The Shifting Landscape of College Football
Recent News
Last week, the top FBS conference commissioners held a much anticipated meeting. The agenda was expected to include items which could lead to the landscape of college football shifting in a major way. As it happened, the output was more mundane and the can kicked down the road on the bigger topics.
A lot has been written about the meeting already but I wanted to focus in on why I think it matters.
The Ecosystem of College Football
There are a number of interconnecting relationships in college football. My first article set out some of these but I wanted to create a more visual representation. I have sketched this out below and will spend more time talking about this over the coming weeks. And yes, I will make it more readable!
My focus today is the top of the picture and the relationships between the conferences.
SEC and Big Ten Power
As a quick reminder, the FBS is split into the Power 4 conferences (SEC, Big Ten, ACC and Big 12) and the Group of 5 conferences (G5) (AAC, MAC, Conference-USA, Mountain West and Sunbelt). There is also the PAC-12 which is rebuilding on the sidelines. We also cannot forget an handful of independent schools; Notre Dame being the most high profile.
As the name suggests, the Power 4 tend to be the largest and most powerful conferences in the FBS. They have had the most success in recent times, have the larger attendances and have the better TV deals. Of this year’s Top 25 ranked teams, all but five* were from the Power 4 conferences. It will be of no surprise that they are the more influential conferences.
*Notre Dame, despite being independent, are sometimes viewed as if they are a “Power 4 conference team”. They are part of my 5 here and I will do a separate article on them soon.
An uneven Power 4 Structure
The Power 4 conferences have not grown equally and we have seen the gulf widen between the SEC/Big Ten and the Big 12/ACC. Most of the recent success at a playoff level has gone to SEC and Big Ten teams and this continues to be reflected in terms of decision making, remuneration and power.
In 2024, a new agreement /TV deal with ESPN was agreed for the next cycle of the CFB playoffs running from 2026-2031. Within this deal, it was agreed that the SEC and Big 10 would take a greater share of revenue from the CFP playoffs.
Whilst being a prominent moment in itself, there were other interesting things baked into that agreement.
Proposed Playoff Amendments
During this time, an item left as a placeholder for further discussion, was the expansion of the College Football playoffs from 2026. The proposal included expanding the playoffs to 14 (potentially 16) teams from the current 12.
If approved, this in itself might not be controversial but the new format would see automatic qualification for each conference in the following ratio:
- SEC – 4 teams
- Big Ten – 4 teams
- Big 12 – 2 teams
- ACC – 2 teams
- Group of 5 – 1 team
- At large (but basically Notre Dame) – 1 team
By comparison the teams to make it into the playoffs this year were:
- SEC – Georgia (c), Texas, Tennessee (3)
- Big Ten – Oregon (c), Penn State, Ohio State, Indiana (4)
- Big 12 – Arizona State (c) (1)
- ACC – Clemson (c), SMU (2)
- Mountain West (G5) – Boise State (c) (1)
- Independent- Notre Dame (1)
(c) denotes conference champions
The Case for the SEC and Big Ten
I stated that the Big Ten and SEC were two of the more successful conferences in recent times. So why do they need to bother trying to force a move through like this?
Whilst they are successful they are also quite big conferences now. The SEC has 16 teams and the Big Ten, after recent realignment, now has 18 teams. Keeping a top-tier winning record can be tough in these conferences.
The Big Ten play nine “conferences games” against other conference teams. This is important as there is a fair chance of losing some conference games and weakening your record so you miss the playoffs.
This is similar for the SEC who play eight conference games. This year, SEC team Ole Miss, were ranked 11th in the final AP top 25 with a 9-3 record (5-3 vs SEC teams) but were not selected for the playoff.
Therefore, 4 automatic bids allows the conference to ensure that a wider pool of its teams always make it. It takes the subjective decision making away from the Selection Committee who currently decide the at-large playoff contenders. The SEC have been quite vocal and critical when it comes to the decisions of the Playoff Selection Committee. They have also been pushing for seeding changes for the 2025 playoffs.
There is of course some risk to this and some years, perhaps 5 teams from the SEC or Big Ten have a record good enough to get in but under the proposed framework they won’t.
It also remains a point of contention that the SEC only play 8 conference games in their schedule instead of 9. The proposed formatting would allow them the latitude to consider adding in another conference battle to the schedule.
There has been some talk of the SEC/Big Ten playing annual inter-conference games which would generate huge amounts of additional TV revenue. Guaranteed playoff places would allow this to happen without risking playoff participation. This however assumes that conference records would be the key deciding factor to win an automatic place.
The bigger conferences could decide the automatic places not by conference position solely, but by a play-in/playoff. This could generate extra TV revenue although crowded scheduling would become a factor.
Concern from and for the rest
The above looks ok if you are a fan of an SEC/Big Ten team. More meaningful games and more revenues for your teams to recruit/transfer in better players, and achieve even more success.
But to those in the Big 12/ACC it will be troubling. It will be a concern to see the SEC and Big Ten further disappear over the horizon financially. Whilst they maintain status over the Group of 5, they might feel hard done by if they are only set to have 2 teams each given they also have quite big conferences (16 and 17 respectively). That being said only 1 team from the Big 12 made it this year and 2 from the ACC.
These two conferences will need to adapt and certainly the Big-12 is thinking about private capital (external funding) to try and bridge the gap. One thing I am watching here is whether in an attempt to catch up the Big 12 and ACC start raiding each other for resources.
For most of the Group of 5 teams which would have one automatic berth, it would be hard to see making the playoffs as a particularly realistic season-goal (if it even is today).
If I make an imperfect comparison from UK sports, the Champions League comes to mind in terms of elite competition. A team in the Championship cannot access that competition but they can win the Championship, get into the top 4 of the Premier League the following year and eventually enter it. There is a pathway of sorts.
The above scenario is probably as likely as a team in the Sunbelt conference getting to the Playoffs. What does that mean for the fan of that Sunbelt team? Where is their gaze of achievable success? The great thing about sports is that you never know what will happen…. but they also say “it is the hope that kills you”.
Obtainable for all?
Under today’s framework, if a Sunbelt team scores an upset against an SEC team that might dent the SEC teams prospects for the playoffs. In this proposed new world that might not be the case and what does that mean for the credibility for the regular season? Is it palatable to lose the drama from what is a relatively short season? Should we not want to hold onto the fact that every game is critical for championship success? Would the new format rob the Sunbelt team of that Giant-Killing feeling?
An uneasy feeling
It is not uncommon in sports for the bigger, richer teams to find ways to separate themselves from the rest. There is probably a level of elitism that we as fans are willing to accept, as long as the product on the field/TV remains compelling. An interesting parallel is European football where we did reach our limit with the proposed European Super League. The football fan-base roundly rejected that proposal.
The structures and landscape of College Football are unique but I wonder if these proposed changes will start to signal a limit of sorts for college football fans.
Part of the appeal of the game is the subjectivity in rankings and hypothetical battles. It creates debate and talking points in a way that professional sports do not.
The New World
The direction of travel in College Football, is clearly towards more professionalism and removing the subjectivity; a trend that endangers some of what many love about the game.
Also, in any sport there is always a handful of teams that are more successful than others. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. But I think what is a little off putting for people is the brazen flexing of muscles by the SEC/Big Ten to move the landscape to their advantage.
In addition, there is the outside risk of these larger two conferences breaking away to form their own super-structure, fully picking up their ball and going home. Even under the proposed arrangements the smaller conferences benefit from the glow of the SEC/Big Ten and a breakaway would not be a positive development for them.
Not all doom and gloom
I appreciate I am focussing on something that has not yet happened. If you are a new fan reading this, even with these proposals we will still have access to a great product. As it professionalises it will just be a slightly different product to how it has been.
Despite the financial disparity it is worth pointing out that teams outside the SEC/Big Ten can still be competitive. Arizona State (Big-12) ran Texas (SEC) really close in the playoff quarter finals this year. This was achieved partly via use of the transfer portal acting as a leveller of sorts. More on that another time.
This is one of many things that are currently changing in the game. It is difficult to tell if the sum of the parts will be a net-positive for us fans. But there will be plenty to talk about as this evolves!.
