College football’s evolving playoff landscape threatens to create an insurmountable divide between powerhouse conferences and everyone else. The shifting dynamics have prompted serious concerns from prominent analysts about competitive balance moving forward.
Josh Pate’s recent analysis paints a stark picture of where college football is heading under proposed changes. His warnings suggest the new format could fundamentally alter access to postseason opportunities for non-elite programs nationwide.
The Power Two Reality in College Football
College football analyst Josh Pate has become increasingly vocal about the growing imbalance in the sport. “The landscape has become more tilted,” Pate explained on his show. “The balance of power has become more heavily tilted towards the SEC and the Big Ten.”
The numbers support his concerns. When examining historical data about which teams would qualify under a straight seeding system, the Big Ten and SEC dominate overwhelmingly. Together, these two conferences would claim the vast majority of playoff spots in most years, leaving minimal opportunities for other conferences.
Teams per conference (based on current alignment) that would have qualified for past 11 College Football Playoffs, if only top 16 seeded teams received bids:
Big Ten 56 (5.09/year)
SEC 53 (4.81/year)
Big 12 29 (2.64/year)
ACC 24 (2.18/year)
Notre Dame 8
Group of 6 6— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) May 27, 2025
The College Football Playoff has already implemented significant changes for 2025. The playoff is moving to straight seeding, eliminating automatic first-round byes for conference champions. Under the new system, teams are seeded in the same slot in which they are ranked, 1-12, with the top four seeds earning a bye regardless of conference affiliation.
Looking ahead to 2026, the landscape becomes even more concerning for smaller conferences. The SEC and Big Ten hold sole discretion on the future CFP format starting in 2026, though they must have “meaningful consultation” with other conferences before making decisions.
The proposed format for 2026 includes expanding to 16 teams with four automatic qualifiers each to the SEC and Big Ten; two each to the ACC and Big 12; and one to the highest-ranked Group of Five. This would guarantee the two power conferences half of all playoff spots before a single game is played.
Pate’s Dire Predictions
Pate warned this creates an impossible situation for smaller conferences. He predicted devastating consequences if the system moves to pure straight seeding without any conference protections.
“It would not surprise me if in any given year 75% of the field was made up of SEC and Big Ten teams,” Pate explained during his analysis. “That is if you were just straight up taking the 16 best teams in the country.”
The new format creates what Pate sees as potentially catastrophic consequences for non-SEC/Big Ten programs. Under straight seeding without conference protections, these programs face mathematical elimination from serious playoff contention.
The power dynamics became clear during last year’s negotiations. Leaders of the Big Ten and SEC threatened to create their own postseason system if they were not granted a majority of CFP revenue and control over the playoff format. Ultimately, the other conferences agreed to their demands rather than risk being left out entirely.
The New Reality of College Football
Pate argued the proposed changes represent the reality of college football’s power structure. The SEC and Big Ten’s authority over future formats means they can essentially dictate terms to everyone else, though they must still consult with other conferences in the process.
The analyst questioned what alternatives exist for smaller conferences. Without some form of negotiated settlement, they could face severe limitations as the SEC and Big Ten continue consolidating power. “There is no Power Four” anymore, Pate has argued, pointing to NFL Draft numbers that show the massive gap between the top two conferences and everyone else.
Despite personal objections to the situation, Pate suggested that rejecting current proposals might lead to even worse outcomes. The reality is these format changes reflect college football’s new power structure where two conferences control the sport’s future direction.
As college football moves forward with these changes, the concerns raised by analysts like Pate highlight the fundamental questions facing the sport: Can competitive balance be maintained when power is so heavily concentrated? And what happens to the traditions and regional rivalries that have defined college football when access to the postseason becomes increasingly limited to a select few?
The answers to these questions will shape not just the playoff format, but the very future of college football as we know it.
