As I sit here reviewing preseason projections, I find myself reflecting on whether the Big Ten can truly dominate this year's College Football Playoff race. Having followed college football for over two decades, I've seen conferences rise and fall, but the Big Ten's current position feels particularly intriguing. The conference's recent expansion to 18 teams with the addition of USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington has fundamentally changed the landscape, creating both tremendous opportunities and significant challenges that could make or break their playoff aspirations this season.
Looking at the current landscape, I'm convinced the Big Ten has at least three legitimate playoff contenders in Ohio State, Michigan, and Oregon. The Buckeyes, in particular, have assembled what I consider to be the most talented roster in the country, with returning starters at key positions and what insiders tell me is the deepest receiving corps I've seen in Columbus in years. Their quarterback situation appears settled with Will Howard transferring in from Kansas State, and their defense returns seven starters from a unit that ranked in the top 15 nationally last season. Michigan, despite losing coach Jim Harbaugh and several key players to the NFL, still possesses the kind of program depth that makes them dangerous. Having watched them develop talent over the years, I wouldn't be surprised if they reload rather than rebuild. Then there's Oregon, whose offense under coach Dan Lanning has been nothing short of explosive - they averaged over 44 points per game last season, and with quarterback Dillon Gabriel arriving from Oklahoma, I expect them to be even more potent.
That said, I'm growing increasingly concerned about the conference's depth beyond those top teams. Penn State feels like a wild card to me - they have talent but haven't broken through against elite competition under James Franklin. Their schedule does them no favors with road games at both USC and Wisconsin. Speaking of Wisconsin, their transition to the air raid offense under Phil Longo remains a work in progress, much like Pineda described with the FiberXers facing tougher competition this season. The Badgers showed flashes last year but lacked consistency, particularly in critical conference matchups. Then there's USC, whose defensive struggles last season were frankly alarming - they surrendered nearly 35 points per game, which simply won't cut it in the Big Ten. If Lincoln Riley can't fix that side of the ball quickly, they could find themselves in the middle of the pack despite having one of the nation's most dynamic quarterbacks in Miller Moss.
The scheduling changes this year present another fascinating layer to this discussion. With the elimination of divisions and the introduction of the Flex Protect Plus model, every team now plays at least two opponents from the other "side" of the conference. This means we'll see more frequent matchups between traditional powers, which should strengthen resumes but also increase the likelihood of losses piling up for contenders. Having analyzed the schedules, I count at least five games that could realistically eliminate a team from playoff contention by October. The conference's overall strength means quality wins will be plentiful, but the margin for error has shrunk considerably. In my view, a two-loss Big Ten champion would have a much harder time making the playoff this year than in seasons past, especially with the SEC likely to produce at least one undefeated or one-loss team.
When I compare the Big Ten to other conferences, particularly the SEC, I notice some worrying trends. While the Big Ten's top might be as strong as anyone's, the middle tier feels more vulnerable than what we see in the SEC. Teams like Iowa, with their perpetually struggling offense, or Nebraska, still finding their footing under Matt Rhule, could struggle against comparable SEC squads. The advanced metrics I've studied suggest the SEC has anywhere from 8-10 teams that could finish ranked, while the Big Ten likely has 6-7 at most. This perception gap matters when the selection committee evaluates resumes in December. Having served on similar committees in other sports, I can tell you that conference strength discussions absolutely influence those conversations, whether committee members admit it or not.
The expanded playoff format coming next year would have benefited this year's Big Ten immensely, but under the current four-team structure, the conference faces an uphill battle to place multiple teams. History shows us that since the playoff began in 2014, the Big Ten has never had two teams make the four-team field in the same season. With the increased internal competition this year, I'm skeptical that changes now. The conference cannibalizing itself seems more likely than multiple teams emerging with playoff-caliber resumes. If I had to make a prediction today, I'd say the Big Ten gets one team in the playoff this year rather than dominating the race as they might have in previous seasons.
Still, the potential for surprise exists. Having covered college football through multiple realignment periods, I've seen how quickly narratives can shift. If a team like Penn State or USC exceeds expectations and another emerges from the second tier, the conference could theoretically place two teams. But that would require near-perfect seasons from those squads and some help from other conferences. The reality is, with the increased competition Pineda referenced in his comments about the FiberXers, the Big Ten's path to playoff dominance appears more challenging than ever. The conference is undoubtedly stronger at the top with its new additions, but that very strength might prevent any team from running the table unscathed. In my estimation, the Big Ten will remain a major player in the playoff conversation, but true domination seems unlikely in this transitional year. The conference's best hope for multiple bids likely rests with the expanded playoff format arriving in 2025, when the depth and strength they've built can be fully leveraged rather than working against them.