Predicting 2026 format for College Football Playoff and more | Mailbag

By Jon Wilner Bay Area News Group

The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup .com 

How do you see the College Football Playoff format debate for the 2026 season getting resolved? — James V

It will be messy — heck, it already is messy. But at some point this fall, the Big Ten and SEC, with input from the ACC and Big 12, will set the CFP format for the 2026 season and beyond.

Will it be 12, 14 or 16 teams? Will it be heavy on automatic bids or at-large slots? Will the selection committee retain its authority or exist in diminished form?

So many questions, so few answers and not much time: The CFP management committee (i.e., conference commissioners) are obligated to give ESPN an answer by December.

It’s only the most controversial issue in college football, with ramifications for the regular season, the competition calendar and even the transfer portal.

Advertising Skip AdSkip AdSkip Ad

For anyone unaware of the specifics, let’s recap the two competing models:

The Big Ten proposed the so-called AQ format in which 13 of the 16 bids would be automatically distributed in a 4-4-2-2-1-3 manner regardless of regular-season success: Four bids for the SEC and Big Ten; two each for the ACC and Big 12; one to the top-ranked champion from the other conferences; and three to at-large teams, with a special pathway for Notre Dame.

The Big 12 and ACC countered with the so-called 5+11 model, in which five spots would be reserved for conference champions and the rest distributed to at-large teams.

The Big Ten proposal limits the role of the selection committee by allowing the conferences to determine how 13 of the 16 teams would advance. As a result, schools seemingly would feel emboldened to play marquee nonconference games, such as an SEC-Big Ten crossover series.

The 5+11 model gives the oft-criticized selection committee more influence than it has now. Instead of picking seven of the 12 teams, it would pick 11 of 16. Among the advocates for 5+11: The SEC, which undoubtedly envisions gobbling six or seven of those at-large slots.

The Hotline sees three possible outcomes with the following likelihoods:

1. At-large format: 45%

Backed by SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, arguably the most powerful individual in college sports, the 5+11 format has the best chance to cross the finish line.

Advertising Skip Ad

It’s effectively an extension of the current model. Instead of the committee selecting seven of 12 teams (58.3 percent), it would pick 11 of 16 (68.8 percent).

It’s easy for the public to understand and accept, because it aligns with the postseason format in the NFL, where only the division winners are guaranteed playoff spots.

And it works for ESPN, the CFP’s media partner, which is wary of any format (e.g., the AQ model) that suggests a predetermined outcome and therefore could undercut viewership.

Consider the following: It’s the 2027 season, and Michigan is upset by Buffalo in the opener; the Wolverines then lose decisively at Texas but rally to grab the Big Ten’s fourth automatic bid despite four (or five) losses. Meanwhile three-loss teams in the ACC and Big 12, which handled nonconference opponents equivalent to Buffalo, are left out.

The playoff would be a laughingstock. Which isn’t good for ESPN’s business.

2. The X Factor: 35%

With the Big Ten and SEC at loggerheads over the format, don’t discount the potential for a compromise.

Advertising Skip AdSkip AdSkip Ad

Exactly what they would be, we cannot say. One possible option is to grant an automatic bid to the winner of a play-in game featuring the third-place teams from the ACC and Big 12. Some have referred to this approach as the 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 model.

It feels a bit complicated and relegates the ACC and Big 12 to second-tier status. But we suspect a third option will receive strong consideration in coming weeks.

3. AQ format: 20%

Despite the Big Ten’s immense leverage over the process, and the sport, commissioner Tony Petitti’s proposal has two layers of challenges.

The first is practical: The SEC is opposed; and the ACC and Big 12 simply cannot accept any format in which they are codified as inferior. If performance on the field leaves them with one bid, they live with it. But to willingly accept second-class status would devastate their brands.

The second is philosophical: Awarding playoff bids in advance of the competition season is viewed as too radical by the majority of college football fans. It would be akin to the NFL granting the NFC West two bids before the season.

The Big Ten needed to bring the public along with a detailed explanation of the benefits to the AQ model. Instead, Petitti stayed too quiet for too long and ceded the narrative.

Sponsored

Skip Ad Skip Ad Skip Ad Skip Ad

Lastly, we should mention why the situation has reached its current level of complexity: The playoff format is about much more than the playoff. It deeply impacts the manner in which teams (and conferences) build their regular-season schedules.

For example, the Big Ten won’t agree to the at-large model (5+11) unless the SEC adds a ninth conference game, because playing eight is viewed as a significant advantage with a selection model based on at-large bids.

But why would the SEC willingly give up any competitive advantage? The coaches don’t want an extra conference game — they would prefer to play a cupcake in November.

There are other layers to the issue, including the potential for an in-season Big Ten/SEC crossover series that could be damaging to the ACC and Big 12.

The only certainty in this process is the uncertainty. The commissioners must come to an agreement by December.

Until then, it’s a giant, stinkin’ mess.

Can one make the argument that Washington State and Oregon State are better off than Stanford and Cal when you factor in each school’s chances of making the CFP, as well as travel cost and media revenue for 2026 and beyond? — @CelestialMosh

Advertising Skip Ad

Some might make that case. We won’t.

Stanford and Cal are facing steep competitive and financial challenges in the ACC, while Washington State and Oregon State have navigated the Pac-12 implosion as well as anyone could have possibly imagined.

From a CFP standpoint specifically — and starting with the 2026 season — the Cougars and Beavers would need to win the Pac-12 and finish with a higher ranking than the champions of the American, Sun Belt, MAC, Conference USA and Mountain West.

The Bears and Cardinal would need to either win the ACC or finish as the clear No. 2 team and, potentially, present a stronger resume than the No. 2 team in the Big 12. (It depends which format is adopted.)

In our view, WSU and OSU have wider, smoother paths into the postseason. Their resources and recruiting prowess compare more favorably to the best of the rebuilt Pac-12 than the Bay Area schools’ resources and recruiting prowess compare to the best of the ACC (i.e., Clemson and Florida State).

But that doesn’t mean the Cougars and Beavers are better off, overall, than the Pac-12 transplants. The former would trade places with the latter in a nanosecond, and the reverse isn’t remotely true.

Jon Wilner: jwilner@bayareanewsgroup .com. Jon Wilner has been covering college sports for decades and is an AP top-25 football and basketball voter as well as a Heisman Trophy voter. He was named Beat Writer of the Year in 2013 by the Football Writers Association of America for his coverage of the Pac-12, won first place for feature writing in 2016 in the Associated Press Sports Editors writing contest and is a five-time APSE honoree.