SEC and Big Ten leaders will meet in New Orleans on Wednesday for the second time in four months to discuss key issues in college athletics. The agenda includes the House vs. NCAA settlement, future NCAA governance, and potential changes to the College Football Playoff. This meeting comes ahead of next week’s CFP management committee gathering in Dallas, where the 12-team playoff format will undergo its first major review.
“I would imagine that coming out of that Big Ten-SEC meeting that they will come to the table with proposed governance, proposed format — all of that,” one CFP source said. “I think that’s everybody’s expectation, but I don’t expect anything radical that hasn’t already been discussed.”
Although no firm decisions are guaranteed, ESPN spoke with several sources, including athletic directors, commissioners, and CFP insiders, to get a sense of what might emerge from this week’s meetings.
The Big Ten and SEC are focused on key playoff decisions, such as the number of teams, qualification criteria, and seeding. While the playoff will have at least 12 teams, there’s ongoing debate about guaranteed spots for certain conferences. With significant influence over the CFP’s future, these two conferences will help shape the format under the new ESPN contract starting after the 2025 season, which also involves considerations for conference champions and Notre Dame.
CFP discussions across all leagues are focusing on two key areas: potential changes for the 2025 season, which require unanimous approval, and more significant adjustments for 2026 that don’t. The SEC and Big Ten are considering both, with seeding as a possible quick fix for 2025—provided all other conferences and Notre Dame agree.
Last season, the top four seeds and first-round byes were given to the highest-ranked conference champions, a decision that sparked controversy. This system resulted in No. 9 Boise State, the Mountain West champion, receiving the No. 3 seed, and No. 12 Arizona State earning the No. 4 seed. Meanwhile, higher-ranked teams like No. 3 Texas and No. 4 Penn State, both conference runners-up, were limited to the No. 5 and No. 6 seeds due to the rule favoring conference champions.
Last season’s playoff format, which awarded the top four seeds and first-round byes to the highest-ranked conference champions, drew significant criticism. As a result, No. 9 Boise State and No. 12 Arizona State secured the No. 3 and No. 4 seeds, respectively, despite lower rankings. Meanwhile, higher-ranked teams like No. 3 Texas and No. 4 Penn State, both conference runners-up, were relegated to the No. 5 and No. 6 seeds due to the rule prioritizing conference champions.
A popular proposal for this fall is to seed teams based strictly on the selection committee’s rankings while still guaranteeing spots for the five highest-ranked conference champions. In this model, the top four teams—regardless of conference titles—would receive the top seeds and first-round byes. This change would also allow Notre Dame, as an independent, to secure a bye if ranked in the top four. However, some question the value of the bye, given that all four teams with byes lost their first game in the inaugural 12-team playoff.
The more complex discussions center around the 2026 playoff, with sources from the SEC and Big Ten advocating for a set number of automatic playoff spots for each league. However, even within these conferences, opinions vary. The Big Ten seems more unified in its support for automatic qualifiers. A commonly proposed model includes four guaranteed spots for both the Big Ten and SEC, two spots each for the Big 12 and ACC, one spot for the highest-ranked Group of 5 champion, and one at-large spot, potentially for Notre Dame if it ranks high enough.
While the idea of guaranteed spots for conferences has been discussed publicly, the commissioners have yet to formally address it, and it’s just one of many options. The first decision they need to make is the number of teams in the 2026 playoff, with multiple sources indicating that it’s likely to expand to 14 teams. One Big Ten source confidently stated, “Oh, it’s gonna go to 14.” If that happens, it would reduce the number of first-round byes from four to two. In that case, if the Big Ten and SEC adopt a seeding model that aligns more with the selection committee’s final rankings, the top two teams—regardless of conference—could earn the byes.
Not everyone is fully committed to the idea of automatic qualifiers, especially in the SEC, and balancing the selection of the “best” 14 or 16 teams with the need to honor guarantees for conference champions could be tricky. As one Big Ten source put it, “We’ve got to figure out a way to get to 14 or 16… We’ve got to get four automatics. We’ve got to get the Big 12 and ACC to join in. That’s the goal.” However, this remains a significant challenge and a major point of debate.
As one ACC source noted, expanding the playoff could turn it into more of an invitational, where a conference like the Big 12 or ACC might have multiple deserving teams but still see spots filled by SEC or Big Ten teams. The source acknowledged that “who has the gold makes a little bit of the rules,” reflecting the influence of the top conferences. If the playoff expands to 14 teams, it would benefit top-tier teams like Alabama that were excluded last season. However, some athletic directors are eager to see models that demonstrate how much it would help “the middle class” teams, such as Minnesota and Kentucky, by generating more interest in their late-season games.
A Big Ten source expressed support for expansion, saying, “I tend to think more is better,” and noted that teams like Indiana are now asking, “Why not us?”—highlighting the desire for more opportunities for teams outside the traditional playoff powerhouses.
The first-round playoff games held on campuses this past season were a huge success, with an electric atmosphere that resonated even on TV. Both the SEC and Big Ten athletic directors support the idea of more campus-hosted playoff games, and this sentiment extends beyond just those two conferences. However, many also want to maintain the tradition and history of college football’s most prestigious and profitable bowls, including the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Peach, and Cotton.
An SEC source noted that no one wants to undermine the major bowls, especially since they’ve historically been vital to college football, and have adapted to many changes. However, the cost of travel for fans and teams during the playoff has become a concern, with some pointing out that it’s often more economical for teams to stay at home. Another SEC source acknowledged that if high-profile teams aren’t playing meaningful games in these bowls annually, they might struggle to survive, but added that these bowls may not be essential for the overall health of the sport. Despite this, it’s still difficult for many to accept such a shift.
There are many ideas being considered, including the possibility of rotating the national championship game among the six major bowls, which are expected to remain part of the playoff system in the next contract. However, adding another round of home games could be challenging. At this year’s Sugar Bowl, SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey expressed his preference for maintaining the tradition of the bowls being involved in the postseason, as he told the New Orleans Times-Picayune.
The idea of College Football Playoff play-in games has been gaining traction among Power 4 commissioners and athletic directors, though it hasn’t been fully discussed yet as the number of teams in the field still needs to be determined. While conference championship games are lucrative, their value has been questioned by coaches and athletic directors. However, the importance of crowning a conference champion in the playoff era remains significant. The challenge lies in the complexity of determining the top teams in large 16- and 18-team leagues, where it’s difficult to pit everyone against each other.
There’s growing discussion within the SEC and Big Ten about using play-in games to determine their playoff teams, a concept also publicly mentioned by ACC commissioner Jim Phillips at the national championship game. Under this idea, if each of these conferences had four guaranteed playoff spots, they could hold play-in games to determine the No. 3 and No. 4 automatic qualifiers, allowing six teams a shot at the playoffs. This could potentially replace bowl games and even conference championship games, though such a drastic change could face resistance, particularly due to existing television contracts and the difficulty of gaining broad support.
Talks are beginning about creating a scheduling partnership between the Big Ten and SEC to pit more of their teams against each other in non-CFP bowl games. This is part of a larger conversation about improving postseason matchups, making the experience better for fans, players, and the bowls themselves. One source noted that the excitement from this year’s matchups, such as Michigan beating Alabama, added a competitive edge to the bowls, sparking interest in questions like “Who’s better?”
When the SEC and Big Ten met in October, they discussed ways to be more “intentional” about their scheduling. However, the SEC’s decision on whether to continue playing eight conference games or move to nine is still up in the air. This decision will likely be delayed until the SEC determines how many teams will be in the playoff and what the qualification process will look like.
The SEC and Big Ten’s partnership has raised some reactions across other leagues. In February 2024, they formed a joint advisory group made up of university presidents, chancellors, and athletic directors to tackle the major challenges facing college athletics. This move highlighted the growing collaboration between SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey and Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti, showcasing the increasing influence and cooperation between the two most powerful and wealthiest conferences in college sports.
Since the formation of the advisory group, there has been growing acceptance of the separation between the SEC and Big Ten and the other leagues, with less resistance to the idea of automatic qualifiers, as access has become the top priority. Some of this acceptance comes from the realization that other leagues lack significant leverage, while others simply acknowledge that the Big Ten and SEC are now leading the way. As one FBS commissioner put it, “Where the influence and power lies in our industry right now is blatantly clear… I’m not bothered by it.” This shift is happening at a time when college athletics desperately needs leadership, regardless of its source.
An ACC source emphasized the importance of generating good ideas, regardless of their origin, stating, “Coming up with good ideas — from wherever they come from — I think is really important for the enterprise.”
While not everyone is pleased with the growing separation between the Power 4 leagues, they remain connected through shared legislative strategy, governance, and the NCAA settlement, which ensures regular communication. This ongoing collaboration has eased concerns among administrators in other leagues that the Big Ten and SEC might break away from the NCAA, at least for the time being. At meetings like the one in Nashville, Tennessee, in October, both leagues’ attorneys are present to ensure careful adherence to rules and avoid any actions that could be seen as collusion.
One commissioner acknowledged that the Big Ten and SEC are going to act independently, noting, “You’ve got to accept the fact that they’re going to do some things on their own… We all look a little different. We all behave a little different. We act a little different.” However, there remains skepticism about the true nature of these behind-the-scenes discussions. A Big 12 source expressed concern, saying, “It’s so unfortunate that we believe we have to continue to look out for our self-interests… Who is looking out for the greater good of college athletics and college football in particular?” They questioned whether the ideas brought by the Big Ten and SEC genuinely aim for the broader benefit of the sport or if they’re primarily self-serving.
Leave a Reply