The SEC wants $100 million in championship game revenue replaced before agreeing to a larger College Football Playoff. UNLV could win the Mountain West and still have to wait for somebody to decide whether it deserves a place.
The playoff doubles, the television package grows and the G6 gets the same one guaranteed spot. The SEC wants its lost revenue covered before signing off. UNLV still would not have a guaranteed berth for winning the Mountain West. What are we doing here?
A playoff this large should include every eligible conference champion. That would mean 10 champions and 14 at-large selections. The committee can seed them however their seasons warrant, award byes and home games to the strongest teams and send everybody else on the road. UNLV would have to win the Mountain West to qualify automatically. If the Rebels fell short, they could pursue an at-large bid alongside everyone else. Fans would understand the requirements before buying a ticket. Coaches could explain them to recruits. Players would know what winning their conference earns.
Instead, the proposed expansion would preserve a system in which a Mountain West championship might leave UNLV behind a team that finished well down the standings in another league. The committee could decide that team’s schedule makes it more deserving. There would be 14 at-large places available in a tournament that included all 10 champions. That should be enough room to reward strong schedules without excluding entire conferences.
Reporting has differed on the precise format under consideration for 2027. A September report published by Reuters described 23 selections plus one guaranteed G6 berth. Pete Nakos reported Thursday that the field would include 19 at-large bids, the Power Four champions and the top G6 champion. Expansion remains subject to final approval. Both versions leave the Mountain West, American, Pac-12, Sun Belt, MAC and Conference USA sharing one protected place. Additional G6 teams could qualify through at-large selections, but no individual conference would have an automatic berth.
The distinction is significant for UNLV. Winning the Mountain West would settle its standing within the conference. Its national opportunity could still depend on comparisons with teams whose schedules and resources look nothing like its own. The NCAA basketball tournament already accommodates that difference. Conferences receive automatic access, and stronger leagues earn additional selections. Nobody needs to believe every automatic qualifier is equally capable of winning six games to appreciate why those teams belong.
The bracket should work similarly to the FCS playoff: 24 teams and eight first-round byes. But qualification should follow the NCAA tournament: all eligible conference champions, then at-large selections. Copying a bracket while leaving most champions outside misses the point. A difficult road assignment would be fair. A low seed would be fair. Being told a conference championship is insufficient for entry into a 24-team tournament is a much harder argument to accept.
The people making these decisions have been explicit about what they need protected. Nakos reported that SEC commissioner Greg Sankey wants approximately $100 million associated with the SEC championship game replaced. Conferences collectively were seeking roughly $200 million to $250 million annually to compensate for eliminating their title games, which would likely disappear under expansion.
Sankey represents SEC schools. Of course he wants to protect their revenue. The G6 commissioners should represent their schools with the same determination, starting with a demand that every eligible conference champion qualifies. If replacing a championship game’s television value can be a condition of expansion, guaranteeing the champion a playoff berth can be one, too.
Accepting one shared guarantee would mean asking G6 schools to keep investing in football while leaving their most important postseason opportunity dependent on a national ranking. Their commissioners should have to explain why that is an acceptable outcome. The Big Ten and SEC have final say over format changes, according to September reporting published by Reuters. Those conferences would help determine how many opportunities their own members receive and how the rest of the sport qualifies.
“It’s clear that the expanded playoff has definitely helped us,” Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti said during a September appearance on Andy & Ari. His conference’s earlier expansion document also argued for an “appropriate safety net” for teams adjusting to roster changes after early losses. That February proposal was an earlier version of the discussion. But the appeal is easy to understand: More bids give a power-conference team additional room to lose and recover.
UNLV could benefit from that flexibility. The Rebels finished No. 24 in the final 2024 CFP rankings after losing to Boise State in the Mountain West championship game. A larger field would have made their at-large argument more relevant, although their old ranking cannot establish qualification under different rules. But the scheduling discussion makes it dangerous to assume expansion would improve everything around that argument.
September reporting described Sankey seeking a requirement that Power Four schools play 10 games against power-conference opponents or Notre Dame. Adopted in that form, the requirement could reduce available dates for G6 opponents. Why would a power-conference school risk its playoff résumé against a top G6 team when it can use a remaining date on somebody easier?
Whether it is Boise State, JMU, UNLV, Memphis, UNT or Oregon State, the problem is the same. Those programs can beat you. Oregon State was a power-conference opponent before realignment. Now beating the Beavers could be treated differently because of a label they did not choose. Beat one of those teams, and how much credit do you get? Lose, and how quickly does the discussion become about losing to a G6 school? An athletic director trying to protect a playoff résumé has every reason to ask those questions before signing.
Some power-conference schools would continue scheduling those opponents. But fewer openings could make finding those games harder, particularly for programs capable of winning them. UNLV can offer dates and negotiate terms. It cannot force another athletic director to sign. Becoming a better opponent could make the Rebels a less attractive choice for somebody seeking a manageable nonconference game. Then selection arrives, and UNLV has to defend the strength of a schedule it needed other schools to help build.
There are financial consequences, too. Paid road games can provide meaningful revenue for G6 programs. Losing those opportunities would affect schools differently, but fewer resources would make competing with wealthier opponents harder. That would reach the people doing the recruiting and building rosters. An automatic berth gives a coach something definite to offer: Help us win this conference, and we will play for the national championship. Committee consideration is a much less convincing promise.
Fans and donors face a similar question. If the program needs another investment to compete, what would success buy? A championship should provide a concrete answer. This is how you kill G6 football over time. Make the good programs harder to schedule, reduce their opportunities to earn money and tell their champions to wait for a ranking. Then question whether they have the resources and résumés to compete.
The likely removal of conference title games would take away another opportunity to improve a résumé. Reporting also describes a week off after the regular season, with Army-Navy potentially moving there, and eight campus games in each of the first two playoff rounds. For UNLV, conference championship games have already carried enormous stakes. Removing them without guaranteeing access for the conference champion would leave more resting on the regular-season schedule and the committee’s evaluation. Meanwhile, the biggest leagues would have more playoff places available and would be negotiating compensation for the games they surrendered.
The greed is in demanding protection for the biggest conferences while expecting everybody else to accept the leftovers. G6 commissioners who agree to that should have to explain what they secured for their schools beyond a larger tournament with the same shared guarantee.
The argument against automatic berths usually reaches the same place: Some champions would not be good enough. They might draw an elite opponent and lose badly. Some at-large teams would lose badly, too. A tournament cannot promise competitive games. It can establish fair qualification rules and let the results determine who advances.
Nobody is asking the committee to give UNLV a favorable matchup because it won the Mountain West. If the Rebels belong near the bottom of the bracket, put them there. Make them win on the road. But give them a qualification route they can pursue by beating the teams in their conference. Leave the remaining bids for teams with strong national résumés, including G6 programs that do not win their leagues.
UNLV fans should be able to celebrate a Mountain West championship knowing their team gets another game with national stakes. They should not have to immediately check whether a different conference’s fifth-place team has a stronger argument. Ten conference champions and 14 at-large selections would give the sport room for both. College football does not need another expansion that makes its richest conferences more secure while everybody else waits for permission.
See something that needs correcting? Report a correction.