DALLAS — College football commissioners left Tuesday’s College Football Playoff meeting without any decisions on potential changes to the format, but pressure to make a decision and public backlash over a potential overhaul or expansion in 2026 continue to mount.
CFP executive director Rich Clark said most of Tuesday’s meeting was a look back at the results of 2024 and how the inaugural 12-team CFP performed, including a briefing from TV consultants. It was the group’s first meeting since the national championship game. But the public attention is on the potential changes for 2025 and then 2026, the latter when the Big Ten and SEC take more power in determining what the CFP format looks like through 2031.
Whether it’s seeding changes in 2025 or expansion in 2026, the clock is ticking.
“We want to have decisions made soon,” Clark said after the meeting that lasted more than seven hours. “(2025) is obviously the most pressing.”
Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, whose conferences met together last week in New Orleans to discuss several topics including the CFP, left Tuesday’s meeting without speaking to reporters.
The topic most discussed for 2025 involves potential seeding changes. Champions from the Mountain West (Boise State) and Big 12 (Arizona State) received top-four seeds and first-round byes while sitting outside the top eight of the CFP selection committee’s rankings. The 2025 CFP will be the last of the initial 12-year contract that started in 2014. Any changes to the 12-team format for 2025 will need unanimous support from leaders of each conference and Notre Dame.
Big Ten and SEC leaders have expressed a desire to change that to “straight seeding,” where the committee’s rankings determine the seeds, while still protecting five automatic qualifying spots. But doing so could cause those outside the Big Ten and SEC to miss a first-round bye — and the multimillion payout that comes with it. The CFP’s final top four last season featured all Big Ten or SEC teams.
ACC commissioner Jim Phillips and Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark wouldn’t rule out agreeing to seeding changes on Tuesday, but said they requested the CFP staff provide them with more information before making a decision — information like past results and other factors.
Is there anything that could convince them it’s worth giving up those two byes for non-Big Ten/SEC teams? Perhaps more guaranteed money?
“It’s too early to determine that,” Yormark said after the 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 added that the format for 2025 should help set the table for 2026, and that they shouldn’t be viewed as completely separate entities.
But the potential changes for 2026 and beyond are more dramatic. Big Ten and SEC officials have discussed for the past year a 14- or 16-team model that could provide four automatic qualifying spots for the Big Ten and SEC each, two each for the ACC and Big 12, one for the Group of 5 and one or three at-larges. Notre Dame could also automatically qualify if it meets a specific ranking threshold.
The Big Ten and SEC have far more control over the CFP beginning in 2026, as part of a memorandum of understanding the conferences signed last year. That agreement guarantees the majority of CFP money goes toward the Big Ten and SEC, with the rest for the ACC, Big 12 and Group of 5 leagues. The weight of each league’s vote is not clear yet, but unanimity will no longer be required.
GO DEEPER
CFP leaders agree to framework through at least ’31; expansion on hold
Petitti and Sankey have said little to nothing publicly about the 4-4-2-2-1-1 idea, but it would open the door to those leagues potentially creating play-in tournaments within their conferences for those playoff spots — extra games that could be sold to a broadcaster for more media rights revenue. It could also open a Big Ten-SEC football scheduling agreement.
GO DEEPER
SEC, Big Ten discussing changes to championship weekend
Those postseason ideas have created public backlash, including from ESPN’s Paul Finebaum, over such a public tilting of the CFP table toward two leagues.
“We talked about it, but we did not come to decisions,” Clark said of more automatic qualifiers. “It’s out there (in the media) and so it came up in the conversation, but there was no decision.”
Some commissioners refused to say anything about the automatic qualifier idea and their thoughts on it. Phillips, when asked weighing what’s good for the ACC and good for the sport, said it’s both.
“For all of us, there’s been somebody before us and there will be somebody after us,” he said. “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 hope to meet again in March, before their annual review meeting in April. It’s possible the future CFP changes could be hammered out over video calls, as was the case last year.
But while the sport’s leaders discuss potential overhauls to the season once again, they continue to do so privately, with little public informing or lobbying over what they think should happen.
“The evolution of this thing is important,” American Athletic Conference commissioner Tim Pernetti said. “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.”
Required reading
(Photo: Peter Joneleit / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
