A separate thread maybe appropriate since we're *likely* to see multiple iterations of the CFP upcoming. There is “strong support for a 16-team College Football Playoff format to begin as soon as 2026” if Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti and SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey can “reach a specific compromise,” according to sources cited by Heather Dinich of ESPN.com. There is a “stalemate, though, between the two powerbrokers,” meaning that “even with a majority in favor of the change, the playoff could remain at 12 next season.” The deadline for completing the format is Jan. 23, with CFP leaders set to “meet Jan. 18 in Miami,” the day before the national championship game, for their annual review of the season. They are “expected to discuss two models: a 16-team field that includes five conference champions and 11 at-large teams, and another format with 24 teams.” Petitti and Sankey have the “bulk of control over the playoff’s format in 2026 and beyond,” but if they “can’t come to an agreement by the deadline, the playoff will remain at 12 teams.” Sankey’s support of a 16-team field is “extremely significant because of the weight he carries in the room, but it won’t happen if Petitti isn’t on board.” Sources said that the Big Ten “wants to use this as leverage to eventually lock in a field with at least 24 teams, with or without automatic qualifiers.” Dinich noted some CFP leaders have become “more open to the idea of a 24-team field,” but there is a “sense among many of them that it’s too significant of a leap to make at this point” (ESPN.com, 1/11).
LOL at 24. So basically the entire regular season would be completely irrelevant for any reasonably good program. This year would have included a 4-loss Iowa team, as an example.
Selection committee Part of the Big Ten's issue with the CFP system is a belief that the selection committee has an impossible job that will only get more difficult as the SEC and ACC transition to nine-game conference schedules this year. With an increase in two- and three-loss teams expected, the committee will have a tougher task evaluating those records against the opponents they've played. The committee's enhanced strength of schedule metric and new record strength metric didn't provide any glaring differences fans would have noticed this past season in each weekly ranking. No major changes are expected to the committee's protocol, but some sources -- inside and outside of the room -- have questioned whether sitting athletic directors should remain a part of the group, given how much pressure there is on schools and conferences to make the playoff. Is it possible for those individuals to act independently and not as representatives of their respective conferences? Some within the industry have suggested the committee chair be independent -- not a sitting athletic director, as has been the norm throughout the duration of the CFP. There isn't any momentum for athletic directors to cycle off the committee, and there is still support for the position from CFP leaders who believe they lend credence to the system. Arkansas athletic director Hunter Yurachek is expected to serve one more season as the committee's chair, but the commissioners and Bevacqua still have to approve that recommendation. The reality is that it has gotten much more difficult to find committee members since the inaugural season of the playoff. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/47584209/college-football-playoff-expansion-hearing
Easy impartial solution to the committee member issue: All members are appointed by the House of Representatives, and none of the proposed members could have ever attended an FBS school. Only the best people.
So the B10 thinks its too tough to distinguish between the 2 and 3 loss teams, so they want to make it even bigger so a committee has to distinguish between even messier 3 and 4 loss teams? Feels like college football will go the way of pro sports where you'll rest players, take games off, etc - especially if you have to play lots of playoff games. 24 would presumably have 5 rounds of playoffs? If you're not in the mix for a top 8 bye, who cares if you're seed #12 or #19 or whatnot.
Petitti will push discussions to the absolute limit, but he will eventually give in. From his standpoint, 16 teams is better than 12, so he'll compromise. If he hasn't been able to convince Sankey by now, he simply can't. If it ever happens, anything beyond 16 teams should require all conference championship games to be cancelled. IMO, there should be a limit of 16 total possible games played (or even a reduction to 15 games). I'm also with Dan Lanning that the CFP championship game should happen no later than January 1st. If this requires some combination of starting the season earlier, decreasing games and eliminating conference championship games, so be it!
Hard to see them decreasing games if the money goes with it. But there is no reason not to start the season a week or two earlier and eliminating the ridiculous 3 weeks off the top 4 teams have. Not sure if that gets us to Jan 1st but seems like they can get it done if they want to.
With 5 rounds and ending on Jan 1st, you'd have to start the playoffs around Thanksgiving weekend. Not sure there's any logistical way to make that work, though I agree Jan 1st should be a national title day. There just have to be fewer teams and fewer rounds to even make it remotely feasible.
Just bring back the BCS computers (with some updates). Some possibilities: - 16 teams, 4 rounds (no byes) - 16 teams, 5 rounds (1-4 double bye, 5-8 single bye) - 24 teams, 5 round (1-8 single bye) If we're adding more games, you'd have to start the season around the third week of August to not drag stuff out.
The SEC (and probably everyone else) wants expansion to 16 teams. As a negotiating position, the B1G can prevent that because they and the SEC must agree on all changes. I think the B1G will cave and agree to 16 teams with no future conditions because they've been twisting Greg Sankey's arm since last August and haven't gotten anywhere. What more is there to say at this point?
FWIW, the original question was rhetorical hence the LOL. Don’t think the BIG has any leverage in this instance. 24 teams is crazy.
24 teams is crazy, until it isn't. To many folks (including some here), going beyond 4 teams was "crazy" because... Now it's 12 teams and all parties now want 16 beginning this year. This thing is headed to wherever money and lawsuits (and perhaps politics) eventually take it. Just chill and watch.
