Let’s break down the ACC’s recent proposal regarding the college football postseason, as I’m a bit confused about their intentions.

ACC commissioner Jim Phillips suggested an idea at last weekend’s College Football Playoff management committee meeting, and frankly, it’s a puzzling situation.

The gist of the proposal is to have more games for additional teams in the ACC, essentially a mini-tournament before the College Football Playoff kicks off.

While I’m not a legal expert, it seems clear that introducing more games will complicate the already sensitive revenue sharing agreements (specifically regarding player compensation) set to start in 2025.

Simply put, if you’re planning on hosting more games, players will need a bigger share of the revenue generated from media rights. I’m not an expert, but it looks like a recipe for lawyers to start pushing for a larger financial stake for the players.

And there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.

You have to admire the efforts of the sport’s administrators as they explore various options to boost revenue, particularly with the impending changes that will arrive on July 1, which could see a drop in pay-for-play revenue by as much as $20 million.

This new proposal is quite intriguing. Phillips believes the ACC could consider two options before the 2026 playoff begins, as the new contract and format are still in discussion. Both options include increasing the number of games.

The first option suggests that the regular season ACC champion would receive an automatic bye into the playoff, while the two next-best teams would compete in a play-in game for one of the ACC’s projected automatic playoff spots.

The second option proposes a final four-style tournament for the ACC before the College Football Playoff, where four teams would compete in a conference tournament (similar to the initial CFP setup) to secure the two automatic qualification spots.

While both plans might generate revenue — potentially increasing player income under the existing revenue-sharing model — the concept of adding games before the playoff is clearly something player representatives did not anticipate. This signals that legal issues are on the horizon.

Now, let’s consider the numbers for a moment.

If we take last season’s top four ACC teams — SMU, Miami, Clemson, and Syracuse — and apply them to this “conference tournament,” it would mean SMU facing Syracuse and Miami taking on Clemson. The victors would then compete the following week for the ACC title.

Assuming the highest-ranked four teams earn first-round byes in the CFP starting in 2026, it’s possible the ACC may not have one of those top four teams. This was certainly the case this season.

Consequently, ACC teams would complete 12 regular-season games, while four of those teams would have 13 games. Two teams could end up with 14 games before the CFP begins.

Let’s say the ACC tournament champion doesn’t get a first-round bye in the CFP, meaning they would have to secure four wins to clinch the national title — as Ohio State did this season. That would put the players from the ACC championship team at 18 games in one season.

For a point of reference, NFL teams play a 17-game regular season, with the maximum number of games to win the Super Bowl at 21. NFL players also enjoy 49% of a $110 billion media rights revenue deal.

Meanwhile, the entire college athlete community is set to receive around $20 million starting July 1, with gradual increases in subsequent years tied to rising revenues — provided their universities are willing to allocate those resources.

Phillips indicates this “tournament” would kick off the last week of the regular season, which would necessitate some flexibility in scheduling during that time. However, Florida, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Georgia likely won’t be accommodating to rescheduling their rivalry games against the ACC for that final week.

Therefore, this “tournament” would need to commence after a complete 12-game regular season schedule, resulting in that demanding 18-game stretch for players.

Once again, I’m not an expert, but this seems destined to lead to legal complications in the future. A significant problem, no doubt.

We’ve all witnessed how the NCAA handles such issues: they prefer to ignore them until a lawsuit starts making headlines. The NCAA’s track record in those legal battles isn’t exactly stellar.

To summarize: the ACC aims to increase the number of games for more players, while simultaneously insisting that players not be treated as employees. They don’t want players unionizing or bargaining collectively.

College administrators deserve some credit for their creative thinking in hopes of boosting revenue.

However, they seem trapped within a self-created dilemma — and finding a way out likely necessitates sharing a larger slice of the financial pie.

Matt Hayes is the senior national college football writer for News Sports Network. Follow him on X at @MattHayesCFB.