Important conversations about the future of the College Football Playoff will continue this week in Dallas, where the 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua will meet Tuesday.
The commissioners and Bevacqua -- an 11-member group called the CFP management committee -- will discuss whether to change how teams are seeded in the 12-team field this fall, a tweak that would alter which teams earn first-round byes and an automatic $4 million for reaching a quarterfinal round.
While the bulk of the meeting is expected to focus on 2025, debate around automatic qualification for the playoff in 2026 and beyond is at some point inevitable. The playoff appears to be rolling toward a 14-team field and a model that includes four guaranteed spots each for the SEC and Big Ten, two each for the ACC and Big 12, one for the Group of 5 and another at-large, which could account for Notre Dame.
Officials from the Big Ten and SEC met last week in New Orleans and have the bulk of control over the playoff format, starting in 2026. Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey declined to say after their meeting what they would like the playoff to look like, but the highly publicized model of automatic qualifiers has already caused angst publicly and privately.
"It would be the beginning of the end of a legitimate national championship," one CFP source said.
With more decisions looming, here's what sources who have knowledge of the discussions are saying about what might happen and when, ahead of this week's meeting in Dallas.
Jump to a topic:
2025 seeding
SEC-Big Ten reaction
Conference schedules
14 a done deal?
What's next?
Could seeding change this fall?
Yes, but only if everyone in the room unanimously agrees to it -- and multiple sources have expressed skepticism in recent days about that happening without some negotiations. Some sources have also wondered if it's worth the debate knowing it's only for this season before more substantial changes are implemented in 2026.
This past fall, the four highest-ranked conference champions earned the top four seeds and a first-round bye. Multiple decision-makers -- beyond only the SEC and Big Ten commissioners -- would prefer to use the selection committee's ranking for the seeding while still making room for the five highest-ranked conference champions.
In that model, the committee's top four teams would earn the top four seeds and first-round byes, regardless of whether they were conference champions. That would also open the door for Notre Dame, which can't win a conference title as an independent, to earn a first-round bye as a top-four seed.
That model would have prevented Mountain West Conference champion Boise State and Big 12 champion Arizona State from earning top-four seeds and first-round byes as two of the four highest-ranked conference champions.
While reaching unanimity is not insurmountable, those who benefited from the current system the most -- Boise State and the Mountain West and Arizona State and the Big 12 -- would have to relinquish the possibility of a first-round bye or ask for something in return like a guaranteed home game for their conference champion. There's a $4 million payout that comes with advancing to a quarterfinal -- that's on top of $4 million for reaching the playoff for a total of $8 million earned by a team's respective leagues.
Would those leagues vote in favor of changing the seeding without any financial or other assurances for their conference champions?
"I don't see a willingness to do that," one CFP source said. "I don't see the incentive for the G5 schools to agree to do away with the current seeding -- just a self-interest thing -- unless there's something else that's being committed to them for next year."
The Group of 5 commissioners had their own separate call last week, and while there was an agreement that continued access to the CFP remains the top priority, there was concern about a lack of leverage for anything more.
SEC-Big Ten meeting impact
The most immediate impact from last week's SEC-Big Ten meeting could be that Sankey and Petitti both said they would vote in favor of changing the seeding for this fall. Both understand, though, that any changes for 2025 have to be unanimous.
That's not the case in 2026 and beyond.
Having seen the agenda for this meeting in Dallas, Sankey said 2026 and beyond is "a pretty small part" of it. He declined to use the word "alignment" with the Big Ten because the SEC is working through different issues than the Big Ten.
"Have we compared notes?" Sankey asked. "Absolutely. But I'd be cautious about using the word alignment at this point."
Petitti agreed there was still work to do on 2025, but that the Big Ten and SEC needed to reach "consensus" on the playoff format beyond that.
"Going forward, if we decide to make changes contemplates that the structure of that is led by the SEC and the Big Ten," Petitti said, "so it requires us to get the consensus to make a meaningful recommendation -- if any -- to our colleagues and the leagues.
"And it also requires us to get their input and to give them an opportunity to weigh in on whatever it is that we're thinking about," he said. "So it's by definition we need to get to consensus between the two leagues. That's the beginning of that process."
Though the Big Ten and SEC have the bulk of control over the future format, they're not the only voices in the room, and pushback is expected on the idea of automatic qualifiers. The question is how much and by whom.
Another CFP source said Sankey and Petitti have to "get their vision," and then ideally, the ACC and Big 12 agree to it. If three of those four, though, are in favor of whatever model is preferred, "then that's going to be what we're going to do in '26 and beyond."
Even with automatic qualifiers, multiple sources agreed a committee would still be needed because its ranking would determine the seeding and any at-large bids.
Scheduling impact on the playoff
Scheduling is at the heart of several issues right now because the SEC is still playing eight conference games when others are playing nine. Why does it matter? Because the selection committee uses strength of schedule as one of its factors when ranking teams -- an already subjective measure considering the scheduling inequities from league to league and within their own conferences. Indiana, for example, didn't play Oregon or Penn State. SMU didn't play Miami or Clemson during the regular season.
"If we're going to try to have some uniformity and standardization, everyone's got to move to nine conference games," another CFP source said, "because you're never going to get strength of schedule right if some are playing eight and some are playing nine."
While there is a sense among sources that the SEC is closer than ever to moving to nine conference games, Sankey first wants to know what the playoff format will look like and how the selection committee weighs strength of schedule.
Sankey said there are "domino effects" from the committee's decisions. He pointed to the inaugural season of the four-team playoff in 2014, when the Big 12's decision to crown TCU and Baylor co-champions knocked them both out of the playoff -- and resulted in the Big 12 bringing back its conference title game, which it had dropped after the 2010 season.
"I view that as a domino effect, commentary on schedule strength and how people schedule, and rigor and nonconference scheduling and number of games," he said. "Those are elements I think have been continually identified as considerations related to the selection committee. ... How do we understand the function of the selection committee as meeting the objectives established? How are the criteria used? My members want to understand, how is strength of schedule fully evaluated in the selection room? Is it the number on the left-hand side of the column during the regular season, or on the right-hand side of the column? Those are what I would say are outcomes that have to be understood and analyzed, and then they inform decisions."
There has been talk of possible play-in games to determine the four teams that would earn guaranteed spots in the SEC and Big Ten, should that model be approved. Though Sankey didn't say if he was in favor of that, he did concede the SEC and Big Ten should determine their conference champions and postseason participants the same way.
"Everybody's mimicked what we do," Sankey said, "so we want to set a good example."
If teams in a conference earned their way to the playoff based on their league records, then nonconference games would be less damaging to a team's overall record.
For example, if Ohio State went 9-3 during the regular season and -- gasp -- lost all three of its nonconference games, the Buckeyes could still be the Big Ten's top playoff team if they went undefeated in conference play and won the conference title game. This could encourage athletic directors to continue to schedule more blockbuster nonconference matchups without fear of early CFP elimination.
And if conference games mattered more than anything else, it would make sense for the SEC to move to nine.
Sankey said the conference schedule from 2026 and beyond "remains an agenda item for us."
"I think there's a lot of interest," he said.
Is 14 teams in 2026 a done deal?
The 14-team model is certainly leading the popularity contest.
"I think it needs to be expanded, get more teams opportunities," Ole Miss AD Keith Carter said last week in New Orleans. "I think there will be expansion."
The new contract is built as either 11 or 13 games -- all of which are playoff games -- in a 12- or 14-team field. There are protections in place for the ACC, Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 conference champions, Notre Dame and the highest-ranked Group of 5 champion in the new contract.
Last March, when the CFP's new, six-year, $7.8 billion contract with ESPN was announced, Nick Dawson, ESPN senior vice president, college sports programming and acquisitions, said the new TV deal specifically addresses 12- and 14-team models but also includes "a mechanism to address if they expand beyond 14 teams."
Though multiple sources have indicated a 14-team field is on the way, one CFP source said "16 is still being kicked around, so I wouldn't rule that out, but more than 12 I think is the reality" for 2026 and beyond.
"I don't think we're going to 16," another source said. "I think 14 will be the magic number."
What's next?
Beyond potentially changing the way teams are seeded this fall, no major decisions are expected Tuesday that would impact how fans view the CFP. It's expected to also be a routine business meeting that includes details such as TV ratings and ticket prices.
That doesn't mean there aren't other big-ticket items on the agenda.
The CFP needs to solidify how it governs itself, and if there's one thing its members unanimously agree on, it's getting rid of the requirement of unanimity in 2026 and beyond. There's also the question of how the votes in the room are weighed, and what's needed for something major to be approved. There's already a basic outline, as a memorandum of understanding was agreed to last March, but now a long-form contract is needed to officially cement the TV deal with ESPN, the way the CFP is governed, and how the CFP bowls will be incorporated into the next six-year deal.
Those issues -- and future format -- probably will be pushed to the next major in-person meeting, which is the annual CFP spring meeting in April in Dallas. If the commissioners have something decided before then, or at least something more substantial tracking toward it, the 11 presidents and chancellors who have the ultimate authority over the playoff could discuss it earlier, at a meeting in March.
"We should meet with more frequency," Sankey said. "We may need to add another in-person meeting. This is important enough to me I'll travel whenever, wherever before our April meeting to talk through elements."