—
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.
–
—–
One Reply to “What Is Brett Yormark Thinking?”
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.