Nebraska head coach Matt Rhule recently argued that simply competing in a tough league like the Big Ten should be enough to warrant automatic entry into the College Football Playoff (CFP). His comments highlight an ongoing debate in college football: should the strength of a conference alone justify postseason inclusion, or should access be earned strictly through performance metrics like win-loss records and rankings?
The Big Ten is undeniably one of the premier conferences in college football. Programs like Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State have consistently competed at the highest levels, with Michigan recently winning a national championship. The conference is expanding in both size and influence, welcoming top-tier programs like USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington. This expansion will make the Big Ten more competitive than ever, arguably surpassing even the SEC in terms of national reach and strength.
Rhule’s perspective is rooted in the idea that navigating such a gauntlet week after week should hold intrinsic value. If a team finishes with a strong record in the Big Ten — say, 10–2 or 11–1 — it likely means they have faced and defeated several nationally ranked teams. In that sense, a second-place Big Ten team might have a stronger résumé than an undefeated team from a weaker conference. From a competitive standpoint, that argument makes sense. If the goal of the CFP is to determine the best team in the country, shouldn’t that team have been tested against the best?
However, guaranteeing playoff spots simply based on conference affiliation could create significant issues. It risks locking out deserving teams from smaller conferences or those with equal or better records who may not benefit from the same exposure or reputation. While the Big Ten is loaded with talent, not every team in the conference is elite. Automatic qualification based solely on membership could reward teams that underperform relative to others across the country.
Another layer to consider is the CFP’s upcoming expansion to 12 teams, beginning with the 2024 season. This new format includes automatic bids for the top five conference champions and seven at-large selections. This model already gives strong conferences like the Big Ten a better chance at multiple bids, ensuring that its top programs have a path to the postseason without guaranteeing spots for the entire league.
In essence, Rhule’s argument points to a broader desire for respect and recognition of the difficulty Big Ten teams face. And that’s valid — strength of schedule should absolutely factor into playoff consideration. But a balance must be struck. The purpose of the CFP is to crown the best team, not simply to reward those from the most prestigious leagues.
Ultimately, while playing in the Big Ten should be a major asset in playoff consideration, it should not automatically guarantee access. Merit, performance, and results across the entire college football landscape must remain the guiding principles in playoff selection. Only then can the system remain fair, competitive, and truly reflective of the sport’s best teams.
