As the college football world gears up for significant changes on the horizon, it’s time to take stock of the ongoing discussions about the future format of the College Football Playoff (CFP), set to kick off in 2026. Over the past few months, while life may have been keeping you busy, the power players of college football have been busy crafting what many are calling a self-serving scheme that could reshape the postseason landscape.
In a notable meeting back in February, the Big Ten and SEC leaders gathered in New Orleans, discussing a bold move to expand the CFP to 14 teams while ensuring both conferences walk away with four guaranteed berths. This plan would have left the ACC and Big 12 with only two slots each, and one for the Group of 5 conferences. As you might expect, this idea didn’t sit well with many around the sport, who strongly believe that postseason slots should be earned through performance, not handed out like candy.
Fast-forward three months, and the situation has taken an even more perplexing turn. According to reports, the proposed format has now ballooned to 16 teams, still laden with those lopsided automatic berths, and even more convoluted than before. As Ralph Russo of The Athletic highlights, instead of a straightforward bracket where the top teams play the lowest, we could see a playoffs that begins earlier, perhaps during the traditional Army-Navy weekend, with a “First Four” setup for those lowest seeds fighting for a shot at advancing.
This twisted crop of ideas is nothing short of bewildering. Just think about it—last season, the initial setup for participation proved confusing enough for fans to grasp. Now we’re looking at a revision that could see top seeds granted an extra bye, stretching the wait time between their last regular season game and a playoff matchup to nearly three weeks. Imagine if your favorite NFL team had to sit idle until the third week of the playoffs—that’s the scale of the wait we could be facing.
Adding to the chaos are the proposed guarantees for the Big Ten and SEC, a model that ensures they retain a hefty majority of playoff spots, something that has never been done at this level in American sports postseason history. The arrogance in proposing this setup is striking, even among the league powerhouses. The arguments presented in favor of such a model, while perhaps steeped in historical data, only serve to underline the troubling reality of a playoff system that feels rigged before the first kickoff is even made.
Much of this framework seems to have been authored by Tony Petitti, the Big Ten commissioner, who is pushing hard for automatic berths to secure a comfortable playoff path for his conference. His vision of a league akin to an NBA Play-In Tournament for the Big Ten is at the core of this bold new narrative—the idea being that increased playoff access equals better television deals and ultimately, a windfall for everyone involved.
Meanwhile, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey appears to be riding the wave, not actively opposing the push for an uneven model, but also not stepping in to protect the integrity of the sport. There’s a palpable disdain within both conferences for the current selection committee’s role, and the allure of guaranteed playoff bids is proving hard to resist—even at the cost of compromise.
What we’re left with is a recipe for disaster that could severely damage the College Football Playoff’s credibility and, worse yet, its standing with fans. If college football’s decision-makers continue down this path, we’re looking at potential backlash from fans who may feel disenfranchised by what is essentially a rigged tournament. There’s also the risk of scrutiny from legislators and legal analysts who could see this collusion as a threat to fair competition.
Anyone who remembers the BCS era can’t help but draw parallels. That convoluted system, marred by confusion and controversy, ultimately buckled under pressure—from public dissent to congressional intervention. It became a textbook case of what happens when power is consolidated and the interests of the few overshadow the integrity of the sport as a whole.
The straightforward solution that should be on the table? A 16-team playoff that simply includes the best 16 teams based on merit—an idea that would restore credibility and excitement to the postseason. But for that to happen, the Big Ten and SEC may need to step back and consider the greater good. Given the current trajectory, don’t hold your breath waiting for that to occur.
