The SEC is moving away from the AQ-heavy College Football Playoff format changes, signaling growing tensions and a shifting dynamic with the Big Ten conference.
The college football landscape is at a pivotal crossroads as the sport prepares for a major expansion of its playoff system in 2026. Initially, the Southeastern Conference (SEC) strongly backed a new playoff format that emphasized automatic qualifiers (AQ) from the Power Five conferences, seeking to protect the primacy of its own champion and preserve traditional conference hierarchies.
However, recent developments show the SEC is backing away from this AQ-heavy proposal, signaling a notable shift in the ongoing power struggle between the SEC and the Big Ten, two of the nation’s most influential college football conferences. This drift away from an AQ-centric system highlights deeper tensions about fairness, competitive balance, and the future direction of the College Football Playoff (CFP).
This article explores the reasons behind the SEC’s change of heart, the implications for its relationship with the Big Ten, and what this evolving dynamic means for the broader college football ecosystem.
Background: The Proposed Playoff Expansion and AQ Controversy
Since its inception in 2014, the College Football Playoff has featured four teams selected by a committee, a system that has been both praised and criticized. Calls for expansion to include more teams have grown louder, with a 12- or 14-team format widely anticipated for 2026.
Among the many proposals floated, one heavily debated idea was to introduce automatic qualifiers—spots reserved exclusively for the champions of Power Five conferences (SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Pac-12, Big 12). This “AQ-heavy” approach aimed to guarantee conference champions a playoff berth, ostensibly to protect the established Power Five’s status and maintain traditional rivalries.
The SEC was one of the strongest proponents of this AQ-based format, seeing it as a way to secure playoff spots for its conference champion and ensure its continued dominance on college football’s biggest stage.
Why the SEC Is Drifting Away From the AQ-Heavy Format
Despite initial enthusiasm, the SEC’s enthusiasm for an AQ-heavy playoff format has noticeably waned. Several key factors contribute to this shift:
1. Competitive Realities and Inclusion Concerns
The SEC has faced increasing pressure from both inside and outside the conference regarding fairness and competitive inclusion. Critics argued that automatic qualifiers could exclude highly ranked non-champions from Power Five conferences—teams that may be superior to champions of weaker leagues or Group of Five programs.
Given the SEC’s own depth of quality, the possibility that a highly competitive SEC runner-up might miss out under an AQ system became a contentious issue. The SEC is now more cautious about supporting a rigid AQ framework that could backfire by limiting its own teams’ access to the playoff.
2. Big Ten’s Rising Influence and Demands
The Big Ten has emerged as a powerful counterbalance to the SEC in recent years, both on and off the field. With dominant programs like Michigan and Ohio State consistently in the national title conversation, the Big Ten has gained leverage in CFP negotiations.
The Big Ten favors a more flexible playoff structure that prioritizes overall team quality over automatic qualification, advocating for a merit-based system that rewards top-ranked teams regardless of conference championships.
SEC leaders, wary of alienating the Big Ten or facing protracted power struggles, have shown signs of accommodating these demands to preserve broader alliance and financial stability.
3. Television and Revenue Considerations
Expanding the playoff in a way that maximizes marquee matchups is crucial for television ratings and revenue. An AQ-heavy format risks sidelining top-tier teams that attract large viewership but don’t win their conference titles.
The SEC understands that television partners, especially ESPN and ABC, want the most compelling matchups, which often involve the highest-ranked teams irrespective of conference championships. This economic reality is pushing the SEC to reconsider rigid AQ spots in favor of a more dynamic selection system.
4. Emerging Group of Five and Independent Programs Pressure
While the AQ-heavy format was largely designed to protect Power Five interests, there is growing advocacy for including deserving Group of Five and independent programs in an expanded playoff. The SEC recognizes that excluding these programs entirely could lead to public relations issues and potential legal challenges.
A more flexible playoff structure that allows for at-large bids beyond the Power Five champions offers a politically safer and more inclusive approach.
What the Drift Away From AQ Means for the SEC-Big Ten Relationship
The SEC’s shift away from a strict AQ system is deeply intertwined with its evolving relationship with the Big Ten. Here are the key implications:
1. Toward a More Collaborative Power Balance
The SEC’s initial hardline stance on AQs reflected a desire to assert dominance in the CFP structure. However, the Big Ten’s rising clout has necessitated a more collaborative approach.
Both conferences recognize that an adversarial relationship could fracture the sport and jeopardize collective interests such as television contracts and the sport’s national profile. This growing collaboration might lead to compromises on playoff format and governance.
2. Potential for a Unified Power Five Front
By moving away from an AQ-heavy proposal, the SEC and Big Ten may be aligning to create a unified Power Five stance focused on a balanced playoff system that protects their interests while accommodating flexibility. This front could effectively marginalize Group of Five conferences while appearing inclusive.
Such unity would strengthen their negotiating power with the CFP management committee and media partners.
3. Ongoing Rivalry on and Off the Field
Despite possible cooperation, the SEC and Big Ten rivalry remains fierce. On the field, both conferences compete for national championships, recruiting dominance, and brand prestige.
Off the field, the two conferences are jockeying for influence over playoff decisions, media rights, and college football’s future governance. The playoff format debate is just one arena where this rivalry plays out.
What the Shift Means for Other Conferences and College Football
The SEC’s drifting stance also has broader ramifications:
1. Group of Five Conferences’ Marginalization
The move away from strict AQs likely means fewer guaranteed playoff spots for Group of Five champions. While inclusion remains a talking point, the practical playoff structure may continue to prioritize Power Five teams.
This perpetuates ongoing frustration among Group of Five programs, who argue for fairer access and recognition.
2. Enhanced Importance of Regular Season and Rankings
Without guaranteed AQ spots, conference championships remain prestigious, but national rankings and strength of schedule take on even greater significance.
Teams will be motivated to schedule tougher non-conference games and perform consistently to secure at-large bids.
3. Pressure on the College Football Playoff Committee
A more flexible format places greater responsibility on the CFP selection committee to balance objective metrics and subjective assessments in choosing playoff teams. This increases scrutiny and potential controversy but could lead to a more competitive, merit-based field.
Conclusion: An Evolving Landscape
The SEC’s drift from an AQ-heavy playoff format reflects the complex realities shaping college football’s future. Competitive balance, revenue considerations, conference politics, and media interests all intersect to influence decisions about playoff structure.
The changing dynamic between the SEC and Big Ten—two titans of college football—will play a defining role in shaping the playoff system. While tensions persist, there is also a pragmatic recognition that cooperation will better serve their long-term interests.
For fans, players, and stakeholders, the shift signals a move toward a more inclusive yet competitive playoff system that rewards the best teams while navigating the delicate power balance among college football’s elite conferences.
As college football gears up for the 2026 expanded playoff era, the interplay between the SEC, Big Ten, and other conferences will remain central to the sport’s drama and evolution.
