SEC and Big Ten Advocate Straight Seeding for 2025 College Football Playoff

# SEC and Big Ten Advocate Straight Seeding for 2025 College Football Playoff

## Introduction

The College Football Playoff (CFP) is poised for a significant transformation in 2025, with the **SEC and Big Ten advocating for straight seeding** in the expanded 12-team format. This proposal could dramatically alter how teams are ranked and compete for the national title.

Currently, there is a structure in place that gives automatic bids to the highest-ranked conference champions, but straight seeding would place a stronger emphasis on the **top 12 teams, regardless of conference affiliation**.

With college football entering a new era of realignment and expansion, this shift could reshape the sport’s postseason landscape. In this article, we’ll explore:

What straight seeding means

Why the SEC and Big Ten support this approach

The potential impact on college football

—

## What Is Straight Seeding?

Straight seeding in the College Football Playoff would mean that the **top 12 teams, as ranked by the Selection Committee, are seeded according to their ranking with no automatic bids for conference champions**.

Currently, the 12-team CFP model guarantees spots for the **six highest-ranked conference champions**, ensuring representation from non-Power 5 schools. However, straight seeding would eliminate guaranteed spots for any conference champions in favor of a system based solely on rankings.

**Key aspects of straight seeding:**

No automatic bids—only the 12 highest-ranked teams would qualify

Seeds would be determined strictly by team performance

More emphasis on strength of schedule and power rankings

Potentially fewer Group of Five (G5) teams in the playoff

This approach aligns closely with how the **NCAA basketball tournament brackets are determined**, where every team is seeded without consideration for automatic qualifiers beyond at-large bids.

—

## Why Are the SEC and Big Ten Pushing for Straight Seeding?

The SEC and Big Ten are the two most powerful conferences in college football, boasting dominant teams, massive revenue streams, and a consistent presence in the CFP. Their advocacy for straight seeding is driven by several strategic factors.

### **1. More Spots for Powerhouse Teams**

A straight seeding format would greatly benefit powerhouse programs in the SEC and Big Ten. These conferences often have multiple teams ranked in the top 12, meaning under the current model, some might be left out due to automatic bids allocated to lesser-ranked conference champions.

With straight seeding:

Highly ranked teams won’t be squeezed out by automatic qualifiers

More SEC and Big Ten teams could qualify each year

Quality of matchups may improve, creating more compelling games

### **2. Increased Revenue Potential**

More teams from the **SEC and Big Ten equals more TV revenue**, brand exposure, and financial gains. Both conferences have lucrative media deals, and higher representation in the CFP would allow them to leverage increased TV ratings and advertising revenue.

### **3. Competitive Balance and Fairness**

Advocates for straight seeding argue that the **best teams should be in the playoff**, not just those who win weaker conferences. The SEC and Big Ten believe this approach **enhances the integrity of the competition** by ensuring the 12 best teams get a shot at the national title.

Under the current system, a **conference champion ranked outside the top 12 could take a spot from a stronger team**, leading to what some consider an unfair scenario. Straight seeding eliminates this issue by making rankings the sole determining factor for entry.

—

## Potential Impact of Straight Seeding on College Football

If straight seeding is implemented, the **landscape of college football could change significantly** for conferences, teams, and fans alike.

### **1. Group of Five Teams Face a Tougher Path**

The biggest losers in this model would be **Group of Five (G5) teams** like the AAC, Sun Belt, or Mountain West. Currently, the CFP guarantees at least one highest-ranked G5 champion a spot in the field, ensuring representation.

Without automatic bids:

G5 teams would likely struggle to crack the top 12

Fewer opportunities for non-Power 5 teams in the playoff

Cinderella stories, like Cincinnati in 2021, could become exceedingly rare

### **2. Increased Competition for Playoff Spots**

Teams in **top Power 5 conferences will no longer rely on winning their conference for CFP entry**—they will need top-12 rankings to secure a spot. This will likely lead to:

More emphasis on strength of schedule

Increased competition for high rankings throughout the season

Teams scheduling tougher non-conference games to boost their résumés

### **3. More Exciting CFP Matchups**

If straight seeding is adopted, the playoff matchups could feature **higher-caliber games right from the first round**, eliminating potential blowouts involving weaker automatic qualifiers.

Fans would likely see:

Fewer unbalanced early-round matchups

More competitive games at every stage of the tournament

A postseason that produces a true best-on-best championship format

—

## Challenges and Criticism of Straight Seeding

While SEC and Big Ten officials are pushing for this change, there are **some notable challenges and opposition** from other conferences and stakeholders.

### **1. Resistance from Other Conferences**

Conferences like the **ACC, Big 12, and Group of Five leagues** are expected to **push back against straight seeding**. They argue that automatic bids ensure national representation, competitive diversity, and opportunities for smaller programs.

Automatic bids help:

Conferences maintain legitimacy and relevance in the CFP era

Preserve the value of conference championships

Create a more inclusive playoff structure rather than one dominated by the elite teams

### **2. Risk of Alienating Fans**

One of the biggest appeals of March Madness in college basketball is its inclusion of underdog teams through automatic qualifiers. College football has never fully embraced that level of parity, and **removing automatic bids entirely could alienate fan bases outside the SEC and Big Ten**.

This could lead to:

Decreased fan engagement from smaller conferences

Fewer nationally intriguing underdog matchups

Concerns over the CFP becoming an exclusive club for elite teams

—

## Conclusion: The Future of the College Football Playoff

The SEC and Big Ten’s **push for straight seeding** reflects the growing power dynamic in college football and their desire to maximize representation in the CFP.

This proposal would:

Ensure the **12 best teams** make the playoff, regardless of conference affiliation

Enhance **matchup quality** and postseason competitiveness

Eliminate guaranteed **spots for conference champions**

While it may create advantages for powerhouse programs, **it also raises concerns about conference representation and inclusivity**. Regardless of the outcome, the conversation surrounding straight seeding is set to shape the future of the **College Football Playoff in 2025 and beyond**.

What are your thoughts on this potential CFP change? Should conference champions retain automatic bids, or should the 12 best teams, regardless of affiliation, make the cut? Let us know in the comments!