I think the Mountain West gets $8 million from Boise State making the quarterfinals. The Big Ten has earned $40 million. Plus, does every team get a $3 million stipend per round for expenses that doesn’t go to the conference? Do the host schools not get that stipend? — @CurtisBlack

We’ll start the mailbag with this topic because the conclusion of the quarterfinals provide an ideal time to address the College Football Playoff’s revenue distribution formula. And because the process impacts every conference.

First, a reminder: The current formula has a two-year lifespan. It was implemented for this season with the expansion to 12 teams and will hold through next season. But everything changes in the fall of 2026 with the start of a new contract cycle with ESPN.

The network will pay roughly $1.3 billion annually for six years. Unlike the current revenue model, which is based on success, the next version will pay each conference a set amount regardless of the number of teams in the field or wins collected.

For the 2024-25 postseason, the calculation is fairly simple:

• Each conference receives $4 million for every playoff team and for every quarterfinalist.

• Each conference receives $6 million for every semifinalist and for any national championship game participant.

• Each conference receives $3 million for expenses per team per round.

(Additionally, there are base payments for each school of roughly $6 million, plus payments tied to contracts with the Orange, Rose and Sugar Bowls and a $300,000 per-school payment if certain academic standards are met. The focus here is revenue connected to CFP bids and success.)

So, let’s tally the Power Four conference earnings based on participation, quarterfinalists and semifinalists.

The ACC had two teams in the field (Clemson and SMU) but no quarterfinalists: $8 million.

The Big 12 had one team in the field (Arizona State) and one quarterfinalist: $8 million

The Big Ten had four teams in the field (Oregon, Ohio State, Penn State and Indiana), three quarterfinalists and two semifinalists: $40 million

The SEC had three teams in the field (Georgia, Texas and Tennessee), three quarterfinalists and two semifinalists: $26 million.

(Note: The revenue distribution model within each conference could vary. Most are expected to divide the cash equally among the full membership. But the ACC has implemented a “success initiative” for postseason competition.)

A few more housekeeping matters on CFP revenue:

• Notre Dame has earned $14 million thus far but, as an Independent, doesn’t have to share. The Mountain West received $8 million for Boise State’s participation as a quarterfinalist.

• All ticket revenue (for the opening round matchups and the neutral-site games) goes to the CFP, which then distributes the cash across all conferences.

• The home teams keep the gate receipts (e.g., parking, merchandise, concessions, etc.).

• The CFP allocates $3 million in expenses per participant in each round, including the host schools in the opening round. (The money is used to cover game operations.)

All in all, revenue for the 2024 and 2025 playoffs will tilt to the Big Ten and SEC because they are more likely to receive multiple bids and produce semifinalists and finalists.

That won’t change with the next iteration of the CFP, when revenue is guaranteed regardless of participation and success.

Starting in 2026, the SEC and Big Ten will receive roughly $22 million per school, with the ACC and Big 12 receiving about $13 million per school.

Put another way: The CFP revenue gap will begin to resemble a chasm.

With all four top seeds failing to make the semifinals, how much of an outcry will there be to change the format? How could the 12-team format be altered to remove the “rust” factor for the top-four teams? — @MarcSheehan006

There is already a significant outcry for change, although I’m not sure how much is a direct result of the, err, results.

The Hotline argued long before the quarterfinals that the format was all wrong — that the seeds should be based on rankings, that the conference winners should have home games and that the disparity in rest created a competitive disadvantage for the teams that were idle for 24 days.

(We repeatedly published columns arguing that Oregon was better off losing at least once, and earning the No. 5 seed, than it was winning out, and becoming the top seed. In fact, our first article on the topic was published Nov. 8.)

The CFP’s management committee assuredly will take a long look at the format when it meets in three weeks, but I would urge skepticism for those seeking immediate change.

Every conference (and Notre Dame) would need to approve tweaks to the format for the 2025 season, the last under the current contract.

But that’s not the case in 2026, when the Big Ten and SEC have outsized control. They could push for changes to the CFP’s format, calendar, selection process or number of participants — or all of it at once.

The Power Four championship games featured two former Pac-12 schools (Oregon and Arizona State), one former Big 12 school (Texas) and one former Group of Five school (SMU). This year’s Heisman Trophy finalists included three players with ties to the former Pac-12 (Cam Ward, Dillon Gabriel and Travis Hunter). Can we please stop talking about how great the Big Ten and SEC are? — Andrew C

You can try, but it won’t make a difference.

The Big Ten and SEC will dominate the national narrative, both during the regular-season and the College Football Playoff. There are many reasons for this state-of-affairs, but two are atop the list:

Brand names >> The overwhelming majority of schools with the richest traditions and largest fan bases — as measured by stadium size and TV ratings — are members of the Big Ten and the SEC. Notre Dame is the primary exception, followed by Clemson and Florida State.

Media partnerships >> ESPN and Fox, which control the sport through their game broadcasts, studio shows and media contracts, are tied to the SEC and Big Ten, respectively.

Certainly, their financial commitment to those conferences is far deeper than to the Big 12, ACC or any Group of Five leagues.

In other words, the on-field results in a given year won’t change the narrative because the entities controlling sport will always follow the money — their money — and focus on the SEC and Big Ten.

What name will historians coin for the 2025 Peach Bowl? A few suggestions: The Peach Bowl Fiasco, the Debacle in Atlanta, No Flag/No Blood/No Ambulance, The Injustice Bowl. — @TerryTerry79

Above all, historians will look back at Texas’ double-overtime victory over Arizona State as one of the best College Football Playoff games ever played, at least to this point in the event’s lifespan.

It had every element of a classic, with a desperate comeback, controversial play (see below) and thrilling finish.

Did ASU get hosed with the targeting no-call? Yes.

Was that the only reason the Sun Devils lost? No. You can’t lose track of the opponent’s best receiver on fourth down in overtime.

Does the loss diminish ASU’s season in any fashion? Absolutely not. The Sun Devils had an amazing year and proved they belonged on the same CFP turf as the SEC’s runner up. What’s more, their performance will help the Big 12’s negotiating leverage, as we outlined earlier in the week.

Finally, we’ll offer this nugget (unpopular opinion alert):

One could argue that ASU’s season will be remembered more fondly with the controversial loss to Texas than if the Sun Devils had won the Peach Bowl and been run off the field by Ohio State in the next round.

Because the Buckeyes just might be in a class by themselves.