What would you do for your conference?
For the Big Ten, they will buy time to protect their power brands if needed. For the SEC, they don’t care what colors you wear (purple and gold, for instance); they will show anyone that they mean business.
Conferences don’t care what they have to do. Even if it means destroying the sport.
Announced earlier this week, CFP executives decided to trigger the 30-day negotiating window with ESPN to look into the possibility of a 24-team playoff.
While this is supposedly just a conversation about the concept, it has been reported that this will “provide leaders with an idea of the financials of expansion.”
If it involves making money, the idea is likely on the doorstep of becoming reality. Everyone knows that, from the suits in the press box to the shirtless dude with his face painted in Section ZZ.
On the surface level, this looks like a good thing for the Mountain West, PAC-12 and the Group of Six programs. More spots mean more opportunities to crash the CFP party.
That is, until the “super” conferences got involved.
Once the CFP news was released, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey sent a memo to the committee that outlined his priorities for a 24-team playoff, which include a requirement for teams to play 10 games against Power 4 opponents to qualify.
Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti has supported playoff expansion long before the negotiations window was announced. He spoke in favor of the concept at Big Ten media days in August.
“The idea is keeping as many teams in contention for as long as possible,” Petitti said in August. “Play as many meaningful games for as long as you can. Secondly, the format creates all kinds of incentives. If you think about a 24-team playoff, right, a bunch of teams are going to be ranked between 16 and 24 that are just trying to make sure they’re in.”
Now, tell us, Petitti, what is a “meaningful game”?
If he is on the same page as Sankey, which he likely is, since the two are always trying to keep up with one another in a boardroom battle of back-and-forth table tennis, it’s about finding those 10 power games and eliminating Power Four-Group of Six matchups.
But this is a deep-rooted problem that predates this recent announcement, the 12-team playoff and the playoff format altogether.
Access, access, access.
Exhibit A: Oregon vs. Boise State.
A fantastic battle of the Broncos pushing the No. 2 Ducks to the wire was one of the games of the week in Week 1. What was one of the headlines to come out postgame?
“Oregon Should Never Schedule Boise State Again”
Former ESPN and On3 analyst David Pollack gave the take that the Ducks should pick up their ball and go home when crossing paths with Boise State. They clearly have the Ducks’ number, and it is “not worth the smoke”.
The take was met with a lot of negativity. “Stop trying to kick half of FBS to the curb” and “David vs. Goliath games are what make College Football great”.
Unfortunately, Pollack is somewhat correct here.
In the current model of CFP, your resume is everything. Quality wins, strength of schedule and everything in between.
When taking on a Group of Six school, a win is not celebrated and a loss becomes a giant X across your forehead.
Is this not the type of game college football should be chasing? Finding quality competition across conferences and challenging your team?
Football is not played by comparing resumes, sticking numbers into a computer, or seeing who has more money (well, NIL…). Is it not good for the sport to have balance? A wise man once said, a rising tide lifts all boats.
The problem is, the Big Ten’s and SEC’s boat is much shinier (at least to them) than the rest of the harbor.
Future non-conference meetings are being cancelled and early September schedules are getting more and more cupcake-like. If Sankey’s memo comes to life, the Group of Six’s access to the CFP club will be checked at the door.
Is a Group of Six playoff imminent?
College Football fans should surely hope not.
While it would be the death of the Cinderella run, more importantly, it would hit G6 teams hard financially, cutting off big-time revenue that comes with making a run to the CFP. On top of that, bowl game revenue would likely be lost as well.
Big-time bowls are tied into the playoff, and if a G6 playoff came to life, they would not get a chance at any bowls.
No bowls, financial setbacks, a separate playoff.
They want to turn the Group of Six into the FCS.
When the Big Ten and SEC enter the boxing ring, it is the smaller conferences that have to pay the price. Much like when Godzilla and King Kong face off, the city below turns to rubble. Except now, it’s a 300-foot Brutus the Buckeye and Uga the Bulldog wreaking havoc as the blue turf below gets destroyed.
No one wants their conference to turn to debris. So what are the G6 schools prepared to do?
Announced in a report from FOX Sports, stakeholders across the Group of Six have been quietly pushing for an additional spot for non-Power Four programs to be guaranteed as part of a 24-team field.
“We have multiple teams in our conference that absolutely could be in a position to vie for a CFP spot,” Pac-12 Commissioner Teresa Gould told FOX Sports. “And we shouldn’t be limited by the format or by the structure. We should have that opportunity.”
“If you’re not playing for something, you’re not playing for anything,” Mountain West Commissioner Gloria Nevarez said. “Having that access point has always been a priority, and, if the field expands, I would 100 percent favor more access for the Group of Six.”
If the conferences want a new format in time for the 2027 season, they have to decide by Dec. 1
While the playoff spots may expand, the opportunities for the Group of Six may dwindle. The next six months could decide the fate of G6 football in the CFP era.
Dan Allison is a freelance high school and college sports writer. You can reach him at @danlallison on X.
