Last spring, during intense and, at times, heated negotiations over the future of the College Football Playoff, leaders of the Big Ten and SEC threatened to create their own postseason system if they were not granted a majority of CFP revenue and full authority over the playoff format.
In the end, executives of the 10 FBS leagues and Notre Dame signed a memorandum of understanding handing control over to college football’s two richest conferences.
Advertisement
Soon, they are expected to exercise that control.
Within the SEC and Big Ten, momentum is building to further expand the playoff to 14 or 16 teams, assign multiple automatic qualifiers per league — as many as four each for themselves — and finalize a scheduling arrangement together that may fetch millions in additional revenue from TV partners, sources told Yahoo Sports.
The playoff format change would clear the way for SEC administrators to, finally, make the long-discussed move to play nine regular-season conference games and would trigger, perhaps, all four power leagues to overhaul their conference championship weekend.
These ideas and concepts, previously reported by Yahoo Sports as possibilities, are now serious agenda items within the highest governing bodies of the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC, according to officials from each of those leagues. The 11 members of the CFP Management Committee — the 10 FBS conference commissioners and Notre Dame’s athletic director — were contacted for this story, many of them confirming the existence of these potential ideas but declining specific comment on the matter.
Advertisement
Final decisions are expected in the coming weeks.
SEC and Big Ten athletic directors will meet Wednesday in New Orleans for the second time in the last five months. Big 12 athletic directors are expected to discuss the future playoff format at meetings this week, and ACC athletic directors, as well as the presidents, met last week in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The CFP Management Committee is scheduled to meet Feb. 25 in Dallas, where the SEC and Big Ten could present ideas for a future format — a consensus recommendation the two leagues may establish this week in New Orleans.
The new College Football Playoff format was a smashing success, but things are already changing. (Photo by Rich von Biberstein/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
(Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
SEC’s, Big Ten’s control and possible proposal
According to most who have viewed the memorandum of understanding from last spring, the SEC and Big Ten hold sole discretion on the future CFP format starting in 2026, the beginning of the CFP’s new six-year television agreement with ESPN that runs through the 2031 playoff.
Advertisement
The agreement grants the leagues decision-making powers over the format but directs them to have “meaningful consultation” and collect “input” from the other conferences before making their decision.
Leaders in each conference have spent the last several weeks evolving a format idea — multiple automatic qualifiers per league — into a more realistic proposal. The 14- or 16-team model would grant four automatic qualifiers each to the SEC and Big Ten; two each to the ACC and Big 12; and one to the highest-ranked Group of Five champion. It includes one or three at-large spots, one of those intended for Notre Dame if it finishes ranked inside the top 14 — a guarantee specifically designated for the Irish that is part of the CFP memorandum.
Officials describe the 14-team format as a 4-4-2-2-1+1 model in which the top two seeds receive first-round byes. There would be no byes in a 16-team structure. In either, the CFP selection committee’s role is greatly diminished. The committee, its future — as the memorandum stipulates — also controlled by the SEC and Big Ten, would presumably seed 1 through 14 or 16 based directly on its top-25 rankings.
How does everyone else feel?
Many administrators in the Big 12 and ACC are not in support of a format with so many automatic qualifiers designated for the SEC and Big Ten, and many of them have, at least subtly, taken aim at the format over the last several months.
Advertisement
Earlier this week, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips told Yahoo Sports the ACC has not cemented a position on a format but “there needs to be fairness and access to the championship,” he said. “It needs to be a true championship, not artificial and not an invitational.”
Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark says his conference has been exploring “predictive analysis” on what different playoff models would mean for conference participation if applied in the recent history of the postseason. “I’ll be armed with data,” he told Yahoo Sports.
Meanwhile, Group of Five leaders are prepared to fight to potentially expand upon their one automatic access spot, according to comments from American Athletic Conference commissioner Tim Pernetti to Yahoo Sports.
“College football is stronger than ever,” Pernetti said. “As the CFP evolves, we have a responsibility to student-athletes, the integrity of the game and our fans to build a future that includes expanded access for every conference.”
Advertisement
At the very least, the Group of Five will keep its one automatic spot through 2031 as part of the six-year extension with ESPN. While the conferences agreed to cede decision-making powers on format to the SEC and Big Ten, there are certain agreed-upon guarantees of any future format: (1) the automatic inclusion of the five highest-ranked conference champions; (2) the protection for independent Notre Dame; and (3) a field of 12 or 14 teams.
What is ESPN’s role?
Another important entity involved in the conversation is the company paying $1.3 billion annually to the CFP for the rights to broadcast the playoff from 2026-31. Though they have not publicly commented, ESPN executives have expressed to at least some college leaders apprehension about a format that provides such lopsided automatic access.
As one powerbroker put it, “You are going to alienate part of the country.”
Advertisement
The ESPN long-form television agreement — the six-year extension laid out in the memorandum of understanding — is not yet finalized, but is expected to be completed later this spring, sources told Yahoo Sports.
There is not expected to be any new television revenue if the field is expanded to 14 as the figure is included in the memorandum. If the field is expanded to 16, however, it may require negotiations from the leagues for more revenue. A 14-team playoff would feature two more first-round games, already clogging television windows during the third week in December, when the CFP competes against the NFL. A 16-team bracket mean an additional four more games — eight first-round games instead of four.
Yes, the SEC has much to say about the College Football Playoff format. (Photo by Todd Kirkland/Getty Images)
(Todd Kirkland via Getty Images)
The data and revenue
The 14-team model — 4-4-2-2-1+1 — aligns mostly with conference strength over the last 11 years of the CFP’s existence, according to data compiled by Yahoo Sports.
Advertisement
Since the 2014 playoff, the SEC has had 52 teams ranked inside the top 14 of the CFP’s rankings heading into conference championship weekend, or about 4.7 teams per year. The Big Ten has had 51 teams (4.6). The Big 12 is next at 23 (2.1), followed by the ACC (20/1.8), Notre Dame (5/0.45) and Group of Five (3/0.27).
The data considers conference realignment shifts (ie: Oklahoma is counted toward the SEC figures, USC for the Big Ten, Stanford for the ACC, Utah for the Big 12, etc.).
CFP executives used similar data points to establish the playoff’s new revenue distribution model that was agreed upon last spring. As part of that memorandum of understanding, the SEC and Big Ten each receive 29% of the revenue, the ACC gets 17.1% while the Big 12 receives 14.7%; the remaining amount will be distributed to Notre Dame (about 1%) and the 64 Group of Five teams (about 9%).
Advertisement
The new revenue distribution model shook the college athletics landscape for its disparities. In the previous revenue structure, the power conferences split evenly 80% of the CFP’s $460 million in annual revenue and the G5 received about 19%. Under the new deal, SEC and Big Ten schools will see their annual distribution triple, if not quadruple, to around $23 million (SEC) and $20 million-21 million (Big Ten).
The ramifications
One of the most heated debates within college athletics recently is the SEC’s conference schedule.
The league — the self-proclaimed king of the sport — has, for more than two years now, seriously explored moving from eight to nine league games. However, conference administrators have remained split on the matter. There is fear in sustaining more defeats, which could cost playoff spots. Administrators also are requesting more revenue from ESPN, perhaps as much or more than $5 million a school annually to play an extra league game.
Advertisement
A new playoff model guaranteeing the conference four spots satisfies one of the two issues. As for the other, officials from ESPN and the conference have spent months discussing additional revenue — negotiations that many expect to soon reach an agreement.
A ninth SEC conference game would then set in motion a scheduling agreement with the Big Ten, which itself already plays nine league games. The scheduling agreement, though still in the discussion stages, would pit SEC and Big Ten teams against one another in annual games to be sold as a separate television package.
Though ESPN and Fox already own the home games of SEC and Big Ten schools, respectively, the scheduling arrangement — if it generates big-time matchups (think Texas-Ohio State, LSU-Oregon and Georgia-Michigan) — could be worth annually well into eight figures for the leagues to presumably split.
Last July from Big Ten football media days, commissioner Tony Petitti told Yahoo Sports that, if leaders “get the postseason right,” his league and others could then have the ability to “play stronger non-conference matchups.”
Advertisement
“This is all connected,” he said.
Think about it like steps to a recipe that, in the end, will supply the two conferences with millions more in revenue at a time when college sports moves into direct revenue sharing with athletes: (1) change the postseason to guarantee spots; (2) assure the SEC moves to nine games; and (3) strike the scheduling agreement.
There is a fourth step, too: remake conference championship weekend. Under the models being discussed, each power conference would need to establish the way in which they qualify their teams for the automatic berths.
In either multi-AQ playoff proposal, conference championship games likely become less valuable, and a reimagined championship weekend may feature conference play-in games for the automatic berths, something Yahoo Sports reported in December. These discussions, though preliminary, are happening at the highest levels of conference leadership.
Advertisement
Could the SEC and Big Ten, if guaranteed four spots, pit their third-best team against the sixth and their fourth-best team against their fifth in on-campus, play-in games to the CFP? Would they advance their top two seeds automatically into the CFP or would they still play a title game? Or, would they match their top seed against their eighth-place finisher?
The games could fetch millions more in additional revenue from television partners.
In the Big 12 and ACC, similar conversations are being had.
Internal, external strife
The current college landscape is under historic levels of financial stress.
Advertisement
Seismic changes within the industry — schools will soon be sharing millions directly with athletes — is leading to a continuous level of revenue-generating and power-grabbing maneuvers as conferences best position their schools in this new, more professionalized era.
It’s not only the Big Ten and SEC. The power conferences — all four of them — proposed a governance model that expands their autonomous legislation powers within the NCAA and also grants them decision-making powers in postseason NCAA championships, including the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, which officials are currently in the midst of exploring expansion. An 18-member committee is scheduled to begin conversations around NCAA governance this week.
Contacted for this story, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, arguably the most influential leader in the industry, declined comment on CFP format concepts.
However, in comments to Yahoo Sports dating back to December, he suggested that playoff format changes were necessary, acknowledging the current 12-team format was intended for a world that featured five somewhat equitable power conferences and not the current landscape of four inequitable power leagues.
Advertisement
During an interview on “The Paul Finebaum Show” last week, Sankey said the playoff seeding “needs to be looked at deeply,” suggesting the seeding needs to be aligned with the rankings. This would eliminate automatic first-round byes for conference champions.
Changes to the 2025 playoff, however, fall under the CFP’s original contract, meaning unanimity among the FBS leagues and Notre Dame is necessary. “That’s really tough to achieve,” Sankey said.
In fact, according to comments from Phillips and Yormark, a compromise would be needed to change any seeding structure for 2025. Both men spoke against that move in comments to Yahoo Sports last month.
Change, though, is coming — at the very least starting in 2026.
Advertisement
Automatic qualifiers? Nine SEC conference games? A Big Ten-SEC scheduling partnership? A remade conference championship weekend?
The recipe is there for college football’s revenue giants to generate more cash.
While Sankey declined comment about specific CFP formats this week, he did point back to comments he made to Yahoo Sports in the spring related to a delay in the approval of the original 12-team format. CFP leaders from the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 originally delayed approval of the expanded bracket for more than a year in 2022-23 — a sordid and controversial affair Yahoo Sports explored deeply last April.
Said Sankey then: “When we ended that set of meetings in January 2022 without a decision, I was clear: If you are going to walk away from this opportunity, we are going to reevaluate our position on format, revenue sharing and governance.”