2026 - What Will The College Football (CFB) Playoff Look Like?

[Jon Joseph]

CFB is in chaos, no doubt. NIL has turned out not to simply be a reward for personal performance, which I happen to believe is fine, but also is being used as a recruiting inducement. 

 

The 'one free transfer rule' and the transfer portal has brought unregulated free agency to CFB. And has also led to roster tampering.

 

The NCAA is in the process of turning CFB and CBB regulation over to the G5 and P5 conferences. 

 

But one CFB institution, the Playoff, is status quo for the next 4 years; the playoff will continue to have a field of 4 teams through 2025. Why? Because on the issue of playoff field expansion The Alliance, albeit for different reasons, actually allied in voting against expansion of the playoff field.

 

The ACC - wants an 8 game field and time to perform a 'holistic review' of CFB. (It also wants an 8 team field in order to incent Notre Dame to join the ACC as a full time football member. Unless Notre Dame does so, the ACC is stuck with a crummy media deal through 2036.)

 

The B1G wants a 12 team field with all P5 champs guaranteed a spot in the field.

 

The Pac-12 is fine with an 8 or 12 team field but does not want to agree to expansion before knowing what the expansion revenue distribution will be after 2025.

 

The Pac-12 also is uncertain whether there will be 12 votes on the Playoff Committee post-2025; regardless, post-2025, any changes to the playoff field are not likely to require a unanimous vote for approval. This is the case today because the G5/P5 and Notre Dame currently all have their playoff media rights assigned to ESPN.

 

And along with the B1G, the Pac-12 wants to protect the Rose Bowl's January 1st 2 PM Pacific kickoff time.

 

At least part of the Alliance's resistance is predicated on the SEC 'poaching' Oklahoma and Texas from the B12, thus creating the first 16 team 'super conference.' In response to this churlishness, SEC commissioner has churlishly indicated that the SEC will be fine staying with a 4 team field.

 

But as all CFB fans are or should be aware, CFB today is big business. No conference, including the well-heeled B1G and SEC, can afford to pass on an expanded playoff field bringing in far more money than does a 4 team field.

 

Atlas kind of playoff shrugged, but all of the current Playoff Committee members know that a new playoff format, in order to provide time for negotiation with the media, will have to be agreed to before the beginning of the 2025 season.

 

I believe come 2026, that we will see a 12 team CFB playoff field. All P5 champs will be in. A G5 representative will be in. The Rose Bowl in one way or another will be 'protected.' However, the top 4 ranked teams and not the 4 highest ranked conference champions will receive a first round bye.

 

Using the CFB Football Playoff Committee's final 2021 rankings, and the above format, here's what the field would have been for the 2021 CFB Playoff.

 

1. Alabama - SEC vs. 9. Oklahoma State - AL at 8. Ole Miss - AL

 

4. Cincinnati - AAC/G5 vs. 12. Pittsburgh - ACC at 5. Notre Dame - AL

 

2. Michigan - B1G vs. 10. Michigan State - AL at 7. Baylor - B12

 

3. Georgia - AL  vs. 11. Utah - Pac-12 at 6. Ohio State - AL

 

3 SEC teams, 2 with 1st round byes

 

3 B1G teams, 1 with a first round bye.

 

2 B12 teams.

 

1 ACC, Pac-12 and G5 team.

 

Why, if you were Greg Sankey with 16 SEC teams to satisfy and B1G Commissioner Kevin Warren, with 3 teams in the field, would you not agree to the above? 3 teams in the field would most likely be the rule, season after season, for both the B1G and the SEC. And there would be season's where 4 SEC and/or B1G teams made the field. That means even bigger money for both the B1G and the SEC.

 

The Pac-12? Why not agree to this format? You may get only 1 team in the field, but that's better than nothing and the money will be far better with a team in the playoff than having one Pac-12 team playing in the Rose or Fiesta Bowl every season.

 

The ACC? In my opinion, either the ACC plays 12 field ball or Clemson and FSU are likely off to the SEC. With AAU member schools Duke, Georgia Tech, Pitt, UNC, UVA, in one form or another, possibly off to the B1G?

 

REMEMBER: A 12 team playoff field put out to bid to all media entities and not just ESPN, is likely to at least triple the money the playoff is bringing in today.

 

Do you share my thoughts that CFB will see a 12 team playoff field in 2026?

 

Meanwhile, let's all enjoy Ducks football and all the other sports through 2025 and beyond.

Edited March 27, 2022 by Jon Joseph

[Charles Fischer]

Jon, the thought you put into this is amazing.  I have always been a fan of the 12 team format, as at least it gives our conference a chance...

[Jon Joseph]

Thank you so very much Charles.

 

I only hope that the Pac-12 will make the right decision regarding playoff field expansion, and also with the upcoming media negotiations. And please, do something about Larry's rotten network.

 

With the financial strength of the B1G and the SEC, perhaps the Pac-12 should consider some kind of CFB alliance with the B12 and a collective bidding effort for the new media rights?

 

I think a 12 team field with all P5 champs in is the best bet for the Pac-12? With the B1G staying at 9 conference games the Pac-12 will likely do the same. And with 16 members, eventually, I do not see how the SEC will not go to 9 conference games with the ACC likely to follow suit? 

 

Go to 12 and II think it will behoove all P5 conferences to get rid of divisions and assure that the top 2 conference teams play for the title. Both the B1G and the SEC have indicated that divisions will go, with a certain number of games being protected and played every year.

 

The SEC does not want to lose Auburn vs Bama; the B1G wants Michigan and Ohio State to play every year and I expect all of the Pac-12 rivalry games would be protected?

 

One thing for certain. If the field goes to 12 teams, Week Zero will be Week One for all of CFB.

 

BTW and kind of off the wall, if the Nation was to decide to stay with Daylight Savings time, a 3 PM Pacific kick off time would help the Rose Bowl keep a primo 1/1 spot.

 

When George Kliavkoff says he has a fiduciary responsibility to the Rose Bowl he is not exaggerating. Both GK and B1G Commish Kevin Warren, are members of the Rose Bowl Board of Trustees.

Edited March 27, 2022 by Jon Joseph

[Viking Duck]

I worked at a UC school for years; it was not a Pac 12 school, but I think the lesson would apply all the same. I have seen how the university politics, both in the school and in the wider UC system, scuttled several really good ideas that would have brought much needed revenue into the university.

 

For those who are working very hard to create these opportunities, it's very frustrating. "Why?!" we might say.

 

"Well, the chancellor is friends with the dean of department X, who does not like the idea because it would make his enemy, Dean Y, look good."

 

"Well, the UC Regents are pushing notion Y to the governor, and a program like this might give the appearance of not supporting that notion Y, even though we all know your program is a good idea."

 

The bottom line was that, in the insular world of the UC system, those who hold the keys to making decisions like that are very well compensated and really do not care to stick their necks out to support anything that will not advance their own personal agenda or causes they support.

 

With this background, I look at the question from a very cynical viewpoint. You could lay out the most wonderful, well-supported, and logical argument for a plan forward; it would founder on the rocky shoals of bureaucracy and bureaucrats' self interest.

 

I think that would be true for the UC members of the Pac 12, and probably more than a few of the other 9 universities.

 

I predict that whatever the worst position is once the negotiations begin and the new system is put in place, the Pac 12 will take that position.

 

Sorry for being negative!

 

 

[Jon Joseph]

On 3/27/2022 at 6:52 PM, Viking Duck said:

I worked at a UC school for years; it was not a Pac 12 school, but I think the lesson would apply all the same. I have seen how the university politics, both in the school and in the wider UC system, scuttled several really good ideas that would have brought much needed revenue into the university.

 

For those who are working very hard to create these opportunities, it's very frustrating. "Why?!" we might say.

 

"Well, the chancellor is friends with the dean of department X, who does not like the idea because it would make his enemy, Dean Y, look good."

 

"Well, the UC Regents are pushing notion Y to the governor, and a program like this might give the appearance of not supporting that notion Y, even though we all know your program is a good idea."

 

The bottom line was that, in the insular world of the UC system, those who hold the keys to making decisions like that are very well compensated and really do not care to stick their necks out to support anything that will not advance their own personal agenda or causes they support.

 

With this background, I look at the question from a very cynical viewpoint. You could lay out the most wonderful, well-supported, and logical argument for a plan forward; it would founder on the rocky shoals of bureaucracy and bureaucrats' self interest.

 

I think that would be true for the UC members of the Pac 12, and probably more than a few of the other 9 universities.

 

I predict that whatever the worst position is once the negotiations begin and the new system is put in place, the Pac 12 will take that position.

 

Sorry for being negative!

 

 

Based on 'recent' history in the money ball sports, how can one not be negative?

 

And I think you nailed it. How many of the 12 Pac-12 administrations are truly behind success in conference big time sports?

 

But as Ducks fans we need to keep on a keepin' on. 

 

HOWEVER, IMHO opinion, splitting revenue equally with schools who refuse to or cannot, commit the capital an SC and Oregon spend on CFB and CBB and getting an equal piece of the revenue pie is senseless.

 

ESPN is broadcasting one spring game nationally in 2022. Anyone surprised that it is the USC spring game?

 

All other spring games will be broadcast on the rumor that is the Pac-12 Network.