With another offseason comes another “should we change how we crown our champion” discussion. In the BCS era, we all clamored for a playoff. In the four-team College Football Playoff era, there were calls to expand the field. Now that there is a 12-team College Football Playoff, the powers that be have their eyes on a 16-team field. Feelings on whether or not the field should expand seem like they’re hitting brick walls. The playoff field is going to expand. It’s a matter of when and not if. However, the question will be how we seed the teams for the CFP with the Big Ten and SEC leading the charge.
Our Craig McMichael wrote a piece last week looking at how the various forms would benefit the SEC, and you should check it out. Where the SEC benefits, the Big Ten benefits as well. The two have been teaming up to strong-arm the rest of college football, and some of the latest proposals make it abundantly clear that the two superconferences believe (and know) they’re steering the ship. Considering only one non-SEC/non-Big Ten team has won a title in the CFP era (Clemson twice), it makes sense.
The most polarizing format for the 16-team playoff is the 4-4-2-2-1-3 format. The idea is to give the SEC and Big Ten four automatic qualifiers (AQs) for each conference’s champions. The Big 12 and ACC get two. Then the highest Group of 5 champion gets one. Finally, add in three at-large teams. The Big Ten and SEC are top dogs in college football, so should they make up at least 50% of the field?
Does the Big Ten ‘Deserve’ Multiple AQs in the CFP?
If the 4-4-2-2-1-3 model ends up being the way college football goes, it’ll be surprising. In all reality, it is a 5+11 model, where the top five conference champions will earn AQs, and then it’s a free-for-all for the at-large bids. Ohio State’s head coach weighed in recently. Ryan Day spoke to ESPN and voiced his support for the four-AQ idea for the Big Ten: “We’re in the Big Ten, and we have 18 teams and some of the best programs in the country,” Day told ESPN. “I feel like we deserve at least four automatic qualifiers.”
Naturally, Day supports this idea; it is vehemently pro-Ohio State. How many programs out there could say that they will likely not miss the playoffs, barring a nuclear war? Some programs would like this model for two reasons. First, it would finally allow a 10-3 team with a polarizing coach to play with the big boys. Second, it has no history of excellence to fall back onto. Others know that it would take five losses to realistically eliminate the Buckeyes.
The Argument For
For Ohio State, the 4-4-2-2-1-3 model is the best case scenario.
When was the last time Ohio State finished below fourth in the Big Ten? 2011. The time before that? 2004 and 1999. So, if there were a 16-team playoff with this format, Ohio State would have earned an AQ 23 times out of 26. Considering how well the Buckeyes recruit and work with NIL and the portal in today’s game, it’s difficult to imagine a year Ohio State finishes with five losses, honestly.
To argue for the four AQs is to have the greatest amount of privilege in the sport.
So, for Ohio State and Day, fighting for the Big Ten to be given four AQs (plus anywhere from one to three at-large bids) only makes sense. Just as expanding the CFP to 12 teams greatly benefitted bluebloods, expanding to 16 teams and automatically handing two conferences four AQs each would have the same voices at the party. Sure, at least three non-champions would get in, and we can fight about the at-large bids. But then, it comes down to the “most deserving vs. best” conversation yet again.
The Argument Against
The 5+11 model is the best route forward for college football. It still benefits Ohio State, but it doesn’t completely devalue the regular season. No, this argument isn’t like the normal “the CFP devalues the regular season” argument you see on Facebook. However, you can imagine how the 4-4-2-2-1-3 model could be an issue.
Remember the 2023 season? It was the final season for the Pac-12, and it went out with a bang. It finished with three teams with 10+ wins, five different teams appeared in the top 10, and finished with a 5-4 record in the postseason. It’s not unrealistic that if there were a 16-team playoff with the Power 5 as it was a few years ago, the Pac-12 would have been well-represented. However, it would not have earned the right to have four AQs, considering it had been viewed as the weakest Power 5 conference.
28 teams finished with at least 10 wins. 18 of those came from the Power 5 (and Notre Dame).
The Big Ten’s four would have been Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and Iowa. SEC would have sent Georgia, Alabama, Ole Miss, and Missouri. Assuming it would have been more like 4-4-2-2-2-1-1, the Big 12’s representatives would have been Texas and Oklahoma State. The ACC would have sent Florida State and Louisville. The Pac-12 would have sent Washington and Oregon. Liberty would have been the Group of 5 representative.
Who gets that at-large spot? LSU? Oklahoma? Arizona? Notre Dame? Another Group of 5 team? Of those left out, Oklahoma was the highest-ranked team before the CFP.
No Easy Answer
There will be years when the Big Ten or SEC don’t have four or five teams good enough to win it all. Generally, one could argue there aren’t 16 teams good enough to win it all, of course.
While it’s unlikely given that the Big Ten and SEC have superconferences now, there is a possibility that both could be down one year, and another conference could be stronger.
The fact of the matter is that no decision made will be 100% accepted. That’s the nature of the beast that is sports.
However, if the Big Ten and SEC truly believe that they are the cream of the crop, they should just prove it on the field. The toughest conferences don’t need to legislate their teams to make the postseason, it’ll just happen. There will be years the Big Ten sends three teams and other years where five or six teams will be in the conversation.
It’s smart of the conferences to try and guarantee that they get as many shots as possible. However, only sending the conference champions with a field of at-large bids is best. Plus, it’ll allow for more chaos, including the possibility of more than one Group of 5 team, and who doesn’t love chaos!?
Main Image: Joseph Cress/For the Register / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images
The post Does the Big Ten ‘Deserve’ Multiple AQs in the CFP? appeared first on Last Word on College Football.