ROSEMONT, Ill. — The College Football Playoff management committee did not discuss or make any final decisions regarding the format of its 12-team model over two days of meetings this week.
The 10 FBS commissioners who make up the committee alongside Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick will tackle the topic at a later date, CFP executive director Bill Hancock said. At issue is the number of automatic qualifiers for conference champions. When the 12-team model was approved last September, it was with a 6+6 format: six spots for the highest-ranked conference champions and six spots for the best remaining at-large teams.
Advertisement
That arrangement made sense for a world that included five power conferences because it would have designated spots for all five champions plus the best from the Group of 5 leagues.
In the wake of this summer’s conference realignment, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and others have pushed for the commissioners to reconsider the makeup of the 12-team field. Ten of the Pac-12’s current members are set to leave the league next summer, leaving the future very much in doubt for the remaining two schools, Oregon State and Washington State. Oregon State president Dr. Jayathi Murthy said last week that the two schools have had “very constructive conversations” with Mountain West commissioner Gloria Nevarez, and there is mutual interest from both sides on “some sort of partnership.”
Hancock said the management committee needed further clarity on the state of the Pac-12 before it could make final decisions regarding the number of conference champions it wants in the 12-team Playoff. Most commissioners have expressed support for a 5+7 model in the wake of the Pac-12’s implosion, which would guarantee access for all four power leagues as well as at least one spot for a Group of 5 champion. But any decision to change from 6+6 to 5+7 for the 2024 and 2025 seasons has to be unanimous.
“It just wasn’t the focus of the meeting,” Hancock said.
American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco walked back comments he made Tuesday night regarding his official stance on the format. Speaking to reporters after the first day of meetings, he spoke about how he and his peers “have to have” a 5+7 model. He later emailed The Athletic to say he actually supports the original 6+6 model for the next two seasons and then supports a 5+7 model for 2026 and beyond, when the new CFP contract begins.
“I favor 6-6 for the next two years but realize that 5-7 is where this is going afterward,” he wrote. “When unanimity is no longer required, 5-7 is pretty much inevitable and we can accept that in view of P4 replacing P5.”
Advertisement
Swarbrick said he and his peers did not need to make a decision on the format this week.
“I know it’s of public interest,” Swarbrick said. “But there’s nobody in the room saying, ‘Hey, you’ve got to have this discussion right now.’”
Hancock wasn’t sure what the CFP would do if Oregon State and Washington State attempt to operate as a two-school conference as they try to figure out their future. It’s an important question, considering the CFP’s revenue distribution model tilts heavily toward the Power 5 conferences. Its structure was not set up to deal with either the disintegration of one of the power conferences or a league made up of two teams.
Hancock said he shouldn’t speculate on what CFP leadership might do, deferring to NCAA officials and the bylaw language surrounding the notion of autonomous conferences. He did, however, express his overall disappointment and shock at the state of a once-proud league.
“One thing that happened that I never dreamed would’ve ever happen,” Hancock said. “It’s totally weird, and everybody knows it.”
Representatives from five media companies made presentations to the management committee this week, laying the foundation for the CFP’s future beyond 2026.
“This was all about hearing from potential media partners,” Swarbrick said. “The entire time was spent listening to presentations from them and learning about how they approach the CFP in the future. … (The presentations) were all about, ‘Here’s how we’d approach the CFP. Here’s why we’d be a good partner.’”
No numbers were presented, Swarbrick said, describing the meeting as more of a strategic presentation. Hancock said five potential partners came to make in-person presentations and that “four or five others” have expressed interest.
Hancock said the conversations dealt with the four first-round games being added for the 2024 and ’25 seasons as well as the CFP’s new contract that will begin with the 2026 season.
Advertisement
The CFP does not yet have a TV contract in place for the first four games of the 2024 Playoff, which will be played on campuses, though Hancock did not seemed worried about that.
“There’s great, great interest in the CFP, as to be expected,” he said.
While the committee continues to work on details that need to be ironed out ahead of its first 12-team CFP season next fall, it is also is looking farther down the road. Hancock said that the commissioners authorized the start of a search for championship game host cities, beginning with the January 2027 title game.
In the meantime, the group continues to work on logistics surrounding on-campus, first-round games and all that comes with additional postseason rounds next fall. Despite bumps along the way, Swarbrick did highlight that the expanded CFP is coming, and it’s coming two years sooner than it would have otherwise.
“That is great,” he said. “There are other details to be worked out. Some of them are painstakingly small details and others are big details, but we’re on track.”
(Photo: Todd Kirkland / Getty Images)
