Sources: Potential Vote Looms as Playoff Expansion Talks Heat Up

University presidents are moving on discussions that could put expansion as early as 2024 back on the table.

University presidents are taking College Football Playoff expansion matters into their own hands.

In a scheduled virtual meeting Friday, the CFP’s highest-ranking governing body, the Board of Managers, is expected to chart the next course in Playoff expansion by potentially holding a vote that, if unanimous, could open the path for expansion as early as 2024, sources tell Sports Illustrated.

The 11-member Board of Managers, composed of a presidential representative from each FBS conference and Notre Dame, is wielding its authority over an expansion process that miserably failed this past spring when conference commissioners couldn’t agree on a format. The presidents, many of them frustrated at the commissioners’ futile attempts to expand, have spent several months seriously discussing expansion proposals and have reached what many consider to be a crescendo moment.

A vote is possible on an expansion model that could shape the next evolution of college football’s postseason, though details of the new format are likely to be left to commissioners to decide. Despite growing attraction to a 16-team field, the 12-team model remains the favorite as commissioners spent a year examining and vetting that proposal. They are believed to be close to agreeing to several unresolved concepts.

Just as important as the format is the vote. The CFP is in the final four years of a contract with ESPN that expires after the 2025 Playoff. In order to expand before the contract’s expiration, a unanimous vote is necessary. The management committee—the 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick—could not come to a unanimous decision after an exhaustive 10-month stretch of negotiations that included public barbs, hurt feelings and, in the end, an 8–3 measure in March. The Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 voted against the proposal but have recently shown a renewed interest in supporting the expansion model.

Expanding before the contract ends would not only provide 16 additional Playoff spots over 2024 and ’25 but, as SI reported last fall, it would also generate an additional $450 million of gross revenue over those two years.

A unanimous vote could trigger a chaotic few weeks, both for CFP executive director Bill Hancock’s organization as well as the commissioners. CFP staff and the commissioners will be tasked with finalizing details on a format and exploring whether expansion is feasible before the contract expires.

Given the recent history of stalled negotiations and the complexity of the issues, one high-ranking CFP official cautioned, “Nothing is done until it is done.” Another source says there is no guarantee that a unanimous vote would mean expanding before the contract ends.

There are plenty of hurdles, starting with the logistics. The current small-scale operation of three games (semifinals + championship) would nearly quadruple in size to 11 games, with just 27 months of lead time. The original deadline for expanding early was nine months ago.

In fact, the CFP just recently announced the dates and sites of the 2024 and ’25 championship games, Atlanta and Miami, respectively. In any expanded Playoff model, the championship game will be moved back at least a week, into mid-January. New sites and new dates might be necessary.

Hancock declined comment when reached earlier Wednesday.

One of the more pressing issues involves ESPN. The network owns the rights of the 2024 and ’25 Playoff, a bugaboo for many commissioners who want to see multiple networks holding ownership over pieces of the Playoff. While ESPN has shown a willingness to compromise, the nature of those talks are unclear.

In retrospect, none of this is too surprising. Months ago, Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff suggested that presidents could determine a Playoff format for 2026 and beyond and potentially “work back” to implementing that model in ’24 and ’25.

“Once you do that and by definition, because it’s going to be expanded, it provides more access for everyone, I think you could then go back to the people who weren’t part of the group that came up with the new proposal and say ‘We’d also like to start that in 24, not in 26.’ Everybody would go ‘We’re O.K. with that,’” Kliavkoff said in December during interviews in Las Vegas.

If a vote is not unanimous, expansion would begin in 2026, and the new Playoff would go to market after an exclusive negotiating window with ESPN expires in October ’24.

There is a third option for presidents. They could take no action. However, there is growing optimism in reaching a resolution and then handing the decision on format details to commissioners.

Commissioners and Swarbrick will meet in Dallas next week in a previously scheduled gathering. It will be their first meeting since two significant events transpired this summer: UCLA and USC joining the Big Ten; and the hiring of Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark.

Vote or no vote, commissioners will likely receive marching orders from the presidents to reach a compromise on several hot-button topics, such as (1) how revenue will be distributed in an expanded Playoff; (2) the role of the Rose Bowl, a sticking point during the past year of negotiations; and (3) how automatic qualifiers are used.

A subsection of commissioners spent two years narrowing more than 60 expansion models to a single, 12-team format presented last summer. In the model, the six highest-ranked conference champions receive an automatic berth while the next six highest-ranked teams get at-large bids into the field. The four highest-ranked conference champions get a first-round bye. First rounds are played on campus while quarterfinals and semifinals are hosted by a rotation of six bowls.

The three Alliance conferences each held public and private reasons for voting against the format. The Big Ten and ACC both expressed interest in each Power 5 champion earning an automatic berth. Before voting to expand, the ACC also wanted to resolve a myriad of off-the-field issues enveloping college football, most notably the 365-day football calendar.

The Pac-12’s issues were not with the actual format, but other matters. They ranged from the revenue distribution model to the incorporation of the Rose Bowl, which wishes to remain in its traditional date and time.

The three leagues have seemed to relax their position, likely a product of varying circumstances. For one, the Alliance, torpedoed by the Big Ten’s acquisition of USC and UCLA this summer, is not expected to continue in its original form. Secondly, the Big Ten now has completed its multi-billion dollar television deal, which some believe was a hangup in its expansion position.

The ACC, meanwhile, has led a now-months long examination into the creation of a new 365-day football calendar, potentially resolving its biggest issue with expansion. Out West, the Pac-12 needs expansion more than any other major conference.

Watch college football live with fuboTV: Start a free trial today!

More College Football Coverage:

• SI Experts Predict the Playoff, Heisman and More
• Week 1 Thursday College Football Odds and Bets
• If Power 5 Became Power 3, Who Would Be in It?