Why the 5+11 CFP format fails to meet objectives fans should want

I’m starting to feel very pessimistic about what some of the leaders in college football want to do with the sport. My optimism surrounding the future of college football is waning because I’m not sensing from some of these groups that they understand what’s going on, and they’re not considering you — the fans.

In case you missed it, the discussion surrounding the College Football Playoff expansion took another turn this week. There was some momentum behind the push for a 16-team CFP with a format that features the five-highest-ranked conference champions getting an automatic bid, while the 11 remaining spots would be at-large bids (5+11 model). 

Last week, I shared my thoughts on which direction the CFP should go with expansion. While I’d prefer a 14-team CFP over a 16-team one, it seems evident that it will be expanded to 16 teams. In that scenario, I’d like to see a format with the Big Ten and SEC each getting four automatic qualifying spots, the ACC and Big 12 both getting two automatic qualifying spots, an automatic bid for the highest-ranked Group of 5 champion and three at-large bids/Notre Dame.

However, the recent push for the 5+11 model picked up steam at the Big 12 and SEC conference meetings last week. Frankly, it’s awful for college football on so many different levels. 

I have a ton of respect for Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark, and I think he’s a smart guy, but I also disagreed with him when he co-signed the 5+11 model while speaking with reporters last week. 

"In talking to our [athletic directors] and coaches … the 5+11 model might not be ideal for the conference, but it’s good for college football and it’s what’s fair," Yormark said. "We don’t want any gimmes. We want to earn it on the field. That was