Is forming super conferences like the SEC or Big Ten actually hurting title chances?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

The more "strong" teams you put in one conference, the more likely they beat one another up before the playoffs, so then the less likely one of them ends up in the top 12.

It would seem like you'd want a standard bell curve of teams in terms of average rank and power level in each conference, and then the strongest team (or two) would presumably go undefeated.

Notre Dame got cheated last year, while Alabama got a free ride just because they were Alabama, and it showed in the playoff when Indiana blew them out.

[AI Opinion]

Stacking power programs in super conferences cuts both ways 🏈

It definitely makes regular-season paths tougher, but with a 12‑team playoff, those leagues actually gain more at-large spots because rankings and strength of schedule matter more than a perfect record.

The real “losers” are strong teams in weaker leagues, not the SEC/Big Ten. They get less credit for wins and fewer ranked matchups to boost résumés.

[AviatorTom]

Superconferences are created to make more money, more lucrative television contracts. They are not intended to make teams more competitive, and the conference managers really don't care about who wins, so long as the money keeps coming in.

[NathanDavis]

I'd never ever take the easier path

NEVER

a championship has to mean something