College Football Coaches Want to End Title Games, CFP Field
The American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) released a set of informal recommendations on Tuesday aimed at reshaping the College Football Playoff (CFP) structure.
The coaches’ group called for the CFP to “maximize” the number of participating teams while completing the postseason by the second Monday in January.
Currently, the CFP concludes on the third Monday of January under the 12‑team format, a schedule that often pushes the national championship into late January.
Next season’s championship game is slated for January 25, the fourth Monday, because New Year’s Day falls later in the week.
To achieve an earlier finish, the AFCA proposes reducing the minimum interval between games from seven days to six.
This change would compress the schedule enough to move the semifinals forward by a week.
The coaches also recommend eliminating conference championship games that are presently held in early December.
Removing those games would free calendar space and help align the playoff timeline with the proposed completion date.
Conference championship games generate significant revenue; the SEC title alone exceeds $50 million and is a cornerstone of its ESPN contract.
Iowa athletic director Beth Goetz noted that the value of these games has been “well north of $50 million” and highlighted the difficulty of weighing financial considerations against scheduling reforms.
Goetz emphasized that the conversation about conference titles has been ongoing and that any decision must consider long‑term implications for the sport.
AFCA executive director Craig Bohl told Veezstream that the goal is to return football to a “one‑semester sport” rather than the current two‑semester model.
Bohl clarified that while the AFCA cannot change CFP rules directly, its members sit on NCAA committees and have influenced past rule changes.
The recommendations do not specify an exact playoff size, leaving the debate over expanding to 16 or 24 teams to conference commissioners.
The AFCA’s statement stresses that future playoff models should “maximize the number of participants while honoring the proposed completion date.”
In addition to schedule adjustments, the coaches support having only one bye week during the regular season instead of two.
This change would preserve competitive balance while still providing necessary rest for student‑athletes.
The FBS oversight committee recently suggested moving the season start to the weekend before Labor Day, creating a consistent 14‑week window for 12 games.
Although that proposal addresses the season’s opening, the AFCA’s focus remains on ending the CFP earlier.
The coaches also expressed support for preserving a dedicated television window for the Army‑Navy Game.
The placement of that marquee rivalry would need to be coordinated with the revised CFP calendar.
A non‑binding presidential executive order aligns with the AFCA’s call to keep the Army‑Navy Game in a separate broadcast slot.
Network executives are concerned about CFP games overlapping with NFL broadcasts, a factor that influences scheduling decisions.
Under Bohl’s leadership, the AFCA has sought to generate public dialogue and represent the interests of coaches and players.
He noted that “commissioners and TV executives are the main stakeholders” and that financial considerations drive many of the current calendar choices.
Television ratings for high‑profile games, such as the Indiana‑Miami matchup, have demonstrated the audience potential of earlier CFP dates.
Bohl argued that moving the championship earlier would better serve coaches, players, and fans by reducing downtime between the season’s end and the title game.
The AFCA’s recommendations arrive as conference commissioners continue to debate playoff expansion and revenue distribution.
While the AFCA lacks formal authority, its influence stems from the presence of its members on key NCAA committees.
Historically, ideas originating from the coaches’ association have transitioned into official NCAA proposals and rule changes.
For example, past adjustments to scholarship limits and practice hour regulations were initially advocated by the AFCA.
The current push reflects broader concerns about athlete welfare, competitive fairness, and the financial ecosystem of college football.
Eliminating conference championship games would impact television contracts, sponsorships, and conference payouts.
Conferences would need to renegotiate deals with broadcasters like ESPN to compensate for the loss of title‑game revenue.
Some analysts suggest that a streamlined playoff could offset revenue losses through higher viewership for earlier semifinal and championship games.
However, concrete financial projections have not been released, and the AFCA’s recommendations remain non‑binding.
Below is a summary of the key scheduling changes proposed by the AFCA:
| Recommendation | Current Standard | Proposed Change |
|---|---|---|
| CFP Completion Date | Third Monday in January | Second Monday in January |
| Minimum Days Between Games | Seven days | Six days |
| Conference Championship Games | Held in early December | Eliminated |
| Regular‑Season Bye Weeks | Two per team | One per team |
Implementing these adjustments would require coordination among the NCAA, conference leadership, and television partners.
The timing of the national championship on January 25 is a direct result of the calendar alignment with New Year’s Day.
When New Year’s Day falls later in the week, the CFP currently schedules a week‑long gap between the quarterfinals and semifinals.
This gap extends the postseason and pushes the title game deeper into January.
By shortening intervals and removing December championship games, the AFCA believes the CFP can be concluded earlier without sacrificing competitive integrity.
Player health considerations also underpin the push for a tighter schedule, as fewer weeks of layoff can reduce the risk of injuries during extended breaks.
Coaches argue that a more compact season aligns better with academic calendars and reduces the period athletes spend away from campus.
The AFCA’s stance reflects a growing trend among coaches to have a larger voice in postseason structuring.
While television networks prioritize ratings and advertising revenue, the coaches emphasize the importance of aligning the sport’s calendar with the student‑athlete experience.
Future discussions will likely focus on how to balance these competing interests while preserving the financial health of conferences.
As the CFP format evolves, the AFCA’s recommendations will serve as a reference point for stakeholders evaluating potential reforms.
The organization’s influence will depend on the willingness of NCAA committees, conference commissioners, and broadcast partners to adopt the suggested changes.
For now, the recommendations remain proposals, but they have already sparked dialogue across the college football landscape.
