KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The Big 12 will continue to grow. That is, if you believe the possibilities going forward regarding automatic qualifiers in the College Football Playoff.
That’s a reference to possibly more Big 12 games, not more Big 12 teams as the format and structure of the CFP begin to take shape for the 2026 season when the new six-year deal with ESPN begins.
Some are almost resigned to the fact there will be automatic qualifiers in the field at the urging of the Big Ten and SEC. Their proposed model of 4-4-2-2-1-1 means four AQs each for the Big Ten and SEC, two each for the ACC and Big 12, one at-large spot and one for the highest-ranked Group of Five conference champion.
After making the rounds this week at the Big 12 Tournament, it’s clear the conference has begun to consider its place in that new world. Commissioner Brett Yormark has not publicly committed to the AQ model for his conference, but it’s fair to say every league has at least considered the concept of play-in games for those AQ spots.
“Let me ask you something,” Yormark replied to a questioner Tuesday at a tournament kickoff press conference, “do you think I’m shy or no?”
CBS Sports reported on the details of play-in games in December. While the possibilities are preliminary — and almost endless — at this point, there are at least two models to consider to determine those two Big 12 automatic qualifiers.
1) The top four regular-season teams qualify with the No. 1 seed playing the No. 4 seed and No. 2 playing No. 3. The two winners on that championship weekend in December would advance to the CFP.
Using last year’s standings, these would be the matchups:
2) The 16-team league could split into two divisions, looking a lot like the old Big 12. One possibility is the two first-place teams in each division would qualify along with the teams with next two best records. (Don’t even start with tiebreakers in that scenario).
Let’s take it a step further and dream up the composition of those two divisions based on geography …
Big 12 West
Big 12 East
Again, based on last year’s standings the matchups would go the same way:
- Arizona State vs. Colorado
- Iowa State vs. BYU
In that setting, each team would play a seven-team, round-robin schedule against the teams in its division. There would be two crossover games. You’re way ahead of things in the scenario above if you’ve already noticed three of the four play-in teams would come from the West division.
College Football Playoff Selection Committee introduces new members, Baylor AD Mack Rhoades named as chair
Brandon Marcello
In both play-in structures, there is no outright conference champion. In one iteration, the two winners would be declared co-champs. In another, a team with the best record could be declared the “regular-season” champion.
But that gets complicated, and the Big 12 has had its share of complicated. In 2014, the first year of the CFP, TCU and Baylor were declared co-champs during a time where league didn’t have a championship game. Because of that philosophy, neither TCU nor Baylor got into the four-team field.
This would be different. If everybody is OK with co-champs — and they might be given the benefits (a CFP spot) — the Big 12 would be adding an extra postseason game. That would probably take some sort of rule change from the NCAA, but given the current landscape that’s seemingly changing by the day, the association likely wouldn’t stand in the way.
Also, think creatively — one of the games could be played at AT&T Stadium, perhaps the other on campus.
The Big 12, along with the other conferences, also would have to go back to their rightsholders and ask for more money for the additional games. The biggest hurdle remains getting AQs instituted in the first place. While Yormark has straddled the fence, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips has been adamantly against the proposal.
The stakeholders have been warned extensively about doing so by media analysts.
FBS conferences meet again on April 3 to discuss matters further.
“I think it’s fair to say I represent the conference pretty aggressively when I’m in those forums,” Yormark said. “It’s important for us to be heard and we are. I would say the relationship among the commissioners for the Power Four has never been better. We don’t agree on everything, but we have a mutual respect factor that exists. We hear each other out. I feel really good about where we’re situated.”
