On paper, the 5+11 College Football Playoff model sounds fair. Five automatic bids for the power conferences and top Group of Five team, plus 11 at-large spots for the highest-ranked teams? Sounds like a system built for access, right?
Well... maybe not.
Let’s pump the brakes before crowning this the perfect playoff solution. Because if you listen closely—especially to what SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey’s been saying—it’s hard not to wonder if this entire model is just bait. And if the ACC and Big 12 fall for it, it could mean even less access to the Playoff than they had before.
The 5+11 Format Isn’t the Problem—It’s Who Controls It
Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark has been one of the loudest voices championing the 5+11 format. He doubled down again this week, saying it's what fans want and that it's about "earning it on the field." Yormark’s pushing for a system where bids aren’t handed out automatically to second-place teams in power conferences, which sounds fair enough.
But here’s the issue: in a 5+11 setup, if the selection committee is stacked with SEC and Big Ten loyalists (as many suspect it would be), those 11 at-large spots won’t feel very “at-large” to fans in the ACC or Big 12. It would just become an excuse to give more Playoff access to the same usual suspects—SEC teams with two losses and Big Ten teams with inflated résumés.
So while the model looks good on paper, who’s sitting in that room making decisions is everything. If it’s full of people who believe the SEC is in a “different stratosphere,” to quote Sankey, then it’s not really a Playoff—it’s just an invitational with extra steps.
Sankey’s Playing the Long Game
Let’s not pretend Greg Sankey isn’t a master chess player here. He’s already laying the groundwork, calling the SEC schedule a gauntlet unlike anything else in college football. It’s a strategy: he’s positioning the SEC as the conference that deserves more spots, no matter what the record says.
If the SEC goes 9-3 with four teams, but all four losses come within the conference, Sankey wants the committee to say, “Well, it’s the SEC—they’re better than a 12-1 ACC champ" when it comes to seeding. He also wants them to be selected over a 10-2 ACC or Big 12 team that finished second or third in their conference. And unfortunately, that logic could fly under this new format if it lacks guardrails.
That’s why Sankey’s sudden interest in 5+11 should raise some eyebrows. This is the same league that wanted more automatic qualifiers before. Now that they realize they can flood the at-large field without them? Of course they’re pivoting.
Less Access, Not More
Let’s be honest: under the other proposed model, the ACC and Big 12 were guaranteed a seat at the table. That might not be the case anymore. If the committee is SEC/Big Ten-heavy and there’s no protection for the ACC and Big 12, then those leagues will find themselves on the bubble—every single year.
Instead of having two automatic qualifiers, like in the 4-4-2-2-1 proposal, they’d be scrapping for at-large bids while the SEC and Big Ten cash in on multiple playoff checks.
Sure, Yormark says this isn’t an invitational. But if your Playoff model is built on the subjective opinion of a small room of people who think certain conferences “just play a different game,” then it’s hard to argue this is true equity.
Be Careful What You Agree To
The ACC and Big 12 have to be extremely cautious here. Because while 5+11 might sell as the fair and modern solution, it could actually put them in a worse spot long-term. Sankey isn’t pushing this because it hurts the SEC. He’s pushing it because it ensures the SEC keeps control of the postseason narrative, with or without automatic bids.
If the ACC and Big 12 hand over that kind of power without securing fair representation on the selection committee, they’ll be playing someone else’s game with someone else’s rules, which honestly, they already are doing.
And that’s not a Playoff. That’s a power grab.