Essentials of a Bigger CFP

Last June, the college football world experienced some excitement at the idea of a 12-team CFP. A format and qualifying criteria were announced. However, there were too many "little details" that just couldn't fit together. And so we hold onto 4, for 4 more seasons.

So when that time comes - and have no doubt, the time to start planning is now - what all needs to be satisfied?  Let's dig in, piece by piece.

Of all of the expansion plans proposed since last June, none were able to obtain unanimous support. With so many parties to the CFP contract, it's understandable that amendments to the existing contract cannot be modified without all contract parties agreeing.

• The 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame - all part of the CFP Executive Oversight.
• The 6 bowls that rotate semifinals - the New Year's Six - the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Cotton, Peach, and Fiesta.
• The television partner - in this case, ESPN.

With each proposal, particularly the 8-team proposals, there was something that was going to have a negative impact on one of the contracted parties.

• 5 or 6 automatic berths, with 2 or 3 at-large spots? Not going to fly with Notre Dame or the SEC, who currently enjoy the prospect of 4 at-large spots (the Irish have made it twice as an at large - seeded 3 and 4 - while the SEC has WON it twice with at-large teams seeded 3 and 4).
• Multiple TV partners? Not going to fly with ESPN, who would prefer the exclusivity if they can keep it.
• Variety in dates? Not going to fly with the Rose Bowl, who wants to keep the traditional New Year's Day afternoon time slot.

As the planning begins for a new system to begin in the 2026 season, here are my thoughts on how to make the best system possible.  It's not a specific system, but it provides key ingredients for all parties to consider.

Conferences & Schools

While a single "no" vote was able to prevent changes to the existing contract, the conferences/schools must be aware that compromises will have to be made in developing a new system.  

• Some conferences (including the Big Ten) might prefer automatic bids for P5 champions + 1 other, while others (including the SEC) might prefer the 6 highest-ranked champs.  
• NO conference or school will want to feel that the have less access than they do now (in other words, 4 at-larges is a MINIMUM)
• Some conferences (notably the Big Ten and PAC-12, though maybe the SEC or ACC to a lesser extent) might want to accommodate their traditional top-tier bowl as much as possible, while others may not see it as quite as high a priority.
• Some conferences might want to seed teams purely by merit, while others might want to take last June's approach and give some of the highest seeds to conference champs. Interestingly, independent Notre Dame was perfectly fine with the latter, as their AD was in the group that developed that approach.
• Some conferences/schools might want the first TWO rounds hosted by higher-seeds, mainly for local economic impact. Others may feel that a first-round bye is enough of an advantage, and that a lot of the proceeds would be CFP-generated and not school-generated.
• Are schools willing to accept that early-round hosted games are PLAYOFF games, and not just (HOME TEAM) games? And are they willing to risk lower-attended games in mid-December, in the event that some fans hold out for a later-round game & bowl trip closer to New Year's?

The key: while each conference and school will have different specific ideas, it's important that each one feels like they're a part of the process, and are accommodated as practical!

The TV Networks

For the conferences/schools, I think the greatest TV concern is simple: which configuration can get them the most money??!!  I agree with the principle that open-market bidding is expected to bring in more money than an ESPN extension. Although it is a gamble - and it'll take some time for the greater revenues to offset the 4 years of waiting.

Some considerations for the next contract, figuring that it could very well be an expanded CFP.

• Does network exclusivity or a split-network model work better, and offer significantly different amounts of revenue?
• Will the wait be worth it?  In other words, how long before the lost revenue by not extending early is offset by a potentially greater payout in a few years?
• If it's another ESPN exclusive Playoff, will they be able to fit in more rounds while keeping their commitments to the NFL?
• If there is more than one network, will early-round games (possibly in December) overlap with each other? With more NFL games on Saturdays and Monday Night Football running longer, there is gradually less "exclusive" space for college football postseason games.
• Will the selection process be at least as transparent as it is now? Will conferences be assured that they're not being excluded because of back-room deals where the CFP broadcaster is also the primary TV partner of a competing conference?
• Will any of the streaming platforms (Amazon Prime, among others) take a stab for at least a portion of the rights?
• How long will the next contract(s) be? A lot can happen over the course of a decade - as we've see since the CFP format began in the 2014 season?

The key: different conferences/schools have different TV partners. And none want to feel they're on the outside of the Playoff with possible TV partner interests at stake. In order for the next system to work, the balance between revenue, access, and fairness must be intact!

The Bowls

Contrary to some online comments, I do NOT believe that an expanded playoff has to mean the end of the bowl season.  I refuse to believe that 12-team format instead of 4 means that a MAC and Conference USA matchup in the Bahamas or Boca Raton cannot still happen.  Or even a Yankee or Fenway Bowl between 6-6 or 7-5 Power Conference teams just happy to get the extra practice!

That being said, I do believe that the TOP bowls will need to remain flexible in order to become/remain part of the sport's elite tier of postseason games. New Year's will undoubtedly remain a cornerstone of meaningful college football. But if the Rose Bowl - or any other - are too stubborn to budge from a single time slot, then the new system will have to move on without them. 

Now, it's possible that things might work out, and that the new system can accommodate some (or even multiple) wishes from some of these bowls.  But the focus should be on the system.  If the bowls fit, great.  If not, then the bowls can still serve their original roles as postseason exhibitions.

Some considerations for bowls who may want to become/remain part of the CFP next go-round:

• Are the bowls flexible concerning time slot?
• Are the bowls flexible concerning conference affiliation?
• Can some of the newer or mid-tier bowls find their way into the CFP, possibly as earlier-round games?
• Should conferences be given "preference" for a bowl, as long as it doesn't impact the seeding process or provide unfair home-field settings for a lower-seeded team?
• Do the bowls demand time slot exclusivity? This could be a concern if multiple networks and early-round bowl sites are involved.
• Can these big-name bowls be given some consideration, without feeling like they're just "in the way" of progress?

The key: Like the conferences, schools, and TV networks, the bowls hold a special place within the structure of college football. As such, it's understandable that they have concerns of their own. While a new structure shouldn't hinge solely on the bowl's wishes, it's also important to remember that these bowls are partners. Hopefully they will find a way to fit into the new structure - just as they did with the Bowl Coalition & Alliance, the BCS, and the current CFP.

FINAL TAKE

Fans love to discuss number of teams, qualifiers, seeding, hosting, and all kinds of logistics!  Even among nearly a dozen conference/school heads, the ideas and visions are plenty - and plenty varied!  Before we can enjoy/discuss/debate any new system, it's important to remember that there are a lot of moving pieces, and a lot of stakeholders that make a system what it is. 

I hope there's something that will please everyone - at least to some degree.  Because that's what it'll take in order to develop a system that works!