Why SEC reversed course on AQ-heavy College Football Playoff format and what it means for Big Ten relationship
SEC Coaches Resist automatic Bids, Disrupting Big Ten’s CFP Vision
Updated june 04, 2024
The Big Ten believed it had found a partner in the SEC too reshape the College Football Playoff (CFP) into a format resembling the NFL. The two conferences had grown closer, orchestrating a takeover of the CFP that granted them influence over format changes for 2026 and beyond.
Historic conference meetings in Nashville (October 2024) and New Orleans (February) strengthened this bond. The Big Ten’s preference for more automatic qualifiers (AQs)—four each for the Big Ten and SEC, two each for the ACC and Big 12—began to resonate with some in the SEC who had previously resisted.
Sources involved in the discussions said that the Big Ten argued that more aqs would reduce the power of a perceived inconsistent selection commitee and allow for better non-conference scheduling. A Big Ten source explained that the goal was to “take out any sort of perceived bias or politicking and campaigning and let it play out how each conference thinks is best for them.”
The SEC experienced three schools (Alabama, Ole Miss, and South Carolina) narrowly missing the playoff cut, leading SEC leaders to feel the selection process didn’t adequately weigh the challenge of playing in the conference. This made the idea of lessening the selection committee’s power more appealing.
Big Ten sources described the shared meetings as “critical” in garnering support for a 16-team playoff with more AQs. Though, the focus shifted from the SEC to building consensus with the ACC and Big 12, which opposed the 4-4-2-2-1-3 model.
While SEC commissioner Greg Sankey expressed interest in the idea,the SEC began to rally around the Big 12’s preferred 5+11 model,featuring automatic bids for the top five-ranked conference champions and 11 at-large teams.This reversal caught Big Ten sources off guard and could lead to a power struggle between the two conferences.
SEC coaches forcefully against AQs, 9 conference games
SEC football coaches, including some of the highest-paid in the nation, strongly opposed AQs, surprising SEC leaders. Joint conversations between athletic directors and coaches became heated, as some ADs, anticipating extra revenue from a ninth SEC game, grew frustrated with the changing sentiment. The majority of coaches opposed a play-in weekend, believing it would diminish the importance of the SEC Championship Game.
“Having football coaches in the room was really good,” Mississippi State AD Zac Selmon told CBS Sports. He added that his position on automatic qualifiers ”evolved a lot” after the joint meetings with the Big Ten but that he still wrestled with weather that was the best path for the SEC.
“I grew up in sports, and if you want to win a championship, you have to go earn it, and I still think that’s exactly how it is in the SEC,” Selmon said. “If you get into the CFP, you’ve earned your way there, and you should.”
How will selection process change?
The SEC’s week on the Gulf Coast felt like a targeted attack on the current CFP selection process. Multiple coaches criticized the process that led to more Big Ten teams (4) than SEC teams (3) in the playoff.
Georgia’s Kirby Smart questioned why there wasn’t similar outcry when the SEC received a large number of bids in the NCAA basketball tournament. Lane Kiffin advocated for taking the 16 best teams and eliminating automatic bids altogether, suggesting tweaks to the selection process to emphasize team quality and strength of schedule.
The SEC’s dissatisfaction with the selection committee mirrors concerns in the Big Ten, which is why the Big Ten seeks to reduce the committee’s impact through more AQs. Under the Big Ten’s plan, the committee would primarily focus on seeding and selecting a smaller number of at-large teams.
What’s next
The future of the College Football Playoff format remains uncertain as the Big Ten and SEC navigate differing visions. The influence of SEC coaches has introduced a new dynamic, potentially leading to a power struggle over the direction of college football’s premier postseason event.