Ohio State’s Ryan Day thinks the Big Ten deserves this number of automatic qualifier (AQ) spots.
Ohio State’s Ryan Day thinks the Big Ten deserves this number of automatic qualifier (AQ) spots.
Ohio State head coach Ryan Day has been a vocal advocate for the expansion of the College Football Playoff (CFP) and the inclusion of multiple automatic qualifier (AQ) spots for the Big Ten Conference. His stance reflects a broader movement within college football to restructure the postseason to better represent the strength and depth of the sport’s premier conferences.
**The Case for Multiple AQ Spots**
Day’s argument centers on the competitive nature of the Big Ten, which has consistently produced top-tier teams. He contends that the current CFP structure, which often favors teams from the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and other regions, does not adequately reflect the Big Ten’s prowess. By securing multiple AQ spots, Day believes the Big Ten would have a fairer representation in the playoff, ensuring that deserving teams have a path to the national championship.
**Strength of Schedule and Competitive Balance**
A significant part of Day’s rationale is the strength of schedule within the Big Ten. The conference’s rigorous competition prepares teams for the challenges of the CFP. Day argues that this tough schedule should be rewarded with guaranteed playoff spots, as it demonstrates a team’s ability to compete at the highest level.
**Potential Impact on Scheduling and Matchups**
The inclusion of multiple AQ spots for the Big Ten could also influence scheduling decisions. With a clearer path to the playoff, teams might be more inclined to schedule challenging non-conference games, knowing that a loss wouldn’t necessarily eliminate them from playoff contention. This could lead to more compelling matchups early in the season, benefiting fans and the sport’s overall visibility.
**Opposition and Counterarguments**
Not everyone agrees with Day’s perspective. Critics argue that granting multiple AQ spots to a single conference could lead to an imbalance, where one conference dominates playoff representation. Some suggest that the current system, which rewards teams based on performance rather than conference affiliation, ensures a more equitable distribution of playoff spots.
As discussions about CFP expansion continue, Day’s advocacy highlights the ongoing debate about how best to
Ryan Day’s call for multiple AQ spots for the Big Ten reflects a desire to ensure that the conference’s top teams have a fair opportunity to compete for a national championship. While the debate continues, his stance contributes to the broader conversation about the future of college football’s postseason and the quest for a more balanced and representative playoff system.
The Big Ten has undergone dramatic changes in recent years. With the upcoming inclusion of powerhouse programs like USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington, the conference’s profile has grown significantly—not just in terms of market reach but also competitive strength. These additions mean that the Big Ten will regularly feature more ranked matchups, deeper rosters, and a broader geographic influence, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Ryan Day has made it clear that these factors justify greater playoff access. “With the way our league is evolving and the quality of competition we’re going to face every week, it only makes sense that the Big Ten gets multiple guaranteed spots,” he said during a recent press conference. “There’s too much talent, too many good teams, and too many high-stakes games not to.”
This expansion, Day argues, means teams in the Big Ten will face a gauntlet each season—making it harder to finish undefeated or with a single loss, which has historically been a de facto requirement for playoff inclusion under the four-team format.
—
### Historical Disadvantages Under the Four-Team CFP
The current College Football Playoff system, which began in 2014, has been criticized for favoring the SEC, which has received the most playoff bids by far. While the Big Ten has had representation—most notably Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State—there have been seasons when highly ranked Big Ten teams were left out in favor of one-loss SEC programs or even non-conference champions.
A prime example came in 2017, when a two-loss Ohio State team that won the Big Ten was left out in favor of Alabama, which did not win its division. This led to major outcry from Big Ten supporters and reignited debate over the criteria used by the CFP selection committee.
“It’s hard to justify a system where you go out, play a tough schedule, win your conference, and still don’t get in,” Day said. “That’s the kind of thing we have to fix with the expanded playoff.”
—
### The 12-Team Format and What It Means for the Big Ten
Beginning in the 2024 season, the CFP will move to a 12-team format. Under the proposed structure, the six highest-ranked conference champions will earn automatic bids, with the remaining six spots awarded to the highest-ranked at-large teams. However, the makeup of those at-large bids is still a point of contention. Ryan Day and other Big Ten leaders are pushing for the conference to receive more than one automatic qualifier (AQ) spot, particularly as the league becomes more competitive.
This issue isn’t just about fairness; it’s about strategy. Coaches need to know how the playoff system will reward or penalize certain outcomes. If a team loses a close game to a top-tier opponent but is still among the best 12 in the country, should they be left out simply because their conference didn’t win a particular matchup that year?
Day is firmly in the camp that says no.
—
### Media Rights and Revenue Implications
Another key dimension of Day’s argument lies in the financial ecosystem of college football. The Big Ten recently signed a record-breaking media rights deal worth over \$7 billion, bringing games to Fox, CBS, and NBC. This deal is expected to significantly increase visibility for Big Ten programs, giving them a national platform comparable to (or even surpassing) the SEC’s ESPN partnership.
From a financial and exposure standpoint, it makes sense to have multiple Big Ten teams in the playoff. Higher ratings drive revenue, and Big Ten schools consistently pull large national audiences. Ohio State vs. Michigan is among the highest-rated college football games every year, often outperforming SEC matchups. Adding USC, Oregon, and Washington only enhances that draw.
“Look at the TV ratings. Look at the attendance. Look at the national following,” Day pointed out. “This league drives interest, and that should be reflected in how many spots we get in the postseason.”
—
### The Competitive Integrity Argument
For Day, this isn’t just about what’s good for the Big Ten—it’s also about what’s good for college football as a whole. The sport is evolving rapidly. With players able to transfer freely and earn money through NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) deals, competitive equity is more important than ever.
If the goal is to crown the true national champion, then the system must reflect the complexity of the current landscape. “We want to see the best teams on the field in December and January. Period,” Day said. “If that means you have two or three Big Ten teams in the playoff, so be it. They earned it.”
A playoff that includes multiple Big Ten teams increases the likelihood of high-level matchups that fans want to see—like Michigan vs. Georgia, or Ohio State vs. Alabama. These are the games that define a season and capture national attention.
—
### The Coaches’ Coalition
Ryan Day is not alone in his beliefs. Michigan’s Jim Harbaugh, Penn State’s James Franklin, and even new coaches from incoming Big Ten schools like Oregon’s Dan Lanning have expressed similar sentiments. There is a growing consensus among coaches that power conferences deserve more influence in how playoff bids are awarded.
That said, there’s also a risk of overreach. Critics warn that if power conferences dominate the CFP, it could marginalize smaller programs and conferences, hurting the sport’s diversity and appeal.
Day acknowledges this concern but offers a balanced response. “We’re not saying shut out the Group of Five. We’re saying let the best teams compete—whoever they are,” he said. “And if a team proves it on the field, they deserve their shot.”
—
### Fans, Tradition, and the Future
For fans of college football, the push for more AQ spots for the Big Ten could be seen as both a step forward and a return to tradition. Classic rivalries like Ohio State–Michigan, USC–Notre Dame, and Penn State–Iowa are rich with history, and now those games could carry even more weight with multiple playoff spots on the line.
In the past, a single loss could derail a season, especially if it came late. With a more forgiving, inclusive playoff structure that rewards strength of schedule and conference depth, fans may be treated to a postseason that feels more like March Madness—a genuine tournament of champions rather than an exclusive club.
The CFP Management Committee is continuing discussions about future formats, and influential voices like Ryan Day’s will play a crucial role. As conference realignment accelerates and media rights deals expand, the need for a fair, inclusive, and exciting postseason has never been more urgent.
While nothing is guaranteed, it’s clear that Day and his Big Ten colleagues are committed to making sure the new era of college football gives their teams a legitimate shot at the title.
“Ultimately, this is about respect,” Day concluded. “Respect for our players, our programs, and our fans. We’ve earned that, and the playoff system should reflect it.”
