The Future of Big 12 in College Football Playoff

Kansas City, MO – The Big 12 Conference is analyzing its position within the evolving landscape of college football, particularly in regard to the forthcoming College Football Playoff (CFP) changes set for the 2026 season and a new six-year agreement with ESPN.

Understanding Automatic Qualifiers

There’s a growing anticipation around the implementation of automatic qualifiers (AQs) for conferences within the CFP framework. This proposal has gained traction amid discussions from powerhouse leagues like the Big Ten and SEC, who have put forth a model likely to distribute four AQs each to themselves, while the ACC and Big 12 would each receive two. The projected breakdown includes one at-large slot and one dedicated to the highest-ranked champion from the Group of Five conferences.

Implications for the Big 12

During recent discussions at the Big 12 Tournament, Commissioner Brett Yormark hinted at an openness towards exploring AQs, although he has yet to make a formal commitment. All Power Five conferences are contemplating the idea of additional play-in games that could secure these automatic slots.

Potential Play-In Game Structures

As reported by CBS Sports, two distinct frameworks might be adopted for determining the Big 12’s automatic qualifiers:

• Model 1: The top four teams from the regular season would compete in a playoff format, with the highest seed facing the lowest seed. The winners from these matchups would advance to the CFP.
• Model 2: A return to a division-based system, where the conference could be split into two divisions. The two division winners, along with the next best two teams in terms of records, would qualify for the CFP.

Division Structure and Regular Season Champions

Should the divisions be organized geographically, teams might be paired in the following format:

Big 12 West

• Arizona State
• Colorado

Big 12 East

• Iowa State
• BYU

Each team could then participate in a round-robin schedule against in-division opponents and have two crossover games. Interestingly, this structure could lead to a situation where three of the four play-in slots might come from one division.

Addressing the Controversy of Co-Champions

Both proposed models would result in no clear conference champion determined by a championship game. Instead, there would either be co-champions or a recognized “regular-season” champion, which could lead to complications reminiscent of the 2014 season when TCU and Baylor were both named co-champions without a dedicated title game.

Next Steps for the Big 12

These models present an opportunity for the Big 12 to introduce an extra postseason game, contingent upon NCAA regulations, which seem increasingly flexible as the landscape shifts. Additionally, the conference must negotiate additional financial arrangements with broadcasting partners to cover the cost of these extra contests. 

On April 3, FBS conferences are set to reconvene to further discuss these developments, and Yormark emphasized the importance of Big 12 representation in these negotiations: “I think it’s fair to say I represent the conference pretty aggressively when I’m in those forums,” he stated. “The relationship among the commissioners for the Power Four has never been better.”