The College Football Playoff is headed for another expansion, but instead of creating a more balanced and competitive postseason, the SEC and Big Ten seem determined to turn it into their own exclusive tournament. Reports indicate that the latest proposal for an expanded CFP includes a 4-4-2-2-1 model, which would give four automatic qualifiers each to the SEC and Big Ten.
That’s not a playoff—that’s an invitational.
No conference in a 14-team or 16-team playoff should be guaranteed four spots. College football has always thrived on its regional diversity, but this proposed structure would all but eliminate the idea of national competition. Instead, it turns the postseason into an echo chamber of the same teams playing each other year after year. A system like this doesn’t just favor the SEC and Big Ten—it completely rigs the playoff in their favor.
The ACC, Big 12, and Group of Five schools would essentially be left fighting for crumbs. What’s the incentive for a program in the Big 12 or ACC to compete at the highest level when their conference’s best-case scenario is two bids while two leagues dominate the field?
Will college football fans get bored and tune out?
The SEC and Big Ten may hold most of the power in college football, but they don’t represent the entire sport. There are millions of fans who passionately support Big 12 and ACC programs, and if they feel completely shut out of the championship picture, there’s no guarantee they’ll keep watching.
Sure, Alabama vs. Texas sounds like a great CFP matchup—at first. But what happens when we’ve seen the same game year after year? What about when Michigan and Penn State square off every season in both the regular season and the playoff? What happens when rematches become the norm rather than the exception? The appeal wears off quickly when familiarity breeds predictability. Ohio State vs. Oregon in a rematch sounds great the first time around. How about when it's happened three-straight years and you've watched that matchup play out six times?
That was the exact reason the conferences said we needed expansion to begin with. Because they got tired of seeing Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State, and Georgia play in round-robins. Well, you're about to create just that, but on a broader and larger scale.
If automatic qualifiers are a must, the SEC and Big Ten shouldn’t get more than two — or three at most if they're willing to give the ACC and Big 12 two spots. Every conference champion in the Power-4 should get a bid, and additional spots should be earned based on merit, not pre-determined entitlements. The Group of Five also deserves continued access, ensuring that Cinderella teams still have a path to the biggest stage.
But instead of prioritizing fairness, the SEC and Big Ten are dead set on tipping the scales in their favor. That’s a short-sighted move that could backfire in the long run. A top-heavy system might generate big ratings in the short term, but once fans of other conferences feel permanently left behind, the long-term health of college football could suffer.
The brands in the SEC and Big Ten are powerful, no doubt. But, they're not the NFL, and they never will be. You need parity in college football — that's what makes the sport great — and if you're only going to have games that matter from two conferences every Saturday, don't be surprised when fans check out.
Ultimately, the SEC and Big Ten are pushing college football toward a future where two conferences dictate everything, and that’s not a good thing for the sport. A 4-4-2-2-1 playoff model makes no sense, isolates millions of fans, and risks turning the postseason into an exclusive club that few programs can enter.
If the goal is to expand the CFP while keeping the sport competitive and engaging, the SEC and Big Ten need to reconsider their approach. Otherwise, they might find out the hard way that locking out a large portion of the country isn’t a sustainable plan.