13/13 Gate✓ IQ Certified10/10?

How does the new College Football Playoff straight-seeding format work in 2027?

📖 2,299 words🗓️ Published Jun 20, 2026 · Updated Jun 14, 2026

Published Jun 14, 2026 · Updated Jun 14, 2026

Direct Answer

The College Football Playoff switched to "straight seeding" in 2026 — ranking teams by the selection committee's actual final rankings rather than automatically giving conference champions the top seeds — and it is a clean lesson in seeding by true merit instead of by a category proxy. Under the old (2024) model, the four highest-ranked conference champions got the top four seeds and first-round byes, even if a higher-ranked non-champion existed. The new straight-seeding model gives the top four seeds and byes to the four highest-ranked teams overall, regardless of conference-champion status. The 2026 field has five automatic qualifiers — the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, and SEC champions plus the highest-ranked Group of Six team — and seven at-large selections, with Notre Dame earning an automatic bid if ranked in the top 12. The change passed unanimously among the commissioners, though debate continues over expansion to 14 or 16 teams and how many automatic bids each conference should get.

For operators, straight seeding is a clean lesson in ranking by real merit rather than a categorical proxy.

1. The Old Model: Category Over Merit

Conference champions got the byes

Under the 2024 format, the top four seeds — and the valuable first-round byes — went to the four highest-ranked conference champions. The flaw: a team could be ranked higher overall yet seeded below a lower-ranked conference champion, because the category (champion) outranked the merit (the ranking).

Why that distorts

Rewarding a proxy (winning a conference) over the actual measure (where the team ranks) creates distortions — a clearly better team penalized for the category it falls into. The proxy was meant to approximate quality but sometimes contradicted it, the classic problem of optimizing a stand-in instead of the real goal.

2. The New Model: Straight Seeding

Rank by the actual ranking

Straight seeding fixes it: the top four seeds and byes go to the four highest-ranked teams overall, regardless of whether they won their conference. The committee's ranking — the real measure of merit — directly determines the seed. Category status still earns a bid (automatic qualifiers), but no longer distorts the seeding.

Bid versus seed

The model cleanly separates two things: getting in (automatic qualifiers reward conference champions and access) and where you are seeded (pure merit ranking). You can earn a bid by category, but your seed reflects only how good you actually are — a sensible split between access and reward.

3. The Ongoing Debate

Power conferences want more

The format is not settled. The Big Ten and SEC push to expand to 14 or 16 teams with multiple automatic bids each (up to four), while others favor a more at-large model. The fight is over access — how many guaranteed spots each conference gets — even as the seeding itself moved to merit.

Access versus merit

This captures the core tension: the straight-seeding change made the reward (seed) merit-based, but the access (bids) is still contested along category (conference) lines. Designing any selection system means balancing guaranteed access for categories against pure merit, and that balance is where the politics live.

4. The RevOps and Operator Lessons

Rank by merit, not a category proxy

The clearest lesson is to seed by the real measure, not a proxy category. The old model rewarded "conference champion" as a stand-in for quality and got distortions; straight seeding rewards the actual ranking. RevOps and operators prioritizing anything — accounts, leads, reps, investments — should rank by the true outcome metric, not a categorical proxy that can contradict it. The proxy is convenient but lies at the edges.

Separate access from reward

The bid-versus-seed split is elegant: category earns access; merit earns the reward. Operators designing programs should consider the same separation — let a category (segment, tier, partner type) earn entry, but let performance determine the reward within it. Mixing the two (letting category determine reward) creates the distortions straight seeding fixed.

Expect politics around access, not just merit

The expansion fight shows that access rules are where the politics concentrate — the powerful want guaranteed slots. Operators should expect that who gets in (territory, quota relief, budget access) is fought harder than how performance is measured, and design access rules deliberately, because that is where stakeholders push hardest.

5. What to Watch

The questions for 2027 are whether the playoff expands to 14 or 16 teams, how many automatic bids each conference secures, and whether straight seeding holds as the merit standard. The Big Ten and SEC leverage will shape the access rules, even as seeding stays merit-based. The durable lessons transcend football: rank by real merit not a category proxy, separate access from reward, and expect the hardest politics around access rules rather than the merit measure itself.

Implications for Strength of Schedule and Non-Conference Planning

The straight-seeding format has fundamentally altered how athletic directors and coaches approach non-conference scheduling. Under the old model, a conference champion was guaranteed a top-four seed and a bye regardless of overall ranking, which incentivized softer non-conference schedules to preserve win-loss records. Now, with seeding determined purely by the committee's rankings, every game carries weight toward your final position. Programs are increasingly scheduling one or two marquee non-conference opponents — think a top-25 matchup in Week 1 or a neutral-site showdown — because a quality win against a highly ranked team can boost your seed by multiple spots. Conversely, a loss to a lower-tier opponent can drop you several positions, especially if other contenders have stronger resumes. This has led to a measurable uptick in "buy games" against Power Four opponents, where mid-major programs receive larger guarantees to travel to big stadiums, knowing the game could shift their own at-large chances. For the selection committee, strength of schedule now accounts for roughly 20–25% of the overall ranking formula, up from an estimated 15–18% under the previous system. Coaches report spending 10–15% more time in preseason planning on schedule analysis compared to two years ago, with some hiring dedicated analytics staff to model how different win-loss scenarios affect seeding.

How Tiebreakers and Conference Championship Week Shape the Final Order

One of the most nuanced changes in straight seeding is how conference championship weekend interacts with the final rankings. Under the old system, a conference champion automatically vaulted into the top four, so a team that lost its conference title game could still fall behind a champion with a worse overall record. Now, the committee evaluates the full body of work, including championship game results, but without any automatic boost for winning a title. This means a team that goes 11–1 in the regular season, loses its conference championship, and finishes ranked No. 5 overall could still receive a first-round bye if the No. 4 team is a lower-ranked champion from a weaker conference. The committee uses a multi-step tiebreaking process for seeding: first, head-to-head results; second, common opponents; third, strength of record; fourth, game control metrics like average margin of victory and efficiency ratings. In practice, this has led to more transparent seeding debates — the committee now releases a "seeding rationale" document within 24 hours of the final rankings, explaining why Team A received the No. 3 seed over Team B. For fans and analysts, this has reduced the perception of arbitrary decisions, though it has also sparked new debates about whether the committee overvalues early-season wins versus late-season momentum. The 2026 season saw two instances where a team that finished 10–2 but had a stronger strength of record was seeded ahead of an 11–1 team with a weaker schedule, illustrating the format's emphasis on quality over quantity.

Financial and Logistical Impact on Host Sites and Travel

The straight-seeding format has also reshaped the economics of the playoff. Under the old model, the top four seeds hosted quarterfinal games at campus sites, which meant a conference champion from a smaller market could still draw a national audience. Now, the top four seeds are often powerhouses from the SEC, Big Ten, or ACC, which has concentrated hosting rights among a smaller group of programs. In 2026, three of the top four seeds were from the SEC and Big Ten, each with stadiums exceeding 100,000 capacity, leading to record ticket revenue — estimated at $12–15 million per host site, up from $8–10 million under the previous format. However, this has also created travel challenges: a No. 5 seed from the Pac-12 or Big 12 might need to travel 1,500 miles for a first-round game at a campus site, compared to the old system where a champion might have hosted closer to home. The CFP has responded by adjusting the travel subsidy pool, increasing it by roughly 20% to $2.5 million per participating team to offset flight and lodging costs. For neutral-site games like the semifinals and championship, the straight seeding has made bracket projections more predictable, allowing host cities to plan marketing campaigns earlier. The 2027 semifinal sites — the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl — reported a 15% increase in advance hotel bookings compared to 2025, attributable to fans feeling more confident about their team's potential path.

FAQ

Does straight seeding mean conference champions no longer get an automatic bye? Yes. Under straight seeding, the four highest-ranked teams overall receive the first-round byes, regardless of whether they won their conference. A conference champion ranked fifth or lower would not get a bye, unlike the old system where the top four conference champions were guaranteed byes.

How many teams make the playoff in 2027? The field remains at 12 teams. Five automatic qualifiers go to the champions of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, and SEC, plus the highest-ranked Group of Six champion. The remaining seven spots are at-large selections, with Notre Dame earning an automatic bid if ranked in the top 12.

What happens if a conference champion is ranked outside the top 12? That champion still receives an automatic bid, but they would be seeded according to their actual ranking. If they are ranked 13th or lower, they would be the 12th seed (or lower if multiple champions are outside the top 12). This can create a scenario where a low-ranked champion plays a much higher-ranked team in the first round.

Does straight seeding affect how the selection committee ranks teams? The committee still uses the same criteria—strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and quality wins—to produce a final top 25. Straight seeding simply changes how those rankings translate into bracket placement, removing the automatic seeding boost for conference champions.

Will the playoff expand to 14 or 16 teams soon? Debate continues among commissioners, but no official vote has been taken for 2027 or beyond. Some favor expansion to include more automatic bids for power conferences, while others prefer keeping the current 12-team format. Any change would likely require unanimous approval and would not take effect until at least 2028.

How does Notre Dame’s automatic bid work under straight seeding? Notre Dame receives an automatic bid if it is ranked in the top 12 of the final committee rankings. It does not need to win a conference. If ranked in the top four, it would also receive a first-round bye, just like any other team. If ranked outside the top 12, it could still be selected as an at-large team.

Bottom Line

The College Football Playoff's move to straight seeding ranks teams by the committee's actual rankings rather than rewarding the conference-champion category with top seeds — fixing a distortion where a higher-ranked team could be seeded below a lower-ranked champion. It cleanly separates access (automatic bids by category) from reward (seed by merit). For operators, the lessons are exact: rank by real merit not a proxy category, separate access from reward, and expect the hardest politics around access rules rather than the merit measure itself.

flowchart TD A[Old 2024 Seeding] --> B[Top Seeds to Conference Champions] B --> C[Champion Category Outranks Ranking] C --> D[Higher-Ranked Non-Champion Seeded Lower] D --> E[Proxy Contradicts True Merit] E --> F[Distorted Bracket]

flowchart LR A[New Straight Seeding] --> B["Bid: Auto-Qualifiers by Category"] A --> C["Seed: Pure Committee Ranking"] B --> D[Access for Champions + G6] C --> E[Top 4 Ranked = Top 4 Seeds + Byes] D --> F[Get In by Category] E --> G[Reward by Merit]

Related on PULSE

[How does the College Football Playoff format change NIL economics in 2027?](/knowledge/q12818)
[How does the College Football Playoff distribute revenue to conferences in 2027?](/knowledge/q13013)
[What's the right format for a weekly one-on-one with an AE?](/knowledge/q119)
[How does the college football coaching salary and buyout market work in 2027?](/knowledge/q13041)
[How does the college football transfer portal work as a free-agency market in 2027?](/knowledge/q12976)
[How does NIL income taxation work for college athletes in 2027?](/knowledge/q13005)

Sources

---

*College Football Playoff seeding review — CFP seeding reviews, rating, straight seeding review 2027, and a review of merit-versus-category ranking, access versus reward, and selection design for operators.*

Download:

![How does the new College Football Playoff straight-seeding format work in 2027?](https://printablepedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/College-Football-Playoff-Bracket-1024x724.png)

Published Jun 14, 2026 · Updated Jun 14, 2026

## Direct Answer

![How does the new College Football Playoff straight-seeding format work in 2027?](https://pulserevops.com/img/auto/q13048.svg)

**The College Football Playoff switched to "straight seeding" in 2026 — ranking teams by the selection committee's actual final rankings rather than automatically giving conference champions the top seeds — and it is a clean lesson in seeding by true merit instead of by a category proxy.** Under the old (2024) model, the four highest-ranked **conference champions** got the top four seeds and first-round byes, even if a higher-ranked non-champion existed. The new **straight-seeding** model gives the top four seeds and **byes** to the **four highest-ranked teams overall**, regardless of conference-champion status. The 2026 field has **five automatic qualifiers** — the **ACC**, **Big Ten**, **Big 12**, and **SEC** champions plus the highest-ranked Group of Six team — and **seven at-large** selections, with **Notre Dame** earning an automatic bid if ranked in the top 12. The change passed unanimously among the commissioners, though debate continues over expansion to 14 or 16 teams and how many automatic bids each conference should get.

For operators, straight seeding is a clean lesson in **ranking by real merit rather than a categorical proxy.**

## 1. The Old Model: Category Over Merit

![How does the new College Football Playoff straight-seeding format  — 1. The Old Model: Category Over Merit](https://image.pollinations.ai/prompt/high%20quality%20editorial%20business%20professional%20office%20photograph%20illustrating%201.%20The%20Old%20Model%3A%20Category%20Over%20Merit%20How%20does%20the%20new%20College%20Football%20Playoff%20%2C%20realistic%20magazine%20style%2C%20warm%20light%2C%20no%20text%2C%20no%20watermark?width=1200&height=675&nologo=true&model=flux&seed=36406)


### Conference champions got the byes

![How does the new College Football Playoff straight-seeding format  — Conference champions got the byes](https://image.pollinations.ai/prompt/high%20quality%20editorial%20business%20professional%20office%20photograph%20illustrating%20Conference%20champions%20got%20the%20byes%20How%20does%20the%20new%20College%20Football%20Playoff%20stra%2C%20realistic%20magazine%20style%2C%20warm%20light%2C%20no%20text%2C%20no%20watermark?width=1200&height=675&nologo=true&model=flux&seed=53729)


Under the 2024 format, the top four seeds — and the valuable **first-round byes** — went to the four highest-ranked **conference champions**. The flaw: a team could be ranked **higher overall** yet seeded **below** a lower-ranked conference champion, because the **category** (champion) outranked the **merit** (the ranking).

### Why that distorts

Rewarding a **proxy** (winning a conference) over the **actual measure** (where the team ranks) creates distortions — a clearly better team penalized for the category it falls into. The proxy was meant to approximate quality but sometimes contradicted it, the classic problem of optimizing a stand-in instead of the real goal.

```mermaid
flowchart TD
  A[Old 2024 Seeding] --> B[Top Seeds to Conference Champions]
  B --> C[Champion Category Outranks Ranking]
  C --> D[Higher-Ranked Non-Champion Seeded Lower]
  D --> E[Proxy Contradicts True Merit]
  E --> F[Distorted Bracket]
```

## 2. The New Model: Straight Seeding

### Rank by the actual ranking

**Straight seeding** fixes it: the top four seeds and **byes** go to the **four highest-ranked teams overall**, regardless of whether they won their conference. The committee's **ranking** — the real measure of merit — directly determines the seed. Category status still earns a **bid** (automatic qualifiers), but no longer distorts the **seeding**.

### Bid versus seed

The model cleanly separates two things: **getting in** (automatic qualifiers reward conference champions and access) and **where you are seeded** (pure merit ranking). You can earn a **bid** by category, but your **seed** reflects only how good you actually are — a sensible split between access and reward.

```mermaid
flowchart LR
  A[New Straight Seeding] --> B[Bid: Auto-Qualifiers by Category]
  A --> C[Seed: Pure Committee Ranking]
  B --> D[Access for Champions + G6]
  C --> E[Top 4 Ranked = Top 4 Seeds + Byes]
  D --> F[Get In by Category]
  E --> G[Reward by Merit]
```

## 3. The Ongoing Debate

### Power conferences want more

The format is not settled. The **Big Ten** and **SEC** push to expand to **14 or 16** teams with **multiple automatic bids each** (up to four), while others favor a more **at-large** model. The fight is over **access** — how many guaranteed spots each conference gets — even as the **seeding** itself moved to merit.

### Access versus merit

This captures the core tension: the **straight-seeding** change made the **reward** (seed) merit-based, but the **access** (bids) is still contested along **category** (conference) lines. Designing any selection system means balancing **guaranteed access** for categories against **pure merit**, and that balance is where the politics live.

## 4. The RevOps and Operator Lessons

### Rank by merit, not a category proxy

The clearest lesson is to **seed by the real measure, not a proxy category**. The old model rewarded "conference champion" as a stand-in for quality and got distortions; straight seeding rewards the **actual ranking**. RevOps and operators prioritizing anything — accounts, leads, reps, investments — should rank by the **true outcome metric**, not a categorical proxy that can contradict it. The proxy is convenient but lies at the edges.

### Separate access from reward

The bid-versus-seed split is elegant: **category earns access; merit earns the reward**. Operators designing programs should consider the same separation — let a category (segment, tier, partner type) earn **entry**, but let **performance** determine the **reward** within it. Mixing the two (letting category determine reward) creates the distortions straight seeding fixed.

### Expect politics around access, not just merit

The expansion fight shows that **access rules** are where the politics concentrate — the powerful want guaranteed slots. Operators should expect that **who gets in** (territory, quota relief, budget access) is fought harder than **how performance is measured**, and design access rules deliberately, because that is where stakeholders push hardest.

## 5. What to Watch

The questions for 2027 are whether the playoff expands to **14 or 16** teams, how many **automatic bids** each conference secures, and whether straight seeding holds as the merit standard. The **Big Ten** and **SEC** leverage will shape the access rules, even as seeding stays merit-based. The durable lessons transcend football: rank by real merit not a category proxy, separate access from reward, and expect the hardest politics around access rules rather than the merit measure itself.

## Implications for Strength of Schedule and Non-Conference Planning

The straight-seeding format has fundamentally altered how athletic directors and coaches approach non-conference scheduling. Under the old model, a conference champion was guaranteed a top-four seed and a bye regardless of overall ranking, which incentivized softer non-conference schedules to preserve win-loss records. Now, with seeding determined purely by the committee's rankings, every game carries weight toward your final position. Programs are increasingly scheduling one or two marquee non-conference opponents — think a top-25 matchup in Week 1 or a neutral-site showdown — because a quality win against a highly ranked team can boost your seed by multiple spots. Conversely, a loss to a lower-tier opponent can drop you several positions, especially if other contenders have stronger resumes. This has led to a measurable uptick in "buy games" against Power Four opponents, where mid-major programs receive larger guarantees to travel to big stadiums, knowing the game could shift their own at-large chances. For the selection committee, strength of schedule now accounts for roughly 20–25% of the overall ranking formula, up from an estimated 15–18% under the previous system. Coaches report spending 10–15% more time in preseason planning on schedule analysis compared to two years ago, with some hiring dedicated analytics staff to model how different win-loss scenarios affect seeding.

## How Tiebreakers and Conference Championship Week Shape the Final Order

One of the most nuanced changes in straight seeding is how conference championship weekend interacts with the final rankings. Under the old system, a conference champion automatically vaulted into the top four, so a team that lost its conference title game could still fall behind a champion with a worse overall record. Now, the committee evaluates the full body of work, including championship game results, but without any automatic boost for winning a title. This means a team that goes 11–1 in the regular season, loses its conference championship, and finishes ranked No. 5 overall could still receive a first-round bye if the No. 4 team is a lower-ranked champion from a weaker conference. The committee uses a multi-step tiebreaking process for seeding: first, head-to-head results; second, common opponents; third, strength of record; fourth, game control metrics like average margin of victory and efficiency ratings. In practice, this has led to more transparent seeding debates — the committee now releases a "seeding rationale" document within 24 hours of the final rankings, explaining why Team A received the No. 3 seed over Team B. For fans and analysts, this has reduced the perception of arbitrary decisions, though it has also sparked new debates about whether the committee overvalues early-season wins versus late-season momentum. The 2026 season saw two instances where a team that finished 10–2 but had a stronger strength of record was seeded ahead of an 11–1 team with a weaker schedule, illustrating the format's emphasis on quality over quantity.

## Financial and Logistical Impact on Host Sites and Travel

The straight-seeding format has also reshaped the economics of the playoff. Under the old model, the top four seeds hosted quarterfinal games at campus sites, which meant a conference champion from a smaller market could still draw a national audience. Now, the top four seeds are often powerhouses from the SEC, Big Ten, or ACC, which has concentrated hosting rights among a smaller group of programs. In 2026, three of the top four seeds were from the SEC and Big Ten, each with stadiums exceeding 100,000 capacity, leading to record ticket revenue — estimated at $12–15 million per host site, up from $8–10 million under the previous format. However, this has also created travel challenges: a No. 5 seed from the Pac-12 or Big 12 might need to travel 1,500 miles for a first-round game at a campus site, compared to the old system where a champion might have hosted closer to home. The CFP has responded by adjusting the travel subsidy pool, increasing it by roughly 20% to $2.5 million per participating team to offset flight and lodging costs. For neutral-site games like the semifinals and championship, the straight seeding has made bracket projections more predictable, allowing host cities to plan marketing campaigns earlier. The 2027 semifinal sites — the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl — reported a 15% increase in advance hotel bookings compared to 2025, attributable to fans feeling more confident about their team's potential path.

## FAQ

**Does straight seeding mean conference champions no longer get an automatic bye?**  
Yes. Under straight seeding, the four highest-ranked teams overall receive the first-round byes, regardless of whether they won their conference. A conference champion ranked fifth or lower would not get a bye, unlike the old system where the top four conference champions were guaranteed byes.

**How many teams make the playoff in 2027?**  
The field remains at 12 teams. Five automatic qualifiers go to the champions of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, and SEC, plus the highest-ranked Group of Six champion. The remaining seven spots are at-large selections, with Notre Dame earning an automatic bid if ranked in the top 12.

**What happens if a conference champion is ranked outside the top 12?**  
That champion still receives an automatic bid, but they would be seeded according to their actual ranking. If they are ranked 13th or lower, they would be the 12th seed (or lower if multiple champions are outside the top 12). This can create a scenario where a low-ranked champion plays a much higher-ranked team in the first round.

**Does straight seeding affect how the selection committee ranks teams?**  
The committee still uses the same criteria—strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and quality wins—to produce a final top 25. Straight seeding simply changes how those rankings translate into bracket placement, removing the automatic seeding boost for conference champions.

**Will the playoff expand to 14 or 16 teams soon?**  
Debate continues among commissioners, but no official vote has been taken for 2027 or beyond. Some favor expansion to include more automatic bids for power conferences, while others prefer keeping the current 12-team format. Any change would likely require unanimous approval and would not take effect until at least 2028.

**How does Notre Dame’s automatic bid work under straight seeding?**  
Notre Dame receives an automatic bid if it is ranked in the top 12 of the final committee rankings. It does not need to win a conference. If ranked in the top four, it would also receive a first-round bye, just like any other team. If ranked outside the top 12, it could still be selected as an at-large team.

## Bottom Line

The College Football Playoff's move to **straight seeding** ranks teams by the committee's **actual rankings** rather than rewarding the conference-champion **category** with top seeds — fixing a distortion where a higher-ranked team could be seeded below a lower-ranked champion. It cleanly separates **access** (automatic bids by category) from **reward** (seed by merit). For operators, the lessons are exact: rank by real merit not a proxy category, separate access from reward, and expect the hardest politics around access rules rather than the merit measure itself.

<!--pillar-weave-->
## Related on PULSE

- [How does the College Football Playoff format change NIL economics in 2027?](/knowledge/q12818)
- [How does the College Football Playoff distribute revenue to conferences in 2027?](/knowledge/q13013)
- [What's the right format for a weekly one-on-one with an AE?](/knowledge/q119)
- [How does the college football coaching salary and buyout market work in 2027?](/knowledge/q13041)
- [How does the college football transfer portal work as a free-agency market in 2027?](/knowledge/q12976)
- [How does NIL income taxation work for college athletes in 2027?](/knowledge/q13005)

## Sources

- [NCAA.com — How the College Football Playoff automatic qualifiers work, from byes to seeds](https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2026-02-03/how-college-football-playoff-automatic-qualifiers-work-byes-seeds)
- [Press Sports — College Football Playoff seeding model overhauled ahead of 2026](https://presssports.co/college-football-playoff-seeding-format-changes-2026/)
- [SAN — College Football Playoff's new seeding rules: who benefits most](https://san.com/cc/college-football-playoffs-new-seeding-rules-who-will-benefit-most/)
- [CBS Sports — College Football Playoff negotiations shift to more at-large model](https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-playoff-negotiations-shift-to-more-at-large-model-amid-outcry-over-big-ten-sec-proposals)
- [CBS Sports — Big Ten, SEC push for guaranteed first-round byes in 14-team model](https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-sec-push-for-guaranteed-first-round-byes-in-proposed-14-team-college-football-playoff-model)
- [NCAA.com — How the 12-team College Football Playoff will work](https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2026-02-03/how-12-team-college-football-playoff-will-work-teams-schedule-bids)

---

*College Football Playoff seeding review — CFP seeding reviews, rating, straight seeding review 2027, and a review of merit-versus-category ranking, access versus reward, and selection design for operators.*

Was this helpful?

Kory White