The SEC and Big Ten commissioners will present a shared, evolving vision for the College Football Playoff to their peers on Tuesday, with potential format changes for next season unfolding against the backdrop of an overhauled event starting in 2026.
The most intriguing discussions won’t take place in Dallas, however.
They are occurring deep in the background, with the SEC’s Greg Sankey and the Big Ten’s Tony Petitti facing possible resistance from the one entity capable of preventing their plan for postseason domination from becoming reality.
That entity, of course, is ESPN.
The network serves as one of the sport’s two ATMs — the other is Fox — but stands alone on College Football Playoff matters as the event’s exclusive rights holder through 2031.
The SEC and Big Ten want to expand the playoff to at least 14 teams (and perhaps 16).
They want to create multiple automatic qualifiers (AQs) for the power conferences.
They might use those extra guaranteed CFP spots to create play-in games on conference championship weekend.
But multiple industry sources have told the Hotline in recent days that ESPN is not necessarily eager for changes and might be staunchly opposed, which could create a most interesting dynamic.
ESPN has no relationship with the Big Ten beyond the CFP, but it serves as the SEC’s exclusive media partner. It owns the Tier 1 rights; it owns the SEC Network; and it provides the platform for the SEC’s broad media machinery.
Would Sankey dare ram through playoff changes that ESPN opposes? Is there a middle ground? Or could the most radical aspects of the proposed format — the creation of four AQ bids for both the SEC and Big Ten — get left on the negotiating room floor?
And one more question: How did we get here in the first place?
After one season of a 12-team playoff, the SEC and Big Ten are pushing for an overhaul. The AQs aren’t merely new windows and drapes, folks. They represent changes to the event’s structure and, in fact, the very foundation of the sport.
Naturally, money and mistrust are at the heart of the issue.
The SEC and Big Ten are craving every last dollar possible as the revenue-sharing era approaches. But the CFP contract with ESPN from 2026-31 covers both 12 and 14 teams — the network is not obligated to increase payments if the field expands. (If it goes to 16 teams, which seems unlikely, there’s a mechanism in the contract to negotiate the terms.)
In order for the SEC and Big Ten to unlock new revenue, they must look to the other end of the competitive pipeline: the regular-season schedule.
By adding a ninth league game for the SEC and creating an inter-conference scheduling partnership, the SEC and Big Ten could, in theory, restructure their media deals with ESPN and Fox, respectively, and access more dollars.
But tougher schedules lead to more losses, and neither conference trusts the CFP selection committee to properly account for strength-of-schedule in its rankings.
Creating four AQ bids for both the SEC and Big Ten — and allowing each conference to determine which teams receive those bids — would remove the committee from the selection process. An extra loss resulting from the SEC-Big Ten scheduling series would have no impact on CFP access. (The committee would be responsible only for seeding the teams.)
Also, the AQ bids would enable the SEC and Big Ten to create play-in games on championship weekend, with No. 3 playing No. 6 and No. 4 facing No. 5, for example, for the final AQ spots.
But those changes could undercut the competitive bar that ESPN covets and risk alienating sections of the country with major media markets. Imagine four-loss SEC teams strolling into the CFP while two-loss Big 12 teams are left home. (The ACC and Big 12 would have just two AQ bids; the Group of Five would have only one.)
Another possible concern for ESPN: the impact on viewership of play-in games.
“I’m not sure how the conference championship games have any meaningful level if they go to four AQs,” an industry source noted.
Logistical challenges make playoff expansion tricky for ESPN, as well. Under the 12-team format, two of the four opening-round games (on the third Saturday in December) face direct competition from the NFL.
The 14-team model would create two additional opening-round games. Where would they be placed? The NFL plays Thursday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday of the targeted weekend.
“As circumstances exist today,” another industry source explained, “it’s going to be harder to schedule additional games.”
Also to consider: The CFP’s four opening-round games were blowouts that did not draw the type of ratings ESPN would be desperate to replicate. Nothing about the demand suggests the need for an increase in supply.
So if you’re scoring at home, it looks something like this:
ESPN’s tepid interest in changing the playoff is prompting the SEC and Big Ten to look elsewhere for revenue, but their answer (more marquee regular-season games) requires them to sidestep the selection committee by creating the very AQ spots that ESPN doesn’t want.
The circular illogic perfectly encapsulates college football.
So here’s a radical idea: Why not negotiate changes at the source?
Could ESPN increase the rights fee for the 14-team format in exchange for no alterations to the regular-season schedules, thereby eliminating the need for the ghastly AQs bids and the unattractive play-in games on championship weekend?
There’s a balance to strike, of course. Any increase in payments for CFP expansion would have to match (or approach) whatever bumps the SEC and Big Ten would receive for the in-season schedule changes. Which evil is more palatable?
There is more at stake than two additional CFP spots and a series of AQ bids.
College football has the best regular season in sports precisely because every week means so much. That dynamic is instantly threatened if eight of 14 playoff spots are assigned to two conferences before the first game of the season.
And if the regular season loses value on a sweeping scale, it’s bad for the TV networks that pay billions annually for the broadcast rights.
We are fast approaching the point that ESPN, the unlikeliest of saviors, might need to rescue the sport from itself.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline