INDIANAPOLIS — A day following news emerged of a proposed new model to an expanded College Football Playoff, many questions linger, perhaps none more important than the seeding and bye structure of the 14-team field.
In this proposed model, the Big Ten and SEC would hold exclusive rights to the two first-round byes, according to sources familiar with the discussions. While this version is not finalized and is being shared for feedback, it raises interesting implications and potential consequences for the college football landscape.
Granting guaranteed byes to the Big Ten and SEC, two of the most dominant conferences in college football, is both expected and unusual at the same time. It’s a move that showcases their power and influence in shaping the postseason format. However, it has garnered pushback from administrators outside of these two conferences who feel it may unfairly favor the traditional powerhouses.
In this 14-team model, the Big Ten and SEC would each receive three automatic qualifiers, while the ACC and Big 12 would receive two each. Additionally, the best team from the Group of Five conferences would qualify, bringing the total automatic qualifiers to ten. The remaining three spots would be at-large bids given to the highest-ranked teams outside of the automatic qualifiers.
Under this proposed format, the top two seeds would receive byes into the second round. In the current 12-team format, the four highest-ranked conference champions receive byes. However, in the 14-team version, the ACC and Big 12 would be left without the opportunity to obtain a bye, marking a significant departure from the previous structure. This might potentially create discontent and dissatisfaction among administrators in these conferences, possibly leading to further discussions and negotiations.
The seeding and pairings in the 14-team bracket would likely follow the current structure, with the CFP Selection Committee’s rankings determining the seeds from 1 to 14. The six first-round games would be paired based on this ranking, with the better seed hosting the matchup. It’s worth noting that Notre Dame, as an independent program, would be guaranteed one of the three at-large spots if it finishes in the top 14 of the CFP rankings.
While the proposed model has generated significant debate and scrutiny, it’s important to acknowledge that it might still undergo further changes and modifications. The commissioners of the respective conferences are expected to convene virtually in the coming week to delve deeper into the format and address any concerns or suggestions.
One key factor driving the urgency in finalizing a new College Football Playoff format is the impending television contract renewal with ESPN. With the current contract ending following the 2025 playoff, there is limited time to reach agreements on unresolved issues, including the revenue distribution model and voting structure. It is anticipated that the SEC and Big Ten conferences will wield substantial influence in shaping these aspects, potentially leading to a redistribution of revenue and greater decision-making power in governance matters for these conferences.
Looking beyond the specifics of this proposed model, it raises larger questions regarding the future direction and trends in college football. The potential consolidation of power among the traditional powerhouses might further widen the gap between them and the rest of the conferences. This, in turn, may fuel discussions on the need for restructuring or realignment within college football to ensure a more equitable and competitive landscape.
Moreover, this proposed model may influence debates around expanding the College Football Playoff even further. If the idea of enhancing the playoff gains traction, it might open doors for more extensive discussions on formats, seeding methods, and the inclusion of additional conferences or teams.
As the college football landscape evolves, it’s crucial for the sport’s stakeholders to consider the implications of any changes on the overall integrity, competitiveness, and revenue distribution within the game. It is essential to strike a balance that caters to the interests of both traditional powerhouses and emerging programs, ensuring a level playing field and sustained growth of the sport.
