. So if you go to the hospital and say, now I want to apply and they say, well, you don’t get to apply because we already screened you and you’re not eligible. That’s bullshit.
Dan: So, as North Carolina hospitals bring their systems online, Jared wants to push for a process where patients can appeal a machine-made decision. Jared: I’d love to be able to test that
how does that impact how many people are getting charity care and that 14 billion?
Dan: What do you think is your best shot for the next year of kind of moving towards 14 billion?
Jared: We are trying to figure that out. Um, obviously the election will play into that, but I think that if I had to guess where we would land, um, I think that we will double down on our patient advocacy work.
Dan: Jared says theyll definitely also continue to work with advocates and officials on policy proposals. But
Jared: The only reason anyone cares about what we have to say about policy is because we know what the patient experiences. So I think that if the, the more people we help, the more opportunity we will have to push policies forward that we want to see happen
Dan: So, this is a good place to note: If you or anybody you know has a hospital bill thats scaring you, Dollar For is a great first stop. Well have a link to their site wherever youre listening to this. Theyve got a tool that can help you quickly figure out if you might qualify for charity care from your hospital. Plus tons of how-tos. And theyve got dedicated staff to help you if you get stuck.
And we just heard Jared say theyre not backing away from that work, even as they aim to influence policy.
About policy Jared does have one other thought about their work in that area
Jared: We think that we’re going to get a little bit more feisty, uh, moving forward. So I’m, I’m excited about that.
Dan: I talked with Jared less than a week after the election. We didn’t know yet which party would take the House of Representatives, and of course there’s still a LOT we don’t know about what things look like from here. Jared had just one prediction.
Jared: I think we’re going to be needed, you know, that much more.
Dan: I think we’re all gonna need each other more than ever. Which is why I’m pleased to bring us back to Clara’s story from New York.
You might remember: Her family had three hospital adventures in the space of a year.
The first one, where her husband broke his ankle, got her started. The bill was eighteen hundred dollars, after insurance. A LOT for their family. But she had a few things going for her.
One, she knew charity care existed. Not because the hospital mentioned it.
Clara: No, I know about it from an arm and a leg,
Dan: And two, she had the skills. Because by training, she’s a librarian. And you may already know this but people come to libraries looking for a lot more than just books.
Clara: People all the time, will come in and bring in a form or need help navigating different systems and, and even just looking and trying to see where to start.
Dan: So, she went and found her hospital’s financial assistance policy online. Saw that her family met their income requirements. Found the form. Submitted it. Got offered a discount… that still left her family on the hook for more than they could comfortably pay.
And decided to see if she could ask for more. Was there an appeals process? There was.
But she didn’t find all of the information she needed online. The process wasn’t quick.
Clara: A lot of phone tag. And I don’t know if the bill pay phone lines are staffed better than the financial aid phone lines. But, you know, you get an answering machine a lot. You have to call back. The person doesn’t remember you. They’re not able to link your account.
All the things that I just feel like they’re really greasing the wheels of the paying for the bill option, but actually not making it especially accessible to do the financial aid and appeal process.
Dan: Clara hung in there. Heres what she told my colleague Claire Davenport.
Clara: Being a listener of the podcast, I feel like I’m part of a community of people who are sort of maneuvering through the crazy healthcare system. And I do kind of have Dan’s voice in my head, like, this is nuts. This is not your fault. This is crazy and not right.
Dan: Also, when she was angling for more help on her husband’s ER bill, she knew anything she learned could come in handy: She was due to give birth at the same hospital pretty soon.
Her persistence paid off. In the end, the hospital reduced that 1800 dollar bill to just 500 dollars.
Two weeks later, Isaac was born. And spent an extra day in the NICU. That, plus the late-night fever that sent them to the ER left Clara’s family on the hook for about 6500 dollars.
Clara used what she’d learned the first time through as a playbook. Apply, then appeal to ask for more help. She says that made it a little simpler. But not simple, and not quick.
Isaac was born in November 2023. His ER visit was in April 2024. When Clara talked with our producer in early August 2024, she was still waiting to hear the hospital’s decision about her appeal. Was it gonna be approved?
Clara: In the event that it’s not, I think we just put it on like the longest payment plan we can. Maybe we would ask family for help.
Dan: Update: A few days after that conversation, the hospital said yes to Clara’s appeal. Her new total, 650 dollars. About a tenth of that initial amount.
Which, yes, is a nice story for Clara and her family. But the reason I’m so pleased to share her story is this:
Clara: Actually, I made a template that you can let your listeners use for making an appeal letter. I’ll share it with you.
Dan: Clara thought it might be useful because part of the application and appeal process — not all of it was just facts and figures and pay stubs. There was also an opportunity to write a letter. Which opened up questions.
Clara: I feel like It’s not totally clear what you’re supposed to put in the letter and who you’re appealing to and how emotional you’re supposed to make it versus how technical
Dan: Here’s how she approached it.
Clara: I was trying to think about if I was reading the letter, what would help paint the picture of this bill in context of everything else. trying to put myself in their shoes, reading it, what would be useful t kind of add more depth to our story than just the bill. And then also I just tried to be really grateful and express authentic gratitude for the great care we received.
Dan: She also included a realistic estimate of what her family could actually pay. Which the hospital ended up agreeing with.
And yes, Clara shared that template with us. We’ll post a link to it wherever you’re listening to this. Please copy and paste, and fill in the blanks, and please-tell us if it works for you.
A big lesson here is, don’t take no for a final answer. Don’t take “We’ll help you this much” for a final answer. Clara discovered one other thing: Don’t give up if it looks like you may have missed a deadline. She missed one.
Clara: So I called them and said, I’m really worried. ” I didn’t send it in time. It might be off by a couple days. Is this going to be a huge problem? And they said, No, don’t worry about it.
It’s totally fine. Just send it. So I’m thinking, Okay, wait. There are so many people who are going to get cut off or get their bill and realize, Oh, well, I totally missed the window. So let’s go for the payment plan option. When actually,
Dan: If you’ve got the chutzpah, and the time, and the patience to make the next call and ask… you may get a different answer.
It sucks that it’s this hard. But I appreciate every clue that it’s not impossible. And I appreciate Clara sharing her story — and her template with us.
I told Jared about it.
Jared: Yeah, that’s amazing. I mean, I love, uh, it’s so funny. it’s just the idea of you have this patient that is going through all of this stuff and is so busy trying to focus on their own health, do their own thing, and they’re out here making templates so that other people can , you know, jump through the same hoops because we know We’re all going to have to jump through the hoops, uh, is just, man, how frustrating is that?
But how amazing is it that you have, you have built a community of people that are, you know, willing to, uh, take those kind of crappy, not kind of, very terrible experiences and, um, and turn it into something that is helpful for other people. I think that’s amazing.
Dan: Me too! So this is where I ask you to help keep a good thing going. We’ve got so much to do in 2025, and your donations have always been our biggest source of support. After the credits of this episode, youll hear the names of some folks who have pitched in just in the last few weeks.
And this is The Time to help us build. The place to go is arm and a leg show dot com, slash, support.
That’s arm and a leg show dot com, slash, support .
We’ll have a link wherever you’re listening.
Thank you so much for pitching in if you can.
We’ll be back with a brand new episode in a few weeks.
Till then, take care of yourself.
This episode of An Arm and a Leg was produced by Claire Davenport and me, Dan Weissmann, with help from Emily Pisacreta — and edited by Ellen Weiss.
Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard. Our music is by Dave Weiner and Blue Dot Sessions. Gabrielle Healy is our managing editor for audience. Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations.
Lynne Johnson is our operations manager.
An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a national newsroom producing in-depth journalism about health issues in America and a core program at KFF, an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Zach Dyer is senior audio producer at KFF Health News. He’s editorial liaison to this show.
And thanks to the Institute for Nonprofit News for serving as our fiscal sponsor. They allow us to accept tax-exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at INN.org.
Finally, thank you to everybody who supports this show financially.
An Arm and a Leg is a co-production of KFF Health News and Public Road Productions.
To keep in touch with An Arm and a Leg, subscribe to its newsletters. You can also follow the show on Facebook and the social platform X. And if youve got stories to tell about the health care system, the producers would love to hear from you.
To hear all KFF Health News podcasts, click here.
And subscribe to “An Arm and a Leg” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Email Print Related Topics Health Care Costs Multimedia An Arm and a Leg Podcasts Contact Us Submit a Story Tip

You may like
Sports
CFP format debate: Would SEC change cost bids? Does the 11+5 make the most sense?
Published
2 hours agoon
May 31, 2025By
admin
-
Bill ConnellyMay 31, 2025, 07:20 AM ET
Close- Bill Connelly is a writer for ESPN. He covers college football, soccer and tennis. He has been at ESPN since 2019.
Leave it to college football to take the silliest, most circuitous possible route to the easiest, most logical answer.
Though nothing’s official and things could take further silly turns, a read of recent tea leaves gives the impression that those in charge of how the College Football Playoff will look in 2026 and beyond are homing in on a straightforward, 16-team tournament with five guaranteed spots for conference champions and 11 at-large bids. After months of debates about different bracket structures and conferences getting multiple automatic bids, the conversation seems to have returned to a clean and easy bracket.
We’re going to pretend this means people are listening to me. When I wrote about this debate in March, I recommended skipping expansion to 14 teams and moving to 16, and I mocked the idea of multiple autobids. Granted, I also recommended putting six conference champions in the field and putting quarterfinal games in home stadiums, not just first-round games. I won’t hold my breath on those ideas (especially the former), but that’s still a pretty good batting average.
After a week of posturing from power conference leaders, let’s keep the conversation going. Here are some thoughts about what we’ve learned this week and the debates still to come
Moving to nine conference games might cost the SEC one to two playoff teams per year
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey talked a lot this week. He went on “The Paul Finebaum Show.” He talked about a scheduling partnership with the Big Ten. He increased the fines for field rushing. He talked about which playoff games should or will be on home campuses. He talked about how long this formatting process takes. He scoffed at being told to serve the good of the game. And he spent a long time telling everyone how hard the SEC’s schedules are:
On Thursday afternoon, the SEC provided members of the media with a six-page packet that included color-coded charts using multiple metrics to illustrate the league’s dominant schedule strength. Sankey said the task for determining the CFP’s strength of schedule component is striking a balance “between human and machine,” referring to the old BCS computer formula. … [The packet] included ESPN’s Strength of Record, Bill Connelly’s SP+, Kenneth Massey’s metric, ESPN’s Football Power Index and ESPN’s Strength of Schedule metric.
Sankey seemed to have two primary goals for bringing up strength of schedule. For starters, it seemed like he wanted to remind everyone that Alabama and its 9-3 record didn’t get into last year’s 12-team CFP despite strength-of-schedule numbers quite a bit stronger than those of higher ranked teams such as SMU (which had gone 11-2), Boise State (12-1) and Indiana (11-1). He said that decision left him with critical questions about the committee and its process.
“I do think there’s a need for change,” Sankey said of the ranking protocol Thursday at the conclusion of his league’s spring meetings. “… How do you make those decisions? It’s hard, and we trust the committee to do that, and I respect the people in there, so this isn’t a criticism of the people. This is wanting to understand the decisions. We have to have better clarity on the criteria that inform those decisions.”
Now, all the strength-of-schedule advantages in the world didn’t stop Alabama from losing to 6-6 Vanderbilt and 6-6 Oklahoma. In the latter game, Alabama couldn’t have looked less playoff-worthy, losing 24-3 to the Sooners. Maybe the Tide would have gotten in with a formula approach, but they showed no indication that they could make a playoff run at the end of the season. Plus, we know that the playoff committee took Alabama’s strength of schedule into account because it ranked the Tide ahead of 11-2 Arizona State, 10-2 Miami and 10-2 BYU, among others, despite how they looked at the end of the regular season. If Bama had lost to only one of Vandy or Oklahoma, the Tide would have almost certainly been in the field of 12. And they’d have definitely been in a field of 16 regardless, along with two other three-loss SEC teams (Ole Miss and South Carolina).
4:23
Greg Sankey discusses the hottest topics from the SEC spring meetings
Commissioner Sankey joins The Paul Finebaum Show to detail the conversations around possible CFP changes and conference schedules going forward.
Also, Sankey didn’t mention that the committee placed a one-loss Alabama team ahead of an unbeaten Florida State team in the CFP rankings just one year earlier. If we want to talk about a formula, let’s talk about a formula. But the SEC has been treated with extreme kindness by the committee on average.
(For the record, I’m all for a formula-based rankings system. I put out a BCS-like formula ranking in the home stretch of each season, and there’s value in the approach. People convinced themselves that they hated the BCS formula, but I will forever insist that the main reason they hated the formula wasn’t the formula — it was that the BCS selected only two teams to play for the title. With a lot more teams to choose now, a formula approach would work quite well.)
Beyond the attempts to work the referees, however, Sankey also discussed schedule strength as it pertained to the ongoing conversation about the length of the SEC’s conference schedules. The SEC plays eight-game conference schedules, while the other primary power conference, the Big Ten, plays nine-game schedules. Despite this difference, the metrics cited by the SEC above (including, yes, my SP+ rankings) are a pretty stark reminder that, between the SEC typically having far fewer easy matchups than the Big Ten and a solid rotation of annual out-of-conference rivalry games played by SEC teams against ACC programs — Florida against Florida State, South Carolina against Clemson, etc. — the average SEC schedule is already a decent amount tougher than the average Big Ten schedule. Using my recent post-spring SP+ projections as a guide, SEC teams project to have 13 of the 15 hardest schedules in the country despite eight-game conference slates.
Since Sankey serves at the discretion of SEC presidents and, to a degree, athletic directors, it made sense that Sankey wanted to push back on the mounting pressure to move to nine games.
“If we’re not confident that the decision-making about who gets in and why and what are the metrics around it, it’s going to be really hard for some of my colleagues to get to the nine games,” Texas A&M athletics director Trev Alberts said this week.
Why make your schedules harder if it will cost your conference playoff bids, right?
There are plenty of valid reasons for moving to nine games regardless of what it does to playoff status. For starters, it will likely increase the value of the SEC’s media rights contract, giving the league even more of a war chest. It would make teams’ home schedules even more exciting and, potentially, expensive. And most importantly, it would make the 16-team conference feel like an actual conference: With a nine-game schedule, you can play every team twice in four years. With eight-game schedules, those rotations take a lot longer. (Yes, this is being written by a Mizzou guy who’s bitter that LSU fans, with their tailgating prowess, have had a reason to come to Columbia only once in Mizzou’s 13 SEC seasons.)
Because we’re using numbers to prove that SEC schedules are already difficult, let’s use numbers to ask a different question: How much more difficult would nine-game SEC schedules be?
To answer this question, I did what I do: I ran a simulation. I created four years’ worth of nine-game SEC schedules based around the super-clean, super-easy idea of permanent conference rivalries: You assign every team three permanent, annual opponents, and they play six other opponents home-and-away over two years, then the other six over the next two. Voila, you’ve visited every stadium in your conference and hosted every conference mate at least once every four years. I’ve been floored that other huge conferences such as the Big Ten and Big 12 haven’t leaned further into the permanent rivals concept — the 16-team Big 12 isn’t making Farmageddon (Kansas State-Iowa State) an annual game, and the 18-team Big Ten didn’t set up annual games between all of its four new Western teams. Regardless, I set up permanent rivals for each SEC team.
-
Alabama: Auburn, LSU, Tennessee
-
Arkansas: Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
-
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi State
-
Florida: Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
-
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
-
Kentucky: Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
-
LSU: Alabama, Mississippi State, Ole Miss
-
Mississippi State: Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss
-
Missouri: Arkansas, Oklahoma, South Carolina
-
Oklahoma: Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
-
Ole Miss: LSU, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
-
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia, Missouri
-
Tennessee: Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
-
Texas: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
-
Texas A&M: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas
-
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Ole Miss, Tennessee
These pairings preserve all but one of the series that have been played 90-plus times (Alabama-Mississippi State is the one I couldn’t squeeze in, in part because MSU has four such series). They reconnect former Big 8, Big 12 and/or SWC rivalries such as Oklahoma-Missouri and Texas-Arkansas, but they don’t go too far in that regard — at this point, Missouri has played South Carolina as conference mates as many times as Texas A&M (13) and more than Texas (nine), and the teams from the two Columbias have played some strange and memorable battles already.
There’s obviously a pretty big difference in quality between, say, Auburn’s or LSU’s annual opponents versus that of Kentucky or Ole Miss. But remember: Six of a team’s nine conference games come from the rest of the pool. Over a four-year rotation, Auburn’s schedules are only a smidgen harder than Ole Miss’ on average.
A full nine-game Auburn schedule might look like this: Alabama, at Georgia, Mississippi State, at Oklahoma, South Carolina, at Ole Miss, Tennessee, at Vanderbilt, Texas A&M. Meanwhile, an Ole Miss schedule might look like this (common opponents in bold): at LSU, Vanderbilt, at Mississippi State, Arkansas, at Kentucky, Auburn, at Missouri, Georgia, at Oklahoma. One plays Alabama, the other plays LSU. One plays Kentucky, the other plays South Carolina. Over time, the schedule strengths will be pretty close.
Using existing nonconference games as much as possible (with a few necessary tweaks), here’s what the 2026 schedule might look like with nine total conference games and a 3+6 approach.
Because you’ve got some teams now playing five conference road games, it will be difficult to avoid handing teams some pretty rough patches — Alabama and Missouri playing four road games in five weeks late in the season, for example, or Kentucky starting with back-to-back conference road games. But it’s hard not to notice how every week is pretty loaded. Some hypothetical 2026 headliners:
-
Week 1: Georgia at Ole Miss, Clemson at LSU, Miami at South Carolina, Texas A&M at Tennessee
-
Week 2: Ohio State at Texas, Oklahoma at Michigan, Missouri at Kansas, Kentucky at LSU
-
Week 3: Florida State at Alabama, Oklahoma at Texas A&M, South Carolina at Auburn, Florida at Kentucky
-
Week 4: Tennessee at Georgia, Alabama at Florida, Arkansas vs. Texas A&M, LSU at South Carolina, Illinois at Missouri*
-
Week 5: Georgia at Alabama, Auburn at Oklahoma, Florida at Texas, Texas A&M at South Carolina, Ole Miss at Missouri
-
Week 6: Oklahoma vs. Texas, Tennessee at Auburn, Missouri at Georgia, South Carolina at Florida
-
Week 7: Tennessee at Alabama, LSU at Texas, Auburn at Ole Miss, Oklahoma at Arkansas, Georgia at South Carolina
-
Week 8: Arkansas at Ole Miss, Missouri at South Carolina, Oklahoma at Kentucky
-
Week 9: Alabama at Texas, Georgia vs. Florida, Ole Miss at LSU, Missouri at Texas A&M
-
Week 10: Alabama at LSU, Texas A&M at Auburn, Ole Miss at Oklahoma, Texas at Missouri
-
Week 11: Auburn at Georgia, Texas at Arkansas, Florida at Texas A&M, Missouri at Tennessee
-
Week 12: LSU at Florida, Georgia at Texas A&M, Missouri at Oklahoma, Alabama at South Carolina
-
Week 13: The typical loaded rivalry week
(* Missouri is somehow scheduled to play at Illinois and Kansas in 2026, but because the Tigers drew a slate with five conference road games, I flipped the Illinois game out of pure convenience.)
Obviously, the real-life 2026 SEC slate will also feature a lot of these big-time games, but aside from a relatively paltry Week 8, every week has some huge, TV-friendly brand matchups. That’s an utterly loaded schedule.
It’s also a schedule that will, as athletic directors will surely notice, hand quite a few losses to good teams.
1:29
Paul Finebaum supports CFP moving to straight seeding in 2025
Paul Finebaum is on board with the College Football Playoff shifting to a straight seeding model starting this season.
Though I shared hypothetical 2026 schedules above, I wanted to use SP+ projections to look at a full four-year rotation and compare what it would produce from a wins-and-losses standpoint to what the current eight-game slate produces.
For the league’s elite teams, moving to nine games won’t make much of a difference. For instance, with its current schedule, SP+ projects Georgia to win 9.8 games on average, with an 84.9% chance of going at least 9-3 (the hypothetical cutoff line for SEC teams hoping to get into the field). But with an abridged, three-game nonconference schedule — for the most part, I shrank nonconference schedules by getting rid of teams’ second games against Group of 5 teams and leaving one game against a power-conference opponent, one against a G5 team and one against an FCS team — Georgia averages 9.7 wins over four simulated seasons, with a 79.6% chance of reaching 9-3 or better on average. There’s a bit less margin for error, but well-projected teams like Georgia will be in good shape, regardless.
For the league’s light heavyweights, however, things get trickier. Florida has a 43.7% chance of finishing 9-3 or better in 2025, but in a nine-SEC-games universe, that drops to 19.6%. Four others see their odds drop by at least 10%, and current long shots like Vanderbilt (10.2% chance of going 9-3 in 2025) see their odds almost completely vanish (0.1%).
Overall, an average of 6.2 SEC teams are projected to go 9-3 or better in 2025. In a nine-game universe, that average shrinks to 4.7. With a 16-team field, you could say that the league would go from expecting around six teams in the field to having four or five teams safely in and campaigning for some 8-4 teams. Meanwhile, the league would also go from an average of 13.4 bowl-eligible teams to just 11.4.
That’s not an insignificant change. There would be plenty of cases where an 8-4 team with an off-the-charts strength of schedule would also be in good shape, but the professed risk is real. Of course, that’s what the money’s for. Media rights revenue would probably rise with expanded conference schedules; plus, the SEC and Big Ten are already guaranteed a huge portion of future CFP money anyway, so if they lose a playoff team here or there, it’s only going to hurt so much. Still, it’s easy to see why SEC ADs and coaches, whose jobs (and, potentially, bonuses) might be dictated by CFP bids, might balk at making tough schedules tougher.
The SEC and Big Ten championship games are being rendered moot
Among the main reasons the Big Ten, in particular, was interested in a selection process that featured multiple autobids (a rumored four each for the Big Ten and SEC) were that it would allow the two conferences — plus, perhaps, the ACC and Big 12, which were likely to receive two guaranteed bids each in such a structure — to redefine Championship Weekend.
The Big Ten and SEC championship games provided little-to-no positive impact for their winners last year: Oregon beat Penn State in the Big Ten championship to earn a first-round playoff bye but drew a smoking hot Ohio State in the quarterfinals and lost, and Georgia beat Texas in the SEC championship but lost quarterback Carson Beck to injury and handed Gunner Stockton his first career start in a quarterfinal loss to Notre Dame. (Plus, there were almost no negative repercussions for losing these games. Penn State and Texas each dropped only one spot in the rankings, and when SMU lost to lower-ranked Clemson in the ACC championship game, the Mustangs fell only from eighth to 10th and still got in.) With autobids, you could create multiple play-in games and produce a new spectacle while avoiding handing extra injury risk to just your top two teams.
There’s logic in that, even if I didn’t think it outweighed the negatives of multiple autobids — that they would make the entire playoff look like a Big Ten-SEC invitational, render large portions of the regular season moot (nonconference games would have almost no impact on playoff bids, and if a No. 6 seed with an 8-4 record can steal an 11-1 No. 3 seed’s playoff bid, then what’s the point of any of this?) and sure looked like they were primarily designed to rake in extra television dough.
Recent brainstorming sessions reportedly produced ideas such as giving SEC and Big Ten champions a double-bye in a 16-team bracket, with a first round consisting of play-in games for the lowest-ranked of the 16 teams, but that ruins the point of a clean, easy 16-team playoff. But with a plain 16-teamer, the impact of the SEC and Big Ten championships will be the difference between getting a No. 1 and No. 4 seed. That doesn’t counter the injury risk.
Conference championships are valuable enough that I doubt conferences will willingly get rid of them. But they feel like a hindrance to the current process, and I wonder how conference leaders will square that circle. I have one idea, though, and it comes from the 2020 COVID season.
When the Big Ten initially announced it was returning to action that fall, it created an abbreviated eight-game slate for each team, followed by a championship weekend that was intended to feature extra cross-division games for each team across the East and West divisions — No. 2 East vs. No. 2 West, No. 3 vs. No. 3, etc. Granted, things got messy because of positive COVID tests and resulting cancellations, but the Big Ten still featured four games on championship weekend.
Maybe there’s something to the idea of playing a full slate of championship week games, even if they aren’t playoff play-in games? Maybe that becomes part of the regular-season slate, in which, after everyone has played eight conference games, the standings determine who you play for the ninth?
Using last year’s eight-game SEC standings (and adjusting to avoid rematches where possible), we could have sent Texas and Georgia to play for the SEC title in Atlanta while also having 6-2 Tennessee (the No. 3 team in the standings) host 5-3 LSU, 5-3 Alabama host 5-3 Texas A&M, and so on. That would keep everyone from playing an extra game, and it would create a lot of de facto playoff play-in games even if they weren’t officially called that.
The brainstorming on this can continue for a while longer, but there’s no doubting that, though I think a clean 16-teamer is the most favorable conclusion for this long debate, there are still downsides and wrinkles to iron out.

Four-star tight end Mark Bowman announced his commitment to USC on Friday, picking the in-state Trojans over Georgia, Ole Miss, Oregon and Texas.
Bowman, No. 24 in the 2026 ESPN 300, is ESPN’s No. 3 tight end prospect in the 2026 class.
The 6-foot-5, 225-pound recruit from California’s Mater Dei High School was previously a top-ranked prospect in the 2027 cycle prior to his reclassification into the 2026 class earlier this year. He now joins five-star USC pledges Elbert Hill (No. 15) and Keenyi Pepe (No. 17) among top-100 recruits currently committed to the Trojans’ incoming recruiting class.
Following a series of spring unofficial visits, Bowman narrowed his list of finalists to seven programs earlier this month: Georgia, Miami, Ole Miss, Ohio State, Oregon, Texas and USC. Prior to his pledge, he was scheduled to take official visits with Miami, Texas, USC, Georgia and Oregon from May 30 to June 20.
Bowman caught 32 passes for 435 yards with eight touchdowns in his sophomore season at Mater Dei. He lands with USC as the program’s third-ranked commit in the program’s 2026 class, which ranks No. 1 nationally in ESPN’s latest team recruiting rankings for the cycle.
Alongside running back pledge Shahn Alston II (No. 94) and wide receiver Trent Mosley (No. 179), Bowman now leads the collection skill position talents USC is set to add in 2026 around four-star quarterback pledge Jonas Williams (No. 155), who flipped from Oregon in February.
Bowman’s pledge comes as a late-spring recruiting boost for the Trojans after four-star outside linebacker Xavier Griffin (No. 28 overall) pulled his pledge from the program earlier this month. Four-star cornerback R.J. Sermons, previously ranked as ESPN’s No. 28th-ranked prospect in 2026, reclassified into the 2025 cycle last week and will join USC this summer.
The Trojans enter the busiest stretch of the recruiting calendar next month with 13 ESPN 300 pledges. USC is set to host a key recruiting weekend starting June 6 with current commits Hill and Alston and four-star wide receiver Ethan Feaster (No. 23) and athlete Jalen Lott (No. 108) among the top prospects expected on campus.
Sports
Big 12 chief: Big Ten, SEC must serve all football
Published
2 hours agoon
May 31, 2025By
admin
-
Andrea AdelsonMay 30, 2025, 01:29 PM ET
Close- ACC reporter.
- Joined ESPN.com in 2010.
- Graduate of the University of Florida.
ORLANDO, Fla. — Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark reiterated his support for the 5+11 College Football Playoff model, saying Friday that even though the Big Ten and SEC are leading the discussions, those conferences have a “great responsibility” that goes with it.
Over the past several days, momentum has grown for an expanded 16-team playoff that would feature the top five conference champions as automatic qualifiers and 11 at-large teams, a model Yormark presented when the Power 4 commissioners met recently in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Another model that has been presented includes four automatic qualifiers each for the Big Ten and SEC, two each for the ACC and Big 12, and one for the top Group of 5 team. Both the Big 12 and ACC are against that model.
The Big Ten and SEC have the bulk of control over the playoff’s format in 2026 and beyond, something the other FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua agreed to last year when a new six-year deal for the CFP was announced.
“I think there’s real momentum for 5-11,” Yormark said at the conclusion of the Big 12 spring meetings. “Certainly, the public is voting yes for it, which I think is critically important. Yes, the Big Ten, the SEC are leading the discussions, but with leading those discussions, they have a great responsibility that goes with it, to do what’s right for college football and not to do anything that just benefits two conferences.
“I have a lot of faith in the process, and I think we’ll land in the right place.”
Yormark was asked why the Big 12 would be against a model that would guarantee two playoff spots for his conference.
“In talking to our ADs and coaches, we want to earn it on the field,” Yormark said. “The 5-11 might not be ideal for the conference, but it’s good for college football, and it’s what’s fair. We don’t want any gimmes. We want to earn it on the field. I feel very comfortable with that, and I feel the same way, and I’ve been very outspoken about it.”
Indeed, Arizona State coach Kenny Dillingham, whose team made the CFP last season, said Thursday, “Every year is a new year. You never know who’s going to be good in college football, especially with the volatility with the portal. So anything that creates an open platform for teams like our guys last year to prove that they do belong, I’m in support of.”
He added, “Our coaches and our league want just the best teams, whoever those best teams are in college football that year, let’s have those best teams go and compete for a championship.”
TCU coach Sonny Dykes said the notion that conferences would get more than one automatic qualifier “doesn’t make any sense.”
“All anybody wants is to look up at the end of the year and see the best teams competing for a national championship,” Dykes said. “I don’t think that guaranteed bids does. That’s not how it works in pro football; that’s not how it works in any other sport. The AFC West gets four bids, and the NFC Central only two — that stuff doesn’t make any sense. It’s not good for the sport. I don’t think it’s good for the fans. It’s just not good for the game.”
Yormark said CFP leaders have until December to determine the future format. The FBS commissioners and Bevacqua are scheduled to meet June 18 in Asheville, North Carolina.
“We have some time now to work through the process,” Yormark said. “It is a process, but I do anticipate something getting done sooner than later.”
This is the second time in a week that Yormark has remarked about doing what is best for college football. After the commissioners agreed to move to a straight seeding model for the CFP, which will start in the 2025 season, Yormark said he hopes what’s best for college football is “the priority” moving forward. ACC commissioner Jim Phillips made similar remarks about his “responsibility” to the game.
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey seemed to take umbrage with that, saying from SEC spring meetings earlier in the week, “I don’t need lectures from others about ‘good of the game.’ I don’t lecture others about good of the game.”
Asked for his response to that, Yormark said, “I agreed with Greg’s follow-up statement that I’d be entertained by it, and I was. We all have thick skin here. The neat thing about our relationship amongst the commissioners is we’re going to battle. That’s part of life. We’re going to agree to disagree. We’re kind of in that mode right now, but I have a lot of respect for my peers, and I know they have a lot of respect for me and Jim, and we’ll end up in the right place.”
Trending
-
Sports3 years ago
‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year ago
Story injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years ago
Game 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years ago
MLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years ago
Japan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years ago
Game-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years ago
Bank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway