What's holding up CFP expansion? SEC and Big Ten are at a potential impasse on these key issues
ASHEVILLE, N.C. — Deep within the Blue Ridge Mountains, the historical Biltmore Estate Hilltop Inn rises above an ocean of rolling greenery, its high stone walls and floor-to-ceiling windows all tucked between two giant peaks: Mount Mitchell and Mount Pisgah. The two mountains loom like sentries, dominating the blue skyline, unmistakable giants in this scenic land. Inside the Biltmore, two goliaths within the landscape of college sports, the SEC and Big Ten, are at odds on the future of the industry's most valuable product: the College Football Playoff. Can these mountains be moved? Well, here this week, CFP leaders took steps toward a change to the playoff selection process — yet another chapter in what's already been a laborious journey toward potential expansion to 16 teams. The 10 FBS conference commissioners and Notre Dame's athletic director received a presentation from executive director Rich Clark and data analysts over adjustments to selection committee criteria in an effort to salvage the committee's role itself and appease both Big Ten and SEC leaders — the two entities that, according to a memorandum signed last spring, control future format decisions. Whether such a change brings the two conferences together on a format remains unclear. The two leagues must agree on a playoff model for it to move forward, Clark said on Wednesday from the Biltmore Inn, confirming what's been previously reported based on last spring's memorandum. But, for now, they are at an impasse. The Big Ten wants a playoff where access is more like the NFL structure, determined through automatic qualifiers based on conference standings to limit the subjectivity of the selection committee. And the league also supports all four leagues — including the SEC and ACC — to play nine conference games as the Big Ten and Big 12 do. The SEC moved away from such a playoff format afterits coaches publicly pushed back against it three weeks agoduring the conference's spring meetings, instead now working toward a format that provides a bigger at-large pool, such as a 16-team model with five automatic qualifiers for conference champions and 11 at-large selections (5+11). However, in any 5+11 format, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, his coaches and athletic directors have been very clear: They want to see a change in the selection process to more heavily emphasize strength of schedule and strength of conference. For the most part, that's what this set of CFP meetings centered around here this week. Clark, entering his second year as CFP executive director, presented, along with a data analyst from SportsSource Analytics, "recommendations" on just how to adjust data points that the selection committee uses. With assistance from a Google mathematician and university math professor, the presentation included the creation of a strength-of-record metric to more heavily weight a team's strength of schedule, conference strength and, in particular, non-conference games. In fact, commissioners heard from experts who encouraged the scheduling of more crossover games among the four power leagues — a way, presumably, to provide more data points of rating the league strength. Commissioners gave Clark and the CFP staff feedback, about potentially rewriting some language of the protocol used by selection committee members. CFP leaders will now "mull it over," Clark said, before the group continues to meet throughout the summer in an effort to reach an expansion decision by Dec. 1 — the drop-dead date for 2026 expansion. Commissioners declined to comment on this week's meeting. Three of the four power conference commissioners, in fact, shuffled into an elevator together here after their meeting. As reporters fired questions toward them, the elevator doors closed. The fourth power league commissioner, Big Ten's Tony Petitti, did not attend meetings in person but was in attendance virtually. Clark spoke in their absence. The same format options that have existed continue to exist, he said. "There are a lot of options. You've heard all of the options." While not mentioning them, they are obvious. 1) Remain at the same 12-team format: 5 AQs + 7 at-large, which isn't necessarily the preference, Sankey said a few weeks ago. 2) Expand to a 14-team event: 5 AQs + 9 at-large, which isn't as desirable as the next option. 3) Move to a 16-team field: 5+11 or the Big Ten's AQ-heavy proposal that grants twice as many bids to each the SEC and Big Ten (4 each) as the ACC and Big 12 (2). "The format could be a lot different in 2026 or could be the same," Clark said. Staying at 12 for 2026 is a grim reality for some, but it's a possibility, perhaps even a probability as negotiations creep closer to the Dec. 1 deadline. If the SEC and Big Ten do not agree on a format, there may not be a change at all. When specifically asked about the Big Ten and SEC having to both agree on format, Clark said, "They are obligated to come to an agreement on what the format is. They will determine that between the parties and will go forward from there. "Rushing to a bad decision is not in any of our best interest," he said later. "They're looking at any and all options and understanding what the pros and cons are to those things rather than rush to something that may not suit us." Would the Big Ten really block expansion to 16 if the rest of the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame agree on the 5+11 format? Perhaps. Illinois head coach Bret Bielema gestured toward that during an interview on Tuesday in Chicago. "I don't think there's any way we could do a 16-team playoff if [the SEC] is not at nine [conference] games," he said. Can these two mountains be moved? Asked that question here Wednesday, one CFP leader smiled and quipped, "We'll get there."
What's holding up CFP expansion? SEC and Big Ten are at a potential impasse on these key issues ASHEVILLE, N.C. — Deep within the Blue R...
