Statement from Mike Aresco:
As NCAA Division I athletics embarks on transformational changes in the coming weeks and months, and as the College Football Playoff (“CFP”) leadership looks to the future, we have a unique opportunity to reshape college football with a modern postseason format that will profoundly enhance the national stature of the sport. Recognizing that the current four-team playoff excludes worthy teams, the CFP Working Group (SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey, Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby, Mountain West Commissioner Craig Thompson, and Notre Dame Athletic Director, Jack Swarbrick) submitted a proposal for a 12-team playoff in June 2021 that is an enormous step in the right direction and remedies the shortcomings that have historically and recently affected FBS postseason football. The proposal is fair, thoughtful, forward-focused, opportunity-embracing, and practical in its approach. In addition to numerous meetings of the CFP Management Committee (the group of ten FBS commissioners and Notre Dame Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick) since June of 2021, each conference and Notre Dame also vetted the Working Group’s proposal with their constituencies, including their student-athletes, over the summer of 2021. This has not been a rushed process. A firm majority, including some “Power 5” commissioners, has consistently favored a 12-team playoff containing the 6–6 model, i.e., the top six conference champions and six at-large teams comprising the field.
The Working Group’s proposal was the product of two years of research, analysis and debate. It was presented after careful examination of many different formats and chosen because it best addresses the longstanding issues while providing a logical and exciting path to a national championship for teams that truly will have earned the right to participate. Notwithstanding the financial benefits inherent in such an expansion, the proposal further adds interest and importance to far more regular-season games and to conference championship games, and, at its core, is grounded in basic tenets of fairness and common sense. Collegiate constituencies, fans, the media and the general public have welcomed this plan. However, in recent months the process has slowed, several obstacles have emerged, and there is considerable doubt that an expanded playoff format can be adopted and implemented as early as the 2024 season, or perhaps at all in the future.
One misconception should be clarified at the outset. The charge given to the CFP Management Committee by the CFP Board of Managers (the ten presidents and chancellors of the FBS conferences and the president of Notre Dame), who are the ultimate decision-makers, was to develop a plan to expand the College Football Playoff in 2026 and beyond, as the current 12-year playoff format expires after the 2025 season. If a plan can be agreed upon by the commissioners and ratified by the Board, the hope is that it can then be implemented before 2026, although logistical issues prevent starting a new plan earlier than the 2024 season. There was never a notion that the commissioners would reach agreement on an expanded playoff for 2024 and 2025 and then start all over in 2026.
In our view, there are two main issues. One is the ACC’s publicly-registered opposition to expanding the playoff at the current time, citing health and safety concerns as well as the uncertainty and instability of the current college sports landscape. The other is a proposal advanced relatively recently by a few conferences for a 5+1 format, which would award automatic qualification (“AQ”) to the five current NCAA autonomy conferences (“A5”), the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Big 12, PAC 12, and which would award one slot to the top-rated so-called Group of Five champion. Other issues include the position of contract bowls, including the Rose Bowl, in an expanded playoff, revenue distribution under a new plan, and the location of first and second-round games (home sites or in bowls), but there is reason to believe these other issues can be successfully addressed.
Let us, therefore, examine these issues. Health and safety has always been and always will be among the major concerns, to which the Working Group gave a great deal of thought and ultimately struck a balance between the goal of greater opportunity and inclusion and the health and well-being of participating student-athletes. While not minimizing an additional game for two teams, in the most likely annual scenario, a team that reaches the national championship game will likely be a top-four team with a bye and will only play one more game than in the current playoff structure. Teams eliminated in the first round will, in fact, play no additional games over the course of their season because their participation in the playoff would be in lieu of a bowl game. In the highly unlikely event that a team that does not receive a bye in the 12-team format plays four playoff games by reaching the championship game (two more than required under the current system), the team or teams with this opportunity would likely firmly embrace it, especially since those teams are likely to be the ones that have been excluded under the current four-team playoff. Those teams would also likely adjust their practice protocols to address health and safety concerns.
Steps can be taken to mitigate wear and tear on the playoff participants, whether more time between games (a 12-day hiatus after the conference championship weekend is being discussed favorably) or possibly addressing how the regular season is structured. For example, eliminating the clock stoppage after each first down, or after incomplete passes, except perhaps during the last two minutes of a game, would eliminate many plays over a season. Other potential solutions could be proposed, and explored, such as the length of summer camps, practice protocols, the season calendar, etc.
As for the turmoil and uncertainty surrounding college sports and NCAA governance, there is no question that issues such as name, image, and likeness (“NIL”), the transfer portal, NCAA divisional governance, the implications of the Alston Supreme Court decision, and the academic calendar - the list goes on - must be addressed. There are two main points to be made here. One, these issues do not bear directly on whether to expand the college football playoff. An expanded playoff is about enhancing opportunity regardless of what the future college sports landscape will look like. Second, these overarching issues will likely be debated long into the future and, in fact, are unlikely to be settled in any meaningful way in the next 15 months or so when the CFP decision-makers will have to reconvene either to develop a new playoff plan for 2026 and beyond, continue with the four-team model or abandon a playoff altogether if an acceptable model cannot be agreed upon.
The ACC has said that it favors an expanded playoff eventually, which suggests that it believes that health and safety concerns can be addressed satisfactorily. The prevailing feeling is that the most likely outcome in 2026 and beyond is a 12-team playoff. The eight-team model that some conferences have supported, which would limit at-large participation, simply does not have enough traction to be a viable alternative. Therefore, if a 12-team playoff is a likely outcome anyway and there is unanimity in favoring expansion down the road, why not try to implement an expanded playoff sooner than later in order to afford deserving teams and their student-athletes the opportunity to play for a national championship? For many, this could be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Why delay it, or, worst case, jeopardize it?
The suggested 5+1 format, the second major obstacle, has received minimal support. On the other hand, the proposed 6-6 model reinforces what should be a cornerstone of the CFP, that every FBS team has equal access to the playoff. Conference champions should seek equal access, not preferred access. A key aspect of the original playoff plan implemented in 2014 was its emphasis on the importance of conference championships. And although that emphasis has not been as meaningful in the selection process as perhaps had been expected, the Working Group has embraced the concept by recommending AQs for the six top conference champions. This plan is merit-based, it does not confer privilege for privilege’s sake, it does not award conferences playoff spots that may not be deserved simply because the affected conferences constitute a well-known or favored brand. It creates equal opportunity for all FBS conferences; in a true national championship, playoff spots must be earned, not simply awarded. Just as Major League Baseball does not give a privileged position to the American League East, and not to other divisions, simply because the Yankees and the Red Sox are the biggest brands, have and spend the most money, and have had the most recent success, the CFP should not be affording conferences privileged positions based on such factors.
Further, Power Five/Group of Five branding must end; it is arbitrary and harmful to the sport and to the perception of fairness. It diminishes the accomplishments of potential playoff teams. A playoff model that accommodates select conferences based on brand name, before a game is played, would be profoundly damaging to college football and to college athletics generally. It would be a significant regression from the collective progress that has been made, it would be an enormous step in the wrong direction and it would potentially disenfranchise millions of student-athletes, alumni, donors, sponsors and fans. It would lessen credibility from the start and would be even less desirable in principle than the current four-team format.
We are on the clock, and our window is narrowing for an agreement on a plan that could be implemented in 2024 and 2025. And although frustration has intensified, there is still hope. Fortunately, thanks to the efforts of the Working Group, significant and skillful work has been done. As hard as its task clearly was, the Working Group has delivered an excellent proposal that creates a better playoff, a playoff with a solid foundation animated by a spirit of fairness, integrity and equal access, and which enhances the overall health of college football. We strongly support the proposal as originally set forth by the Working Group, which we hope to see implemented as soon as practicality permits.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Aresco
Commissioner
On Behalf of the American Athletic Conference
As NCAA Division I athletics embarks on transformational changes in the coming weeks and months, and as the College Football Playoff (“CFP”) leadership looks to the future, we have a unique opportunity to reshape college football with a modern postseason format that will profoundly enhance the national stature of the sport. Recognizing that the current four-team playoff excludes worthy teams, the CFP Working Group (SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey, Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby, Mountain West Commissioner Craig Thompson, and Notre Dame Athletic Director, Jack Swarbrick) submitted a proposal for a 12-team playoff in June 2021 that is an enormous step in the right direction and remedies the shortcomings that have historically and recently affected FBS postseason football. The proposal is fair, thoughtful, forward-focused, opportunity-embracing, and practical in its approach. In addition to numerous meetings of the CFP Management Committee (the group of ten FBS commissioners and Notre Dame Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick) since June of 2021, each conference and Notre Dame also vetted the Working Group’s proposal with their constituencies, including their student-athletes, over the summer of 2021. This has not been a rushed process. A firm majority, including some “Power 5” commissioners, has consistently favored a 12-team playoff containing the 6–6 model, i.e., the top six conference champions and six at-large teams comprising the field.
The Working Group’s proposal was the product of two years of research, analysis and debate. It was presented after careful examination of many different formats and chosen because it best addresses the longstanding issues while providing a logical and exciting path to a national championship for teams that truly will have earned the right to participate. Notwithstanding the financial benefits inherent in such an expansion, the proposal further adds interest and importance to far more regular-season games and to conference championship games, and, at its core, is grounded in basic tenets of fairness and common sense. Collegiate constituencies, fans, the media and the general public have welcomed this plan. However, in recent months the process has slowed, several obstacles have emerged, and there is considerable doubt that an expanded playoff format can be adopted and implemented as early as the 2024 season, or perhaps at all in the future.
One misconception should be clarified at the outset. The charge given to the CFP Management Committee by the CFP Board of Managers (the ten presidents and chancellors of the FBS conferences and the president of Notre Dame), who are the ultimate decision-makers, was to develop a plan to expand the College Football Playoff in 2026 and beyond, as the current 12-year playoff format expires after the 2025 season. If a plan can be agreed upon by the commissioners and ratified by the Board, the hope is that it can then be implemented before 2026, although logistical issues prevent starting a new plan earlier than the 2024 season. There was never a notion that the commissioners would reach agreement on an expanded playoff for 2024 and 2025 and then start all over in 2026.
In our view, there are two main issues. One is the ACC’s publicly-registered opposition to expanding the playoff at the current time, citing health and safety concerns as well as the uncertainty and instability of the current college sports landscape. The other is a proposal advanced relatively recently by a few conferences for a 5+1 format, which would award automatic qualification (“AQ”) to the five current NCAA autonomy conferences (“A5”), the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Big 12, PAC 12, and which would award one slot to the top-rated so-called Group of Five champion. Other issues include the position of contract bowls, including the Rose Bowl, in an expanded playoff, revenue distribution under a new plan, and the location of first and second-round games (home sites or in bowls), but there is reason to believe these other issues can be successfully addressed.
Let us, therefore, examine these issues. Health and safety has always been and always will be among the major concerns, to which the Working Group gave a great deal of thought and ultimately struck a balance between the goal of greater opportunity and inclusion and the health and well-being of participating student-athletes. While not minimizing an additional game for two teams, in the most likely annual scenario, a team that reaches the national championship game will likely be a top-four team with a bye and will only play one more game than in the current playoff structure. Teams eliminated in the first round will, in fact, play no additional games over the course of their season because their participation in the playoff would be in lieu of a bowl game. In the highly unlikely event that a team that does not receive a bye in the 12-team format plays four playoff games by reaching the championship game (two more than required under the current system), the team or teams with this opportunity would likely firmly embrace it, especially since those teams are likely to be the ones that have been excluded under the current four-team playoff. Those teams would also likely adjust their practice protocols to address health and safety concerns.
Steps can be taken to mitigate wear and tear on the playoff participants, whether more time between games (a 12-day hiatus after the conference championship weekend is being discussed favorably) or possibly addressing how the regular season is structured. For example, eliminating the clock stoppage after each first down, or after incomplete passes, except perhaps during the last two minutes of a game, would eliminate many plays over a season. Other potential solutions could be proposed, and explored, such as the length of summer camps, practice protocols, the season calendar, etc.
As for the turmoil and uncertainty surrounding college sports and NCAA governance, there is no question that issues such as name, image, and likeness (“NIL”), the transfer portal, NCAA divisional governance, the implications of the Alston Supreme Court decision, and the academic calendar - the list goes on - must be addressed. There are two main points to be made here. One, these issues do not bear directly on whether to expand the college football playoff. An expanded playoff is about enhancing opportunity regardless of what the future college sports landscape will look like. Second, these overarching issues will likely be debated long into the future and, in fact, are unlikely to be settled in any meaningful way in the next 15 months or so when the CFP decision-makers will have to reconvene either to develop a new playoff plan for 2026 and beyond, continue with the four-team model or abandon a playoff altogether if an acceptable model cannot be agreed upon.
The ACC has said that it favors an expanded playoff eventually, which suggests that it believes that health and safety concerns can be addressed satisfactorily. The prevailing feeling is that the most likely outcome in 2026 and beyond is a 12-team playoff. The eight-team model that some conferences have supported, which would limit at-large participation, simply does not have enough traction to be a viable alternative. Therefore, if a 12-team playoff is a likely outcome anyway and there is unanimity in favoring expansion down the road, why not try to implement an expanded playoff sooner than later in order to afford deserving teams and their student-athletes the opportunity to play for a national championship? For many, this could be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Why delay it, or, worst case, jeopardize it?
The suggested 5+1 format, the second major obstacle, has received minimal support. On the other hand, the proposed 6-6 model reinforces what should be a cornerstone of the CFP, that every FBS team has equal access to the playoff. Conference champions should seek equal access, not preferred access. A key aspect of the original playoff plan implemented in 2014 was its emphasis on the importance of conference championships. And although that emphasis has not been as meaningful in the selection process as perhaps had been expected, the Working Group has embraced the concept by recommending AQs for the six top conference champions. This plan is merit-based, it does not confer privilege for privilege’s sake, it does not award conferences playoff spots that may not be deserved simply because the affected conferences constitute a well-known or favored brand. It creates equal opportunity for all FBS conferences; in a true national championship, playoff spots must be earned, not simply awarded. Just as Major League Baseball does not give a privileged position to the American League East, and not to other divisions, simply because the Yankees and the Red Sox are the biggest brands, have and spend the most money, and have had the most recent success, the CFP should not be affording conferences privileged positions based on such factors.
Further, Power Five/Group of Five branding must end; it is arbitrary and harmful to the sport and to the perception of fairness. It diminishes the accomplishments of potential playoff teams. A playoff model that accommodates select conferences based on brand name, before a game is played, would be profoundly damaging to college football and to college athletics generally. It would be a significant regression from the collective progress that has been made, it would be an enormous step in the wrong direction and it would potentially disenfranchise millions of student-athletes, alumni, donors, sponsors and fans. It would lessen credibility from the start and would be even less desirable in principle than the current four-team format.
We are on the clock, and our window is narrowing for an agreement on a plan that could be implemented in 2024 and 2025. And although frustration has intensified, there is still hope. Fortunately, thanks to the efforts of the Working Group, significant and skillful work has been done. As hard as its task clearly was, the Working Group has delivered an excellent proposal that creates a better playoff, a playoff with a solid foundation animated by a spirit of fairness, integrity and equal access, and which enhances the overall health of college football. We strongly support the proposal as originally set forth by the Working Group, which we hope to see implemented as soon as practicality permits.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Aresco
Commissioner
On Behalf of the American Athletic Conference
