The Joel Klatt Show: A College Football Podcast - CFP 5+11 Model gains steam... is that good or bad for college football?

Episode Date: June 2, 2025

FOX Sports’ lead College Football analyst Joel Klatt reacts to the growing interest in a 5+11 College Football Playoff model. Klatt reacts to Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark voicing his support for the model and analyzes if this model is even good for the Big 12 or the sport overall. Klatt presents an alternative playoff option that gives the Big 12 and ACC a chance to battle each other for a 3rd CFP spot. Lastly, Klatt lists what he thinks should be the objectives of the College Football Playoff and debates whether the proposed 5+11 model meets his criteria. 0:00-1:49 Intro1:50-5:29 What will the future college football playoff format look like?5:30-7:37 Does the 5+11 CFP format make more sense for the sport?7:38-12:04 What are the disadvantages of the 5+11 CFP format?12:05-15:17 Surprised the Big 12 is In favor of the 5+11 CFP format?15:18-18:09 Should Big 12 and ACC consider a model with “2.5” automatic qualifiers for those 2 conferences?18:10-24:47 Klatt’s Objectives for the CFP24:48-26:52 Should Big 12 and ACC consider a model with “2.5” automatic qualifiers for those 2 conferences? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I'm starting to become very pessimistic. I'm not sensing from some of these groups that they quite grasped or understand what's going on. Truth be told, when I see this and when I hear this, it makes me want to throw up. How in the world is putting this sport in the committee's hands, earning it on the field? Going to a 5-11 model would kill the big 12. It would absolutely kill them. So 5-11 model, fail. It falls short of the other models.

College football has never been better. Interest has never been higher. I believe that we are at the dawn of the golden age of college football. Hey, what's up, everybody? Welcome into the Joel Clatt Show. I am Joel Clatt. This show, as always, is brought to you by Hampton, by Hilton. We thank them for their support.

And a busy off-season continues here in college football. There's a lot going on, including spring meetings. Both the Big 12 and the SEC had their spring meetings during the course of last week. And I want to recap a little of what went on at both of those meetings. They were both actually in Florida, Destin, Florida for the SEC, and then Orlando down in Florida for the Big 12. I was actually in Orlando, had several lengthy conversations. So I want to get into kind of the latest news in terms of what's coming out of these camps and specifically how it relates to the college football playoff. Because I think that's the most relevant news and information that's getting bantered about and thrown around at least here in the off season.

Now, remember, if you have not subscribed to the show on YouTube, please go do so. you can subscribe right there, hit the notification button, and then you can know exactly when new content drops. Leave a comment below there on the YouTube channel. Then wherever you like the social media, we're there. You can find us at Joel Clat Show. You can get all of our content out there on social media. Okay, so let's get into it.

The news from last week, and I wouldn't call it good news, but there's this growing push. And by the way, let me just state by kind of throwing this out there. I'm starting to become very pessimistic about the direction of what some of the leaders in college football want to do with college football. I have been very optimistic. And that is waning. And the reason is is because I'm not sensing from some of these groups that they quite grasp or understand what's going on. So today I want to just kind of outline a little bit of what's going on because the party that is not being considered in all of this is actually you, the fan, which is frustrating.

And we're going to get to that because I know there's been a lot of changes in college football. And I've been a huge proponent of some of them. I've defended others. I've been optimistic about the direction and some of the guardrails that we can have and the structure that we could have in college football in the future. and that's why I've said, I think it could be the dawn of the golden age of college football. And I still believe that. I do think that we're at a major point right now.

And this offseason is a major point. And some of the discussions, for the first time, at least in a long time, have deteriorated some of that faith that I have in some of the entities making some of these decisions. So there was some news, growing news, that the SEC and the Big 12 wanted to kind of change or discuss a different format to the eventual CFP. We're talking about 2026 and beyond.

That was not what we talked about last week. So before we get started on what maybe is the proposed change or what they're throwing out there, I want to just go back and revisit exactly where we kind of left off last week and where are we in college football in terms of the proposal for the 26 college football playoff? The most, I would say, optimistic or relevant. proposal that we've seen is this one that you're seeing if you're watching YouTube and I suggest you go over there just because a lot of this is tough if you're just listening on audio. You've got to see it. But this is the 16 team playoff format and the options that have been bantered about up to this point, which is that the SEC and the Big Ten would get four automatic qualifiers, that they would each get four automatically. The ACC and the Big Ten would get two automatic qualifiers. A group of five would obviously get one. And then the Notre Dame at large spot would have three slots for Notre Dame and or.

three at-large spots. So that's where we left off. What's being now proposed and thrown out there by both conferences that had spring meetings last week, a growing push from the SEC and, unfortunately in this regard, because it's totally against their interest, the Big 12, is a 5 plus 11 model. Okay, so what does that look like? Well, again, go to YouTube and check it out, but we've got the visuals up for you, a 5.5. plus 11 model is this. Each conference in the power four would get an automatic birth.

You'd get an automatic birth for the highest ranked group of five champion. And then you would have 11 spots that were just totally at large, including Notre Dame. If they were to qualify, they would obviously grab one of those at large spots. But then it would be left to what we have seen up until this point in the college football playoff, which is it would be committee driven. Now, truth be told, when I see this and when I hear this, it makes me one. to throw up. I think that this is awful for college football on so many different levels, so many different levels. But before we get there, I do want to kind of touch on what was said

last week and done last week at each of these spring meetings. Let's start with the Big 12 and their commissioner, who I think is a really smart guy. He's done a lot of excellent things with the Big 12. Brett, Your Mark. I do think he's completely off the mark on this one. But this is what he said. He said in talking to our A.Ds, we want to earn it on the field. He said the 5 and 11 might not be ideal for the conference, but it's good for college football. And it's what's fair. He would go on to say the 5 and 11 might not be ideal, like he said, and he says, we don't want any gimmies. We want to earn it on the field. That was the direction of the key stakeholder group, the ADs and the coaches, and I feel very comfortable with that. I feel the same way. And I've been very

outspoken about it. So that was the comment from Brett Yourmark about the 5-11 model, which, like, it doesn't make any sense. Make it make sense. It doesn't. How can you earn it on the field when you're trying to put the, basically, the entire playoff in the boardroom of the college football playoff committee? because actually what the 5 and 11 model does is hurt the sport.

It does not make the sport better. It certainly hurts the Big 12. There's no doubt about it. But because it hurts the Big 12, it also hurts the sport. Because what would be good for college football is if we continue to have more conferences that were relevant. And if we don't, then we'll get basically three things. One, the entire sport's going to be in the boardroom. And it's going to be committee driven.

Who, what fan is desperate to have the college football playoff committee run the sport? What? What? I feel like Magatu. Like, I'm taking crazy pills. Like, is the piano key necktie back in? What's going? I don't get it.

The committee has been terrible for the sport, as well meaning as these folks that have been on the committee have been, the subjectivity of that room and the inconsistency of that room has been. awful for the sport. We're going to lose non-conference games like we've continued to lose during the course of the year. Why? Because it's better just to have an easier schedule and have a better win-loss record because of the boardroom. Right. So in no way is this earning it on the field. In fact, it shocks me that that would be the argument to have an 11 at-large model with the 11 basically picks from the committee. I don't understand that at all. You lose out on the play-in weekend like you would have in the model that I talked about last week, and you would have a massive amount, a massive amount, even more so than what we already experience, a massive amount of politicking and propaganda. And by the way, that started in earnest this week in Destin, Florida. You see, for so many years, the SEC, and rightly so, because they were,

the best conference, they leaned on the fact that they won national championships. So they didn't have to put out a bunch of conference-run propaganda. But because they have not done that, and in particular, lost some high-profile games late in the season last year, they went full propaganda mode at their spring meetings. And as Brandon Marcello tweeted out, they handed out a propaganda packet. This is wild. He said the SEC has shared this packet on its football analytics to consider as the college football playoff format dominates conversations. What was that packet?

It was a packet that read title, a regular season gauntlet. When looking at the leading metrics that factor in the strength of schedule, the conclusion across all of them is clear. No other conference has a regular season as grueling as the SECs. Now, listen, I'm not here to take shots at clearly what was the deepest conference. a year ago. I'm not here to do that. I'm not even going to take shots at the SEC, even though it could be easy to do that. They're a league that refuses to play a ninth conference game. So they play eight conference games. They play cupcakes in November and then they scream at us that their regular season is so much more grueling. Now listen, for some, that is the case,

because in the large conference model, you have imbalances across schedule within conferences. So Florida and Oklahoma played a horrific schedule last year. Georgia played a horrific schedule last year. I'll absolutely give you that. But you can't say that across the board. You just can't. And by the way, is this what we're going to do? Are we going to sit here and just be in full propaganda mode? I, for one, don't want to be in that mode. I would rather us start to define criteria a little bit more clearly for the fan bases, for the players, for the coaches, for everybody involved. Take the sport out of the board room. I'm so tired of the board room. You can't even handle that. Now, the Big Ten did have their spring media days. It was the week prior here in California.

They did not hand out a packet, but I quickly, just with the history of what the SEC has formally argued, I quickly put together a Big Ten propaganda packet, you know, for all of you. And like, this is what it would look like. Jim Harbaugh with a National Championship trophy and Ryan Day with a National Championship trophy. So there's the Big Ten's, you know, their analytics in terms of. their propaganda packet for the 5 and 11 model. So again, you know, like the 511 model makes me want to throw up. It just, it fails on every single level to help drive the sport forward.

It really does. And I'll outline that in a little bit. But first I want to get to this kind of this bet that specifically the Big 12 and the ACC would be making if they started to get behind this model. Again, I think it is absolutely bananas that the Big 12 and their ADs and their coaches would argue for this because they're going to get crushed by this. If you want the sport to continue to coalesce power and only two power conferences, then go to a 5 and 11 model because that's exactly what will happen. Because right now, I believe, like, there's a bit of a fork in the road. And with the

differences in money that and revenue, more specifically, I should say, that is going to clearly take place in distribution between the SEC Big 10 and then the other Power 4 conferences, the ACC and the Big 12, you can, in theory, say that maybe the gap is even going to grow in coming years. And right now, we might be closer to one another than we will be in five years. Now, that's not a guarantee. And maybe they would argue like, no, no, no, we're going to invest and we're going to be even better in the future.

Okay, you know what? That's fine. But think about the gamble. Think about the gamble that putting the sport in the boardroom is for the Big 12 and the ACC. If they're going to take a position that the 511 model, five automatics and 11 at large bids, is better for the sport, then I think more often than not,

we're going to have years like we had last year in which we're, we would have had, I believe it was six teams from the SEC and three teams from the ACC, four teams from the Big Ten. And guess what the Big 12 got? One. They would have gotten one team in last year, even in an expanded 16 team field and even with 11 at-large bids. You go back to 2023.

How many teams would they have gotten in a 5 plus 11 model? One, one team. And yet here we are trying to guarantee them two spots. And they're going to argue for a model where they're going to get one. You see, here's the bet. Over the course of, let's just call it five years, okay? Over the course of five years, I can guarantee these conferences two spots every single year. So they're going to get 10 playoff teams.

By the way, there was that stipulation. There's still three at large bids. There's a chance for a third. There is. Now, it might be unlikely, but there is a chance for a third. But you're guaranteed two. So at a minimum, you're going to get two playoff teams every single year. a model that is 4-4-2-2-1-3.

We go back to that model that we talked about last week, okay? We go to that. Now, what they want is a model that doesn't guarantee them to and that in the last two years would have notched them only one playoff birth. So the bet that Brett Yourmark and the Big 12 stakeholders want to make is that they're going to get more than two teams over a five-year rolling term in a 5 and 11 model? What planet are we living on?

No. That is not the case. It's just not. If they wanted to argue for anything, if they wanted to earn it on the field, they should be arguing for the two model and maybe even a two and a half model. Now, what would that look like?

Now, that would be wild. Joel, let me just kind of discuss a two and a two a half model for the Big 12 and the ACC. If you want to earn it on the field, if you want to take it out of the boardroom and you want the 16 team playoff, then let's go 4-4, 2-5, 2-and-a-half for the ACC and the big 12. Again, go watch YouTube. It's up right here on the screen.

And then one for the group of five and then two at-large spots for Notre Dame and a second at-large team. Now, how do you do two and a half? That sounds crazy. Well, you actually do it quite easily by pitting, like let's just say the fourth or fifth place team in each of the ACC and the Big 12 against each other. Maybe your playing weekend is just against each other and you're going to have five spots total and three of them are going to go to the ACC and two of them, the Big 12 or on any

given year, depending on how those matchups go, on the field, you would get three or two. So you would have two and a half spots. So basically you're saying, hey, between the ACC and the Big 12, we're going to split five at large spots. So that's how you get to two and a half. In that case, you would be guaranteeing yourself at a minimum two spots every year and the potential for a third. Versus arguing for a model that you would only in most years get one? Again, I just, I'm going to read this quote again.

He says, we don't want any gimmies. We want to earn it on the field. How in the world, how in the world is putting this sport in the committee's hands, earning it on the field? And I know that I'm getting kind of like worked up about this. Again, Brett is incredibly smart. He has done so many smart things with the Big 12. In a lot of ways, saved that conference, beat the PAC 12 to the negotiating table with

networks in order to save that conference. He grew that conference. He's made them more relevant. there are a really good conference, a deep conference. Going to a 5-11 model would kill the Big 12. It would absolutely kill them. It would coalesce the power in the SEC and the Big Ten. It would put this on the propaganda machine conveyor belt

where we'd get analytics packet from the SEC telling us how their eight-game conference schedule is so much more difficult than everybody else's nine-game conference schedule. It's just like, again, let's just go to some objectives. here. Let's try to talk about this in more objective terms. Let's bring up this. What should our objectives be in the college football playoff? Okay. So one, I want this sport to be better for the fans. So I've got six things that I think should be taken into account if you're going to fix the college football, change the college football playoff, do anything with the playoff. Okay. So let's call these like

class objectives for the CFP. If we're going to change the CFP, then they've got to, they've got to hit on all of these objectives. Okay, here are the six objectives. Number one, increase fan base engagement. Number two, increase meaningful games. Number three, increase valuable non-conference games in the regular season. Number four, minimize or eliminate the college football playoff committee. Number five, define a clear path to the playoff for everybody in the sport.

And number six, keep more conferences relevant, not less conferences relevant. Those are the objectives. If you do, if you hit on every one of these objectives, then every fan in college football is served to some degree. And if you just put that as a measuring stick and you take a look at all of these models of playoff, the 5 and 11 playoff model fails on every single front on these objectives. Okay, so increase fan base engagement. Well, as I've talked about in some of the previous models that they've thrown out there in the 16 team playoff,

you would increase fan base engagement by increasing the probability that your team is playing meaningful games for the playoff late into the season. Okay, but in the 5-11 model, we're going to have rankings every week. And so we're going to kind of know. So you're going to minimize the teams that feel like they actually have a relevant, defined path towards getting in. and in particular if you play in the quote wrong conference that doesn't have propaganda driven analytics telling you why they're better than everybody else and why they can have four losses and you can only have one. So again, like that's not great for fan base engagement.

Meanwhile, in some of those previous models, I was talking about play in weekends and the opportunity to just finish in the top six in some of your conferences and top four in some of your conferences, which means that even more teams than the six or the four in some of those conferences would be engaged late into November, playing games with meaningful implications on their spot in the standings. Obviously, that would be better. Okay, let's talk about increasing meaningful games. If we had a play-in weekend within conferences or even between conferences, however you wanted to play it out, then basically what you're doing is you're starting play-in games. Those are meaningful games. If we have a 5-11 model, we don't get any of those.

So we miss out on this idea where we would have the third place team in the Big Ten playing the sixth place team of the Big Ten with the right to go to the playoff on the line, earning it on the field, not in a boardroom with the four or five games. Same in the SEC, similar model in the ACC and the Big 12 played on the field. So we would be increasing meaningful games in college football deep into the season into the first week of December. The 5-11 model doesn't do that. fails. So in every other plan in the first two objectives, the other models work, 511 model fail. How about the third one? Increased valuable non-conference games. If this board is solely in the boardroom and the committee is deciding who goes and who doesn't, then we're going to have what has happened in the past, which is ADs and teams are going to

get rid of their valuable non-conference games like Nebraska and Tennessee just did. Why? Why? because it's just more important that you have a win versus who you played. So your strength of schedule in the non-conference isn't really reliable to the committee. They've never shown the reliability of honoring those types of things. They've been all over the map in terms of one year honoring something and the next year, kind of changing the criteria. So we're going to lose valuable non-conference games in the regular season. So 5-11 model, fail.

What about number four? Minimize or eliminate the committee. That's got to be an objective because nobody wants all of this committee-driven drama late into the season, where we're politicking, where we're giving analytics packets. 5-11 model, fail. Define the path is the fifth objective. Define a clear path. Well, in the previous models, we know exactly where we need to get to in the regular season within our conference standings in order to get into a play-in game.

to get to a point where we know we have 60 minutes to go to the college football playoff. I have no idea if it's the committee. We're just sitting there and we're like, well, we hope. We hope. So the fifth objective, 511 model, fail. And then lastly, keep more conferences relevant. This is important for the help of the sport moving forward. It's important that the ACC remain relevant.

It's important that the Big 12 remain relevant. And yet, as I just touched on earlier, if you go 5 and 11, the power will coalesce in the Big 12, or excuse me, the Big 10 and the SEC, those conferences will get more participants into the playoff, not less participants, which means they will generate more revenue, which means they will generate more power, which means that fork in the road and the divide between all the conferences is going to grow. So 511 model, how does that keep more conferences relevant? It doesn't fail. So in every single objective that would make the sport better for the fan, the 5 and 11 model fails. Fails. It falls short of the other models.

So far bad for me to disagree with smart people. And Brett, Your Mark, you are a smart group. But to suggest that the 5 and 11 model is, as you said, good for college football. It's what's fair. don't want gimmies and we want to earn it on the field, I just don't, I don't see, I don't see how that works. I don't see how that works at all. If I were the Big 12 or the ACC,

I would take a 14 team playoff with two guaranteed spots right now. And if you were desperate to move it to 16, like it seems out of maybe the Big 10 and some of these other conferences, then my argument would not be for 11 at large spots, which is going to hurt the Big 12. It would be for two and a half. Okay, give the ACC and the Big 12 five spots, not four. That's how I would approach these negotiations.

But the 5 and 11 model is, if we go down that route, I think it will fail. I think that's about as point blank as I can possibly be. I hope it doesn't. I really hope it doesn't because there are smart people and hopefully. they're listening. I'm glad you're listening because I think that as you can tell with those objectives, if we meet those objectives that I talked about, the sport would be better for you at home. And I ultimately want it to be better for you, the fan, because the fan is what's going to drive all of this in the future. It's nothing else. We have to have interests. We have to have people that

want to be in the stands. We have to have people that want to watch on television in order for any of this to work. So if we drive those people away, if they become tired of all of these arguments and, you know, all of the subjectivity of a boardroom, you know, crowning a champion and the propaganda that it takes to make it to the postseason, you know, I think that we're going to drive people away. And I don't want that. I want college football fans to be well served. And hopefully we have done that and outlined that here. Hey, you can follow us wherever you like to social media. Please do so. I'd love your reaction to this episode because I rarely get this passionate about a topic and and this is one that I felt very strongly about.

So I'd love your reaction to it, whether it's in the comments of the YouTube section and or some of those comments over on social media. You can follow me on social media in the show at Joel Clatt show. You can follow me personally. I'm on X at Joel Clat. And again, make sure to subscribe to that YouTube channel and start the conversation down below because I think it is a good one. What should we do in college football?

If it's up to me, it's definitely not the five of the five. 111 model and hopefully we move away from that and away from that very quickly and very far very soon. All right, we'll be back with more new episodes next week. Thank you for watching. Thank you for listening and have a terrific week, everybody.