Being the trendsetter that it is, the SEC stole some Sunday night-Monday morning thunder when it revealed at the end of this past weekend it’s sticking with an eight-game conference schedule. The high-profile, slight-of-hand compromise attached to that was a mandate for all teams to play at least one team from the Big 12, Pac-12, Big Ten or ACC every year.

Personally, I have a problem with that, same as how I expect I’ll have a problem in a few weeks when the ACC will probably also stay at eight games and possibly even issues a similar scheduling requirement. (And then you’ll probably see the SEC and ACC schedule one another and get around the ransom Big 12, Pac-12 and Big Ten schools could seek for a one-off non-conference game.)

I truly wonder how the College Football Playoff committee can treat the available schools equally when whatever formula the members decide to use or have to use allows for some significant variables, now most notably uneven conference schedules and potentially uneven schedule strengths.

What I mean is this: The Big 12 has room for three non-conference games. The SEC has room for four. There are a few built-in advantages now for the latter to pump up the strength of schedule because it has an extra slot. It can schedule one more high-profile game than the Big 12, it can schedule two pretty good teams instead of one really good team and combine the smaller risks into a larger SOS reward, it can engineer a way to use a great win to make up for a tough loss, so on and so forth.

You can draw that conversation out much more than I did, and that’s the problem. That’s my problem with this. It should’t be part of the debate right now, especially amid the much larger story line about those Highly Visible leagues. The irony is a bit much, don’t you think?

What you have is a group of conferences who seek a separation from the majority so its minority can rule, and suddenly a fraction of that minority is now trying to allow for more uniqueness. It was going to be hard enough to pick the four best teams even if there was equality in the criteria. The variation created by the number of conference games doesn’t help and it’s further clouded by the SEC mandate.

Games in late August and September have to matter and the SEC is right to compel its membership to act accordingly. But in the same breath, the SEC falls back on the belief the quality and the depth of its conference is enough to sustain and to separate its teams from other conferences. LSU v. Florida will always mean more than Kansas v. Florida because playing eight SEC games is a more daunting gauntlet than nine Big Ten games, or so it’s been made to seem.

And it really is slight of hand. Most of the SEC was already playing a team from a major conference. If a team didn’t realize the strength of schedule was going to be a big part of the CFP selection formula, it’s frankly hopeless. I don’t see the nobility in this scheduling edict. It’s like rewarding kids for going to class. If you want to get good grades, you’re better off taking attendance seriously. If you don’t already know that, you’re a lost cause.

If you look through the trees, you can see the forest here. The ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 and Big Ten all want to get a team into the CFP. The SEC wants to get two. The very foundation of this new system is a little flawed because it’s enabling that ideology.

The SEC championship game winner is always going to get in, but now there’s going to be, say, a 11-1/7-1 team in one of the divisions that thinks its worthy. What’s the difference then between that team and an 11-1/8-1 Big 12 team?

It’s an unfair situation for everyone. If the Big 12 team gets the nod, it’s not the SEC team’s fault it played one fewer conference game. If the SEC team gets the nod, it’s not the Big 12 team’s fault it had to play an extra game. If the non-conference schedule is the deciding factor, well, what edge did the SEC have with its extra game? And why should the Big 12 pay for that?

And it’s almost nobody’s fault right now because we really don’t know what the selectors will be thinking. The members are in Dallas this week talking things over, but many of the things that will be impacted are already in place.

Not many programs are willingly signing up to play out-of-state SEC games, but that will likely change. The mystery of the CFP is that school officials and coaches are unsure what will ultimately make teams the most attractive for at-large selection. Will a two-loss team that had the nation’s toughest schedule leap ahead of an undefeated or one-loss team that has a weaker schedule?

“It’s like with our men’s basketball team,” Luck said. “We knocked off three top 25 teams in Oklahoma, Iowa State and Kansas. Why? Well, you have to play top 25 teams to start knocking them off.

“With our baseball team, our RPI is great right now because coach (Randy) Mazey totally upgraded the schedule and the Big 12 teams are coming into Morgantown. We’re going to have our share of top 15, top 20 and top 25 teams.

“We know we’re going to do that in college football, too. We’re going to have probably three or four games against the top 15 or top 20 every season. That’s the way it is in the Big 12.”

The Mountaineers played eight nationally ranked teams in football the past two seasons, all Big 12 teams. WVU would need five years of Big East regular seasons to reach that number.

I’ll tell you the answer to my SEC v. Big 12 hypothetical, because the SEC commissioner cued it up for me: “The existing strength of the SEC was certainly a significant factor in the decision to play eight games,” Slive said.  “In fact, just last year, five of our schools comprised the top five toughest schedules in the nation according to the NCAA and nine ranked in the top 20.”

There you have it. The SEC schedule is harder than your schedule and always will be, never mind the very real opposition to that notion.

And the whole thing is made even messier by the presence of four conference titles games and the Big 12 leaning on round robin play and then leaning on a wall and waiting with arms crossed.

That may soon change. The ACC and Big 12 want to change the rules for championship games. The ACC may do away with divisional play, or at least do away with automatically qualifying divisional winners, and just pick the two best records for the championship game. The Big 12 might one day have a round robin and then play its two best teams in a championship game.

Or not. Who knows? It’s merely part of the problem. And for now, the fact a group that wants to break away from the pack and operate on its own is already creating a division within its new entity. That is the problem.