—
What Is Brett Yormark Thinking?
—
In August, 2022, Brett Yormark was named the fifth-ever Big 12 Commissioner. He took over a decimated conference, one which had just seen its two flagship programs, Texas and Oklahoma, declare their intentions to defect to the SEC.
The Big 12 was in the process of imploding, with its remaining members on the verge of being picked through by other conferences for scraps.
Instead, Yormark, three months after taking office, struck a new media rights deal with ESPN and Fox, out-maneuvering Larry Scott and the Pac-12, helping to set in motion the demise of the west coast Power Five conference.
A victim of Yormark’s dealings at the outset, CU and the other four-corner schools soon became his ally, with Yormark successfully convincing Colorado, Arizona State, Utah and Arizona to join the Big 12.
By almost everyone’s reckoning, Yormark has done an outstanding job of protecting, defending, and expanding the interests of the Big 12.
Until now?
The College Football Playoff discussion has provided football fans with plenty of fodder for discussion this off-season. The 12-team playoff experiment, all of one year old, has already been adjusted for the 2025 campaign.
Last season, the top four conference winners were all afforded a bye, with Big 12 champion Arizona State and Mountain West conference champion Boise State seeded above the likes of Notre Dame, Tennessee and Ohio State.
With all four conference winners – No. 1 Oregon; No. 2 Georgia; No. 3 Boise State; and No. 4 Arizona State – all losing their quarterfinal games, and with the howling from the Power Two conferences, the SEC and Big Ten, the playoff format for the 2025 season has been amended.
In a move which could have been blocked by the lesser conferences, the College Football Playoff will go with straight seeding this fall. Now, there was not a world to be gained by forcing a second year with four byes (the SEC and Big Ten, by previous arrangement, control the playoffs from 2026-29), but the move will most certainly hurt the seeding of the Big 12 champion, ACC champion, and Group of Five champion when the final pairings are announced in December.
(Had there been straight seeding last season, Big 12 champ Arizona State would been have been seeded 11th instead of 4th, and played on the road against No. 6 Ohio State. Boise State would have been No. 9 instead of No. 3, and would have played on the road against No. 8 Indiana).
And for 2026?
The consensus is that the College Football Playoff will jump right past 14 teams, and go to 16.
Two issues remain: 1) How will the teams be selected?; and 2) How will the pairings play out?
The second question would seemingly be the easiest to answer, as March Madness has taught us well that No. 1 plays No. 16; No. 2 plays No. 15; and so on.
Not so fast, say the Power Two. The Big Ten and the SEC not only want to have the majority of teams in the playoff, they want to all but ensure that their champions make it through to the title game, with the top two seeds in a 16-team playoff getting a double bye into the quarterfinals.
In this lopsided playoff scenario, the 13-16 teams would play each other in Dayton-like play-in games. Then 12 of the remaining 14 teams would play each other in Round Two, with the top two seeds not getting into the action until eight other teams had been eliminated. (It gets even more absurd, with the SEC and Big Ten wanting the playoffs to be reseeded after each round, further ensuring a path of least resistance for the conference champions, but that’s a discussion for another day).
The “how the teams will be selected” is the question currently getting the most attention.
Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti is the creator and purveyor of the controversial 4-4-2-2-1-3 model. In a 16-team playoff, the Big Ten and SEC would get four automatic bids, the Big 12 and ACC two each, one for the highest-ranked Group of Six champion, and three at-large bids (with one likely to go to Notre Dame in most seasons).
The plan makes sense for the “Big Two”, with guaranteed spots, plus extra inventory (teams finishing 3-6 would play each other for the final two bids) for the networks to pay for.
But does it make sense for the “Other Two” – the Big 12 and the ACC?
The other option being discussed is the 5+11, with the five-highest ranked conference champions getting in, with the 11 remaining spots being decided on based on merit.
This model, which guarantees the Big 12 nothing, is actually being promoted by its commissioner, Brett Yormark. Yormark admitted it “might not be ideal” for the Big 12 but believes “it’s good for college football, and it’s what’s fair. We don’t want any gimmes. We want to earn it on the field.”
Sounds good, but, as a practical matter, won’t a 5+11 format hurt Yormark’s conference?
Consider the number of appearances in the four-team CFP era (2014-23) for each power conference given post-realignment membership.
SEC: 17
Big Ten: 12
ACC: 7
Big 12: 2 (TCU and Cincinnati)
Or consider the number of Associated Press national championships this century based on current membership:
SEC: 15
Big Ten: 6
ACC: 4
Big 12: 0
You want to win a bar bet? Try this one: What team in the current 16-team Big 12 was the last to win a national championship?
That would be Colorado … and 1990 was a long time ago.
So why would the Big 12 Commissioner be lobbying for a system which works against the interest of its members?
Fox analyst Joel Klatt, a former CU quarterback, believes Yormark’s strategy is misguided.
“I think (Yormark) is a really smart guy — he’s done a lot of excellent things with the Big 12,” Klatt said recently on his YouTube show. “He’s completely off the mark on this one …
“I think it is absolutely bananas that the Big 12 and their ADs (athletic directors) and their coaches would argue for this. Because they’re going to get crushed” by the 5+11 model.
The SEC and its commissioner, Greg Sankey, seem to be leaning more to the 5+11 model, and away from automatic qualifiers.
“(SEC coaches) talked about — I’ll call it a 5-11 model — and our own ability to earn those berths,” Sankey said last week during one of four briefings with reporters. “The question is, why wouldn’t that be fine? Why wouldn’t we do that?”
It’s being argued, by Jon Wilner and others, that Yormark is drawing a line the sand, and that for the Big 12 and ACC to go along with the 4-4-2-2-1-3 model would be to admit defeat, to admit that the “Other Two” are lesser conferences than the Big Ten and SEC.
This just in … The “Other Two” are lesser conferences. Just check out the media contracts … the recruiting rankings … how the House settlement will influence the future of the sport.
If the 5+11 model is adopted, the Big 12 may only get one participant in the tournament. With straight seedings, the Big 12 champion will often be on the road for the first of four (and perhaps five) games on its path to a national title, while the Big Ten and SEC champions will only have to play three games, the first at home.
Brett Yormark boldly stated, “We don’t want any gimmes. We want to earn it on the field”.
If he gets what he is lobbying for – the 5+11 model – Big 12 teams will certainly be given no gimmes … and may not ever win another national championship.
–
—–
2 Replies to “What Is Brett Yormark Thinking?”
First, I hate the double-bye play-in concept. That is just BS. Klatt’s 2.5 formula could be a good one.
Second, for whatever reason, I think eventually the tides will change and the B12 given it’s footprint and ACC may become more competitive. I think equal scheduling, detailed below would level the field for the up and comers. Although the B1G/ACC has teams from the West Coast, the SEC snagged UT, AtM, and OU, the ACC (Florida is fertile recruiting ground) as is the B-12 (Texas). I think regionally, it will slowly turn around.
Third, the B-12, ACC and G-5 should have held out for 2 things:
1. You win your conference and you get a home game. Sorry that some $$ may could left on the table if played at a smaller stadium or fans annoyed by the blue turf, but via current seeding the SEC and B1G corners the market on home games. Therefore, make those teams travel to give the underdog a puncher’s chance.
2. Compete with equal scheduling. Require 10 P-4 games for ND and the P-4. Financially, the SEC is TV richer with a 9 game schedule. But if they go 8, others should go to 8. ND can do what it does. The G-5 may go to 7 and play two TBD games against the best G-5’s. See below.
This is the crazy idea for somewhat equal scheduling. One thing that I hate, it that teams from certain conferences have pre-made bones in the pre-season rankings (just call this bias) which is hard to overcome; and teams without bones in the pre-season rankings just have a ton of ground to make up. They go from unranked, to getting votes, to 20’s then maybe to 15, but it is harder to go much higher. In the B1G (i.e. Indiana) or SEC (i.e. Tenn) it seems easier to climb the ladder. If one conference has 8 games with 3-4 gimmes, that is not fair. Similarly, many B1G teams have 9 conference games scheduling 3 gimmes, so is not all that fair either; as we know that conference is very top heavy.
For the P-4, I think the scheduling only works fairly is if each conference plays the same # of difficult games, with 10 games being/looking “competitive.” I’m sort of for 8 conference games, if the conferences agreed to have play one P-4 OCC game (they sprinkle some of these throughout the season, but mostly weeks 1-5, such there is always a great game on the schedule), and then a 9th inter-conference pre-playoff type game. This could occur week 9 or 10. The P-4’s will have one P-4 OOC game + an inter-conference playoff playing an 8 conference game schedule. If they need to, move the season back a week as teams already play in week 0 anyways. Make that week count.
It seems like the B1G and SEC are still somewhat adjoined at the hip, as are the ACC and B12. Schedule a late season bye week, then have #1 B1G play #1 SEC; 2’s v. 2’s; 3’s v. 3’s etc… Do the same thing for the ACC and B12 then finish out the conference season. IMO, perhaps Indiana may have been exposed. Some of these pre-playoff games could be epic games for the fans/TV revenue (isn’t this what is driving the bus?). I find it appealing to see different teams playing each other that may not normally play (CU Big12#2 v. Clemson ACC#2), and the game results could break apart the rankings–it could alleviate the pre-season ranking bias. I don’t think a #1 ACC v. #1 B12 would drop either team out of the playoff picture, but 3 v. 3. to 6 v. 6 games could shake things up rendering a larger pool of playoff contenders. Make ND or any ranked P-4 independent participate in this. I think this system would yield more complete resumes for contending playoff teams and provide more opportunity for bubble teams, to get off the bubble.
For the G-5 they could do something similar. In jumping rankings, most all of their games do not really move the needle unless there is an upset. Thus, I would like a 7 game regular season with two G-5’s best of the best play in two inter-conference games (they seed the teams using the rankings, so more conferences are in play) and it can be a boon for them–a G-5 wins both I-C games they should get a substantial bump.
The NBA already has an in-season tournament, so this is not totally bizarre. Food for thought.
Klatt’s 4+4+2.5+2.5 model is better, but who really knows… the cards are so stacked against the ACC and Big XII they have no leverage. 5+11 only makes sense as a long play if enough programs start doing what Texas Tech (and Oregon) do, which is find a sugar daddy with $$$. Of course, as soon as CU tried to do that there would be unanimous backlash and severe regulations put into place. Of course, there is this wrinkle:
Big Ten athletic directors on Wednesday discussed the potential College Football Playoff model that would include five automatic bids for conference champions and 11 at-large bids, but many in the group said they would not support such a model if the SEC remains at eight conference games, sources told Yahoo Sports.