The CFP’s looming expansion to 16 teams has unleashed a format feud more confused than this author at a craps table in Las Vegas (I’m baaaaaaack baby!)
Here’s the gist of the playoff structure issue from our perspective —the playoff format that will probably give the Big 12 fewer bids is better for Colorado than the playoff format that probably results in more playoff bids for the Big 12.
Read that again.
While folks like former CU quarterback Joel Klatt are incredulous that Big 12 commissioner Brett Yomark is supportive of the 5+11 model that will likely result in fewer playoff bids for the Big 12, the smart take (should I say the BuffsBlog take?) is that Brett Yomark is correct and that the Big 12 generally, and CU specifically, will be better off with the 5+11model than with the Big 10’s 4-4-2-2-1 plan.
Two Main Models Being Discussed
Two main schemes dominate the playoff structure chatter: a “4-4-2-2-1” plan (4 autobids each for the Big Ten and SEC, 2 each for the ACC and Big 12, 1 for the top Group-of-Six, plus 3 at-large spots) vs. a “5+11” model (the five conference champs – each Power Four and the best G6 – get in automatically, and the remaining 11 spots are at-large). To be clear, that Big Ten/SEC model would give half the field outright to the Big Ten and SEC — before a single snap of the football season. By contrast, the 5+11 model spreads the love: five champs in, then 11 wild cards to be earned on the field.
- 4-4-2-2-1 (Big Ten/SEC “power grab”): 4 autobids to SEC, 4 Big Ten, 2 ACC, 2 Big 12, 1 G5 champ; 3 at-large slots.
- 5+11: 5 autobids (each Power Four + one G5) and 11 at-large.
The Big Ten’s “Power-Play” Proposal
Consider the Big Ten proposal: it hands eight of 16 CFP spots to the Big Ten and SEC (four each) before a single at-large is decided. This format is being pushed because the expansion of the college football playoff from 12 to 16 teams will not, per sources, materially increase the amount of money that ESPN is willing to pay for the CFP. One source in CU’s athletic department told me that ESPN has indicated that they’re only going to incrementally increase the rights fee for a 16 team playoff vs. a 12 team payoff.
As a result, Big 10 Commisisoner Tony Petitti has advocated for an NBA style “play-in” game for the Big 10 (and presumably the SEC) where the league’s #3 seed would play the #6 seed for the 3rd playoff spot in the CFP, and the league’s #4 seed would play the #5 seed for the 4th playoff spot in the CFP. This “Championship Weekend” (lol) could then be bid out to various potential media partners to increase Big 10 / SEC revenue even more. Under this scheme, the “play-in” games for the Big 10 this past season would have been Penn State vs. Iowa and Ohio State vs. Illinois. The Athletic has called this scheme “cockamamie,” and too dumb to be anything but the brainchild of a a TV exec-turned-commissioner. Good news, folks — Big 10 commissioner Tony Petitti previously worked for CBS Sports and ABC Sports.
The primary problem with this model is that it codifies the SEC and Big Ten as better than the Big 12 or ACC – giving them 50% more access. It it essence clarifies the Big 10 and SEC are the major leagues, the Big 12 and the ACC are the equivalent of AAA baseball, and then everyonr else is playing rookie ball. Imagine being Deion Sanders and trying to recruit against that (now structurally ingrained) perception.
Further, the Big 10 model makes the nonconference schedule an exhibition if 25% of the richest leagues get in by default. Who cares if Ohio State loses to Clemson when the only thing that matters is finishing in the top 4 of the Big 10?
And what about player safety? Adding a “play-in” game increases the schedule and the physical burden on players.
The good news is that folks in the know think Tony Petitti’s dream is dead on arrival. Brian Cook at MGoBlog quipped that the idea is so absurd it could earn a congressional grilling: “the kind of idea that gets you called into a congressional hearing so senators can repeatedly posterize you,” he wrote. Even SEC coaches supposedly baulked at the notion during their spring meetings. (Heck, only a TV guy out of his depth could conjure a plan so outlandish.) Notably, SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey hasn’t flat-out shot the plan down – he’d rather posture about unfair playoffs than jeopardize his conference’s clout – but most think he’ll quietly kill the multi-bid proposal once he realizes the SEC already gets its fair share under nearly any scheme. And Sankey’s play in all of this is to change the criteria used to select the CFP field to include strength of schedule since he has somehow convinced AP voters that 13 of the pre-season top 25 teams should be SEC teams, leading to a killer strength of schedule for SEC teams.
Bottom line: the 4-4-2-2-1 format is an insane expansion of SEC/Big Ten privilege. Everyone except Tony Petitti and Greg Sankey hate the idea so much that it’s a non-starter.
Yormark’s Big (12) Pitch: “Earn It On the Field”
On the flip side, Big 12 commish Brett Yormark and the ACC brass have been singing the fairness tune for 5+11. Yormark bluntly told the media the Big 12/ACC “have no interest in a setup that rewards conferences with multiple automatic bids.” Instead, he says, “we want to earn it on the field”.
Big 12 and ACC representatives argue that a deep at-large pool is more democratic: UCF AD Terry Mohajir (a former CFP selector) says the committee usually does a good job picking the best teams regardless of logos, so five autos + 11 at-large “strikes the right balance,” rewarding champs and still letting the cream rise. He points out that with 11 at-large bids, a 7–5 Big Ten team or a 10–2 SEC team could sneak in; the committee will simply pick the strongest field. Yormark similarly insists that this model is “good for college football,” because conferences earn respect on the field, not by boardroom maneuvering.
Experts Weigh In; BuffsBlog, Too
Yomark’s strategy has drawn significant public skepticism, for there’s ample evidence to suggest that the 5+11 model would limit the Big 12’s access to the CFP. This view holds that Yormark and his schools are making a momentous strategic mistake with lasting competitive consequences and that the Big 12 should be elated with the two automatic bids that accompany the 4-4-2-2-1 model. After all, the conference doesn’t come close to matching the relevant historical success of the Big Ten or SEC — or even the ACC. Consider the number of appearances in the four-team CFP era (2014-23) for each power conference given post-realignment
SEC: 17
Big Ten: 12
ACC: 7
Big 12: 2 (TCU and Cincinnati)
Based on those data points, the Big 12 is clearly fourth among four. Any CFP model that would grant it equal footing with the ACC — and offer 50 percent access relative to the SEC and Big Ten — should be instantly and passionately supported.
Joel Klatt agrees with this viewpoint. He said:
“I think (Yormark) is a really smart guy — he’s done a lot of excellent things with the Big 12. He’s completely off the mark on this one … I think it is absolutely bananas that the Big 12 and their ADs (athletic directors) and their coaches would argue for this. Because they’re going to get crushed” by the 5+11 model.”
BuffsBlog believes that what Joel Klatt is warning about could very well be true.
BUT, for the Big 12, the choice of access models is not really about access. It’s about something more than participation in the college football playoff. IT’S ABOUT THE BIG 12’S BRAND ITSELF. Under no circumtances can, or should, Brett Yomark support a CFP structure that marks the Big 12 as inferior to any other conference in the country — particularly in a legally binding document. If on-field results or CFP success indicate that the Big 12 is 3rd or 4th in the conference pecking order, then that’s ok. But for the commissioner of the conference to admit as much, when Big 12 coaches and teams are recruiting against the Big 10 and SEC for players, coaches, and TV viewers, is unacceptable.
Let’s not sugarcoat it: the Big 12 is currently the third or fourth wheel among the Power Four. That’s been reality since the league lost Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. But accepting a format where you know you only get 1/2 of the bids of the SEC and Big 10 is self-defeating. The BuffsBlog ethos is fully aligned with this – be better than the bigger boys, and don’t let them punch down on you.
The Bottom Line: Why We Like 5+11 for the Buffs
The 4-4-2-2-1 model might promise short-term safety (two guaranteed Big 12 teams), but it also shackles the Big 12 to an inferiority complex. It hands out lots of playoff tickets before a ball is even kicked in the fall. We’d be boxed in. By contrast, 5+11 treats every team equally at kickoff – anyone can earn that spot, including Colorado on the field.
Yes, 5+11 might “crush” the Big 12 in terms of total bids some years (as Joel Klatt warns), but Colorado has to survive and thrive under the 16-team expansion anyway. In a sense, Buffs fans want our team in the game because we earn it, not because of conference contortions. We trust that a strong resume (big nonconference wins, high rankings, etc.) will get the committee’s attention. Terry Mohajir’s point remains: there’s less brand loyalty on the committee than you think. Colorado’s first task is winning games, scheduling well, and making CFP credentials undeniable.
In the long term, we suspect 5+11 is healthier for CU. A system that constantly reminds us of our second-class status (like a formal two-spot cap would) might depress morale and recruiting. Instead, a more open, “earn it on the field” format keeps the dream alive every year. It says to recruits: win at CU, and you can compete with anybody. Ultimately, Buffs fans want meaningful games, not a preset pecking order.
Let us know your thoughts on this issue — should Yomark push for 2 guaranteed spots? Or do you agree that the 5-11 model is best for CU?
Good argument. I started off disagreeing with you but by the end agree. I also think 5+11 will be better for college football as any team that cracks the top 15 with a legendary or unique season will be able to get in.