Big Ten, SEC will seize control of College Football Playoff format in 2026. They’re brainstorming ways to reimagine the bracket size and bid allocation process.
What’s the perfect number of teams in a College Football Playoff? Fans disagree on the number, but the more controversial element might be how the bids are assigned.
Schools got off easy when NIL deals paid the players, but revenue-sharing will be a different kettle of fish that will affect an athletic department’s financial ledger.
Up, up, up, the College Football Playoff size will go. Where it stops, only the SEC and Big Ten know.
Those two conferences will have the final say in the playoff’s size and configuration, starting with the 2026 season.
Of course, that doesn’t keep the rest of us from having opinions.
In a perfect world, would the playoff stay at 12 or increase to 16 or even 24 teams?
Let’s answer some fan mail on the subject:
NFL STATS CENTRAL: The latest NFL scores, schedules, odds, stats and more.
What about College Football Playoff of 24 teams?
Bud writes: I think expanding the CFP to 24 teams and 23 games is the way to go. The 24 teams would be selected from Top 25 polls, so only the No. 25 team would be left out.
My response: Naysayers of the 12-team playoff worried it would dilute the regular season. That didn’t happen. This past season packed a punch, complete with influential upsets like Vanderbilt toppling Alabama. The regular season mattered greatly.
However, I suspect a tipping point exists where the playoff would get so big it would diminish the regular season. In your 24-team playoff model, Alabama losing to Vanderbilt in October becomes an inconsequential footnote rather than a result that upends the Tide’s playoff hopes. If the playoff grew to 24 teams, focus would shift toward mediocre teams clawing for one of the final spots. Not sure I like that.
Also, I question the average fan’s bandwidth to engage with a five-round playoff at the end of a 13-game season, especially when the playoff competes with the NFL postseason.
The coaches and administrators who receive a bonus check for playoff qualification might like your 24-team bracket, though.
Big Ten, SEC showing signs of paranoia
Steve writes: Just read your article about the Big Ten and SEC (considering) stacking the playoffs. You nailed it about the paranoia. Classic, textbook case. Both commissioners need to be test studies.
My response: Indeed, paranoia’s influence can be found within this idea of reserving four playoff bids apiece for the Big Ten and SEC before the season starts.
Power and paranoia tend to go hand in hand. As of yet, though, neither the SEC’s Greg Sankey nor the Big Ten’s Tony Petitti have made it illegal for anyone to stand above them and look down on the top of their head, as Caligula once did.
If these are the two best conferences – they are, by the way – they shouldn’t have much trouble earning the most bids without rigging the system. Why are they so afraid?
MONEY MATTERS: Playoff expansion all about revenue for survival
STACKING DECK: SEC, Big Ten trying to rig playoff spots is pathetic
Get rid of first-round byes in College Football Playoff
David writes: The first-round byes worked out well, didn’t they? Do away with them and expand to 16 teams. Let the Power 4 conference champions qualify with no guaranteed seeding. Let the committee rank the teams and draw up a 16-team playoff with the top eight seeds hosting in the first round. I hope I live long enough to see such a plan enacted!
My response: How long do you plan on living? I wish you good health, in which case, you might get your desire of seeing a 16-team playoff, but I’m becoming skeptical that the bracket will be selected by a playoff committee.
Three-loss teams don’t have any complaints
Ed writes: Somebody should take a moment to explain to the two biggest conferences this year’s 12-team playoff was a huge success. The only aspect that may need a fix is the length of the playoff. The number of teams was good. It required a special type of season to gain entry, and the games, even when not overly close, were entertaining. The inclusion of a diverse grouping of teams was enjoyable. The only teams who complained were three-loss teams who failed to get the job done when the marbles were on the line.
My response: Amen. We endured a four-team playoff for a decade. Then, we were gloriously gifted this 12-team bracket, forged through collaboration and compromise. Too bad we can’t have this 12-team format for 10 years. It might be remembered as the greatest postseason format in the sport’s history.
Does NIL drive playoff expansion?
Randy writes: I thought you were a big supporter of NIL? NIL is what ‘everyone’ wanted, and it has brought the game to this, so there’s no point in blaming the two biggest conferences for protecting themselves in order to make money to pay these players.
My response: NIL is sort of like an unpopular president in that it gets blamed for everything, even things that have little to do with it. I’m not following the logic that fans, boosters and companies funding players’ NIL deals hurt athletic departments financially such that the Big Ten and SEC need to increase the size of the playoff – and rig bid allocation – to offset NIL.
Schools did not fund NIL. The bill got passed to third parties. NIL became a beautiful system for the schools. Imagine if McDonald’s customers not only bought the burgers but also agreed to directly pay the fry cook’s salary, and McDonald’s didn’t pay the employees a dime.
That’s what NIL was: The consumer directly paid the labor.
NIL is a different kettle of fish from revenue-sharing, which is coming around the college sports bend. Revenue-sharing with athletes will take a bite out of the piles of cash that athletes help generate for athletic departments. So, yes, I think it’s fair to say revenue-sharing influences CFP expansion talks.
But, don’t conflate revenue-sharing with NIL. Pinning postseason evolution on NIL – a payment vehicle schools didn’t fund – is like blaming the boogeyman for your insomnia.
NIL and transfer portal to blame for college football problems?
Phil writes: IMHO, this (playoff revision) situation is totally caused by NIL and the ability to move players through the transfer portal. Schools want the best players, and the ones who can pay get the best players. The teams with the most money and access to huge TV contracts come from the Big Ten and SEC. So, is it any wonder why they’re clamoring for a bigger advantage after spending the money they do?
My response: Should the MLB reserve playoff spots for the Mets, Dodgers, Phillies and Yankees, because they spent the most money on their rosters?
Again, I’m not following the logic of NIL or transfer freedom causing playoff expansion or bid reallocation. However, money makes college football go ‘round, and there’s truth in the saying that he who controls the gold makes the rules.
Biopic narrator needed
Guy writes: I enjoy your writing every day. You are fair and balanced to dish it out to whomever you wish.
My response: Can I hire you to narrate the trailer for my biopic? I hope you’ve got a set of pipes like Don LaFontaine.
Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network’s national college football columnist. Email him at BToppmeyer@gannett.com and follow him on X @btoppmeyer. Subscribe to read all of his columns.