When it comes to the future of the College Football Playoff, there were as many opinions as there were coaches on hand at the Southeastern Conference and Big 12 meetings in Florida this week.
Perhaps the most eye-opening came from some of those with the most to lose — Kenny Dillingham of Arizona State and Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark.
Advertisement
The consensus at their meetings, which wrapped up in Orlando on Friday, was a preference for a format, starting in 2026, that would include 16 teams — five of them automatic bids to the highest-rated conference champions and the other 11 awarded as at-large spots. That would be paired with a straight-seeding model that has already been adopted for next season’s playoff.
Had last season’s playoff used straight seeding, the Big 12 champion Sun Devils would have been seeded 11th, not fourth. Instead of a bye, they would have been stuck with a first-round road game at eventual national champion Ohio State.
But Dillingham said the change for the upcoming season is fine with him, and if the increasingly popular 5-11 model takes hold for 2026, that’s fine, too.
“Last season, maybe we didn’t earn the right to be the fourth seed. Maybe we earned the right to be the eighth seed,” said the coach, whose team was ranked 12th, but still received the fourth seed and a first-round bye before losing to Texas 39-31. “I believe you earn your way to those seeds, so I’m also in support of the 5-plus-11, that same thought process.”
Advertisement
The SEC and Big Ten will decide the format for the playoff starting in 2026, which is when ESPN’s new $7.8 billion contract kicks in.
Yormark said the SEC and Big Ten “have a great responsibility that goes with it to do what’s right for college football and not to do anything that just benefits two conferences. And I have a lot of faith in the process.”
The 5-11 system could be less advantageous for the Big 12, which would get two automatic bids under the other system being floated, the 4-4-2-2-1 model in which the SEC and Big Ten each would receive four and the Big 12 and ACC would get two.
The best argument for that plan might have come from Florida AD Scott Stricklin at the SEC meetings: “I think anything we can do to make the postseason more objective and less subjective is going to be better,” he said, pointing to the notion that the more at-large berths there are, the more the preferences of the selection committee come into play.
Advertisement
Yormark said the Big 12 would be willing to take its chances with more at-large bids.
“We want to earn it on the field,” Yormark said. “The 5-11 might not be ideal for the conference, but it’s good for college football, and it’s what’s fair.”
Dillingham was on the same page.
“Every year is a new year, and you never know who’s going to be good in college football, especially with the volume going through the (transfer) portal,” he said. “So anything that creates an open platform for teams like our guys last year to prove that they do belong, I’m in support of.”
Expanded March Madness
NCAA President Charlie Baker made his most definitive statement yet about expanding the men’s basketball tournament from its current 68 teams to 72 or 76, saying it’s a decision that needs to come in the next few months.
Advertisement
SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has long been in favor of that expansion, so long as it’s done a certain way. His model would bring more at-large teams – presumably from big conferences — into the main draw of 64. It would push more automatic qualifiers from weaker leagues into what would be an increased number of so-called “play-in” games, what’s known now as the First Four.
He used the example of North Carolina State in 2024 as a team that was seeded 11th (the Wolfpack didn’t have to play a play-in game but often an 11th seed does) and made the Final Four.
“I don’t think all the 10- and 11-type seeds should just be placed in the First Four,” Sankey said at the SEC meetings in the Florida Panhandle. “That’s my opinion. You could go ask my colleagues in the AQ conferences what should happen and I’m certain they’d want the split to continue.”
Walk-on walk-outs
Advertisement
A few SEC coaches hedged when asked what they were telling walk-on football players who were in jeopardy of losing their roster spots under terms of the multibillion-dollar lawsuit settlement that is hung up on the issue of roster limits.
“Certainly it’s challenging for us to manage our roster,” Texas A&M coach Mike Elko said. “But it’s more challenging for a 19-year-old to not know what his place on a football team is as we head into the summer.”
Under terms of a reworked agreement, football rosters would be limited to 105 players, all of whom would be eligible for scholarships, though walk-on players who had roster spots before would not count against the limit.
Kansas coach Lance Leipold conceded that many decisions had already been made regardless of how the settlement works out. Indeed, some of his walk-ons had already left, as the Jayhawks made preparations for the upcoming season with the expectation the settlement would be approved.
Advertisement
“When a walk-on maybe decides that now that their roster spot might be in jeopardy, he has a chance to go somewhere else where he may see more real playing time in games, you got to be happy for him,” he said. “I guess we all wish we had a little bit more clarity sooner.”
One window too many
From locker rooms to the commissioner’s office, the Big 12 is unified in its stance on transfer portal timing. Rather than two transfer windows, including a 20-day slot with the college football playoff in sight in December, the Big 12 is pushing for one window in January.
“As coaches, we unanimously support one portal window, and that is in January,” Leipold said. “You’re signing most of your guys in December. You know what your roster will be like to start the second semester, and you have the opportunity to work and develop and build those relationships and evaluate your team and get ready for the next season.”
Advertisement
Coaches can find solace in knowing their commissioner will fight for the cause. Adjusting the portal windows is one of many items on the list of topics Yormark will discuss with fellow Power Four commissioners in the coming weeks.
“We discussed the portal window with the coaches,” Yormark said. “We know what their preference is. We’ll discuss that amongst the Power Four commissioners here shortly, but I advocate for their position. They want a January portal, and we’ll discuss that again with our peers and see where we can land this thing.”
The Power Four wants more
There are plenty of ongoing disputes between the NCAA’s most dominant conferences, but a desire for more control isn’t one of them. Rumors of the SEC separating from the NCAA may have gained momentum, but Sankey is willing to settle for more autonomy, at least for now.
Advertisement
Instead of the original 65%, Sankey argued that the Power Four conferences owning 68% of the vote in the proposed NCAA governance model is more optimal. Yormark was on the same page.
“There is an appetite and desire to have a little bit more autonomy, a little bit more control in decision-making,” Yormark said. “In what’s currently being discussed, I think we will land in a very desirable place. We understand the importance of being part of the institution and also being very collegial with our peers. But at the same time, we do feel that when it comes to control and autonomy, that there needs to be a little bit of a shift to the A4, at least more so than what currently exists.”
By the sounds of it, the Power Four may have the NCAA president on their side.
“Charlie Baker has been terrific throughout the process. He has listened to all the key stakeholder groups, but he does recognize that not everyone looks the same, operates the same, and there needs to be a bit of an adjustment and a modernization of what’s being done there in the NCAA as a whole is, like you said, but also as it relates to the power four,” Yormark said.
___
Carey reported from Orlando, Fla., Pells from Miramar Beach, Fla.
___
AP college sports: https://apnews.com/hub/college-sports
