Abdelrahman
The Shift in College Football: How the Big Ten and SEC Are Reshaping the Playoff Landscape
For the past twenty years, any outlandish decision in college football has often been summed up with one simple phrase: “No one is in charge.”
However, the dynamics have shifted dramatically. Currently, the Big Ten and SEC are the dominant forces in the sport, and their influence is likely to reshape the entire framework of college football.
This week, leaders from both conferences are convening in New Orleans, where they are anticipated to advocate for a significant overhaul of the College Football Playoff (CFP). Set to roll out in 2026, the playoff will expand to 14 or 16 teams, with both power conferences awarding themselves four automatic bids each. The Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) and the Big 12 will receive two bids, while the Group of Five conferences are allotted one, leaving just one or three at-large spots available.
This move is not just excessive; it reflects the privilege both conferences have secured in the new CFP contract kicking off next year. Unlike the previous agreement that required a unanimous vote among the ten Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences and Notre Dame to modify the playoff structure, the Big Ten and SEC now wield the power to implement changes unilaterally.
The idea of such a four-bid allocation was first floated a year ago, before the completion of the 2024 season. It would be quite presumptuous for the SEC to force this through right after it had only three bids last season.
The inaugural year of the 12-team playoff highlighted several issues related to seeding and byes, but also served its purpose well. New teams like Arizona State, Indiana, and SMU enjoyed their opportunities, and bowl season experienced a revitalization due to heightened interest in mid-December games. Additionally, No. 8 seed Ohio State and No. 7 seed Notre Dame fought their way to the championship, rather than relying on committee votes for semifinal entries, as was typical before.
What better way to undermine the playoff’s credibility before it truly begins than by essentially rigging the system to favor two conferences that were already likely to lead the tournament?
While leaders in the Big Ten and SEC might argue this is simply a recognition of the new landscape post-realignment, they conveniently overlook their role in orchestrating these changes. Oklahoma and Texas didn’t inadvertently join the SEC, nor would the Pac-12 still be in existence if the Big Ten hadn’t chosen to expand by adding USC and UCLA, schools located far from their base.
Leaders from these powerful conferences might defend their approach by pointing to the historical data that shows the proposed bids align with what their leagues would have earned on average. However, this doesn’t justify pre-allocating spots. What happens if a conference has a weaker year—as the SEC did last season?
Additionally, proponents suggest this structure will diminish the subjectivity of the selection process. Rather than leaving the choice to a selection committee with fluctuating criteria, they propose to rely on league standings, despite the fact that those standings have convoluted tiebreaking rules that can be just as confusing and arbitrary.
For instance, if this model had been implemented last season, the SEC’s four spots would have included Texas (7-1 in conference play), Georgia (6-2), Tennessee (6-2), and potentially one out of a cluster of teams that finished 5-3. Just a slight variation in win percentages could determine whether a team competes in the playoff or ends up in a lesser bowl.
The irony lies in the fact that these conferences, alongside others, spent recent years criticizing significant changes in the sport—particularly the so-called tumult of name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals and the transfer portal—that have, in fact, contributed to a more level playing field. This evolution of talent distribution could arguably make playoff access more attainable for diverse teams.
Yet, college football isn’t immune to challenges. The latest wave of realignment has significantly affected the viability of many programs. It has severed traditional rivalries, left two schools (Oregon State and Washington State) struggling for relevance, and sent a clear signal to fans of non-Power 5 teams that their institutions are of secondary importance. Formalizing this disparity in the playoff landscape risks alienating substantial segments of the fan base across the nation.
The truth is, the Big Ten and SEC will likely fill eight playoff spots more often than not. The occasional bid may go to Notre Dame, but on many occasions, these two powerhouses might dominate, leaving the ACC, Big 12, and Group of Five with a solitary opportunity.
Moreover, the financial advantages enjoyed by the Big Ten and SEC are stark. They each claimed 29% of the revenue from the CFP’s new six-year deal with ESPN, translating to approximately $1.3 billion annually, while the ACC and Big 12 receive just 17% and 15%, respectively. These figures amount to over $21 million per school—more than triple their share from the previous arrangement.
Yet that isn’t sufficient for them. The anticipated addition of at least two more playoff games will undoubtedly generate even more revenue, likely not distributed evenly across all conferences. The next logical step may see the Big Ten and SEC innovating their own versions of play-in tournaments to determine who gets additional automatic bids.
At what cost is this relentless pursuit of profit?
While it’s true that the Big Ten and SEC boast the majority of national brands that attract viewers and crowds, it’s also essential to recognize that they represent only 25% of FBS institutions. Alienating the other 75% could be detrimental to the sport’s overall health. However, the current ruling parties seem to prioritize their interests above all else.
