The biggest problem I have with a nine game conference schedule is that it doesn't allow a team to do much to improve their potential strength of schedule. As a fan of an SEC school, that doesn't seem too relevant. Now.
What about if we were in the early 70's or late 80s? SEC football was relatively bad then. It also isn't hard to imagine a nine game schedule where the SEC has three teams decimated by probation, say Auburn, Ole Miss and Texas A&M; five teams that are downright terrible, say Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Mississippi State; and four more that are mediocre, at best, say South Carolina, Florida, Vandy, and Georgia.
So you really think a one loss SEC champion in that scenario actually gets into a four game playoff over the B1.5G champion, the one loss loser of that game, any other undefeated conference champion or a one loss Notre Dame?
I don't think they would. Putting aside the obvious loss of a compelling match up, that is a bigger concern moving to a nine game schedule. I think Barrett Sallee's is too optimistic in keeping marquee match-ups (or adding those that will never ever happen, in Missouri's case). If the SEC goes to a nine game schedule, you can kiss any other OOC game with a major conference team other than Georgia Tech good bye.