Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark has re-ignited the debate over the expansion of the College Football Playoff and how it should be structured. He leaned into his preferred format choice just a few minutes into his opening address at the conference football media day event.

What format is the Big 12 proposing?

Yormark said, “5-11 is fair,” adding, “We want to earn it on the field. It might not be the best solution today for the Big 12, but long term, knowing the progress we’re making, the investments we’re making, it’s the right format for us. And I’m doubling down today on 5-11.”

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

The term “5-11” refers to a format with five automatic bids for conference champions and 11 at-large bids, filling out what would be a 16-team playoff field starting with the 2026 season. The Big 12 and ACC are the two conferences proposing this format in an attempt to head off what the Big Ten and the SEC believe is the best solution.

The Big Ten and the SEC hold the most sway in expansion talks, and they want to see four automatic qualifiers earn bids from each of their leagues, along with two each from the Big 12 and the ACC. Adding Notre Dame as an automatic would leave just three at-large bids in that scenario.

The initial 12-team playoff kicked off in 2024 and ended four weeks later with the National Championship game between Ohio State and Notre Dame. Ohio State won the title, 34-23. The format featured four teams that earned first-round byes after winning their conference championships. All four teams lost their first matchups in the playoffs.

What do some of the coaches think about expansion?

During the Big 12 media interview sessions, Kansas State head coach Chris Klieman didn’t have an opinion on how the playoff should be set up going forward but brought up another expansion concern.

The wear and tear on the athletes is real,” Klieman said. “I don’t think we help that at all by knocking the roster size down. I don’t think that was a good move at all, but that’s control what you can control. So, that’s going to be a concern when you have fewer players playing that amount of games. But I’m excited about what I was able to watch last year of the playoff and the potential expansion here in another year.”

The Big 12 Conference had only one representative — league champion Arizona State — in the inaugural playoff last year. The Sun Devils lost to Texas in the quarterfinals in double overtime. Yormark said that reaching a point where several teams are in the discussion each year is how his conference can maximize whatever format the new playoff may take.

“I think parity matters, and I think ultimately over time, and it’s hopefully sooner than later, there’ll be a couple of our schools that will emerge as elite schools that are always part of the conversations at the highest levels, and that’s what we’re working towards,” Yormark said. “But it starts with parity and being competitive top to bottom. And I think we’re there.”

The conference opens play with a rivalry game on Saturday, August 23, between Kansas State and Iowa State in Dublin, Ireland.

What are the next steps in the expansion process?

Yormark believes the Big 12 is the “deepest conference in America” and said that in addition to schedule strength, “new metrics” will be added to the selection process to ensure fairness.

“I have a lot of faith in the selection process,” Yormark said. “They are doing a full audit to figure out how they can modernize and contemporize and how they use data and how certain metrics can be more heavily weighted.”

He also said he was confident conference commissioners will eventually settle on the 5-11 model. They have until December of this year to decide which 16-team format to adopt.

Offseason movement has slowed in college basketball with the calendar turning to June. That said, next season’s cycle of the portal already apparently has a big name set to be in it.

Princeton’s Caden Pierce is to be a very early entry into next spring’s cycle for the NCAA Transfer Portal. That’s according to reporting today by ESPN’s Jeff Borzello that Pierce will be redshirting this upcoming season to preserve his final year of eligibility to now spend playing for a new program.

“NEWS: Princeton star Caden Pierce, the 2023-24 Ivy League Player of the Year, plans to redshirt next season in order to finish his degree before entering the transfer portal and playing his final season elsewhere in 2026-27, he told ESPN,” Borzello tweeted out this afternoon.

Pierce, a native of Glen Ellyn, Illinois, has spent the past three seasons playing for Princeton with 90 appearances made as a full-time starter for the Tigers. In that career in New Jersey, Pierce has averaged 11.9 points (48.7% FG, 32.7% 3PT on 1.0 makes), 7.9 rebounds, 2.5 assists, and 1.0 steals per game, which made him the team’s leading rebounder in every year he had there and second-leading scorer in each of the past two.

Pierce developed from being Ivy League Rookie of the Year to being selected each of the past two years as All-Ivy. That included being Ivy League Player of the Year and First Team All-Ivy as a sophomore when he posted his career-best numbers of 16.6 points (54.6% FG, 34.2% 3PT), 9.2 rebounds, 3.2 assists, and 1.2 steals per game.

Over his three years in the program, Princeton went 66-25 (.725), including 30-10 in conference play to win three conference titles, two regular-season ones and one league tournament, in the Ivy. That led to one appearance in the NCAA Tournament in 2023 as the Tigers were a No. 15 seed who upset No. 2 Arizona and No. 7 Missouri to reach the Sweet 16, the furthest they’ve advanced in the modern era, before losing to No. 6 Creighton. Pierce, a freshman at the time, averaged 6.3 points (35% FG) and 8.7 rebounds during that run.

Pierce will now be another significant loss for the Tigers since the end of last season. Their most notable was the transfer of Xaivian Lee (Florida), a Top-40 overall transfer and No. 10 PG in the portal per On3’s 2025 Top Transfer Portal Players, after consecutive years on the All-Ivy First Team. Darius Gakwasi also entered his name into the portal, with no commitment since, back in March.

There’s a full other season to play before the portal will open again in college basketball in eight or nine months come March. It’ll be then when Pierce will eventually become available for his next school with this big news on his future.

To keep up with the latest players on the move, check out On3’s Transfer Portal wire. 

The On3 Transfer Portal Instagram account and Twitter account are excellent resources to stay up to date with the latest moves.

For the first time in either of its college football video game series, EA Sports incorporated real-life coaches into “College Football 26.” But as over 300 real-life coaches were included in the game, those who got to play “College Football 26” on its early release day recognized that two of the most well-known coaches in the sport weren’t among them.

North Carolina’s Bill Belichick and Colorado’s Deion Sanders declined to lend their likeness for “College Football 26” to EA Sports, The Athletic reported. Miami (Fla.) coach Mario Cristobal and Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz are also among the head coaches who aren’t in “College Football 26.”

Belichick’s decision not to be featured in “College Football 26” shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. During his 24 seasons as head coach of the New England Patriots, Belichick frequently declined EA Sports to use his likeness for the “Madden” video game series. Instead, the game developers would have a random character as the head coach of the Patriots.

As for Sanders, he typically lent his likeness to EA Sports for the “Madden” series during his playing career. The reasoning for why Belichick, Sanders and other coaches who didn’t lend their likeness for “College Football 26” is unclear.

Similar to what EA Sports did with Belichick when he opted not to appear in the “Madden” video game series, coaches who declined to appear in “College Football 26” were replaced by random characters. “Hector Luna” is the coach of UNC in place of Belichick, while “Kirk Patrick” is Colorado’s coach in place of Sanders, according to On3. 

While the most prominent Belichick isn’t in “College Football 26,” there is a member of the family in the game. UNC defensive coordinator Steve Belichick allowed EA Sports to use his likeness in “College Football 26,” the game’s principal game designer, Ben Haumiller, said in June. 

“Bill Belichick, historically, famously was not in ‘Madden’ for a lot of years. We chased him forever. We even had coach [John] Madden reach out to him,” Haumiller told the “Split Zone Duo” podcast. “So, when this opportunity came around, that was a joke internally, like, ‘Are we going to get Bill?’ And they never did. 

“When it came to Belichick, there were some questions of how he would show up. Ultimately, we were never able to come to a resolution with him. Hopefully, that changes.”

Unlike his father, North Carolina defensive coordinator Steve Belichick will appear in “College Football 26.” (Photo by Peyton Williams/Getty Images)

Steve Belichick, the eldest of Belichick’s two sons, became UNC’s defensive coordinator shortly after his father became the program’s head coach. He was Washington’s defensive coordinator under Jedd Fisch last season, marking his first year of coaching college ball. He previously spent several seasons on his father’s coaching staff with the Patriots.

Stanford interim coach Frank Reich, Utah State’s Bronco Mendenhall, Western Kentucky’s Tyson Helton, Jacksonville State’s Charles Kelly, UAB’s Trent Dilfer, Louisiana-Monroe’s Bryant Vincent, New Mexico’s Jason Eck and Kent State’s Mark Carney are the other FBS head coaches who reportedly declined to lend their linked for “College Football 26.”

As several head coaches declined to share their likeness for “College Football 26,” a handful of the game’s top coaches appeared on one of the covers for the video game. Ohio State’s Ryan Day, Penn State’s James Franklin, Georgia’s Kirby Smart, Arizona State’s Kenny Dillingham, Ole Miss‘ Lane Kiffin and Oregon’s Dan Lanning each appeared on the cover of the deluxe version of “College Football 26.”

The full release for “College Football 26” will take place on Thursday, but some users were able to start playing the game on Monday if they pre-ordered the deluxe version. 

Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily.

Get more from the College Football Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more

In the latest iteration of college athletes suing to play beyond exhaustion of their NCAA eligibility, four former JUCO football players who want to play for Vanderbilt and other FBS programs have asked a federal judge in Tennessee to enjoin the NCAA from enforcing eligibility rules.

Chris Bellamy, Demarcus Griffin, TJ Smith and Targhee Lambson filed a complaint for injunctive relief on July 3. They’re represented by attorneys Ryan Downton and Salvador M. Hernandez, a duo who have litigated on behalf of Vanderbilt quarterback and former JUCO transfer Diego Pavia’s thus far successful case to play a sixth season this fall. 

The four plaintiffs seek to play past the NCAA’s basic Division I eligibility framework. This framework limits college athletes to four seasons of intercollegiate competition—including JUCO and D-II competition—within a five-year period and, the complaint stresses, stipulates that a JUCO student who transfers to a D-I program has three years of D-I eligibility even if they didn’t play a sport at their JUCO school. 

The players contend this framework violates antitrust law by constraining the market for athletic services offered by D-I football to former JUCO football players. Lost NIL opportunities are emphasized as an economic harm to the players, who also lose out on potential revenue-sharing opportunities resulting from the House settlement. The four hope that Pavia’s win in the same federal district in Tennessee—the Vandy quarterback’s case is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit—provides helpful precedent. 

Bellamy is a wide receiver who played at two junior colleges and a couple of seasons at New Mexico State. According to the complaint, Bellamy has been admitted into Vanderbilt and promised a spot on the football team. Griffin is a defensive back at Louisiana Tech University and earlier played for a junior college and the University of Houston. Griffin’s roster spot “and NIL money” are waiting for him at Louisiana Tech should he regain eligibility, the complaint asserts. Smith is a quarterback who has played at a junior college, D-II college and Florida Atlantic University. The complaint says several D-I colleges are interested in Smith if he’s deemed eligible to play. Meanwhile, Lambson is a running back who played for Snow Community College and then Southern Utah University. Vanderbilt, the complaint states, is interested in Lambson joining the Commodores for 2025.

The complaint tracks familiar arguments raised in Pavia and the growing list of eligibility cases that have followed. Bellamy, Griffin, Smith and Lambson maintain that junior shouldn’t count against the D-I eligibility clock. Most junior colleges are governed by the National Junior College Athletic Association, which has no affiliation with the NCAA. The four players argue that JUCO football is nothing like D-I football, including because D-I football generates “billions of dollars in revenue” and its games are regularly televised and streamed. 

“To be clear,” the complaint argues, “while the NJCAA streams a total of 13 games over its entire season, the NCAA televised 40 games just last Saturday alone, and televises a similar number every single week of the season (not to mention several games on other nights of the week).”

Differences in NIL opportunities are also cited as a key distinction between JUCO and D-I football. The complaint cites data showing that while 2024 NIL market for college football was estimated at $1.1 billion, “only $6.5 million—less than six-tenths of 1%—went to non-NCAA Division I football players.” Further, the complaint references how D-I football, especially at a power conference school, provides essential training and exposure for the NFL Draft.

The complaint also asserts NCAA eligibility rules unfairly punish JUCO players compared to similarly situated groups. Consider the NCAA eligibility clock of a football player who graduates from high school and then plays another season in a post-grad year. His eligibility doesn’t run during that post-grad year, even if it occurs after he graduated from high school. Likewise, a football player who graduates from high school and then becomes a pro athlete in another sport still has five years to play four seasons of football. 

To illustrate, the complaint references Chris Weinke, who became a football player at Florida State in 1997 as a 25-year-old after a six-year pro baseball career. Athletes who serve in the military are also mentioned as not facing the same NCAA restrictions experienced by JUCO players. The complaint argues that if the NCAA and its member institutions were genuinely concerned that former JUCO players might upset competitive balance in D-I football because they’re (relatively) older and more seasoned, the NCAA “would preclude other older athletes from competing” in D-I.

Consumers, the complaint maintains, are also harmed by eligibility rules that exclude former JUCO players because of seasons played and years past. There are “negative downstream effects on nationwide consumers who attend college football games and watch college football on television,” the complaint charges. 

Along those lines, D-I football rosters lose out on potential players who could enhance the quality of play. 

“Teams,” Bellamy, Griffin, Smith and Lambson argue, “may be less competitive without the ability to retain skilled transfer players for an additional season, fans lose the opportunity to see those college athletes compete for their favorite teams on gameday and the product of NCAA athletics is less compelling for consumers.”

The NCAA will answer the complaint and defend its eligibility rules, which have withstood some of the recent legal challenges. 

In a statement shared with Sportico, an NCAA spokesperson said, “the NCAA stands by its eligibility rules, including the five-year rule, which enable student-athletes and schools to have fair competition and ensure broad access to the unique and life-changing opportunity to be a student-athlete. The NCAA is making changes to modernize college sports but attempts to alter the enforcement of foundational eligibility rules—approved and supported by membership leaders—makes a shifting environment even more unsettled. As legal outcomes continue to differ from case to case, the NCAA believes partnering with Congress is essential to provide clarity and stability for current and future student-athletes.”

The case is before U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger.