Change is coming to college football — or is it? With the deadline to decide the new College Football Playoff (CFP) format for 2026 fast approaching, the debate over expansion is heating up again. And this time, the possibilities — and the disagreements — are more visible than ever.
Less than two months remain before the December 1 deadline to lock in a new format for the 2026 CFP season. Despite months of speculation, real progress has been scant. Administrators have been distracted by major off-field developments — from setting up the new College Sports Commission to navigating the House v. NCAA settlement, reshaping governance structures, and dealing with policy shifts in Washington, D.C.
Back in August, a bold Big Ten idea to blow up the current system with a 24- or 28-team playoff surfaced through media leaks, but serious talks never really followed. At a short CFP management committee meeting in Chicago two weeks ago — featuring 11 conference commissioners plus Notre Dame’s athletic director — Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti tossed out another idea: forming a group of athletic directors from across the Power Four leagues to brainstorm new playoff formats.
“Tony is hoping his guys can convince (SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey’s) guys,” one insider told The Athletic.
Sankey wasn’t exactly thrilled. “I love our athletic directors, but decision-making falls to specific people,” he said later, making clear he preferred to revisit already proposed ideas rather than start new ones.
For now, no new CFP committee meetings are on the calendar until the annual in-person gathering tied to the national championship in mid-January at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens. Between now and then, it’s up to the Power Four commissioners to hash things out privately — if they can find the time amid other pressing issues.
The current contract with ESPN sets a firm December 1 deadline to finalize the format. Miss that date, and the decision might slip indefinitely. So where could the debate land? After talking to eight people closely connected to ongoing discussions, most agree the realistic scenarios center on three numbers: 12, 16, or 24 — with that last one being more of a stretch goal than a serious short-term plan.
Staying at 12 Teams
If consensus remains elusive, sticking with the current 12-team format could easily become the default. Every day that passes without a new agreement makes that outcome more likely. In fact, don’t be surprised if the CFP eventually announces something like, “No change for 2026 — discussions will continue.”
Some might find that perfectly fine. After all, this season marks only the second year of the 12-team playoff. Most fans approved of its debut last year, despite criticisms — particularly from SEC fans upset over at-large team selections and the lack of close early-round games.
A tweak has already been made: the top four seeds no longer have to be reserved for conference champions. Still, keeping the 12-team setup would mostly delay — not solve — the ongoing tension over expansion. It’s essentially a pause, not a plan.
What drives many to want change isn’t necessarily the number of teams but how they’re selected. While the 13-member selection committee is widely seen as acting in good faith, no one seems entirely happy with how evaluations are being made. Petitti has been vocal about this being an impossible task, which is why he’s floated granting multiple automatic bids to power conferences based on their league standings and potential play-in games. But inside the SEC, excitement for 14- or 16-team proposals with multiple automatic qualifiers fizzled out this summer.
Importantly, under the new CFP media contracts kicking in after this season, the Big Ten and SEC now hold dominant sway in shaping the Playoff’s future — though they must still consult with the other conferences.
To improve fairness, CFP officials added a new “strength-of-record” metric this year, giving more weight to schedule difficulty. Whether that will quiet critics remains to be seen. After all, the definition of “better results” changes depending on whom you ask.
Expanding to 16 Teams
Here’s where the conversation picks up steam. The Big 12 has pitched a 16-team model that would include five automatic qualifiers (the top five-ranked conference champions) and eleven at-large teams. This “5-11” structure has gained traction with the SEC but not with the Big Ten.
Still, optimism persists. After all, both the SEC and ACC have agreed to adopt nine-game conference schedules — aligning them with the Big Ten and Big 12. The hope within CFP management circles is that this new common ground could lead to a breakthrough.
Even if Petitti still leans toward more automatic bids, the 16-team option gives his league better access overall. As one insider quipped, “I think Tony would be cutting off his nose to spite his face” if he blocked it.
The logistical challenge? Finding when to play the extra early-round games without cluttering the already packed postseason calendar. Ideas floated include holding two opening-round games on what’s currently Army-Navy and Heisman weekend or crafting brackets that add more byes to make the flow manageable. But with the national championship fixed on January 19 and limited TV windows — especially to avoid NFL overlap — scheduling is a high-stakes puzzle.
Yet, expansion appeals to one universal interest: more teams, more storylines, and more money. Conferences all see a potential path to squeeze in another team or two — or in the SEC’s case, maybe three or four. Still, fans shouldn’t assume the 16-team format will be the final stop. The new ESPN deal runs through 2031, leaving plenty of room for further tweaks — whether fans like it or not.
Going Really Big: 24 Teams or More
And this is where things get controversial. Could college football really balloon to a 24-team playoff (or even more)? Some think it’s inevitable. Others call it madness.
The Big Ten has floated the idea — replacing conference championship games with a massive tournament featuring four automatic bids per power conference. On paper, it’s appealing to leagues like the ACC and Big 12, which crave more guaranteed representation. The SEC? Not so much. Sankey famously called automatic qualifiers a “political compromise,” pointing out they might limit the number of SEC entrants.
But the obstacles are enormous. Scrapping conference title games would clash with existing broadcast contracts; the SEC title game alone brings in roughly $100 million annually. And beyond the money, there’s the age-old concern: would such a large playoff make the regular season meaningless?
The Football Championship Subdivision already runs a 24-team tournament, but the stakes — and the television economics — differ drastically. As one industry insider summed it up: “Where’s the breaking point?”
Still, supporters argue that a larger playoff keeps fans engaged longer. Petitti, a former MLB executive, has often said more postseason matchups could mirror other pro sports, giving late-season games higher stakes. One Power Four athletic director put it bluntly: “We’re already playing those extra games — why not make them count for something?”
Yet, for now, momentum is minimal. The work, coordination, and scheduling required to execute such a massive format are overwhelming. So while a 24-team playoff or beyond may eventually happen, right now, inertia rules the day.
So, what’s next? Will college football leaders play it safe, take the moderate route, or chase a bold new vision for the CFP? Some say expansion is inevitable. Others believe too much tinkering could ruin what fans already love. Where do you stand — should the CFP go big, stay put, or hit reset entirely?
