Why the B1G and SEC Proposed Playoff Changes Are Good for College Football

Via Doug Scott (@douglasTS)

Ever since the first revelation a year ago that the Big Ten was proposing an update to the CFP model that would result in multiple automatic bids per conference, the uproar against it has been loud and frequent.

For those playing catch up, here’s the rumored proposal in a nutshell:

★ Expansion to 14 teams (more likely) or 16 teams (less likely)

★ In a 14-team model, referred to in shorthand as the 4-4-2-2-1-1 model, the SEC and Big Ten would each receive 4 guaranteed bids; the Big 12 and ACC would each receive 2; and the top Group of 5 champion would receive 1.

The final spot would be guaranteed to Notre Dame as long as they finish in the top 14 of the rankings. Otherwise, it would be an at-large bid presumably selected by the committee.

The committee, therefore, would have a little-to-know role in selecting the 14 teams. But it would still be charged with seeding the teams 1 through 14.

The 2 byes would either go to the top 2 champions, or potentially just the top 2 seeds – regardless of whether they won a conference title or not.

★ The 16-team model, or the 4-4-2-2-1-3, would be similar to the 14-team version, but would add an additional 2 at-large bids. No byes would occur in a 16-team model.

Below, I will outline the chief arguments often made against this change. I’ll also cover why, although they are all sincere, they are also short-sighted, or just plain wrong.

Why are we giving out automatic bids? We should make teams earn it!

This is a very understandable and reflexive default response, and one that would carry a ton of weight in a world where all conferences are created roughly equal. But that isn’t the world we live in in today’s college football.

There is an ocean of difference between the B1G/SEC and the ACC/B12, and then another ocean between those 2 and the Group of 6 conferences. The playoff should correctly be modeled to operate in the world we inhabit, not a fantasy one that no longer exists.

Furthermore, you can argue that reserving specific bids by conference IS earning it. Bias and subjectivity and ever-changing, nebulous committee criteria would be gone, replaced by very clear and objective standards.

Every team knows EXACTLY what they must do to make the field. And in the 4 autonomy conferences, they all 100% control their own ability to do so.

Shouldn’t we just give the bids to the best teams? 

If those teams in those conferences deserve the bids, won’t they get them anyway without guaranteeing them?

The short answer to this question based on recent history is that yes, in nearly every year, the same 14 teams are going to get in whether we have set bids per conference or have 5 conference champions and 9 at large. So, the worst case here is we aren’t really changing anything or hurting anyone with this change.

Is it possible that some year a third ACC or Big 12 team would get in and a 4th B1G or SEC team should be out? While that is certainly possible, historical data shows that it is unlikely. In fact, the opposite is more likely.

Moving to set bids per conference is benefiting the Big 12 and ACC by giving them a second bid in years when maybe the SEC should have gotten a fifth instead.

So why would the B1G and SEC want to limit themselves like this?

The answer lies in what locking in bids and removing committee subjectivity will then allow the two conferences to do (more on that below).

Why are we declaring that there are different tiers of power conferences and giving more advantages to some over others?

Are we declaring that? Or are we just acknowledging the reality that has already happened?

Once the 2024 realignments moving Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC and the four former Pac-12 teams to the Big Ten were finalized, the reality is there are far more high quality programs in those 2 conferences, and far fewer in the ACC and particularly the Big12 – which doesn’t have a single program that even approaches the top 20 recruiting level.

There are 10 FBS conferences. No one had an issue when we started treating 5 of them differently than the other 5 about 15 years ago. No one had an issue with that. Why?

Because it reflected the reality that was already true: There were fundamental differences between the two groups that created a clear and obvious two tiers. What transpired throughout the 2010s and first half of the 2020s was just a reflection of that reality.

This is no different. The world of FBS college football has already evolved and we now have 3 tiers.

Setting up playoff access accordingly isn’t creating 3 separate tiers; it’s simply acknowledging that 3 tiers already exist and constructing the system to match reality.

Achieving second place in the Big 12 or ACC is roughly the same accomplishment as achieving fourth place in the Big Ten or SEC. Both would get in. Third and fifth, respectively, get left out. That’s actually more unfair to the fifth than it is to the third, based on historical data.

How does this make college football better?

Here’s how. It would allow two things to happen that could not and would not happen in a world of at-large bids.

First, it would allow the SEC to finally move to a 9-game conference schedule. Secondly, it will allow the Big Ten and the SEC to arrange for a joint scheduling agreement between their best teams and brands. Taken together, those things will give us more and better games between the biggest and best college football programs.

But couldn’t those things happen without changing the playoff model? In theory, yes. In reality, neither the Big Ten nor the SEC trusts the selection committee to be able to properly evaluate teams for at-large bids across conferences while the playing field is so completely unlevelled.

And those leagues are skeptical for good reason. The committee has proven time and time again that they are bad at evaluating strength of record for teams from different conferences, and in many cases even from the same conference.

The Big Ten will never agree to a scheduling agreement with an SEC while it plays one fewer conference game. Because just by math alone, an eight-game conference schedule ensures the SEC always has an advantage when it comes to playoff selections in an at large system.

Conversely, the SEC will never agree to move to 9 conference games in a world where they see teams with zero quality wins repeatedly get ranked ahead of SEC teams who have all beaten top 10 teams, in some cases multiple times.

In a world of at-large bids, these schedule changes would routinely see third- and even fourth-place teams from the middle-tier conferences get bids at the expense of B1G and SEC teams who played much harder schedules. And more importantly, who have much better wins on their résumé.

So, by guaranteeing 4 bids each to the SEC and Big Ten, it allows both those conferences to increase their schedule quality significantly. They would play more games against themselves and each other, giving all of us better games and less patsy games (looking at you late November SEC).

In conclusion

The rumored proposal by the Big Ten and SEC is a fair reflection of the current 3-tier nature of the sport. It removes unwanted bias and subjectivity from the process. It fairly rewards all conferences. It won’t substantially alter which teams ultimately makes the playoffs each year. And it will lead to other changes that will improve the overall quality of the sport for its fans.

The changes should be supported and implemented in time for the 2026-27 playoffs.