Big Ten and SEC deserve more playoff spots, and the conversation is getting louder. After only two seasons of a 12-team College Football Playoff format, a growing chorus calls for expanding the field to include more teams, and some voices come from inside the sport itself.
Nebraska head coach Matt Rhule is among the advocates. In the latest episode of House Rhules, he argued that teams from the Big Ten and SEC should have more opportunities in the playoff. He pointed out that the tough schedules faced by programs in these conferences tend to cast their records in a harsher light than similar marks from weaker leagues.
Rhule, who is nearing the end of his third season in Lincoln, also contended that 9-3 Michigan and 9-3 USC arguably deserved playoff bids this year, noting both were overlooked in favor of bowl-game selections.
He reflected, “Back when I coached at Temple, I would have argued the opposite. But now that I’m in the Big Ten, it isn’t just about wins and losses within the conference. The toll on a team from playing in the SEC and Big Ten matters—nine conference games and nationwide travel take a real bite. By season’s end, only three teams from our league could be included, and you can’t tell me USC or Michigan aren’t better than some teams that earned 9-3 bids.”
Rhule described the situation as a gauntlet and noted that he frequently studies tape from other conferences. He believes the SEC and Big Ten are simply tougher, and he would like to see more teams from those leagues included in the playoff mix. He even suggested potentially adding play-in games to expand the field, while also advocating for uniformity in how conferences schedule games and determine championships.
He cited Tony Petitti’s idea from the Big Ten about automatic qualifiers, with a structured bracket—No. 1 vs. No. 2 and No. 3 vs. No. 6, No. 4 vs. No. 5—so teams must win their way in. Rhule sees this as a meaningful, forward-looking step for college football.
As for recent developments, Duke captured the ACC title with an 8-5 record, which opened the door for two Group of Five teams—No. 11 Tulane and No. 12 James Madison—to occupy the final at-large playoff spots. If Rhule had his say, that arrangement would have looked different, favoring the conferences he believes consistently deliver tougher competition and more compelling seasons.
If you’re following the debate, you’ll see ongoing questions about fairness, television value, and competitive balance. Do the current selection criteria properly reward teams facing the most challenging schedules, or should expansion and a new qualification framework become the norm? Share your take: should the playoff field grow, and if so, what structure would you prefer to balance strength of schedule with opportunity for non-traditional powers?
