🏈 Future CFP formats: Here's where things stand after SEC coaches pushed back on model guaranteeing league 4 playoff spots - Yahoo Sports

[SEC Sports]

SEC's Sankey: Not settled on preferred CFP format

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said Monday at the league's annual meetings that he's open-minded about the format of the College Football Playoff, while leaving some breadcrumbs about what he thinks are priorities in the conference's decision-making.

www.espn.com

DESTIN, Fla. -- SEC commissioner Greg Sankey opened the league's annual meetings Monday by saying he's open-minded about the format of the College Football Playoff, while leaving some breadcrumbs about what he thinks are priorities in the conference's decision-making.

With SEC athletic directors, presidents and coaches converging in Destin this week, the future of the College Football Playoff in 2026 and beyond is one of the central issues facing the league.

That's in part because the playoff format decision is kinetic, as it impacts the SEC's football schedule going to nine games and some type of down-the-road scheduling partnership with the Big Ten.

"We're not committed to any particular format," Sankey said.

With conversations among CFP leaders about format having appeared to splinter off to just the four power conference commissioners, a 16-team model looms as the most likely for the future of the sport. Sankey remains noncommittal on how the SEC thinks that should work, as college football enters the final year of its current postseason format.

The most discussed model has been one where the Big Ten and SEC would get four automatic bids each, and the ACC and Big 12 two each.

But Sankey stressed that the so-called 4-4-2-2-1-3 model, which distributes one automatic bid to the non-power leagues and three available at-large bids -- one potentially for Notre Dame if it falls within the seeding threshold -- has not been decided on in his room.

"We'll see how that conversation manifests itself this week and we'll look a little bit more deeply at different ideas," he said, "which will put me at some point in a better position to answer those questions."

Sankey did dive into some traits in the CFP system that he'd like to see, including a prioritization of the regular season -- and games like Nebraska's recently cancelled series with Tennessee -- while keeping postseason hopes alive for a swath of teams deep into the season.

"I think the word 'hope' is at the center, too," Sankey said. "How do you bring people into the conversation late in the season in a changing environment, and so the idea of, 'Could you have play-in-type games?' continues to populate itself before you're in the CFP selection. That's about building interest and giving hope.

"Whether that's the ultimate destination, we'll see."

The Big Ten and commissioner Tony Petitti have been more bullish on the four automatic bids, according to sources. Sankey has spoken about them but remains more guarded in his support.

Last week at the Big Ten meetings in California, the league came away still in support of the 4-4-2-2-1-3 model for the playoff, sources said. The Big Ten remains open to other ideas, but that model is at the forefront.

Sankey's guarded stance stayed true Monday evening: "We're trying to find a format to determine, whatever number it is, the best teams in college football, and I think where we are right now is we have used a political process inside a room to come to decisions about football. We should be using football information to come to football decisions."

Sankey did make clear his disappointment in the reactions of the ACC and Big 12 commissioners to the move to a straight seeding model announced last week. Both commissioners referenced the macro good of the game in responses, with the ACC's Jim Phillips saying that's a "responsibility I take very seriously" and the Big 12's Brett Yormark saying he hopes what's best for college football is "the priority" in discussions moving forward.

Sankey felt those separate responses from the leagues were coordinated -- although they were not formally, as neither released a statement -- and remarked: "I don't need lectures from others about 'good of the game.' I don't lecture others about good of the game and coordinating press releases about good of the game. OK, you can issue your press statement, but I'm actually looking for ideas to move us forward."

A Big 12 spokesman, Clark Williams, said on social media that there was not even a release, never mind a coordinated one, from the league.

He did add that the Big 12 and ACC did eventually bring some CFP ideas, but they don't appear to have gained traction as they involved more bids -- or bids with thresholds -- for the ACC and Big 12.

Sankey said displacement of SEC teams would loom as such a big issue if those models were accepted that he'd likely lose his job.

"That's tough" he said, walking through a series of potential displacement scenarios for his members. "I don't think it'd be me at the podium in the future if some of those ideas [came to fruition]."

The other issue looming over meetings is the potential for the settlement of the House case this week. He remains hopeful a decision comes.

"We have a responsibility for implementation," he said, "so does it pivot what we say this week? Yep. Does it mean we're going to keep preparing? We're going to keep preparing."

 

[TerryP]

But Sankey stressed that the so-called 4-4-2-2-1-3 model, which distributes one automatic bid to the non-power leagues and three available at-large bids -- one potentially for Notre Dame if it falls within the seeding threshold -- has not been decided on in his room.

Here's your unintended consequence.

IF ND falls in the top four, they don't play a game on the first week of December. They'd get a bye for what, at least one round if not two in this format?

 

[SEC Sports]

Amid heated College Football Playoff debate, SEC's Greg Sankey unloads on ACC, Big 12

As debate over expanded College Football Playoff heats up, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey fires back at ACC, Big 12 rivals:

www.usatoday.com

MIRAMAR BEACH, Fla. — It was only matter of time before this inevitable arrived.

The desperate lash out, the defeated try anything. But not this time, not in this specific situation.

“I don’t need lectures from others about the good of the game,” says SEC commissioner Greg Sankey.

Especially when, in his mind, he’s the one who has been working to save the ACC and Big 12’s hide all along.

He was the one who not long ago convinced his presidents in the SEC that the College Football Playoff (not an SEC playoff) was in the best interest of college football ― even thought many of those presidents were unsure of CFP expansion in the first place.

And he's the one who, along with new working partner commissioner Tony Petitti of the Big Ten, was given all the power in the CFP by everyone else in the process ― including the Big 12 and ACC commissioners now complaining about it.

So poking the bear probably wasn't the smartest thing to do.

But here we are, with the CFP on the verge of a 16-team format beginning in 2026, and the desperate have decided to speak up. Commissioners of the ACC and Big 12, whose leagues won’t get similar access – and more to the point, similar revenue – to that of the SEC and Big Ten, made statements to CBS Sports last week that looked eerily coordinated.

Both said, in part, that the “best interest of the sport” is at the forefront of every decision each has made relative to the CFP.

That didn’t sit well with the guy who was asked by the CFP board of directors to build the first 12-team playoff, then watched as petty politics delayed it for months. Apparently, the ACC’s part in the delay – the failed “Alliance” with the Big Ten and Pac-12 – was in the best interest of the sport, too.

The Big 12 and ACC’s raids of the Pac-12, Mountain West and American Athletic conferences to save their very power conference lives was, too, in the best interest of the sport.

“You can issue your press statements, but I’m actually looking for ideas to move us forward,” Sankey said. “(The SEC) didn’t need the playoff. That was for the good of the game.”

But Sankey wasn’t done there. For the first time since he was named commissioner in 2015 and has since spoken with measured yet forceful tones, Sankey unloaded.

For 10 years he has spoken as the conference, rarely as the commissioner. It’s always “we,” never “me.”

That ended in various spots during a 45-minute state of the SEC to begin the league’s annual spring meetings — a state of the league that quickly turned into the state of college football.

And Sankey’s place in it.

“You want to go inside what it's like to sit in this role?” Sankey said. “I think about the responsibility I have to our member institutions, and I think about the rest of college football, more broadly, all the time. I’m open to (CFP) ideas, there’s just not a lot of incoming. My phone’s not ringing off the hook with, ‘Hey, here’s another way to look at it.’”

This is more than the ACC and Big 12 looking for more access with the new CFP, which currently has a preferred model of 13 automatic qualifiers: four each for the SEC and Big Ten, two each for ACC and Big 12, one for the Group of Six, and three at-large.

This is about Sankey hearing explicitly one way from his presidents and athletic directors, and dealing with the rest of college football on another level.

Frankly, his presidents – who ultimately make all football decisions – aren’t too thrilled about the CFP process. About the format and allowances to schools who they believe are hanging on SEC financial coattails.

So when Indiana makes the CFP after beating just one team with a winning record, when SMU makes the CFP after losing its conference championship game, when Texas is a top three team but has to play a first-round game, when Tennessee is a top seven team but has to play a first-round game on the road, that’s a problem for the SEC.

We’re not that far removed from the SEC’s spring meetings in 2021, when Sankey alluded to the possibility that the conference could hold its own playoff — and the market to buy those games would be significant.

In other words, we actually can take our ball and go home.

“Our athletic directors are telling me we’ve given too much away (in the CFP) to arrive at these political compromises,” Sankey said. “How many of those compromises does it take?”

Meanwhile, these meetings began with the backdrop of the SEC's seemingly never-ending move to nine conference games. Only now, it’s more of a financial lifeboat.

And another reason the ACC and Big 12 “best interest of the game” statements fell flat.

College sports is days from the potential approval of the groundbreaking House case that will essentially usher in pay for play — and the need for new revenue streams to pay for it. But why add another game in the best conference in college football to increase media rights revenue, when the CFP selection committee preferred wins over strength of schedule?

Why continue to work to find compromise with a CFP format that favors others based on an easier road to a better record?

So yeah, it probably wasn’t the right time for the whole best interest of the game thing.

“Ultimately, I recognize I’m the one who ends up in front of the podium, explaining not just myself, but ourselves,” Sankey said. “So yeah, good luck to me.”

Don't poke the bear, everyone. Especially when he has all the cards.

 

[RTB X Bot]

 

[RTB X Bot]

 

[SEC Sports]

Future CFP formats: Here's where things stand after SEC coaches pushed back on model guaranteeing league 4 playoff spots

After pushback from SEC coaches on a model that would guarantee four automatic bids for the SEC and Big Ten, the 5+11 format may now be favored. But that would put the SEC at odds with its partner in deciding the CFP future.

sports.yahoo.com

MIRAMAR BEACH, Fla. — Inside one of the Hilton Sandestin's many meeting rooms, some of the most highly paid and recognizable college football coaches, sitting alongside their athletic directors, tossed a proverbial wrench into playoff format discussions this week.

A majority of the SEC’s coaches did not support the multiple automatic-qualifier playoff structure that had gained momentum with a large group of their administrators.

A ninth conference game? No thanks, plenty of coaches said.

A season-ending, inner-conference play-in game? No way, some of them told ADs.

The 16 coaches weren’t completely aligned against the concepts, but the room wasn’t split either: They preferred a format that is similar to the current 12-team bracket — a 5+11 model with five automatic qualifiers for conference champions and 11 at-large bids instead of the so-called “4-4-2-2-1” model that grants twice as many qualifiers to the Big Ten and SEC (four each) than to the ACC and Big 12 (two each).

The stance from SEC coaches — and the pushback from the public, other conferences and even television partner ESPN on the 4-4-2-2-1 format — has, perhaps, altered the conversation around the future of football’s postseason as the three-day SEC spring meetings ended Thursday.

So, what now?

During his final news conference from here, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey declined to reveal his league’s preference in a model, only saying the conference is “interested” in certain formats and that he would discuss those in his next meeting with his fellow FBS commissioners. But it is clear, more than ever, just how seriously the SEC is considering the 5+11 model.

Take Thursday’s news conference, for example. While Sankey spoke, SEC officials distributed to media members a seven-page packet of data highlighting the conference’s strength of schedule — part of Sankey’s weeklong agenda to lay groundwork for a change to the CFP selection committee’s criteria. He and his league administrators and coaches want more value placed upon the strength-of-schedule metric.

In flipping through the packet, Sankey identified certain data points and described his conference as “not like any other.” His regular-season schedule is “unique” and “stands alone,” he said.

Such an intense argument from the commissioner speaks to the serious nature of the SEC’s consideration for the coach’s preference, the 5+11 format, instead of a model — 4-4-2-2-1 — that would significantly limit the selection committee's role.

The debate now rages onward as conference commissioners will soon schedule a meeting to further discuss playoff options. They have before them one of the most significant and landscape-altering decisions in college athletics history.

And the proverbial CFP ball seems as if it is firmly planted in the SEC’s court. The league’s decision on the two most-discussed 16-team formats is expected to tip the scales — perhaps the final vote needed for either format.

Which will it be? The Big Ten-backed “4-4-2-2-1” model or the Big 12 and ACC-backed “5+11” format that may put at odds college football’s two goliaths and the controllers of the format itself: the Big Ten and SEC.

Let’s dive in.

The 4-4-2-2-1: More money and guaranteed access​

In this revenue-generating model, SEC and Big Ten officials have discussed holding season-ending play-in style games pitting their third, fourth, fifth and sixth-place finishers against one another, with the winners gaining the league’s final two playoff spots. Also, in this format, the SEC would likely move to a nine-game conference schedule.

Both of these concepts generate more revenue at a time when schools are at their height of financial stress. How much revenue? That remains uncertain, but ESPN is gearing up to finalize an offer with the SEC of as much $5 million per school annually in additional revenue for the SEC’s ninth conference game.

Two additional play-in games per year could fetch millions more.

Along with the extra cash, there is the guarantee of always having four participants and, in some years, a fifth with at-large bids.

The argument from coaches is quite simple against this model: too many games. Teams participating in play-in games, then playing in the first round of the CFP and advancing to the national championship game will have played 18 contests.

Their other issues with this format? Well, it could cause the complete implosion of the CFP as an entity. The Big 12, ACC, Notre Dame and several Group of Six conferences are strongly fighting against the format — publicly, privately and politically, too. The battle has turned feisty on the public scene and could result in legal action over a memorandum of understanding signed last year that grants authority over the future format to the Big Ten and SEC.

Big 12 and ACC officials don’t seem to be backing down. Would the Big Ten and SEC really leave the CFP to start their own playoff with just the two of them?

It’s not so foreign of a concept as it sounds. Last spring, leaders of the Big Ten and SEC threatened to leave the CFP if not granted both significant revenue in a new distribution model (the leagues will now get 58% of the revenue) and authority over any future format.

Some SEC administrators here have wondered aloud this week if an SEC/Big Ten-only playoff is the right path. “There would be no argument that the winner is the national champion, right?” asked one high-level SEC school official.

But such a move may be viewed as political suicide for two conferences that are fighting for congressional assistance. After all, more than half of U.S. states don’t have an SEC or Big Ten school in their boundaries.

How would their U.S. senators and congressmen react to the implosion of the industry?

Perhaps that’s why the SEC and Big Ten have not yet decided on a format, Florida athletic director Scott Stricklin said earlier this week.

“That’s why we haven’t moved forward,” he told reporters Tuesday. “We’re trying to navigate all that. That’s where Greg Sankey is so good. He’s got a great way of navigating and bringing people along together. We’re trying to find solutions to legitimate questions and the solutions are not easy. Something has got to give somewhere.”

The 5+11: Perhaps more teams and new criteria​

Data shared with SEC presidents, athletic directors and coaches this week showed, in a 5+11 model, the league may actually have a chance at more playoff participants compared to a 4-4-2-2-1 format.

“Take the top 12-14-16 teams,” LSU coach Brian Kelly says. “That’s my personal opinion. We’d much rather have a situation where more of our teams could get in than limiting it with AQs.”

It’s true. Since the 2014 playoff, the Big Ten led all conferences with 59 total teams ranked inside the top 16 of the CFP’s rankings heading into conference championship weekend, or about 5.3 teams a year. The SEC has had 55 teams (5.0 a year), followed by the Big 12 (2.4) and the ACC (2.1).

But the data should be taken with a grain of salt. It considers conference-realignment shifts (ie: Oklahoma is counted toward the SEC figures, USC for the Big Ten, Stanford for the ACC, Utah for the Big 12, etc.). And it also doesn’t consider the ACC and SEC potentially playing a ninth conference game. They currently each play eight while the Big 12 and Big Ten play nine.

Perhaps most important, a move to a 5+11 format will necessitate a change to the selection committee’s criteria, according to SEC administrators and coaches.

Such a model relies heavily on a committee that many SEC leaders publicly attacked this week. At times, it seemed like a choreographed assault on the athletic administrators, former coaches and others on the 13-member committee that selects and seeds the teams.

“A committee is not ideal to choose a postseason,” Stricklin said. “I question whether it is appropriate for college football.”

“The selection committee’s role is not to send messages, but the outcome of their decisions do,” Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione said.

Kelly even suggested a move toward more data-driven method to choosing and seeding teams such as the BCS.

“We got away from the old model with the computer and now we’ve got it totally subjective,” he told Yahoo Sports. “Can we find a way to bring it more to the middle with a little more information on strength of schedule, quality of opponents, things of that nature?”

Much of the discussion on CFP format this week here centered on the committee’s insistence on relying too much on the loss column, SEC coaches and administrators say.

“Does strength of schedule matter or not?” asked South Carolina coach Shane Beamer. “If strength of schedule doesn’t matter, the only number they’re going to be really looking at is on the right side of the column — how many losses do you have?”

The College Football Playoff is in the midst of examining its selection committee criteria with a goal of revamping the process in a move, very likely, to appease the SEC’s wishes.

But the Big Ten is another matter.

The SEC’s consideration for 5+11 has elicited surprise from the Big Ten group. In fact, Big Ten athletic directors, in a call Wednesday, discussed the 5+11 format, and many of them do not support such a format if the SEC remains at eight conference games. The Big Ten plays nine conference games, something viewed as a disadvantage as half of the league will be saddled with an extra loss while attempting to jockey for 11 at-large spots.

Would it be possible for the SEC to move to nine conference games in a 5+11 format? That seems doubtful without an overhaul of the committee’s criteria.

“If we’re not confident that the decision-making about who gets in and why, and the metrics around it, it’s going to be hard for my colleagues to get to nine games,” Texas A&M athletic director Trev Albert says.

What now?
Timing is a problem, even Sankey acknowledges that.

The SEC must determine its 2026 conference schedule — eight games or nine — by the end of the summer, at the latest. Sankey said Wednesday he doesn’t anticipate that a future CFP format will be determined by that time, suggesting that both (1) playoff negotiations will extend into the fall and (2) the SEC may play eight league games in 2026.

“The pressure point for us is we’re going to have to make a decision for our 2026 schedule in a timeframe shorter than the deadline for CFP decisions,” said Sankey, referencing the CFP deadline of Dec. 1 to determine a 2026 playoff format. “I’m not sure we can work through obligations in [that timeframe].”

But why exactly? Every other league has voiced its preference for a particular format. The SEC’s decision tips the scales. What’s the holdup?

Questioned about that, Sankey cited the memorandum of understanding granting authority to the Big Ten and SEC over the future format as long as they hold “meaningful consultation” with the other conferences.

“We have certain responsibilities in that memo,” he said.

And, so, the CFP format discussions march onward with another twist in tow: a tune-change in the SEC that could very well put it at odds with the Big Ten.

 

[TerryP]

Which will it be? The Big Ten-backed “4-4-2-2-1” model or the Big 12 and ACC-backed “5+11” format that may put at odds college football’s two goliaths and the controllers of the format itself: the Big Ten and SEC.

Musing from my point of view.

It's pretty easy for me to remember when the B1G was split in divisions and no one denied one divisions was stronger than the other. The B1G admitted such. So, they drop divisions.

Does that change the landscape? No. It's still the same three or four teams that run that conference. And, coincidentally, they want four AQ's?

Since we're in SEC country there isn't much 'news' coming out, here, about what's happening up there. The B1G's PTB's are saying they'll go with the five + model IF the SEC moves to nine conference games. And, they want play in games? There's no love lost here for the B1G. No "hate" either. I can say, "I don't care what they think."

It'll be interesting if we see the SEC/ACC/Big 12 vs the B1G on the "final vote."

 

[TerryP]

Oh, all that said. There were two driving voices (schools) in the SEC meetings.

 

[UAgrad93]

I’m more of a 5+11 model guy. I tend to agree with Brian Kelly and Shane Beamer, use the BCS formula and strength of schedule. The committee is too subjective in that you start getting some “brother in law” deals going in order to get your conference more money.

 

[Krimson]

I’m more of a 5+11 model guy. I tend to agree with Brian Kelly and Shane Beamer, use the BCS formula and strength of schedule. The committee is too subjective in that you start getting some “brother in law” deals going in order to get your conference more money.

Better of the two options but for me get rid of any guaranteed spots and put the top whatever number they're gonna go with bcs ranked teams in regardless of conference affiliation.

 

[Krimson]

Oh, all that said. There were two driving voices (schools) in the SEC meetings.

Who?

 

[TerryP]

Who?

UGA and UA. I'm surprised someone hasn't written about it yet.

 

[OldPlayer]

No league should be “guaranteed” any slots. Put the best teams in. Period.

 

[TerryP]

Who?

UGA and UA. I'm surprised someone hasn't written about it yet.

...buried in one of Dellenger's threads on X.

 

[TerryP]

 

[BAMANEWSBOT]

SEC Meetings came to a close Thursday with, as is often the case, no action following lots of talk. But the topics kicked around by the league’s athletic directors and coaches weren’t table setters. More like table flippers.

After four years of fundamental change in college sports, buckle up for at least four more. These issues aren’t easy, simple, or minor. But they’re within months, if not weeks, of resolution. Ranked by importance, here are the four primary topics SEC representatives tried to tackle this week:

1) College Football Playoff format reform

If there wasn’t a horrifically bad idea on the table, the CFP format might not even rank at the top of the list. But because the SEC is showing some receptiveness to the Big Ten’s inane push to establish a fixed number of CFP berths for each conference, this topic is of paramount importance. What the Big Ten wants is four automatic berths for itself, four for the SEC, and as for the rest of college football, in the infamous words of Marie Antoinette, let them eat cake. The alternative to the Big Ten/SEC power play is awarding CFP berths to five conference champions, and fill out the field with 11 at-large berths in a field expanded from 12 teams to 16. Many of those at-large berths would be gobbled up by the Big Ten and SEC anyway, of course, but negotiating for them, instead of competing on the field for them, is a bad idea on many levels. Obviously, the SEC can’t make this decision alone, but the stance it ultimately takes will largely dictate the future of the CFP. Commissioner Greg Sankey should encourage league members to choose the 5-11 format that aligns with the SEC’s competitive bravado: earn berths on the field, don’t leverage them in a board room.

2) Eight or nine conference games

This issue is inseparably, and needlessly, tied to what happens with the CFP format. It’s a safe bet that Sankey would have preferred getting this longvolleyed topic settled this week. After all, we’re talking about a league that once had its schedule nailed down a decade into the future, now 15 months away from a season with no schedule. But schools are determined to see the CFP format settled before they vote on increasing SEC games to nine per season, or keeping the status quo eight. I’ve got little tolerance for the argument that a nine-game schedule is too tough. Show me a school that ardently supports staying at eight league games, and I can probably show you one that wants to line up four shooting-gallery ducks in non-conference play. What’s tougher: an eight-game conference schedule with two Power Four non-conference foes, or a nine-gamer with none? Criticism from the Big Ten that eight isn’t enough conveniently ignores that question. And unfortunately, so do some schools in the SEC.

3) Transfer portal reform

The league’s coaches are strongly in favor of a single transfer portal window on the NCAA calendar, rather than two. Of course they are. They’re looking for any rock of continuity, other than their massive paychecks, to grab hold of as they’re swept down this raging river of upheaval in the sport. The spring window appears to be the one being targeted — Georgia coach Kirby Smart made an impassioned case for one January window in remarks to reporters — but there was less authority to reform NCAA portal policy assembled at SEC Meetings than any topic listed here. Even after the revenue-sharing era begins with the House settlement, the NCAA will be reticent to curtail any freedom it’s already provided to athletes. An elimination of the spring portal window would invite instant lawsuits, and coaches wouldn’t be paying the NCAA’s attorney fees.

4) Scheduling pact with the Big Ten

How about every school in the SEC playing an annual game against a Big Ten school? Sounds like fun — why not? — but like the first two topics, this decision won’t be made independently, either. It’s the third domino, at best, and won’t fall without being knocked over by the fates of the CFP format and SEC scheduling. LSU coach Brian Kelly is all in on the idea, but it’s an easier position for him to take because he doesn’t already face an annual in-state rival from a power conference. Others (South Carolina, Florida, Kentucky, Georgia) do.