How do you boil a frog?
Slowly.
How do you create a gap, or maybe even a super league, without really creating one?
Also slowly.
That is what is happening in college football right now. Not with one swift announcement … but year by year, format by format and negotiation by negotiation, the College Football Playoff is changing in ways that narrow the path for the Group of Six.
Look at what has happened since the CFP expanded to 12 teams in 2024.
Boise State hosting a playoff game?
Poof. Gone the next year.
Tulane and James Madison both making the College Football Playoff?
Rules implemented, won’t happen again.
The ACC being shut out?
Uh, let’s just look at this expansion thing a little bit more closely now.
A few Group of Six programs are still good enough to make people uncomfortable?
Yeah, expansion, but make it to where only one comes from outside the power leagues.
The “Imperial Four” have spent the last couple of seasons methodically rewriting the College Football Playoff rulebook. Not always to expand opportunity, but to protect access, revenue, and positioning for the schools already sitting at the front of the line.
That is why the idea of a Group of Six playoff suddenly feels less like a wild concept and more like an eventual response.
The truth is, it is not new.
It just has more momentum now.
American Conference commissioner Tim Pernetti helped bring the conversation back into the open during an appearance on The Big Mountain podcast.
“There is demand for more postseason football,” Pernetti said. “You have five conference champions that are not going to the playoff. How do we create a new enterprise that complements the CFP? Maybe we play on Tuesday and Wednesday, leading into Thursday. There’s a gap there from Sunday NFL, Monday Night Football, Group of 6 playoff, Group of 6 playoff, CFP, CFP, back to the NFL. You could create the greatest gauntlet for a football fan ever seen in life by doing something like that.”
This is not just about hurt feelings or wanting a trophy. It is about access, money, and inventory.
The CFP will remain at 12 teams in 2026 because the Big Ten and SEC could not agree on an expanded format before the TV deadline. The SEC has been tied to a 16-team preference, while the Big Ten, Big 12, and ACC have been connected to a 24-team model.
Whenever it lands, the answer is clear … more games and more money.
And likely, more power-conference access.
For those keeping track at home, the MOU signed for the current CFP, the Group of Six refers to the FBS leagues outside the Power 4: The American, Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt, and the rebuilt Pac-12. The P4 doesn’t look or want to share any more of that pie.
According to those involved in 2024, the then G5 leaders were largely focused on securing a guaranteed spot while also pushing back on proposed financial changes. At the same time, the Big Ten and SEC were throwing their weight around after another wave of realignment, eventually securing 58 percent of CFP revenue for themselves starting in 2026-2027.
The SEC and Big Ten presented terms that some mid-major leaders found vague, and the remaining conferences had to make major decisions within a tight window. The MOU was signed in spring 2024, before the first 12-team Playoff had even been played.
The Group of Six agreed to a structure before anyone had seen how the expanded Playoff would or could actually work. Now, the sport has seen its first version. The next version is already being reshaped. And the version after that may be even less favorable.
That is why the Group of Six playoff conversation is not going away.
It also fits the larger postseason reality across college athletics.
The NCAA men’s basketball tournament is expected to expand from 68 to 76 teams starting with the 2026-27 season, with the move expected to bring in more than $300 million in new media rights revenue over the next six years. The expansion adds eight teams and 12 total games to the opening rounds, and it is heavily driven by the financial need to cover costs tied to the House vs. NCAA settlement.
Money talks.
Dan Gavitt, the NCAA’s senior vice president of basketball, acknowledged the importance of the new revenue deal.
“I would say that expansion would not have happened without that agreement,” Gavitt said.
That is the model. Add games. Create inventory. Sell the inventory. Use the money to help cover new expenses.
College football is no different.
In speaking with athletic directors and commissioners across the country, the term “revenue share” really applies cleanly to a handful of schools. For many others, it is simply a new expense line item. Some call it “revenue distribution.” Others call it “shared money.” Others call it a few things that aren’t appropriate for writing. Either way, the math still has to work.
And that is where a Group of Six playoff becomes more than an idea.
As one Group of Six athletic director put it, “The money needs and most likely will be there if we create a Group of Six playoff. Bowl games are nice, fun, but most are just there to break even at best. In an era where we need all the help we can get, we will go to where the money is. And if that’s a Group of Six playoff, sign us up.”
That is the part that should worry the traditional bowl system.
Bowl games still carry value. They give teams extra practices, reward players, and provide television content. But for many schools, the financial upside is limited. If a new postseason model can provide better access, better storytelling, and better revenue, the market will eventually push schools in that direction.
And again, this idea has been around for years.
As Colton Pool noted, Northern Illinois athletic director Sean Frazier reportedly discussed a G5 playoff back in 2017. He also discussed an NIT-style tournament for FBS teams that do not make the College Football Playoff.
Even go back to Pernetti’s introductory press conference as American Conference commissioner. He said the league was open to “maverick postseason models.”
That phrase looks a lot more relevant now.
But if the CFP access point keeps shifting, the leagues may need a bigger answer.
A Group of Six playoff would not replace the College Football Playoff. At least not at first. It would likely be positioned as a complementary postseason property, built around conference champions (maybe) and high-end G6 brands that still have national relevance.
And honestly, that might be the smarter play.
As long as a true super league is not formed, there will probably always be some landing spot for a Group of Six school in the national postseason structure. But the divide is growing. The money is separating. The access is tightening. The incentives are changing.
Years from now, maybe a Group of Six playoff even expands to include leading FCS conference champions.
Ahem.
We can leave that conversation for another day.
For now, the point is simple.
The Group of Six playoff is not some brand-new idea pulled out of the air. It has been discussed for years. What changed is the environment around it.
The CFP is moving. The power conferences are pushing their agendas. Men’s basketball is expanding. Revenue sharing is adding costs. Bowl games are fighting for relevance. Television still wants live sports inventory.
So yes, the Group of Six playoff has momentum.
Not because everyone suddenly woke up and wanted a new bracket.
Because the sport has been slowly building toward this moment the entire time.
