CFP Insider: What sources are saying about playoff change

For the second time in four months, conference leaders from the SEC and Big Ten will meet in person to discuss common ground during a critical decision-making period in college athletics. Wednesday's meeting in New Orleans will include discussions about the House vs. NCAA settlement and future NCAA governance, but it will also include important conversations about the College Football Playoff and what the two most powerful conferences want it to look like moving forward.

In less than a week, the CFP's management committee will meet in Dallas to begin a thorough review of the inaugural 12-team field. Athletic directors in the Big Ten and SEC will first have a chance, though, to express their preferences to their respective commissioners before the Big Ten's Tony Petitti and SEC's Greg Sankey meet with their FBS peers.

"I would imagine that coming out of that Big Ten-SEC meeting that they will come to the table with proposed governance, proposed format -- all of that," one CFP source said. "I think that's everybody's expectation, but I don't expect anything radical that hasn't already been discussed."

While there is no guarantee that any firm decisions will be made, ESPN spoke to multiple sources that included athletic directors, commissioners and CFP sources about what they might learn this week.

What are the Big Ten and SEC's playoff priorities?

Every FBS league is trying to figure out how many teams should be in the playoff (it will be at least 12), how they should qualify (should certain conferences be guaranteed spots, and if so, how many?), and how they should be seeded.

The SEC and Big Ten have the bulk of control over what the CFP will look like when the new contract with ESPN begins following the 2025 season. That power was part of the negotiation process that also included guaranteed access for conference champions and certain protections for Notre Dame.

The CFP conversations unfolding across all leagues are twofold -- possible changes for the 2025 season, which would have to be unanimously agreed upon, and more significant changes for the 2026 season, which don't have to be unanimous. The SEC and Big Ten are discussing both, with seeding at the top of the list as a potential quick fix for this fall -- if every other conference and Notre Dame agree to it.

This past season, the four highest-ranked conference champions earned the top four seeds and a first-round bye. It was one of the most controversial facets of the format because it allowed for No. 9-ranked Boise State, which won the Mountain West Conference, to earn the No. 3 seed and for No. 12-ranked Arizona State to earn the No. 4 seed. No. 3-ranked Texas and No. 4-ranked Penn State were runners-up in their respective conferences, but they couldn't be seeded higher than Nos. 5 and 6 because the top four seeds were reserved for conference champions.

A popular suggestion to change the seeding for this fall has been 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. Some do not see the bye as a positive, as all four teams that received a bye in the inaugural 12-team field lost their first game.

The tougher topics to tackle surround the next iteration of the playoff, which starts in 2026. Sources in the SEC and the Big Ten have favored a certain number of automatic playoff spots for each league, but even within each league there remain varying opinions. Sources in the Big Ten seem more aligned in their desire for automatic qualifiers. A popular model floated publicly includes four guaranteed teams each from the Big Ten and SEC, two teams each from the Big 12 and ACC, one spot for the highest-ranked Group of 5 champion, and one at-large spot, which could go to Notre Dame if the Irish were ranked high enough for inclusion.

While guarantees have been debated publicly, the commissioners haven't yet brought that idea to the table in person, and it's hardly the only option. First, they have to decide how many teams will be in the playoff in 2026, and multiple sources have indicated for about a year that it's still trending toward 14 -- at least for now.

"Oh, it's gonna go to 14," one Big Ten source said. "I would bank on that."

If it does, that would mean two teams earn first-round byes instead of the current four. If the Big Ten and SEC agree to a seeding model that mirrors the selection committee's final ranking more than it did this season, those two first-round byes could be open to the two highest-ranked teams -- regardless of what conference they're from.

Not everyone, though, is married to the idea of automatic qualifiers, particularly in the SEC, but trying to pick the 14 or 16 "best" teams while honoring guarantees for conference champions could also be problematic.

"We've got to figure out a way to get to 14 or 16," another Big Ten source said. "We've got to get four automatics. We've got to get the Big 12 and ACC to join in. That's the goal."

It's also a major question.

"It does become a little bit of an invitational," one ACC source said. "Will there be circumstances where a Big 12 or ACC might have three really good and deserving teams to come in and all of a sudden these spots are taken up through other teams from the SEC or the Big Ten? That's a difficult one. I also understand that who has the gold makes a little bit of the rules, right?"

If the playoff were to expand to 14 teams, it would help some of the upper-echelon teams that were excluded this past season (Alabama), but some athletic directors would like to see models that show how much -- if at all -- it would help "the middle class" like Minnesota, Kentucky and others as far as having more interest in their games in late October and November.

"I tend to think more is better," another Big Ten source said. "We all look at Indiana now like, 'Why not us?'"

Could there be more CFP home games?

The first-round playoff games that were held on the campuses of the higher-ranked seeds were a roaring success this past season, with an energy that was palpable even through the TV. There's support within the SEC and Big Ten at the athletic director level for more playoff games on campuses, but this isn't unique to the two conferences. But there is also an underlying desire by many to preserve the history of the sport's most lucrative and traditional bowls -- the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Peach and Cotton.

"I don't think anybody wants to kill the major bowls on their watch," one SEC source said, "especially when they've not only been good for college football historically, but think about what they've had to accept and embrace when it is so different from what they are used to."

Everyone, though, recognized that the travel and expenses required of fans to follow their teams through the playoff was exorbitant. Some said it's also expensive for the teams -- and more cost-effective to stay home.

"If none of those high-profile teams are playing meaningful games in their venue and their setting on an annual basis, they're not going to be able to survive," another SEC source said of the bowls. "But I don't know that we need them for the good of the game to survive. It's just hard for people to wrap their head around."

There's no shortage of ideas floating. Some have also wondered whether the national championship game could rotate among those six major bowls, which have been expected to remain a part of the playoff system in the next contract. Adding another round of home games would be difficult. At this year's Sugar Bowl, the SEC's Sankey told the New Orleans Times-Picayune he "favors the tradition of the bowls participating in the postseason."

Could there be CFP play-in games?

Having College Football Playoff play-in games is a concept that has been bubbling up at the Power 4 commissioner level and has trickled down to the athletic directors. It hasn't been discussed at length yet because first they need to decide how many teams will make the field.

As lucrative as conference championship games are, their value has been called into question -- by coaches and athletic directors throughout the country -- but the value of crowning a conference champion in the playoff era seems to remain extremely high. It's a more daunting math equation, though, considering 16- and 18-team leagues can't possibly pit everyone against each other to truly determine the top teams.

There's some buzz in the SEC and Big Ten about determining their playoff teams through play-in games -- something ACC commissioner Jim Phillips also spoke about publicly at the national championship game. For example, if the SEC and Big Ten had four guaranteed playoff spots each, the leagues could have "play-in" games, and then those winners could determine their No. 3 and No. 4 automatic qualifiers -- giving six teams an opportunity.

That could be in lieu of bowl games -- and at some point even conference championship games -- which is a drastic change that could be difficult for some to support and might be difficult to garner traction because of existing television deals.

What's the latest in talks of a scheduling partnership?

One topic in its infancy is trying to pit more Big Ten and SEC teams against each other in non-CFP bowl games, but that's part of a broader conversation about how to create more compelling matchups in the best locations and make the postseason a better experience for fans, players and the bowls.

"Honestly, what made it a little bit exciting this year was, like, Michigan beat Alabama," one source said. "It actually made those bowls kind of like, 'OK, who's better?'"

When the SEC and Big Ten met in October, the two leagues considered whether there's a way for their respective conference offices to be more "intentional" about their scheduling. Until the SEC decides whether it is going to continue to play eight conference games or move to nine, though, it's a moot point. And the SEC is unlikely to make that decision before it knows how many teams are going to be in the playoff and how they'll qualify for it.

What do other leagues think of the SEC-Big Ten partnership?

One year ago, in February 2024, the SEC and Big Ten announced the formation of a joint advisory group of university presidents, chancellors and athletic directors to "address the significant challenges facing college athletics."

It was a significant move that further illustrated the growing working relationships between Sankey and Petitti and between the two largest and wealthiest conferences.

Since then, there's a sense of growing acceptance of the separation of those two leagues from the others and less pushback surrounding the idea of automatic qualifiers, as access trumps everything. Some of it is simply because other leagues realize they don't have much (if any) leverage, while there is also a general concession that this is the new reality: The Big Ten and SEC are leading the way.

"Where the influence and power lies in our industry right now is blatantly clear," one FBS commissioner said. "They're talking, everybody knows they're talking. I'm not bothered by it."

And they're doing it at a time when college athletics is in dire need of leadership -- regardless of where it comes from.

"Coming up with good ideas -- from wherever they come from -- I think is really important for the enterprise," one ACC source said.

While not everyone is thrilled with the separation, the Power 4 leagues are still tied together because legislative strategy, governance, and the NCAA settlement has kept them intertwined and communicating regularly. That bond has lessened the fear of many administrators in other leagues that the Big Ten and SEC are going to break away from the NCAA, at least for now. As was the case in Nashville, Tennessee, in October, when the Big Ten and SEC last met, attorneys for both leagues will be present, as they want to be very careful to avoid anything that could be construed as collusion.

"You've got to accept the fact that they're going to do some things on their own," one commissioner said, "that we all look a little different. We all behave a little different. We act a little different."

Of course, there's always some skepticism about what happens behind closed doors.

"It's so unfortunate that we believe we have to continue to look out for our self-interests," one Big 12 source said. "Who is looking out for the greater good of college athletics and college football in particular? If the discussions between the Big Ten and the SEC can bring ideas to the table that are going to look out for the greater good, then that's great. They should be discussed and brought forward. But is that what's really happening?"