Considering international diplomacy has been reduced to the level of discourse in junior high locker rooms, if that, it\u2019s only fitting we can\u2019t seem to get a College Football Playoff format without somebody hurting someone else\u2019s feelings. Brett Yormark, grand poobah of the Big 12, advises the Big Ten and SEC to do \u201cwhat\u2019s right\u201d for everyone, while Greg Sankey, SEC czar, counters he doesn\u2019t need \u201clectures on the good of the game.\u201d<\/p>\n
For sure, because no one in charge of anything has the game\u2019s best interests in mind, though that\u2019s a lecture for another day.<\/p>\n
Maybe even last week, if you\u2019ll recall.<\/p>\n
Anyway, if a 16-team playoff in the 2026 season feels inevitable, we might as well get to it.<\/p>\n
For that matter, let\u2019s figure what it would look like this fall instead of settling for the 12-team format soon to go into effect one last time:<\/p>\n
Four teams from Texas\u00a0\u2014 now that\u2019s a set of automatic qualifiers I could get behind\u00a0\u2014 plus Oklahoma in a 16-team field, with the Longhorns winning it all whether it\u2019s 16 teams or a paltry dozen.<\/p>\n
Give me a 16-team field that includes Texas (No. 2), Texas A&M (11), SMU (12) and Texas Tech (15). Note that including the Aggies, Mustangs and Red Raiders might be problematic in a 12-team format, then tell me you\u2019re still against inflating the format.<\/p>\n
Waiting.<\/p>\n
Based on my scientific projections for this fantasy project, the SEC would feature a whopping six teams (Texas, LSU, Georgia, Alabama, A&M and Oklahoma) in a 16-member field. Which, in fact, is only one more school than it\u2019s averaged among the top 16 since the dawn of the College Football Playoff.<\/p>\n
The Big Ten would get four (Ohio State, Penn State, Oregon and Illinois) and the Big 12 (Arizona State and Tech) and ACC (Clemson and SMU) two apiece. Notre Dame and Tulane, representing the Group of Five, round out my field.<\/p>\n
Not a bad representation, either, if I do say so myself. Some might argue it only makes the rich richer, and they\u2019d get no argument here. Would it be more altruistic, if, say, Boise State got in, too?<\/p>\n
Kick out the SEC\u2019s sixth-best team, maybe?<\/p>\n
Certainly possible that sort of thing would just happen naturally, especially if Little Elm\u2019s John Mateer, the new sheriff in Norman, can\u2019t make sense of the Sooners\u2019 offense. If Mateer comes close to replicating what he did for Washington State, Oklahoma could give the Longhorns two losses before they\u2019ve had their first corny dog.<\/p>\n
Even if Boise hangs a couple more wins than the Sooners, here\u2019s the problem with taking the team that no longer enjoys the services of college football\u2019s best player: According to ESPN\u2019s power ratings, the Sooners will play the nation\u2019s toughest schedule. Michigan and Auburn in September, then Texas at the State Fair, plus South Carolina, Tennessee and Alabama on the road. Brutal.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, once Boise gets past Notre Dame on Oct. 4, it\u2019s a pretty steady gallop all the way to the Mountain West title game.<\/p>\n
Now, I\u2019m not one to beat up on the CFP committee members. A couple along the way were friends of mine. Tough job, even if it comes with snacks.<\/p>\n
But sooner or later they simply must give more credence to strength of schedule, or else they\u2019ll take more flak from the likes of college football analyst Joel Klatt, whose objection to a model without automatic qualifiers is based on the committee\u2019s fallibilities. Klatt prefers the 4-4-2-2-1-3 model (four teams apiece for the SEC and Big Ten, two each for the Big 12 and ACC, one group of five champ and three at large) over the concept now in vogue, 5-plus-11 (four power conference champs plus one from the group of five, then 11 at large), because it gives priority to the best leagues instead of leaving it in the hands of the committee. Klatt doesn\u2019t hate the committee, he just doesn\u2019t trust its criteria.<\/p>\n
Hard to trust something when no one\u2019s exactly sure what it is.<\/p>\n
Funny, then, that Yormark, whose Big 12 would be guaranteed two spots in the 4-4-2-2-1-3 format, prefers the 5-plus-11 and its solitary guarantee. While the latter \u201cmight not be ideal\u201d for the Big 12, Yormark concluded \u201cit\u2019s good for college football.\u201d Coaches across the board agree. Why? My guess is it\u2019s less about what\u2019s good for college football and more about cycles. Look what happened last year with Alabama in Kalen DeBoer\u2019s debut.<\/p>\n
Why guarantee the Big Ten and SEC four spots apiece if there\u2019s even a remote chance one or the other doesn\u2019t deserve it at some point?<\/p>\n
As for this fall and the last of a 12-team playoff, it\u2019s hard to pick against teams with experienced quarterbacks (Clemson\u2019s Cade Klubnik, LSU\u2019s Garrett Nussmeier, Arizona State\u2019s Sam Leavitt, A&M\u2019s Marcel Reed, SMU\u2019s Kevin Jennings, Illinois\u2019 Luke Altmyer, Tech\u2019s Behren Morton and Mateer of OU). Easier if you don\u2019t think they can remain upright (Carson Beck in Miami).<\/p>\n
Harder still to bet against a quarterback plucked from a fruitful family tree. Arch Manning probably won\u2019t be seasoned enough to make a difference for the Longhorns in their first rematch against Ohio State, but he will come Jan. 19. Most everything in between will be a treat. Try as they might, the bosses can\u2019t take that from us.<\/p>\n