[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Big Ten information. College football fan [@Genetics56](/creator/twitter/Genetics56) on x 16.4K followers Created: 2025-07-13 17:10:03 UTC Comprehensive Overview For the CFP AQ Models (4-4-2-2-1-3; 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2; 4-4-3-3-1-1) vs the 5+11 CFP model. The CFP model for the 5+11 will kill college football. The AQ model makes every conference game mean more. Clear, defined path to the CFP to start the season for every team in the country. X of X posts. See comment below for post X. AQ Based College Football Model - The Benefits Eliminates human decision-making, offers numerous advantages by relying on predefined, objective criteria, such as winning a conference or meeting specific performance metrics, such as winning a play-in game, to determine playoff participants. Objectivity: The system uses clear, measurable rules to select teams, removing subjectivity that arises from human judgment. Every team knows exactly what they must achieve to earn a playoff spot. Transparency: With predefined criteria openly established, the selection process becomes fully transparent. Fans, teams, and coaches can easily understand why a team qualifies or doesn’t, fostering trust in the system. Fairness: Teams are evaluated solely on their performance against the set criteria, not on subjective factors like reputation or media hype. This creates a more equitable opportunity for teams from smaller conferences to compete. Consistency: The qualification standards remain the same year after year, providing a stable framework. Teams can strategize their seasons with a clear understanding of what’s required to make the playoff. Reduced Controversy: Human-based selection processes often spark debates and dissatisfaction, especially when choices seem arbitrary. An AQ system minimizes these disputes by making outcomes straightforward and rule-based. Encourages Competition: Knowing that a playoff berth is guaranteed by meeting specific benchmarks, like winning a conference, motivates teams to perform at their peak throughout the season, rather than coasting on past success. Simplifies the Process: Eliminating the need for a committee to deliberate and vote streamlines the selection process, saving time and reducing the complexity of determining playoff participants. Predictability: Teams and fans can track progress toward qualification as the season unfolds, potentially increasing excitement and engagement by making playoff scenarios more apparent in advance. Removes Bias: Human decision-making can be swayed by conscious or unconscious biases, favoring big-name programs, for example. An AQ system ensures selections are impartial and based purely on results. Focus on Performance: The emphasis shifts entirely to on-field achievements, creating a meritocratic system where success against the criteria is the sole determinant of playoff entry. I now what to go over the different CFP models A comparison between: 4-4-2-2-1-3 4-4-3-1–1-3 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 4-4-3-3-1-1 The 4-4-3-3-1-1 excels in play-in games. All formats can prioritize conference records to boost non-conference quality matchups, with fewer at-large spots enhancing this effect. Here are the four formats with their automatic qualifiers (AQ) and at-large selections for a 16-team playoff: 4-4-2-2-1-3 X Big Ten X SEC X ACC X Big XX X highest-ranked G6 X at-large (one reserved for Notre Dame if ranked high enough) 4-4-3-1-1-3 X Big Ten X SEC X ACC X Big XX if ranked as a top X conference champion (Yormark doesn't want AQ, so don't give him any beyond what is required in the TV agreement) X highest-ranked G6 X at-large (one reserved for Notre Dame if ranked high enough) 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 X Big Ten X SEC XXX Big XX (The .5 is the winner of a Big XX vs. ACC play-in game) XXX ACC (The .5 is the winner of a Big XX vs. ACC play-in game) X highest-ranked G6 X at-large (one reserved for Notre Dame if ranked high enough) 4-4-3-3-1-1 X Big Ten X SEC X ACC X Big XX X highest-ranked G6 X at-large (one reserved for Notre Dame if ranked high enough) Play-In Game Analysis To maximize play-in games, I assume each conference with multiple AQs holds a championship game (1st vs. 2nd), if appropriate, and additional play-in games (3rd vs. 6th, 4th vs. 5th) where applicable, based on conference standings. The G6 spot is awarded to the highest-ranked conference champion. Number of play-in games per format: 4-4-2-2-1-3 Big Ten (4 AQs): Championship (1 vs. 2), X vs. 6, X vs. X = X games SEC (4 AQs): Same as Big Ten = X games ACC (2 AQs): Championship Bye (3 vs. 4) = X game Big XX (2 AQs): Championship Bye (3 vs. 4) = X game G6 (1 AQ): Championship = X game Total = X + X + X + X + X = X play-in games 4-4-3-1-1-3 Big Ten (4 AQs): X games SEC (4 AQs): X games ACC (3 AQs): Championship (1 vs. 2), X vs. X = X games Big XX (1 AQ): Championship (1 vs. 2) = X game G6 (1 AQ): X game Total = X + X + X + X + X = XX play-in games 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 Big Ten (4 AQs): X games SEC (4 AQs): X games ACC (2.5 AQs): Championship (1 vs. 2) = X game Big XX (2.5 AQs): Championship (1 vs. 2) = X game ACC vs. Big XX cross-over play-in (ACC vs. Big 12) = X game G6 (1 AQ): X game Total = X + X + X + X + X + X = XX play-in games 4-4-3-3-1-1 Big Ten (4 AQs): X games SEC (4 AQs): X games ACC (3 AQs): Championship (1 vs. 2), X vs. X = X games Big XX (3 AQs): Championship (1 vs. 2), X vs. X = X games G6 (1 AQ): X game Total = X + X + X + X + X = XX play-in games The 4-4-3-3-1-1 format leads with XX play-in games, followed by 4-4-3-1-1-3 and 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 tied at 10, and 4-4-2-2-1-3 at X. By giving the Big XX and ACC a 3rd AQ spot, it provides a compromise for everyone. It keeps the ACC and Big XX relevant and healthy. Keeps national interest for the sport of college football. And it solves their complaint of being viewed as half as good as the SEC and Big Ten. It also limits the committee's influence on who makes the CFP and puts more control into the hands of teams that can win their way into the CFP on a national level. An option to consider is an AQ model that includes a coefficient. This allows the AQ’s for the Big XX and ACC to be adjusted if they win games in the playoff. Thus, if they win a pre-defined amount of games in the CFP over a specific number of years, they would qualify for a 3rd AQ spot. No conference would lose an AQ spot in this model as the at-large spots would convert to an AQ for either the Big XX or ACC. A College football playoff model of 4-4-2-2-1-3 with an European Soccer Coefficient used. The model begins with the following: X Big Ten schools get an AQ X SEC schools get an AQ X Big XX schools get an AQ X ACC schools get an AQ X G6 school gets an AQ X -at large schools I used X playoff seasons. You can use this model for a combination of X playoffs (year X and year 2) to evaluate the coefficient totals, or do X playoffs, X playoffs, or even X playoffs. For this model, to simplify the example, I added a 5th Big Ten school and a 5th SEC school. In reality, this model could have easily used a 3rd Big XX or ACC school as well. But that isn't what is important for this post. Showing how the model works is what's important. Using the 4-4-2-2-1-3 model, the coefficients are calculated based on wins in a single-elimination tournament: X points for a first-round win X points for a second-round win X points for a third-round win XX points for a championship win. The point totals that can be used for winning a game at each level of the playoff can easily be negotiated among the Power Four Conferences. I used the above point totals to show how this model works. First Round: XX teams → X winners (8 first-round wins, each worth X points). Second Round (Quarterfinals): X teams → X winners (4 second-round wins, each worth X points). Third Round (Semifinals): X teams → X winners (2 third-round wins, each worth X points). Championship: X teams → X winner (1 championship win worth XX points). Points accumulate as teams advance: Lose in First Round: X points. Lose in Second Round: X points (first-round win). Lose in Third Round: X points (2 + 4). Lose in Championship (Runner-up): XX points (2 + X + 8). Win Championship: XX points (2 + X + X + 12). Each year, there are X teams losing in the first round, X in the second, X in the third, X runner-up, and X champion, with XX total points distributed (8 × X + X × X + X × X + X × XX = 60). Conference Representation Each year, the playoff includes: Big Ten: X teams AQ SEC: X teams AQ ACC: X teams AQ Big 12: X teams AQ G6: X team AQ ND: X team AQ At - large: Big Ten At - large: SEC Year X Champion: Big Ten (26 points) Runner-up: SEC (14 points) Lose in Third Round (Semifinals): X Big Ten (6 points), X ACC (6 points) Lose in Second Round (Quarterfinals): X Big Ten (2 each), X SEC (2), X Big XX (2) Lose in First Round: X Big Ten, X SEC, X ACC, X Big 12, X G6, X ND (0 each) Points: Big Ten: XX + X + X × X + X = XX + X + X + X = XX SEC: XX + X + X × X = XX + X = XX ACC: X + X = X Big 12: X + X = X G6: X ND: X Year X Champion: SEC (26 points) Runner-up: Big Ten (14 points) Lose in Third Round: X SEC (6 points), X ACC (6 points) Lose in Second Round: X SEC (2 each), X Big Ten (2), X Big XX (2) Lose in First Round: X SEC, X Big Ten, X ACC, X Big 12, X G6, X ND (0 each) Points:SEC: XX + X + X × X + X = XX + X + X + X = XX Big Ten: XX + X + X × X = XX + X = XX ACC: X + X = X Big 12: X + X = X G6: X ND: X Year X Repeat Year 1: Big Ten: XX SEC: XX ACC: X Big 12: X G6: X ND: X Year X Repeat Year 2: SEC: XX Big Ten: XX ACC: X Big 12: X G6: X ND: X Lose in First Round: X teams each year (e.g., Year 1: X Big Ten + X SEC + X ACC + X Big XX + X G6 + X ND = 8). Lose in Second Round: X teams each year (e.g., Year 1: X Big Ten + X SEC + X Big XX = 4). Lose in Third Round: X teams each year (e.g., Year 1: X Big Ten + X ACC = 2). Finalists: X champion, X runner-up. Total teams per conference match: Big Ten (5), SEC (5), ACC (2), Big XX (2), G6 (1), ND (1). Final Coefficient Totals Big Ten: XXX SEC: XXX ACC: XX Big 12: X G6: X ND: X Therefore, in the next playoff cycle, the ACC would pick up an automatic 3rd AQ and there would be X fewer at-large spot available. In order to pick up an AQ spot, a conference would need to achieve a point total that meets a specific threshold. No conference would be eligible to drop below their AQ volume of X Big Ten, X SEC, X Big 12, X ACC, X G6, X to ND if ranked high enough, and then X at-large if ND is included, X if not. This is a great way to award winning in the playoff by removing an at-large spot to an AQ spot for a conference. This model awards winning and does not hurt you for underperformance. Non-Conference Games and Teams in Contention Conference records should determine playoff chances, not non-conference results, allowing teams to schedule tough non-conference opponents without penalty. All formats can support this by having conferences award AQs based solely on conference standings. At-large selections, however, may still consider overall records. Formats with fewer at-large spots (e.g., 4-4-3-3-1-1 with X at-large) rely more on conference performance, enhancing this criterion. Teams in Contention by November Assuming a 9-game conference schedule ending in late November, I estimate how many teams per conference could vie for AQs by early November (after ~6 conference games). A team with X losses (4-2) might still compete for a top-5 spot: Big Ten/SEC (18 teams each, X AQs): Top X + a few 4-2 teams ~ 8-10 teams ACC (17 teams, 2-3 AQs): Top X ~ 5-7 teams Big XX (16 teams, 1-3 AQs): Top X ~ 5-7 teams Total across conferences (68 teams): 4-4-2-2-1-3: Big Ten (10) + SEC (10) + ACC (5) + Big XX (5) = ~30 teams 4-4-3-1-1-3: Big Ten (10) + SEC (10) + ACC (7) + Big XX (5) = ~32 teams 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2: Big Ten (10) + SEC (10) + ACC (6) + Big XX (6) = ~32 teams 4-4-3-3-1-1: Big Ten (10) + SEC (10) + ACC (7) + Big XX (7) = ~34 teams The 4-4-3-3-1-1 keeps the most teams alive, followed by 4-4-3-1-1-3 and 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2, then 4-4-2-2-1-3. Step 3: Ranking the Formats Combining play-in games (primary criterion), non-conference incentives, and teams in contention: 4-4-3-3-1-1 Play-In Games: XX (highest) Non-Conference: X at-large spot maximizes conference record importance Contention: ~34 teams (highest) Best Reason: Balances access across major conferences while maximizing competitive play-in opportunities. 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 Play-In Games: XX (cross-over adds intrigue) Non-Conference: X at-large spots; still strong conference focus Contention: ~32 teams Best Reason: Innovative cross-over play-in enhances excitement and fairness. 4-4-3-1-1-3 Play-In Games: XX Non-Conference: X at-large spots slightly weaken conference emphasis Contention: ~32 teams Best Reason: Favors stronger conferences (Big Ten, SEC, ACC) while meeting minimum AQ requirements. 4-4-2-2-1-3 Play-In Games: X (lowest) Non-Conference: X at-large spots Contention: ~30 teams (lowest) Best Reason: Simplicity and broad conference representation, though less dynamic. This maximizes play-in games and contention but requires a robust ranking system. Final Ranking and Conclusion Ranking: 4-4-3-3-1-1 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 4-4-3-1-1-3 4-4-2-2-1-3 The CFP 4-4-2-2-1-3 model leads to MORE teams being relevant in the month of November than any other team in the history of college football. Using the 2024 season, XX out of XX (2 conference wins or more) Big Ten schools would have been starting the month of Nov. with a shot at a CFP play-in game. That doesn't decrease fan interest, it INCREASES interest. Using the 2024 season, the Big Ten played XX conference games going into the month of Nov. They played XX conference games by regular season end (not counting conf title game and CFP games). That means XX conf games to be played in the month of Nov.. Thus, the majority of the XX conference games would have a lot of meaning and interest in them by the majority of the fans for teams in the conference. I've researched the data to find out who many teams in the Big Ten would still have a shot at one of the CFP play-in games at the start of Nov for the 2024 season. With X auto spots in the CFP, the top X are automatically into the CFP. That gives us X schools that will compete in the play-in games. But leading up to those play-in games, at the start of Nov., we need to see how many schools had a shot at the play-in games using the 2024 season. I compiled the entire conference's conference record for each Big Ten school from week X to the start of Nov (the last games played in October). The below were the conference records going into Nov. Oregon: 5-0 Indiana: 5-0 Penn State: 4-0 Ohio State: 3-1 Wisconsin: 3-2 Michigan State: 3-2 Illinois: 3-2 Iowa: 3-2 Michigan: 3-2 Minnesota: 3-2 Washington: 2-3 Nebraska: 2-3 USC: 2-4 Essentially out of the play-in race: Purdue: 0-4 Rutgers: 1-4 UCLA: 1-4 Maryland: 1-4 The Big Ten's model of 4-4-2-2-1-3 generates MORE INTEREST IN THE COLLEGE FOOTBALL GAME, not less. Would you prefer a X team CFP format where less than a dozen schools having relevance in the month of Nov or XX out of XX members having the chance to start Nov. with relevance for a chance at a CFP play-in spot with a XX team CFP? EASY CHOICE. If you took the Big Ten's 13, you can basically take ACC having more than XX schools and the SEC having more than XX schools and the Big XX having more than XX schools starting the month of Nov. with a chance at a CFP play-in spot. Out of all of the P4 schools, roughly XX or more schools will start the month of Nov. with relevance for fan interest. Why the 5+11 Playoff Format Isn’t Fair and the 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 Format Is Superior The 5+11 format isn’t fair, it actually does a lot of harm to college football, while the 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 is fair, can generate new revenue with play-in games, provide stability for all conferences, increase fan engagement, and long-term health for the sport. Here’s why. Fairness: The 5+11 Format Risks a Two-Conference Takeover On the surface, the 5+11 format looks fair: five conference champions get in, including a G5 team, and XX spots are open for the best remaining teams. But this setup has a fatal flaw. The Big Ten and SEC, with their massive resources, will scoop up top football brands, such as Clemson and Florida State to dominate the XX at-large spots. Over time, this would turn the playoff into a Big Ten-SEC exclusive club and create an SEC and Big Ten only college football playoff. Data Point: In the 2023 CFP rankings, the SEC and Big Ten had X of the top XX teams. If we increase the at-large spots, most seasons those at-large spots are going to go to the Big Ten and SEC. That would lead to a shrinking of the pool of competitive programs and making the playoff less diverse, the regular season less diverse, and shrink the national appeal to the sport of college football. In the 5+11 CFP format, schools will schedule down and in the AQ models that I have gone over would allow schools to schedule upward in quality non-conference games. In an AQ model you can create scheduling agreements, sell those new package of games to the TV networks to go with the play-in games and potentially extend the existing TV agreements to extract the new media dollars from the new packaged games. In contrast to the 5+11 model, the 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format locks in representation: X Big Ten, X SEC, X Big 12, X ACC, X G5, and spots for Notre Dame and at-large teams. This guarantees a broader mix of conferences, preventing a two-conference monopoly. It’s not just fairer, it’s more competitive from a national inclusion perspective and inclusive. Revenue: The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 Format Brings in Millions More Revenue is the lifeblood of college athletics, especially now with $XXXX million in revenue share expense and the need to fund Olympic sports. The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format is a money-making machine, while the 5+11 format leaves cash on the table. Play-In Games: The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format includes conference play-in games to determine qualifiers. These extra games can be bundled and sold to TV networks, generating millions. For comparison, the NCAA basketball tournament’s First Four games averaged 8-10 million viewers in 2023, showing the revenue potential. Scheduling Agreements: The AQ models can feature a Big Ten-SEC scheduling pact, think Ohio State vs. Alabama in the regular season. These marquee matchups can be sold for big bucks to networks like ESPN or FOX. Lost Opportunity in 5+11: If the SEC doesn’t move forward with a ninth conference game in the 5+11 format, it is leaving $50M to $80M unclaimed dollars annually. That’s money schools need to avoid cutting sports like track and field or swimming. The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format could generate tens of millions more per year, securing athletic departments’ financial future. The 5+11 format? It’s a rejection of that revenue lifeline. Stability: Slowing Down Conference Chaos The 5+11 format fuels chaos by rewarding the Big Ten and SEC for hoarding top teams to lock up at-large spots. Smaller conferences like the ACC and Big XX could collapse as schools jump ship to the Big Ten and SEC in order to gain access to the at-large spots. The biggest downfall of the 5+11 is the loss of more college football rilvarlies as USC vs ND will not continue their rivalry without the AQ model, teams will schedule down with their non-conference games, leading to less fan interest for the sport across the country, it leaves a lot of money untapped, and leads to a lot of propaganda and narratives that get pushed by the media. We can’t have that happen for our sport. College football has to remain healthy and competitive on a national scale with four healthy Power Four Conferences in order to not lose the next generation of college football fans. We lose more college football fans when there is more propaganda pushed by the media and that is what we would get every year with the 5+11 - propaganda and narratives driving fans away. Yes it is true that there could be some seasons where the Big Ten and SEC could have more than X teams into the playoff, but that is looking at the AQ model in the wrong way. The play-in games need to be looked at as playoff games themselves. They are newly created games that can be sold to the TV networks for money and you are essentially creating a conference based playoff leading into a national playoff by winning the games to qualify for the AQ spot. That is what will help grow the sport of college football, keep fans interested, keep more teams relevant throughout a season and every season. We need to make sure all conferences are included. That is why they do it in the NFL and it works for them, it can work for college football. In the NFL you get the division winners and then the other X spots in each conference are AQ’d in based on a season result. There is no committee. College football shouldn’t be using a committee to select who gets to be in the CFP. You should be required to win a game to get into the CFP - an advancement into the playoff, in other words. The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format stabilizes the sport: Guaranteed Spots: By locking in berths for the Big XX (2), ACC (2), and G5 (1), it reduces the desperation for schools in the Big XX and ACC to join the Big Ten or SEC. TV Deals: The Big Ten could use this structure to extend its FOX Sports contract, pulling in new funds to cover revenue sharing and Olympic sports. The SEC could do that with ESPN as well. Stability means a healthier, more balanced sport, not a feeding frenzy that benefits only two conferences. Fan Engagement: Keeping More Teams Relevant Fans drive revenue through tickets, merchandise, and TV ratings. The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format keeps them hooked: More Teams in the Mix: With play-in games, about XX% of Power X fanbases (Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, ACC) have a shot at the playoff going into November. That’s dozens of teams still relevant late in the season. Impact: In 2023, late-season games like TCU vs. Baylor (Big 12) drew 4-5 million viewers when playoff stakes were high. More relevant teams mean more games like that. The 5+11 format kills this: Fewer Contenders: With at-large spots favoring Big Ten/SEC, other teams fall out early, tanking interest. Weaker Schedules: Teams will dodge tough non-conference games (e.g., Alabama vs. Notre Dame) to pad stats for at-large bids, leading to boring matchups, lower attendance, and worse ratings. This hurts future TV deals. The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format keeps the sport buzzing all season long. Olympic Sports: A Moral and Financial Imperative Athletic departments say they need revenue to avoid cutting Olympic sports, yet the 5+11 format rejects the cash the 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format delivers. Imagine telling a gymnast or swimmer their program is axed because leaders picked a less lucrative playoff structure. That’s not just shortsighted, it’s indefensible. Revenue Difference: The $50M-$80M from an SEC ninth game, plus play-in and scheduling revenue, could fund dozens of non-revenue sports annually. The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format protects these programs; the 5+11 format puts them on the chopping block. Countering the “5+11 Is Fairer” Argument Some say the 5+11 format is simpler and ensures the best teams get in. Here’s why that doesn’t hold up: Simplicity vs. Value: Yes, 5+11 is straightforward - five champs, XX at-large. But simplicity isn’t worth sacrificing fairness, revenue, and stability. Best Teams?: The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format still has at-large spots for elite teams, plus play-in games where teams prove it on the field, not through subjective rankings or conference clout. It’s less political, more merit-based. Conclusion: The Smarter Path Forward The 5+11 format might look fair at first glance, but it’s a Trojan horse. It risks a Big Ten-SEC takeover, kills revenue opportunities, destabilizes conferences, and disengages fans. The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format is the real winner: it’s fairer with broader representation, generates millions more, stabilizes the sport, keeps fans invested, and funds the programs schools claim to value. Data backs this up, from TV viewership trends to realignment patterns. Choosing 5+11 isn’t just a mistake, it’s a rejection of college football’s future. The AQ formats (such as the 4+4+2+2+1+1+3) is the way to go. Which CFP model is better for college football? The 4-4-4-2-2-1-3 or 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2? For college football, fan engagement and competitive stakes are vital. The crossover match in the 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 model mirrors successful elements of other sports (e.g., NCAA basketball’s play-ins) and could spotlight ACC/Big XX matchups, enhancing the playoff’s appeal. While it limits committee discretion, it ensures broader conference representation and rewards on-field success. Despite logistical concerns, the added excitement outweighs this for the sport’s growth and viewer interest. XXXXXX engagements  [Post Link](https://x.com/Genetics56/status/1944444222855377038)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Big Ten information. College football fan @Genetics56 on x 16.4K followers
Created: 2025-07-13 17:10:03 UTC
Comprehensive Overview For the CFP AQ Models (4-4-2-2-1-3; 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2; 4-4-3-3-1-1) vs the 5+11 CFP model.
The CFP model for the 5+11 will kill college football. The AQ model makes every conference game mean more. Clear, defined path to the CFP to start the season for every team in the country.
X of X posts. See comment below for post X.
AQ Based College Football Model - The Benefits
Eliminates human decision-making, offers numerous advantages by relying on predefined, objective criteria, such as winning a conference or meeting specific performance metrics, such as winning a play-in game, to determine playoff participants.
Objectivity: The system uses clear, measurable rules to select teams, removing subjectivity that arises from human judgment. Every team knows exactly what they must achieve to earn a playoff spot.
Transparency: With predefined criteria openly established, the selection process becomes fully transparent. Fans, teams, and coaches can easily understand why a team qualifies or doesn’t, fostering trust in the system.
Fairness: Teams are evaluated solely on their performance against the set criteria, not on subjective factors like reputation or media hype. This creates a more equitable opportunity for teams from smaller conferences to compete.
Consistency: The qualification standards remain the same year after year, providing a stable framework. Teams can strategize their seasons with a clear understanding of what’s required to make the playoff.
Reduced Controversy: Human-based selection processes often spark debates and dissatisfaction, especially when choices seem arbitrary. An AQ system minimizes these disputes by making outcomes straightforward and rule-based.
Encourages Competition: Knowing that a playoff berth is guaranteed by meeting specific benchmarks, like winning a conference, motivates teams to perform at their peak throughout the season, rather than coasting on past success.
Simplifies the Process: Eliminating the need for a committee to deliberate and vote streamlines the selection process, saving time and reducing the complexity of determining playoff participants.
Predictability: Teams and fans can track progress toward qualification as the season unfolds, potentially increasing excitement and engagement by making playoff scenarios more apparent in advance.
Removes Bias: Human decision-making can be swayed by conscious or unconscious biases, favoring big-name programs, for example. An AQ system ensures selections are impartial and based purely on results.
Focus on Performance: The emphasis shifts entirely to on-field achievements, creating a meritocratic system where success against the criteria is the sole determinant of playoff entry.
I now what to go over the different CFP models
A comparison between:
4-4-2-2-1-3
4-4-3-1–1-3
4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2
4-4-3-3-1-1
The 4-4-3-3-1-1 excels in play-in games. All formats can prioritize conference records to boost non-conference quality matchups, with fewer at-large spots enhancing this effect.
Here are the four formats with their automatic qualifiers (AQ) and at-large selections for a 16-team playoff:
4-4-2-2-1-3
X Big Ten
X SEC
X ACC
X Big XX
X highest-ranked G6
X at-large (one reserved for Notre Dame if ranked high enough)
4-4-3-1-1-3
X Big Ten
X SEC
X ACC
X Big XX if ranked as a top X conference champion (Yormark doesn't want AQ, so don't give him any beyond what is required in the TV agreement)
X highest-ranked G6
X at-large (one reserved for Notre Dame if ranked high enough)
4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2
X Big Ten
X SEC
XXX Big XX (The .5 is the winner of a Big XX vs. ACC play-in game)
XXX ACC (The .5 is the winner of a Big XX vs. ACC play-in game)
X highest-ranked G6
X at-large (one reserved for Notre Dame if ranked high enough)
4-4-3-3-1-1
X Big Ten
X SEC
X ACC
X Big XX
X highest-ranked G6
X at-large (one reserved for Notre Dame if ranked high enough)
Play-In Game Analysis
To maximize play-in games, I assume each conference with multiple AQs holds a championship game (1st vs. 2nd), if appropriate, and additional play-in games (3rd vs. 6th, 4th vs. 5th) where applicable, based on conference standings.
The G6 spot is awarded to the highest-ranked conference champion.
Number of play-in games per format:
4-4-2-2-1-3
Big Ten (4 AQs): Championship (1 vs. 2), X vs. 6, X vs. X = X games
SEC (4 AQs): Same as Big Ten = X games
ACC (2 AQs): Championship Bye (3 vs. 4) = X game
Big XX (2 AQs): Championship Bye (3 vs. 4) = X game
G6 (1 AQ): Championship = X game
Total = X + X + X + X + X = X play-in games
4-4-3-1-1-3
Big Ten (4 AQs): X games
SEC (4 AQs): X games
ACC (3 AQs): Championship (1 vs. 2), X vs. X = X games
Big XX (1 AQ): Championship (1 vs. 2) = X game
G6 (1 AQ): X game
Total = X + X + X + X + X = XX play-in games
4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2
Big Ten (4 AQs): X games
SEC (4 AQs): X games
ACC (2.5 AQs): Championship (1 vs. 2) = X game
Big XX (2.5 AQs): Championship (1 vs. 2) = X game
ACC vs. Big XX cross-over play-in (ACC vs. Big 12) = X game
G6 (1 AQ): X game
Total = X + X + X + X + X + X = XX play-in games
4-4-3-3-1-1
Big Ten (4 AQs): X games
SEC (4 AQs): X games
ACC (3 AQs): Championship (1 vs. 2), X vs. X = X games
Big XX (3 AQs): Championship (1 vs. 2), X vs. X = X games
G6 (1 AQ): X game
Total = X + X + X + X + X = XX play-in games
The 4-4-3-3-1-1 format leads with XX play-in games, followed by 4-4-3-1-1-3 and 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 tied at 10, and 4-4-2-2-1-3 at X.
By giving the Big XX and ACC a 3rd AQ spot, it provides a compromise for everyone. It keeps the ACC and Big XX relevant and healthy. Keeps national interest for the sport of college football. And it solves their complaint of being viewed as half as good as the SEC and Big Ten. It also limits the committee's influence on who makes the CFP and puts more control into the hands of teams that can win their way into the CFP on a national level.
An option to consider is an AQ model that includes a coefficient. This allows the AQ’s for the Big XX and ACC to be adjusted if they win games in the playoff. Thus, if they win a pre-defined amount of games in the CFP over a specific number of years, they would qualify for a 3rd AQ spot. No conference would lose an AQ spot in this model as the at-large spots would convert to an AQ for either the Big XX or ACC.
A College football playoff model of 4-4-2-2-1-3 with an European Soccer Coefficient used.
The model begins with the following:
X Big Ten schools get an AQ
X SEC schools get an AQ
X Big XX schools get an AQ
X ACC schools get an AQ
X G6 school gets an AQ
X -at large schools
I used X playoff seasons. You can use this model for a combination of X playoffs (year X and year 2) to evaluate the coefficient totals, or do X playoffs, X playoffs, or even X playoffs.
For this model, to simplify the example, I added a 5th Big Ten school and a 5th SEC school. In reality, this model could have easily used a 3rd Big XX or ACC school as well. But that isn't what is important for this post. Showing how the model works is what's important.
Using the 4-4-2-2-1-3 model, the coefficients are calculated based on wins in a single-elimination tournament:
X points for a first-round win
X points for a second-round win
X points for a third-round win
XX points for a championship win.
The point totals that can be used for winning a game at each level of the playoff can easily be negotiated among the Power Four Conferences. I used the above point totals to show how this model works.
First Round: XX teams → X winners (8 first-round wins, each worth X points).
Second Round (Quarterfinals): X teams → X winners (4 second-round wins, each worth X points).
Third Round (Semifinals): X teams → X winners (2 third-round wins, each worth X points).
Championship: X teams → X winner (1 championship win worth XX points).
Points accumulate as teams advance: Lose in First Round: X points.
Lose in Second Round: X points (first-round win).
Lose in Third Round: X points (2 + 4).
Lose in Championship (Runner-up): XX points (2 + X + 8).
Win Championship: XX points (2 + X + X + 12).
Each year, there are X teams losing in the first round, X in the second, X in the third, X runner-up, and X champion, with XX total points distributed (8 × X + X × X + X × X + X × XX = 60).
Conference Representation
Each year, the playoff includes:
Big Ten: X teams AQ
SEC: X teams AQ
ACC: X teams AQ
Big 12: X teams AQ
G6: X team AQ
ND: X team AQ
At - large: Big Ten
At - large: SEC
Year X Champion: Big Ten (26 points)
Runner-up: SEC (14 points)
Lose in Third Round (Semifinals): X Big Ten (6 points), X ACC (6 points)
Lose in Second Round (Quarterfinals): X Big Ten (2 each), X SEC (2), X Big XX (2)
Lose in First Round: X Big Ten, X SEC, X ACC, X Big 12, X G6, X ND (0 each)
Points: Big Ten: XX + X + X × X + X = XX + X + X + X = XX
SEC: XX + X + X × X = XX + X = XX
ACC: X + X = X
Big 12: X + X = X
G6: X
ND: X
Year X Champion: SEC (26 points)
Runner-up: Big Ten (14 points)
Lose in Third Round: X SEC (6 points), X ACC (6 points)
Lose in Second Round: X SEC (2 each), X Big Ten (2), X Big XX (2)
Lose in First Round: X SEC, X Big Ten, X ACC, X Big 12, X G6, X ND (0 each)
Points:SEC: XX + X + X × X + X = XX + X + X + X = XX
Big Ten: XX + X + X × X = XX + X = XX
ACC: X + X = X
Big 12: X + X = X
G6: X
ND: X
Year X Repeat Year 1: Big Ten: XX
SEC: XX
ACC: X
Big 12: X
G6: X
ND: X
Year X Repeat Year 2: SEC: XX
Big Ten: XX
ACC: X
Big 12: X
G6: X
ND: X
Lose in First Round: X teams each year (e.g., Year 1: X Big Ten + X SEC + X ACC + X Big XX + X G6 + X ND = 8).
Lose in Second Round: X teams each year (e.g., Year 1: X Big Ten + X SEC + X Big XX = 4).
Lose in Third Round: X teams each year (e.g., Year 1: X Big Ten + X ACC = 2).
Finalists: X champion, X runner-up.
Total teams per conference match: Big Ten (5), SEC (5), ACC (2), Big XX (2), G6 (1), ND (1).
Final Coefficient Totals
Big Ten: XXX
SEC: XXX
ACC: XX
Big 12: X
G6: X
ND: X
Therefore, in the next playoff cycle, the ACC would pick up an automatic 3rd AQ and there would be X fewer at-large spot available.
In order to pick up an AQ spot, a conference would need to achieve a point total that meets a specific threshold. No conference would be eligible to drop below their AQ volume of X Big Ten, X SEC, X Big 12, X ACC, X G6, X to ND if ranked high enough, and then X at-large if ND is included, X if not.
This is a great way to award winning in the playoff by removing an at-large spot to an AQ spot for a conference.
This model awards winning and does not hurt you for underperformance.
Non-Conference Games and Teams in Contention
Conference records should determine playoff chances, not non-conference results, allowing teams to schedule tough non-conference opponents without penalty. All formats can support this by having conferences award AQs based solely on conference standings. At-large selections, however, may still consider overall records. Formats with fewer at-large spots (e.g., 4-4-3-3-1-1 with X at-large) rely more on conference performance, enhancing this criterion.
Teams in Contention by November
Assuming a 9-game conference schedule ending in late November, I estimate how many teams per conference could vie for AQs by early November (after ~6 conference games). A team with X losses (4-2) might still compete for a top-5 spot:
Big Ten/SEC (18 teams each, X AQs): Top X + a few 4-2 teams ~ 8-10 teams
ACC (17 teams, 2-3 AQs): Top X ~ 5-7 teams
Big XX (16 teams, 1-3 AQs): Top X ~ 5-7 teams
Total across conferences (68 teams):
4-4-2-2-1-3: Big Ten (10) + SEC (10) + ACC (5) + Big XX (5) = ~30 teams
4-4-3-1-1-3: Big Ten (10) + SEC (10) + ACC (7) + Big XX (5) = ~32 teams
4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2: Big Ten (10) + SEC (10) + ACC (6) + Big XX (6) = ~32 teams
4-4-3-3-1-1: Big Ten (10) + SEC (10) + ACC (7) + Big XX (7) = ~34 teams
The 4-4-3-3-1-1 keeps the most teams alive, followed by 4-4-3-1-1-3 and 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2, then 4-4-2-2-1-3.
Step 3: Ranking the Formats
Combining play-in games (primary criterion), non-conference incentives, and teams in contention:
4-4-3-3-1-1
Play-In Games: XX (highest)
Non-Conference: X at-large spot maximizes conference record importance
Contention: ~34 teams (highest)
Best Reason: Balances access across major conferences while maximizing competitive play-in opportunities.
4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2
Play-In Games: XX (cross-over adds intrigue)
Non-Conference: X at-large spots; still strong conference focus
Contention: ~32 teams
Best Reason: Innovative cross-over play-in enhances excitement and fairness.
4-4-3-1-1-3
Play-In Games: XX
Non-Conference: X at-large spots slightly weaken conference emphasis
Contention: ~32 teams
Best Reason: Favors stronger conferences (Big Ten, SEC, ACC) while meeting minimum AQ requirements.
4-4-2-2-1-3
Play-In Games: X (lowest)
Non-Conference: X at-large spots
Contention: ~30 teams (lowest)
Best Reason: Simplicity and broad conference representation, though less dynamic.
This maximizes play-in games and contention but requires a robust ranking system.
Final Ranking and Conclusion Ranking:
4-4-3-3-1-1
4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2
4-4-3-1-1-3
4-4-2-2-1-3
The CFP 4-4-2-2-1-3 model leads to MORE teams being relevant in the month of November than any other team in the history of college football.
Using the 2024 season, XX out of XX (2 conference wins or more) Big Ten schools would have been starting the month of Nov. with a shot at a CFP play-in game.
That doesn't decrease fan interest, it INCREASES interest.
Using the 2024 season, the Big Ten played XX conference games going into the month of Nov. They played XX conference games by regular season end (not counting conf title game and CFP games). That means XX conf games to be played in the month of Nov.. Thus, the majority of the XX conference games would have a lot of meaning and interest in them by the majority of the fans for teams in the conference.
I've researched the data to find out who many teams in the Big Ten would still have a shot at one of the CFP play-in games at the start of Nov for the 2024 season.
With X auto spots in the CFP, the top X are automatically into the CFP. That gives us X schools that will compete in the play-in games. But leading up to those play-in games, at the start of Nov., we need to see how many schools had a shot at the play-in games using the 2024 season.
I compiled the entire conference's conference record for each Big Ten school from week X to the start of Nov (the last games played in October). The below were the conference records going into Nov.
Oregon: 5-0
Indiana: 5-0
Penn State: 4-0
Ohio State: 3-1
Wisconsin: 3-2
Michigan State: 3-2
Illinois: 3-2
Iowa: 3-2
Michigan: 3-2
Minnesota: 3-2
Washington: 2-3
Nebraska: 2-3
USC: 2-4
Essentially out of the play-in race:
Purdue: 0-4
Rutgers: 1-4
UCLA: 1-4
Maryland: 1-4
The Big Ten's model of 4-4-2-2-1-3 generates MORE INTEREST IN THE COLLEGE FOOTBALL GAME, not less.
Would you prefer a X team CFP format where less than a dozen schools having relevance in the month of Nov or XX out of XX members having the chance to start Nov. with relevance for a chance at a CFP play-in spot with a XX team CFP?
EASY CHOICE.
If you took the Big Ten's 13, you can basically take ACC having more than XX schools and the SEC having more than XX schools and the Big XX having more than XX schools starting the month of Nov. with a chance at a CFP play-in spot. Out of all of the P4 schools, roughly XX or more schools will start the month of Nov. with relevance for fan interest.
Why the 5+11 Playoff Format Isn’t Fair and the 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 Format Is Superior
The 5+11 format isn’t fair, it actually does a lot of harm to college football, while the 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 is fair, can generate new revenue with play-in games, provide stability for all conferences, increase fan engagement, and long-term health for the sport.
Here’s why.
Fairness: The 5+11 Format Risks a Two-Conference Takeover
On the surface, the 5+11 format looks fair: five conference champions get in, including a G5 team, and XX spots are open for the best remaining teams.
But this setup has a fatal flaw. The Big Ten and SEC, with their massive resources, will scoop up top football brands, such as Clemson and Florida State to dominate the XX at-large spots. Over time, this would turn the playoff into a Big Ten-SEC exclusive club and create an SEC and Big Ten only college football playoff.
Data Point: In the 2023 CFP rankings, the SEC and Big Ten had X of the top XX teams. If we increase the at-large spots, most seasons those at-large spots are going to go to the Big Ten and SEC. That would lead to a shrinking of the pool of competitive programs and making the playoff less diverse, the regular season less diverse, and shrink the national appeal to the sport of college football.
In the 5+11 CFP format, schools will schedule down and in the AQ models that I have gone over would allow schools to schedule upward in quality non-conference games. In an AQ model you can create scheduling agreements, sell those new package of games to the TV networks to go with the play-in games and potentially extend the existing TV agreements to extract the new media dollars from the new packaged games.
In contrast to the 5+11 model, the 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format locks in representation: X Big Ten, X SEC, X Big 12, X ACC, X G5, and spots for Notre Dame and at-large teams. This guarantees a broader mix of conferences, preventing a two-conference monopoly. It’s not just fairer, it’s more competitive from a national inclusion perspective and inclusive.
Revenue: The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 Format Brings in Millions More
Revenue is the lifeblood of college athletics, especially now with $XXXX million in revenue share expense and the need to fund Olympic sports. The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format is a money-making machine, while the 5+11 format leaves cash on the table.
Play-In Games: The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format includes conference play-in games to determine qualifiers. These extra games can be bundled and sold to TV networks, generating millions. For comparison, the NCAA basketball tournament’s First Four games averaged 8-10 million viewers in 2023, showing the revenue potential.
Scheduling Agreements: The AQ models can feature a Big Ten-SEC scheduling pact, think Ohio State vs. Alabama in the regular season. These marquee matchups can be sold for big bucks to networks like ESPN or FOX.
Lost Opportunity in 5+11: If the SEC doesn’t move forward with a ninth conference game in the 5+11 format, it is leaving $50M to $80M unclaimed dollars annually. That’s money schools need to avoid cutting sports like track and field or swimming.
The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format could generate tens of millions more per year, securing athletic departments’ financial future. The 5+11 format? It’s a rejection of that revenue lifeline.
Stability: Slowing Down Conference Chaos
The 5+11 format fuels chaos by rewarding the Big Ten and SEC for hoarding top teams to lock up at-large spots. Smaller conferences like the ACC and Big XX could collapse as schools jump ship to the Big Ten and SEC in order to gain access to the at-large spots.
The biggest downfall of the 5+11 is the loss of more college football rilvarlies as USC vs ND will not continue their rivalry without the AQ model, teams will schedule down with their non-conference games, leading to less fan interest for the sport across the country, it leaves a lot of money untapped, and leads to a lot of propaganda and narratives that get pushed by the media. We can’t have that happen for our sport. College football has to remain healthy and competitive on a national scale with four healthy Power Four Conferences in order to not lose the next generation of college football fans. We lose more college football fans when there is more propaganda pushed by the media and that is what we would get every year with the 5+11 - propaganda and narratives driving fans away.
Yes it is true that there could be some seasons where the Big Ten and SEC could have more than X teams into the playoff, but that is looking at the AQ model in the wrong way. The play-in games need to be looked at as playoff games themselves. They are newly created games that can be sold to the TV networks for money and you are essentially creating a conference based playoff leading into a national playoff by winning the games to qualify for the AQ spot. That is what will help grow the sport of college football, keep fans interested, keep more teams relevant throughout a season and every season.
We need to make sure all conferences are included. That is why they do it in the NFL and it works for them, it can work for college football. In the NFL you get the division winners and then the other X spots in each conference are AQ’d in based on a season result. There is no committee. College football shouldn’t be using a committee to select who gets to be in the CFP. You should be required to win a game to get into the CFP - an advancement into the playoff, in other words.
The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format stabilizes the sport:
Guaranteed Spots: By locking in berths for the Big XX (2), ACC (2), and G5 (1), it reduces the desperation for schools in the Big XX and ACC to join the Big Ten or SEC.
TV Deals: The Big Ten could use this structure to extend its FOX Sports contract, pulling in new funds to cover revenue sharing and Olympic sports. The SEC could do that with ESPN as well.
Stability means a healthier, more balanced sport, not a feeding frenzy that benefits only two conferences.
Fan Engagement: Keeping More Teams Relevant
Fans drive revenue through tickets, merchandise, and TV ratings. The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format keeps them hooked:
More Teams in the Mix: With play-in games, about XX% of Power X fanbases (Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, ACC) have a shot at the playoff going into November. That’s dozens of teams still relevant late in the season.
Impact: In 2023, late-season games like TCU vs. Baylor (Big 12) drew 4-5 million viewers when playoff stakes were high. More relevant teams mean more games like that.
The 5+11 format kills this:
Fewer Contenders: With at-large spots favoring Big Ten/SEC, other teams fall out early, tanking interest.
Weaker Schedules: Teams will dodge tough non-conference games (e.g., Alabama vs. Notre Dame) to pad stats for at-large bids, leading to boring matchups, lower attendance, and worse ratings. This hurts future TV deals.
The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format keeps the sport buzzing all season long.
Olympic Sports: A Moral and Financial Imperative
Athletic departments say they need revenue to avoid cutting Olympic sports, yet the 5+11 format rejects the cash the 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format delivers. Imagine telling a gymnast or swimmer their program is axed because leaders picked a less lucrative playoff structure. That’s not just shortsighted, it’s indefensible.
Revenue Difference: The $50M-$80M from an SEC ninth game, plus play-in and scheduling revenue, could fund dozens of non-revenue sports annually.
The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format protects these programs; the 5+11 format puts them on the chopping block.
Countering the “5+11 Is Fairer” Argument
Some say the 5+11 format is simpler and ensures the best teams get in. Here’s why that doesn’t hold up:
Simplicity vs. Value: Yes, 5+11 is straightforward - five champs, XX at-large. But simplicity isn’t worth sacrificing fairness, revenue, and stability.
Best Teams?: The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format still has at-large spots for elite teams, plus play-in games where teams prove it on the field, not through subjective rankings or conference clout. It’s less political, more merit-based.
Conclusion: The Smarter Path Forward
The 5+11 format might look fair at first glance, but it’s a Trojan horse. It risks a Big Ten-SEC takeover, kills revenue opportunities, destabilizes conferences, and disengages fans.
The 4+4+2+2+1+1+3 format is the real winner: it’s fairer with broader representation, generates millions more, stabilizes the sport, keeps fans invested, and funds the programs schools claim to value. Data backs this up, from TV viewership trends to realignment patterns.
Choosing 5+11 isn’t just a mistake, it’s a rejection of college football’s future. The AQ formats (such as the 4+4+2+2+1+1+3) is the way to go.
Which CFP model is better for college football? The 4-4-4-2-2-1-3 or 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2?
For college football, fan engagement and competitive stakes are vital. The crossover match in the 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 model mirrors successful elements of other sports (e.g., NCAA basketball’s play-ins) and could spotlight ACC/Big XX matchups, enhancing the playoff’s appeal. While it limits committee discretion, it ensures broader conference representation and rewards on-field success.
Despite logistical concerns, the added excitement outweighs this for the sport’s growth and viewer interest.
XXXXXX engagements
