The College Football Playoff is on the brink of a dramatic transformation. What began as a simple expansion discussion has evolved into a high-stakes political chess match among college football’s power brokers. As the postseason inches toward a new format for 2026 and beyond, the future of the sport hangs in the balance. In one corner are the juggernauts — the Big Ten and SEC, armed with money, muscle, and the lion’s share of national titles. In the other are the ACC and Big 12, determined not to fade quietly into irrelevance.
Now, with June 18 circled on the calendar — the date of the next in-person meeting of the CFP’s power players — the standoff is reaching its critical moment.
This is more than just a debate about playoff brackets. This is about control, survival, and the very identity of college football in the modern era.
Two Competing Visions for a 16-Team Playoff
As the College Football Playoff prepares to expand to 16 teams, the battle lines have been drawn around two sharply different models. Each format reflects a deeper philosophical divide about what postseason access should look like — and who gets to define “merit” in the sport.
The ACC & Big 12’s 5+11 Format:
Five automatic bids to the highest-ranked conference champions (regardless of league).
Eleven at-large bids for the best remaining teams, based on rankings.
This approach is simple, straightforward, and inclusive. It rewards excellence across the country, creates opportunities for Group of Five programs, and preserves a pathway for teams outside the Big Two to earn their shot.
The Big Ten & SEC’s 4-4-2-2-1 Format:
Four automatic bids for each of the Big Ten and SEC.
Two automatic bids for the ACC and Big 12.
One automatic bid for the top Group of Five champion.
Three at-large spots.
This model is more rigid — and more political. It heavily favors the Big Ten and SEC, guaranteeing them the lion’s share of playoff access. Perhaps more significantly, it could pave the way for internal conference “play-in” games, adding yet another revenue-generating event to an already lucrative conference championship weekend.
These formats aren’t just numbers on a bracket. They are statements of intent — one geared toward broadening the field, the other toward consolidating power.
The Real Game: Control, Money, and the Future of College Sports
To understand the intensity behind these discussions, you need to look beyond the field. The CFP debate is playing out amid the most volatile and transformative period in college sports history.
The House v. NCAA settlement, likely to be finalized soon, will change the financial structure of college athletics, enabling schools to pay players directly — up to $20.5 million annually.
Many athletic departments are already running deficits, and now must plan for a future with professionalized compensation.
The Big Ten and SEC have pulled away financially, each negotiating massive TV deals and expanding with blockbuster realignment moves (think: USC, UCLA, Texas, and Oklahoma).
Meanwhile, the ACC and Big 12 are fighting internal battles. Florida State and Clemson are openly rebelling against ACC revenue distribution, while the Big 12 has undergone leadership changes and rapid membership turnover.
All of this is to say: this isn’t just about playoff structure. This is about which conferences survive and which ones become feeder leagues for the true elite.
Inside the Boardroom: A Brewing Cold War
Tensions reached a head on May 15, when ACC and Big 12 representatives unveiled their 5+11 format during a high-level meeting of college football’s most influential figures.
Sources told CBS Sports that the proposal was received coolly by the Big Ten and SEC power blocs. The latter have not formally socialized their 4-4-2-2-1 format with the full group, instead keeping discussions largely internal — a strategy some interpret as a power move.
Yet SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, often seen as the face of the modern CFP, insists that nothing is finalized.
"We're not committed at this point to something," Sankey said earlier this month. “We’re trying to find a format to determine — whatever number it is — the best teams in college football.”
Still, Sankey’s defense of the 4-4-2-2-1 model has struck a nerve. Critics argue it’s designed to cement an elite tier of programs and restrict upward mobility, especially for Group of Five and middle-tier Power Five teams.
“We didn’t need 12 [teams],” Sankey said, referring to last season’s CFP field. “If we stayed at four, we would have had half the four last year. I don’t need lectures from others about the good of the game.”
Such comments reflect not just confidence, but a sense of entitlement — a belief that the SEC and Big Ten deserve more because of past performance. Whether that's fair or sustainable remains a hot topic.
Why the 5+11 Format Deserves Consideration
It’s easy to view the ACC and Big 12’s proposal as an act of desperation — but in reality, it may be the fairest and most future-proof option on the table.
It doesn’t lock in advantages for any one conference.
It ensures representation for champions, preserving the meaning of conference titles.
It still allows the best teams to earn spots through at-large bids.
And most importantly, it keeps the door open for Cinderella stories and breakout seasons — the lifeblood of college football’s charm.
If the playoff becomes too exclusive, too top-heavy, and too predictable, it risks becoming the very thing it once rebelled against: a miniature NFL with little room for anything but brand name success.
Where It Goes From Here
The upcoming June 18 meeting could be pivotal — or it could be yet another round of posturing and delay. So far, no single proposal has unanimous support. The CFP Management Committee and the ten FBS conferences (plus Notre Dame) all have influence in these decisions.
The recent unanimous approval of straight seeding for this season’s playoff shows that compromise is possible. The ACC and Big 12 both admitted the change wasn’t ideal for them, but said it was right for college football as a whole.
“I hope what's best for college football continues to be the priority in any discussions moving forward,” Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark said.
The question is whether the Big Ten and SEC will extend the same spirit of compromise — or whether they’ll bet on their ability to bend the system to their will.
Final Thoughts: A Defining Crossroads
College football is standing at a crossroads. The next version of the College Football Playoff will do more than determine how teams are selected. It will reveal what kind of sport this wants to be:
One that prioritizes equity, competition, and national relevance?
Or one that reinforces the growing divide between the haves and have-nots?
There’s nothing inherently wrong with rewarding success. But when that reward turns into guaranteed privilege — when access is decided not by performance, but by affiliation — college football begins to lose what makes it special.
The 5+11 model may not be perfect. But it’s a good-faith effort to keep the sport competitive, exciting, and inclusive. In contrast, the 4-4-2-2-1 format feels more like a protectionist hedge — a bet that the rich should stay rich, no matter what.
For fans, players, coaches, and administrators alike, the outcome of this debate will echo far beyond any single playoff season. It will shape the soul of the sport.
And the showdown is coming soon.
