Not On the Same Page

The College Football Playoff will remain at 12 teams for the upcoming season, with expansion possible in 2026.  For a while, it seemed like the word attached to expansion was "likely."  Now, though, I'm not so sure.  Because, while the conferences are all pretty much in agreement that they want to go to 16 teams, they don't agree on how.  And that lack of agreement could result in the playoff staying put at 12 teams, which nobody expected when this whole thing started.

Actually, let me rephrase.  Everybody IS in agreement except for one conference.  The Big Ten.  They don't seem likely to budge, either.  So, it'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out.  Will the addition of four teams really not happen simply because the Big Ten didn't get their way?  Or will they end up getting their way in the end?

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has indicated that he'll never accept the Big Ten's preferred plan.  The ACC and Big 12 are on the same page as Sankey.  They all prefer a 5+11 model that features five conference champions and 11 at-large teams.  The Big Ten wants 13 of the 16 bids preassigned by conference.  No one else supports this.  And, even though the CFP gives more of the decision-making power to the SEC and Big Ten, no conference has the power to unilaterally decide the path forward.  So, if the SEC doesn't agree, the Big Ten's preferred format won't get much traction.  Nor should it.

This really is such a blatant display of arrogance and elitism by the Big Ten.  They want half the bids in a 16-team field to automatically go to the Big Ten and SEC, who'd get four each.  The ACC and Big 12 are thrown a bone by getting two bids each, with one for the highest-rated conference champion and the remaining three at-large bids (meaning the SEC or Big Ten could, conceivably get as many as seven bids).  How good a team or their conference is doesn't matter.  It's the name of the conference that's important.  So what if the fourth-place team in the Big Ten is 8-4 overall and not even in the Top 25?!  They play in the Big Ten!

There are so many things not to like and so few to like about what the Big Ten wants.  For starters, it would make conference championship games completely irrelevant since both of those teams would be guaranteed a spot in the playoff regardless.  It also just assumes that the two current superconferences will perpetually be at the top and deserve to have four bids.  Even if one of the other conferences has a strong year, that's obviously just a blip on the radar.  At least in the Big Ten's eyes.

Meanwhile, all you need to do is look at basketball to know that isn't true.  This year, the SEC set a record with a whopping 14 NCAA Tournament teams, and Florida won the National Championship.  As recently as 2022, the SEC only had six NCAA Tournament teams (even considering the conference's expansion, it was six of 14 in 2022 and 14 of 16 in 2025).  The Big East (which counts as a power conference in basketball) went the other way from six in 2022 to three just two years later. 

While basketball and football are entirely different animals, that point illustrates how conference strength fluctuates from year to year.  It also seems like it's an unnecessary provision made simply to insulate the two biggest conferences from a down year.  And, if the Big Ten is as strong as it thinks it is, why would it need that protection?  There were four Big Ten teams in the inaugural 12-team playoff, so it would stand to reason that they'd get at least that many in a 16-team playoff on their own merit.  Ditto about the SEC.  If anything, they should both expect at least that many and hope for a fifth.  (The SEC would've had six if they had a 16-team playoff last season.)

Everybody else prefers the 5+11 model for a very simple reason.  It rewards the 16 best teams.  Yes, the rankings are subjectively made by a selection committee, but there's really no other way to do it.  There's gonna be questions and criticism regardless.  And that selection committee would still be choosing the at-large teams, ranking the field and setting the matchups under the Big Ten's method.  So, what's the difference then if they're seeding/ranking the field 1-16 either way?

At the root of the Big Ten's insistence on guaranteed bids per conference is the fact that not everybody plays the same number of conference games.  The Big Ten and Big 12 play nine conference games.  The SEC and ACC only play eight.  The Big Ten won't budge unless the SEC and ACC add that ninth game, thereby "leveling the playing field."  (Although, it should be noted that the ACC has a scheduling agreement with Notre Dame and there are also a number of annual in-state rivalry games between SEC and ACC schools.)

Whether the SEC should move to a nine-game conference schedule or not has been a regular topic of discussion for the past few years.  Sankey is in favor of it, but not enough of the schools support the change.  For various reasons.  Same thing with the ACC.  The individual conference members have different preferences and there's no agreement on the best path forward.  Both of those conferences also require their members to play at least one non-conference game against another Power 4 school or Notre Dame.  So, it's not like they aren't playing quality schedules.

Would it be nice if all four of the major conferences played the same number of conference games?  Yes.  Can the Big Ten do anything about what the SEC or ACC chooses to do?  No.  And they lack the leverage to make the other conferences do what they want.  Everybody else is fine with keeping the College Football Playoff at 12 teams if it comes to that.

It should be noted, too, that the only thing the SEC, ACC and Big 12 agree on is that they don't like the Big Ten's plan.  The SEC supports the 5+11 model that is favored by the ACC and Big 12, but nothing is set in stone.  They could expand to 14 teams and do 5+9.  They could keep it at the current 12-team, 5+7 model.  Or maybe another option will emerge, such as a straight 1-16 format with no automatic bids.  Everything is still on the table.  Everything, that is, except for the Big Ten's 4+4+2+2+1+3 system.

Which is why it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.  While Sankey has indicated publicly that he (and the SEC) would be OK sticking with the status quo, you'd have to figure that the preference is still to go to 16 and reap the financial benefit of those four additional games.  The Big Ten seems unwilling to blink on its preferred format.  The other three conferences and Notre Dame are ready to call their bluff.  Something's got to give if they're going to meet their self-imposed December 1 deadline to change the format.

Chances are still pretty high that they figure it out and the CFP expands to 16 teams for the 2026 season.  And, if I had to guess, the 5+11 format supported by the SEC, ACC and Big 12 (as well as Notre Dame) will win out.  As it should.  Not only because it makes more sense.  But because it's significantly fairer to everyone than the Big Ten's preference, which only favors them and the SEC.