Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark did not comment following the latest round of discussions on College Football Playoff expansion, but his previous remarks on the topic remain relevant.
And while Yormark's reported interest in a 24-team field last week seemed to contradict prior support for 16 teams, his approach to the controversial issue has been, in fact, wholly consistent.
The cheat code to Yormark's expansion strategy was revealed last fall by Yormark himself, in willing and meticulous fashion. It was easy to miss, however, because the framework was laid during the Big 12's women's basketball preseason media event in October in Kansas City.
Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark (center) backs CFP expansion models that ensure equal access and no predetermined bids.
"Would I get behind a format that gave us the same amount as the ACC, SEC and Big Ten? I'd be up for that; I'd consider that," Yormark said during a question-and-answer session. "I've always said you have to earn it on the field. Nothing should be predetermined come the beginning of the season.
People are also reading…
"If there was a conversation about a format that gave the four power conferences the same amount of (automatic bids), I'm all ears."
At the time, the CFP expansion conversation was focused on 16 teams. Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti had proposed a format in which both the Big Ten and SEC were assigned four automatic qualifier bids (AQs), the Big 12 and ACC received two, the Group of Five had one and at-large teams accounted for the final three — the so-called 4-4-2-2-1-3 format.
Even though it secured two spots for the Big 12, the plan was a non-starter with Yormark because it codified the Big 12 as inferior to the Big Ten and SEC.
He wasn't alone: ACC commissioner Jim Phillips took the same stance on the AQ proposal; and the SEC's Greg Sankey voiced strong preference for a 16-model based on at-large bids.
Given the staunch resistance, Petitti began crafting proposals for both 24- and 28-team playoff fields in which each Power Four conference was awarded four AQs. A subsequent leak to the media resulted in the fledgling plans to enter the public realm.
Two months later, Yormark was asked about the expansion concepts during his appearance on the stage in Kansas City.
"I want to give our schools a chance, each and every year, to compete at the highest levels in the College Football Playoff," he said. "If we're on equal footing with our colleagues, I'm all in on that conversation."
He did not distinguish between 16, 24 and 28.
His focus was on equal allocation of bids.
Fast forward six months, and the Big Ten's push for the 24-team field generated unexpected support last week during the CFP management committee meetings outside Dallas — even from Yormark.
Why? Because there are no AQs. Every power conference team would be picked by the selection committee on an at-large basis. The Big 12 could send two teams or six teams, depending on how it performed during the season. Same with the ACC, Big Ten and SEC.
In other words, it satisfies Yormark's two non-negotiables: Nothing predetermined; and the Big 12 "on equal footing" with its peers.
That said, don't mistake interest for approval.
The 24-team proposal cannot pass without SEC support and Sankey is, at least for now, opposed. His support remains with the 16-team plan.
Doubling the field size — it would not happen until the 2027 season, at the earliest — seemingly would suit the Big 12, which lags the other power conferences in both access and success across two seasons of the 12-team CFP.
Total CFP participants (2024-25)
– SEC: 8
– Big Ten: 7
– ACC: 3
– Big 12: 2
Total CFP victories (2024-25)
– Big Ten: 11
– SEC: 5
– ACC: 3
– Big 12: 0
But as with everything else for the Big 12 — for all the conferences, in fact — the expansion economics must work.
Increasing the field to 24 teams would add 12 games to the bracket and require a fifth weekend of competition: The Nos. 9-to-24 seeds would play in the opening round, with winners advancing to face the top eight in the second round (i.e., round of 16).
Both for logistical and competitive reasons, conference title games would become obsolete. That hurdle only becomes a boulder if the added game inventory does not generate enough new media revenue to offset the loss of the conference championships.
Last year, Texas Tech's win over BYU in the Big 12 showdown at AT&T Stadium drew 85,519 fans — the largest crowd ever to watch a Power Four championship. What's more, it drew 9 million viewers on ABC; no other Big 12 game in 2025 came close.
Last year, Texas Tech's win over Brigham Young in the Big 12 showdown at AT&T Stadium drew 85,519 fans.
Would opening-round CFP matchups featuring No. 10 BYU vs. No. 23 Illinois and No. 14 Houston vs. No. 19 Virginia, for example, offset the dollars and eyeballs lost with the elimination of the conference championship?
And would a playoff format that effectively guarantees participation for four-loss teams undercut the value of the regular season to the point that it could cost the Big 12 tens of millions annually when the conference negotiates a new media rights agreement in 2029-30?
That, too, is a consideration.
But if the math ultimately checks out — that process will take months, if not the remainder of the calendar year — then expect Yormark to support expansion to 24.
His underlying strategy has been visible all along.
