In Dallas, college football commissioners wrapped up their latest College Football Playoff (CFP) meeting on Tuesday without reaching any decisions on possible changes to the format. However, the pressure to make a decision is heating up, especially amid public criticism surrounding potential modifications or expansions slated for 2026.
Rich Clark, the executive director of the CFP, mentioned that much of Tuesday’s meeting focused on reviewing how the inaugural 12-team CFP performed in 2024, with insights from TV consultants. This gathering was the first since the national championship game, but all eyes are on the possible adjustments for 2025 and 2026. The latter is particularly significant as the Big Ten and SEC will wield more influence over what the CFP format will be through 2031.
Decisions are indeed urgent. “We want to have decisions made soon,” Clark remarked after a meeting that stretched over seven hours, noting that 2025 is a top priority.
Tony Petitti from the Big Ten and Greg Sankey of the SEC, who had a recent conference in New Orleans to discuss topics like the CFP, left the meeting without addressing the media.
The main topic for 2025 revolves around potential adjustments in seeding. Last year, Mountain West’s Boise State and Big 12’s Arizona State secured top-four spots and first-round byes despite ranking outside the top eight according to the CFP selection committee. Since 2025 marks the end of the initial 12-year contract that began in 2014, any amendments to the 12-team setup would need unanimous approval from all conference leaders and Notre Dame.
Both the Big Ten and SEC are advocating for a change to “straight seeding,” where the committee’s rankings determine the playoff seeds. However, this could mean teams outside these two power conferences might miss out on the lucrative first-round bye. Notably, last season’s top four teams in the CFP were exclusively from the Big Ten and SEC.
Jim Phillips, ACC commissioner, and Brett Yormark, his Big 12 counterpart, didn’t dismiss the possibility of agreeing to seeding changes on Tuesday. Still, they requested additional information—like past results and other contributing factors—before making a decision.
Could enough incentive, perhaps in terms of guaranteed earnings, persuade them to forgo those two byes for teams outside the Big Ten/SEC? “It’s too early to determine that,” Yormark observed post-meeting. “We had a really good discussion. They’re going to run some models and get back to us next month. Good, heartfelt conversations. Everyone gave their point of view and we’ll vet it out.”
Yormark also noted that the decisions regarding 2025 should be seen as paving the way for 2026, suggesting that they aren’t entirely separate discussions.
The proposed changes for 2026 and beyond are significantly more radical. Over the past year, Big Ten and SEC officials have been musing over a 14- or 16-team model. This could offer four automatic qualifying spots for each of these conferences, with the ACC and Big 12 receiving two each, one for the Group of 5, and several at-large entries. Notre Dame might also snag an automatic spot with a specific ranking.
With an agreement made last year, the Big Ten and SEC will gain more control over the CFP starting in 2026. This memorandum ensures these two conferences receive the lion’s share of the CFP revenue, while the remaining is distributed among ACC, Big 12, and Group of 5 leagues. Although it’s unclear how each league’s vote will weigh, unanimity won’t be necessary moving forward.
There has been minimal public commentary from Petitti and Sankey regarding the specific proposal, but this could lead to leagues crafting play-in tournaments for these playoff spots. Additionally, these extra games might be marketable to broadcasters for enhanced media rights revenue. This might also lay the groundwork for a potential Big Ten-SEC football scheduling agreement.
These suggested postseason structures have sparked criticism, notably from ESPN’s Paul Finebaum, about the apparent slant towards two leagues within the CFP.
“We discussed it, but no decisions were made,” Clark said about the possibility of more automatic qualifiers. “It’s in the spotlight, so it was brought up, but there was no decision.”
Some commissioners have remained tight-lipped about their stance on automatic qualifiers. When asked about balancing the needs of the ACC with the broader interests of the sport, Phillips noted, “For all of us, there’s been somebody before us and there will be somebody after us. Whatever you do, you have to pay attention to both. You have to serve your constituents, but you can’t be completely oblivious and not mindful about what’s good for college football, what’s good for the fans and what you’re hearing from them.”
The commissioners plan to meet again in March, with another review meeting slated for April. It’s possible the future CFP adjustments could be finalized through virtual meetings as was the case previously.
While efforts to overhaul the season continue behind closed doors, public communication about these changes remains sparse.
“The evolution of this thing is important,” noted American Athletic Conference commissioner Tim Pernetti. “We’re coming off a really good year. We have a lot of momentum on a lot of fronts, and it’s important that we’re talking about its evolution in the future. But my position has always been the same. As we look to the future, we look at expanding the access. So long as access expands for everyone, I think that’s important to the playoff and I think important to what fans want to see from the playoff.”
