This one got a lot of questions, probably because I took too long off. I appreciate it.

So I’m going to do two editions of Ask the Editor this week, starting with one answering the questions that were more about my opinion and then the second answering the questions that take a little looking into.

If you guys have any extra questions, head to the question thread here and I’ll consider adding them or maybe holding them for another edition next week.

Let's get started.

Bmorrow23 asks: “Kyle, do you think there is any way to expand to 16 teams in the CFP by next year?

It would not expand the playoff timeline any, it would allow four more teams to host home games and then there is the money. The four bye teams all lost on neutral sites, so apparently there was not an advantage to getting a bye. I really don’t know why they would have to wait until 2026. I remember seeing an interview with (SEC commissioner Greg) Sankey that the current iteration was developed in a hotel during COVID and he confirmed this would not be the model forever. I would like to see it happen sooner than later.”

Kyle: This question has a couple of parts to answer.

First off, the CFP has two governing bodies for some reason. One is the Board of Managers, which is one university president from each of the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame and the other is the Management Committee, which is the 10 FBS conference commissioners and Notre Dame’s athletic director.

Changes could happen as soon as this year, but they have to be unanimously approved by (I think) the Management Committee (it could be the Board of Managers, it’s one of the two governing bodies and I can’t find a straight answer on which one). So if you’re going to make changes this year, the Mountain West and AAC and MAC all have to feel as good about it as the SEC and Big 10.

The reason changes would wait until 2026 is because that’s when the CFP commissioners’ new agreement begins, going for six years through the 2031 playoff. For the new deal, the conferences agreed to cede decision-making powers to - guess who - the Big 10 and the SEC (claimed by the SEC and Big 10) but with some guarantees that include the five highest-ranked conference champions are in and a protection for Notre Dame if the Irish finish high enough in the CFP committee’s rankings.

Now to the next point.

I think expanding to 16 is probably the easiest possible change to get all 11 members of the committee to agree to, I’ll go more into some other changes in the next couple of questions. Sixteen teams allows, as you say, an extra home game for four more teams; it gets true-home games for the conference champions who had a bye this year, which I think they would all agree to for financial purposes; it doesn’t really require much of a change to TV contracts - though there would have to be some renegotiating with ESPN to increase the payout which could cause major issues - and they might immediately overreact to the teams that got a bye all losing.

There’s definitely changes coming, what we’ve seen this year will not be what we see for long. I don’t expect changes for 2025, but I do expect some major ones for 2026.

MIZ…SEC asks: “Do you think the fact that the SEC only got 3 teams in the CFP while the ACC (0-2), Big 12 (0-1), and G5 (0-1) went a combined 0-4, with mostly blowout losses, will result in the SEC and Big 10 demanding a minimum of 4 teams each and every year?”

Kyle: I don’t think the individual results are what’s going to make the difference. If we want to pull those up, SEC teams are 2-2 with a combined point differential of -16 and an overtime win against Arizona State by one of the conference’s newest members as the only thing keeping the SEC from being fully out of the semifinals.

As explained in my first answer, a change to next year’s format would require all 11 members of the CFP management committee to agree and I don’t see a way the Big 12 or ACC representatives agree to a minimum of SEC and Big 10 teams starting next season, let alone the G5 representatives. If you say there have to be four SEC teams, four Big 10 teams, a Big 12 team and an ACC team plus probably Notre Dame more often than not, you’ve got exactly one spot available for the G5, which would have to go to the highest-rated champion.

Let’s say Army had kept it close against Notre Dame and beat Navy this year, then you’ve got 12-1 Army and No. 9 Boise State (12-1) and only one spot available. Whether that’s what creates the best games or not, you’re not going to get the AAC and Mountain West and the other G5 conferences to agree to only having one possible spot most years.

But also, apparently starting in 2026, the SEC and Big 10 have the power to make changes as long as they don’t get rid of those couple of guarantees.

At that point? Sure, ya, I bet they make some type of move to have a minimum number of members along with an expansion.

To go with another of your questions MIZ…SEC, about eliminating the 5 highest-ranked conference champions, nope, not happening. Even in 2026, that agreement is part of the guarantees moving forward that allows the SEC and Big 10 that extra power. If they make a move to eliminate it, then we’re looking at a full split of the SEC/Big 10 from the rest of college football and there’s much bigger things to think about at that point. That will come sooner or later, but I think they’re going to want to maintain power within the current system before creating a new system.

MIZ…SEC also asks: “Do you agree that eliminating the automatic byes would be a bigger improvement for the CFP than expanding to 16 teams?”

Kyle: I’m going to answer this assuming the elimination of automatic byes just means the teams that end No. 1-4 get byes instead of them going to conference champs, I think that’s what you’re going for here.

So, sure, I guess. It also depends on what you mean by ‘bigger improvement.’

In game quality? Ya, going to 16 isn’t going to make those opening-round games much better.

I love a cinderella story and unlike basketball, I think a No. 16 seed would beat a No. 1 more than twice out of 164 opportunities. But in general, I don’t think it improves the quality of the games people are watching to add in four more teams.

I don’t think that’s what will happen, though.

Going to 16 is the easiest sell for the decision makers: more money, more home games (I think making the quarterfinals home games is another big possible step that would improve, not the quality of games, but the overall experience of the playoff) and doesn’t directly upset the non-Big 10/SEC conferences like getting rid of the conference champ byes would.

I understand the sentiment, and I don’t think 1-v-16 or 2-v-15 are going to be consistently good games. I also don’t think 5-v-12 or 6-v-11 are going to be consistently good games.

There’s going to be blowouts and there’s going to be hand ringing about what those blowouts mean, so I think no matter what changes are or aren’t made, people are going to be upset about it because the idea of the playoff is better than the playoff in practice.

Alzeer asks: “Most underrated player this season? I think it’s (Dreyden) Norwood. He looked good as CB1. The data looks bad on him because the big plays he gave up were really bad plays by the safeties. Didn’t seem to get beat in man coverage 1-on-1.”

Kyle: I’ve been beating the drum that the overall secondary is better than people thought it was and Norwood is certainly part of that equation.

It’s kind of hard for me to think about underrated guys this way for most of the team. Nate Noel and Marcus Carroll were both pretty properly rated by the end of the season, no one was discounting Theo Wease and the receivers after him didn’t do enough to warrant being called underrated. It seems like the narrative on Cayden Green really flipped by the end of the year, he might have been my answer at the midpoint of the season. No one was thinking bad about Corey Flagg and I don’t think all that highly of Triston Newson or Chuck Hicks compared to the general population.

Maybe Joseph Charleston? Was he underrated? Maybe just because he wasn’t on the field as much this year, people might have forgotten about him a little bit? I think he was a legit force on the back end of the defense and there was a pretty big difference when he was and wasn’t on the field.

But ya, it’s probably Norwood, just because of the narrative around the corners.

It can be hard to tell with corners because only they, the safeties and the coaches know exactly what their assignment was on any play.

Did it look like he got burnt on a deep pass but Marvin Burks over the top cycled down into more of a run-defense spot on a play-action instead of being up top for the handoff of an outside receiver?

Did Newson not slide enough toward the hash as Norwood stepped back into a zone and a crossing route gets hit with Norwood 8 yards away from the receiver it looks like he was supposed to cover?

I don’t mean to specifically call out Burks or Newson (though there’s a reason I picked them for those examples), but secondary coverage is tricky to evaluate. Just because a corner is lined up against a certain receiver doesn’t mean that receiver is his job even a half second after the start of the play, let alone a couple of seconds in.

PFF does its best and graded Norwood as the best man-coverage defender among the Tiger corners and credited him with four catches allowed on nine targets for just 26 yards. That’s significantly better than both Torino Pride and Nick Deloach in man coverage.

So overall, I think Norwood and Charleston (maybe?) were pretty underrated this season, otherwise, I think people were generally pretty high on most of the Tigers which was deserved among the regulars.

Jb290 asks: “Are you guys planning on attending a game/tailgate next season?”

Kyle: On the game point, I’m not sure what you’re asking. I was at every home game this season and Texas A&M, Alabama and the bowl game. I didn’t end up going to Mississippi State, UMass or South Carolina because we have a travel budget that requires decisions to be made and when Kenny and I started, we figured the resources were best used on those three, a possible NCAA Tournament game and Kenny going to recruiting camps.

I’m also at every home basketball game, except Alabama State because it was about an hour after the bowl ended and I was still in Nashville.

On the tailgate, sure! I’d love to get out and talk to some people at tailgates next season. I’m usually at the stadium about three hours before the game, so plenty of time to come chat for a bit.

Thanks for the questions guys. Again, there will be a second Ask the editor this week (probably Saturday morning) so if you have more questions go the the question thread here and let me know.

Stay up to date on all the Mizzou news with your premium subscription.

Talk about this story in the story thread and discuss so much more in The Tiger Walk.

Make sure you're caught up on all the Tiger news and headlines.