Error code: %{errorCode}
The case for sixteen: College Football Playoff format stays the same for 2026 - but for how long?
On Friday, conference commissioners met in Miami one last time to discuss the immediate future of the college football playoffs. More precisely, to come to a decision to expand the number of participants or to remain at twelve for 2026, ahead of an imposed deadline by ESPN.
Below, we break down how the decision came together, why expansion keeps resurfacing, and what the next version of the College Football Playoff could realistically look like.
NFL fan too? Watch every playoff game on DAZN for only £9.99
DAZN's latest Game Pass deal gives you every NFL playoff game, right through to the Super Bowl, for only £9.99.
The offer drops ahead of the Conference Championships, as the Denver Broncos host the New England Patriots in the AFC title game, and the Los Angeles Rams visit the Seattle Seahawks in the NFC.
In addition to every game, live or on demand, Game Pass also provides access to RedZone, NFL Network, and DAZN’s weekly original shows, including Downs 2 Business, Kittle Things, and X's & O's coaching breakdown.
Click here for more information and to sign up.
The playoffs have been an unprecedented success since changing from the four-team model to a twelve-team bracket in 2024. More games, more drama, and of course, more money; every way you look at it, expansion has worked for the sport.
But as we’ve seen throughout history, college football refuses to stand still. If more teams equals more revenue, then why stop at twelve? With schools and conferences seemingly in an arms race in the NIL era, any and all improved income streams will be explored.
Leading the way in these conversations were the two commissioners of the biggest conferences. Greg Sankey (SEC) and Tony Petitti (Big Ten) have the loudest voices in the room, but needed to find consensus with the other eight conference leaders, as well as Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua.
Time was tight for any changes, with TV networks demanding clarity. But common ground was difficult to find – predominantly between Sankey & Petitti themselves, who have differing visions for the future. And so, with no agreement, the postseason will stay as it is. For now, at least.
Why the clamour for change?
Despite its unprecedented success, there were some modest issues with the birth of the expanded playoffs. In 2024, the four best conference champions received the top four seeds and a bye, which wasn’t well-received by many. This quirk was removed ahead of the 2025 season.
But still, the process for the inclusion of conference champions was under the spotlight. Last year, the ACC’s champion was omitted in favour of a second conference from the Group of Five. This, again, has been addressed, with the Power 4 conferences assured of four of the five champions spots going forward.
Then there is the anomaly that is Notre Dame. As an independent, the Fighting Irish cause the committee a headache. Are they punished by not being in a conference and having an opportunity to win one and earn an automatic spot? Two years ago, the highest they could be seeded was #5 - they actually finished at #7.
Now it feels that the system has overcompensated for this. Not only have the top four been opened up beyond conference champions, but Notre Dame have also been given exempt status from being jumped by one finishing outside the top 12 from 2026 - meaning no scenario like the one they endured this year.
Little tweaks to the system were inevitable. But it’s the big changes that have conferences at odds with one another, and all the while, fans are wondering whether college football can retain what makes it so special over the next decade amid the incessant pursuit of the next dollar.
What a sixteen-team playoff would look like
We now know it won’t happen this year. But, if future expansion were to come, the simplest way to do so would be to add four extra teams and remove any byes in the first round. A simple, straightforward sixteen-team knockout competition.
This model has its virtues. Firstly, there are no adjustments to the calendar needed. The four extra games would be played the same week as the first round; nice and easy when it comes to scheduling, more football on TV for the networks, and no suggestion of dispensing with conference championship games.
The last part is significant; title games are huge money spinners for the conferences and for the cities they are hosted in. Any model advocating their removal will not be entertained. And while some schools would happily have a week off ahead of the playoffs rather than win the SEC, for others it’s a way into the bracket itself.
Another benefit of this would be the number of games on campus. Currently, the top four seeds enjoy a bye at the expense of playing a home game. With no inclination to remove bowl affiliations from the quarter-final forward, ensuring home advantage to the top eight seeds feels right, particularly for fans with less means.
If we’d had a sixteen-team playoff last season - with the new conference champions rule in place - here is how the playoffs would have looked:
- #16 Duke @ #1 Indiana
- #15 Tulane @ #2 Ohio State
- #14 Vanderbilt @ #3 Georgia
- #13 Texas @ #4 Texas Tech
- #12 BYU @ #5 Oregon
- #11 Notre Dame @ #6 Ole Miss
- #10 Miami @ #7 Texas A&M
- #9 Alabama @ #8 Oklahoma
Some intriguing matchups for sure. Last year, Notre Dame and BYU were the ones in a playoff spot that were jumped by conference champions Tulane & James Madison. If you consider this an issue (as Notre Dame certainly did), then this model doesn’t solve it - it merely knocks the problem down the rankings.
In this scenario, it would have been Utah and USC missing out in a similar fashion, with Duke benefiting over JMU due to the ACC champion now being guaranteed a place.
To summarise, a sixteen-team format has a modest negative impact, if any, compared to the current structure, with obvious benefits. Why then, is there discord?
How much is too much?
Ten of the eleven voices in the room are on board with the sixteen-team bracket. Only the Big Ten stood between changes being implemented for the coming season. Instead, Tony Petitti prefers a much larger 24-team model. This would include a guaranteed number of ‘automatic qualifiers’ for the Power 4 conferences.
The ‘4+4+2+2+1’ model essentially guarantees the SEC & Big Ten four teams, the Big 12 and ACC two teams, and one Group of Six conference champion a place in the playoffs, with 11 ‘at large’ schools completing the field.
It’s easy to see why the ACC, Big 12 and Group of Six conferences (now the Pac-12 is back) all baulk at this idea. From an outside perspective, it looks largely uncompetitive, already presuming that the two big conferences will be bigger and better than anyone else before the season has even kicked off.
There are other concerns. This model would remove conference title games, and each division would have to determine their own method of qualification. The Big Ten want to go to ‘play in games’ to determine who they would send, further compounding the fixture list.
It’s less clear why the SEC aren’t aligned with the idea, as it appears they, too, would benefit from the weighted inclusion of different conferences. Perhaps Greg Sankey does have a shred of compassion for the future of the smaller programs in the FBS after all – because if he were on board, the two kingpins would have forced this through.
The Big Ten may try to sweeten the pot when they return to the table, perhaps offering the Big 12 and ACC parity or adding another G6 champion to the qualifying list. Or the committee may decide to move to a 16-team model with the intent to explore further expansion at a later date.
But that’s for another day. For now, fans can relax safe in the knowledge that – for 2026 at least – there will be minimal interference to a system that delivered one of the best seasons of college football seasons of all time last year. But with the SEC and Big Ten circling, change is coming.
