ESPN ‘socializing’ a 16-team CFP format with four play-in games, per report

College Football Playoff stakeholders are meeting virtually today to further discuss expansion and the second- and third-order effects that come along with it. And while much of the discussion over the past year and change has centered on whether the playoff should expand to 16 or 24 teams, it appears ESPN is floating yet another format for consideration.

According to a report from Ross Dellenger of Yahoo Sports, ESPN is “socializing” a College Football Playoff format that includes 16 teams in the main draw but includes four play-in games for seeds 13-16, effectively expanding the field to 20 teams.

ESPN – the rights-holder of the playoff – is socializing with CFP leaders a 16-team format with four play-in games for the final four spots into the field (seeds 13-16). There is an expectation that it will be discussed during today’s meeting. https://t.co/QXBUJRY8PL

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) August 10, 2026

Per Brandon Marcello of CBS Sports, ESPN shared the format with “a few conference executives last week,” and though it was not on the agenda for Monday’s meeting, it is expected to come up.

The 20-team CFP model — a 16-team field with four “play-in” games — was developed by ESPN and details were shared with a few conference executives last week, sources told @CBSSports over the weekend. It wasn’t on the agenda for today’s meeting as of Sunday but it’s expected to… https://t.co/6P4BCtb3Wh

— Brandon Marcello (@bmarcello) August 10, 2026

At least one conference, however, is already firmly against the newly proposed format. Unsurprisingly, that conference is the Big Ten, which has been adamant about expanding to a 24-team field.

The Big Ten does not support this format, sources tell @YahooSports.

The SEC and Big Ten must agree on a format for it to move forward.

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) August 10, 2026

The news marks the latest chapter of the CFP expansion proxy war between ESPN, the exclusive rightsholder for the sport’s postseason, and the SEC, and Fox, the Big Ten’s lead partner with no postseason inventory to speak of.

The Big Ten and Fox have been staunchly in favor of a 24-team format in order to open up additional CFP inventory for the network to bid on. According to previous reports, ESPN automatically retains any CFP inventory up to a 14-team format, while any expansion beyond that would presumably be brought to the open market. Last month, ESPN’s Paul Finebaum muddied the waters on that reporting by suggesting ESPN retains all CFP inventory up to a 16-team format. If that’s the case, ESPN could see this 16-team bracket with four play-in games as a means of expanding the field without necessarily opening a lane for other networks to get a piece of the playoff.

The proposed format would also allow for conference championship games to remain part of the picture, which would be another boon for ESPN. The network broadcasts the vast majority of conference championship weekend, including the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 championship games. The four play-in games to determine seeds 13-16 would presumably be played the weekend following conference championships, with the first round beginning the weekend after that, the same weekend it currently occupies in the 12-team format.

Of course, without support from the Big Ten, the proposal won’t go anywhere. The SEC and Big Ten need to agree on any change to the CFP format, lest we all stay in this perpetual loop of back-and-forth that ultimately results in the 12-team format continuing because the Power-2 can’t find common ground. The CFP committee has until December of this year to finalize any changes to the format for next season, though ESPN showed a willingness to extend that deadline last year when this same song and dance was playing out.

Much of Monday’s meeting will reportedly center on the television implications of various expansion proposals, including whether additional CFP games can make up for the value lost by potentially eliminating conference championships, how best to handle NFL scheduling conflicts, what to do with Army-Navy, and other expansion-related concerns. Formal discussion about which proposal is best to move forward with, however, is not expected to happen until later this year.