Leaders of the College Football Playoff are gathering just outside Dallas this week for annual spring meetings, with major questions about the future makeup of the sport’s postseason unanswered.

Beginning Tuesday, the CFP management committee—made up of FBS conference commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua—will meet through Thursday morning to discuss not only standard logistical and financial operations for the upcoming season but also ideas about how the expanded, 12-team Playoff could further evolve.

However, one CFP source told Front Office Sports they did not expect any major format or seeding changes to be approved this week.

What’s on the Table

The format of the 2026 CFP and beyond is still undetermined, but unless the committee unanimously approves changes this spring or summer, the 2025 Playoff will be identical to last year’s: First-round byes for the four highest-ranked conference champions, another automatic spot—but not a bye week—for the fifth-highest-ranked conference champion, and the next seven highest-ranked teams at the end of the season.

Potential changes that could eventually be made include:

• More automatic qualifiers for the Big Ten and SEC
• A shift to straight seeding to determine first-round byes
• Expanding to 14 or 16 teams
• More on-campus home games

All of those ideas, and more, are expected to be discussed this week, even if there is no vote to implement any alterations.  

Waiting Game

With the 2026 format still needed to be approved, the committee may prefer to wait to make changes to things like seeding, the source said, instead of incrementally rolling out changes. Beginning in 2026, the Big Ten and SEC will hold the majority of decision-making power and receive a majority of revenue from the CFP. 

The CFP’s leaders will meet again in June and September, when more discussions—and potential votes—on changes are expected.

The NCAA men’s basketball transfer portal has hit a record number of entrants for the fourth consecutive year.

As of Monday, a total of 2,320 men’s basketball players have entered the 2025 transfer portal, according to Verbal Commits, about 11.3% more than last year’s number. The number can still increase before the portal, which opened March 24, closes Tuesday.

Portal-Palooza

Here are the number of men’s players in the portal every year since it was introduced:

• 2025: 2,320
• 2024: 2,083
• 2023: 1,724
• 2022: 1,650
• 2021: 1,653
• 2020: 967
• 2019: 957

The number of athletes in the transfer portal represents more than 40% of the total men’s basketball players before the beginning of the 2024–2025 season (5,607). That pool, however, includes graduates, redshirts, and players without scholarships.

On the women’s side, there are 1,464 players in the transfer portal as of Monday, according to On3. That accounts for about 29% of the total women’s players on rosters last season (5,048).

Polarizing Portal

The transfer portal has been a contentious topic across all NCAA sports. Players, coaches, and pundits have compared it to free agency in professional sports after it was compounded with NIL (name, image, and likeness) rule changes implemented in 2021.

There are benefits for players seeking more playing time or a culture change. One example is Lauren Betts, the No. 1 recruit in the 2022 women’s recruiting class, who played her freshman year at Stanford but struggled with the Cardinal. 

She moved to UCLA in 2023 and has talked about how playing for Cori Close and the Bruins rejuvenated her love for the game. Last season, Betts led UCLA to its first Final Four in the NCAA era.

However, not every transfer portal story is as successful as Betts’s. AD Advisors and sports analytics firm Timark Partners released a study Friday that indicated 70% of men’s basketball players from power conferences and the Big East who entered the transfer portal were unable to find a new school or transferred down. (The study placed schools in three tiers based on the amount of money spent on their basketball programs, and transferring down meant moving to a program in a lower tier.)

Moving to ostensibly smaller programs could still be beneficial for players seeking additional playing time or for other personal reasons. However, the effects of entering the portal—whether positive or negative—vary on a case-by-case basis.

Ongoing efforts surrounding the PGA Tour’s pace-of-play push have shifted more from how long it takes a group to complete a round to individuals who may be taking too long on certain shots, Front Office Sports has learned.

Players and caddies were allowed to use rangefinders, formally known as distance-measuring devices, this past weekend at the RBC Heritage in Hilton Head and the Corales Puntacana Championship. The trial run, part of multiple recommendations from the Tour’s speed of play working group, will extend through four more tournaments over the next three weeks. 

On the second-tier Korn Ferry Tour, a new policy is being tested that assesses players a one-stroke penalty for their first “bad time,” which occurs when a player exceeds the applicable time to play a stroke while being timed. Every stroke a player loses could mean significantly less prize money.

The PGA Tour has not released hard data on average round times for players, but that can be relative to the situation. When players are grouped in threesomes early in tournaments, those rounds will naturally take longer than groups of two, which are common after the 36-hole cut. 

“When you see the biggest changes in pace of play, it all comes from going from three guys to two guys in a pairing,” Scottie Scheffler said last week. “It’s just easier to get around the golf course.”

Changes Ahead

With testing underway that could lead to significant changes in 2026, a source told FOS that the PGA Tour’s focus has shifted more to average stroke times as opposed to average round times. The Tour is looking at players’ pre-shot routines and how long it’s taking them to play a certain shot, the source said, adding that the Tour’s rules team is sitting down with players to discuss where they are losing time on the golf course and how they can improve.

Many golfers have all kinds of different tendencies and pre-shot rituals, which can often make for bad TV, if a broadcaster cuts to a player too early, and the viewer has to wait 20 seconds before the ball is hit, for example. It should be noted that golf’s TV ratings have largely been up this year, including at The Masters.

The fact that the PGA Tour is putting a stronger emphasis on average stroke time is significant because it does not have a hard shot clock—like the indoor golf league TGL used in its debut season—to keep players moving. The Tour could announce any significant results from this testing period once it ends next month.