With future format of CFP still in limbo, college sports brass not rushing major decisions

Sports

add

GRAPEVINE, Texas — On the fourth floor of the gargantuan Gaylord Texan Resort in this Dallas suburb, the conference commissioners spent three hours in the same room where the College Football Playoff selection committee members gather each December to decide the playoff field.

On the final day of three days of CFP meetings here this week, commissioners walked through a mock selection, getting a firsthand look at the data and process used by committee members — perhaps a last gasp from the CFP to show these decision-makers that the committee’s role should not be de-emphasized under any new playoff format.

Advertisement

“There was a lot of new learning,” CFP executive director Rich Clark said. “They got to see the depth that committee members go to with the process. They also gave us some feedback to help us think through how we could improve the committee.”

From this week’s annual spring meetings, no decisions were made on the three most important questions of any future playoff format:

(1) How many teams are in the bracket?

(2) How are teams selected for the bracket?

(3) And how are teams seeded in the bracket?

While the answers remain incomplete, the pathway to those answers is becoming more clear.

(1) There continues to be a desire, from both the commissioners and television partner ESPN, to expand the bracket to at least 14 teams. (Is 16 still on the table? Yes.)

Advertisement

(2) Leadership at the Big Ten and SEC, the leagues that hold decision-making power on format starting in 2026, continue to socialize a format that gives them more automatic qualifiers than any other conference — what’s become known as a “4-4-2-2-1” format granting four AQs to the top four finishers in both the SEC and Big Ten, two each to the ACC and Big 12, one to the Group of Six and one at-large in a 14-team model (to be clear, within the CFP meeting room, the Big Ten leadership has been most vocal about such a format).

(3) The selection committee needs an overhaul or, at the very least, some tweaks to their decision-making process, specifically as it relates to the strength-of-schedule metric.

How will it all end?

“That’s up to two conferences,” says one high-ranking college administrator.

The fact that the SEC and Big Ten haven’t rammed through the multi-AQ 4-4-2-2-1 format is telling. Despite work on the model from each of their conference staffs and wide support from their athletic directors and presidents, the conferences have yet to formally take procedural steps to adopt the format.

Advertisement

It may be a sign. Is compromise afoot?

Do the two conferences fear public backlash in adopting such a lopsided playoff model? Do the two leagues want to prevent further disadvantaging the Big 12 and ACC?

The commissioners of the four power leagues — Greg Sankey (SEC), Jim Phillips (ACC), Brett Yormark (Big 12) and Tony Petitti (Big Ten) — met separately here as they often do. After daylong meetings with the other FBS commissioners, the four of them held a dinner on Wednesday night, capping a furiously busy day with more work talk over wine and steaks.

During Wednesday’s CFP meetings, Clark introduced a new playoff format geared toward striking a compromise between the Big Ten’s multi-AQ model and the existing 12-team format that features seven at-large spots. Within the format, conferences would be ranked by the selection committee using a data-driven system, such as their non-conference winning percentage, previous playoff success, etc. The highest-ranked conference would receive four AQs, the second would get three, the third gets two AQs and so on, with one spot reserved for the best Group of Six program and as many as three at-large spots available in a 14-team model.

Advertisement

The format is expected to receive little to no serious traction.

But, at least, it’s something.

“No one else has brought anything to the table,” said one commissioner who was granted anonymity to speak freely.

The format for 2026 and beyond is tethered to the dilemma over the 2025 format. That’s right: CFP executives have not yet decided on changes to a playoff bracket that will begin in less than eight months.

The debate over moving to a straight seeding format rages onward. Big Ten and SEC commissioners have publicly expressed support for a change to straight seeding, meaning teams are seeded directly based on the committee’s rankings. Right now, the four highest-ranked conference champions are seeded Nos. 1-4.

Advertisement

However, unlike 2026 and beyond, any change to this year’s playoff takes unanimity from the 11 members of the CFP committee: the 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame’s athletic director.

The struggle between the Big Ten/SEC and the Big 12/ACC over any future format also impacts the vote for changes to this year’s playoff. Why, after all, would the ACC or Big 12 vote to put their schools at a further disadvantage in a straight-seeding model without a compromise on future formats?

“It’s a negotiating ploy,” said one conference leader.

Clark hinted at this debate during his meeting with reporters Thursday.

Advertisement

“We are discussing the format in its entirety,” he said. “Whatever we do this year will have an impact on 2026 and beyond. They’re trying not to make decisions in silos and are trying to do it holistically. They don’t want to rush just to get a decision out.”

In previous interviews, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips and Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark have made it clear: It must take compromise to get our vote. But what does compromise look like?

Commissioners side-stepped that question (and most other questions) this week in Dallas. Would the SEC and Big Ten take three automatic qualifiers and not four? Would the field be expanded to 16 in their multi-AQ format as to give other leagues a chance at more at-large spots?

Either way, it’s clear that there is an effort to compromise on format. The goal: Arrive at a straight seeding model in 2025 and a new, more balanced format starting in 2026.

“They don’t want to rush just to get a decision out,” Clark said. “They’re not making any of these decisions in isolation. That’s why it takes a while.”

This news was originally published on this post .

Share on

email

Previous

trending_flat

Chicago Bears draft picks, grades: NFL draft order, team needs, mock drafts as Colston Loveland taken No. 10

Sports

Next

trending_flat

‘It’s not even a debate’: Books say Arch Manning will be favored at No. 1 in 2026

nfl