The College Football Playoff (CFP) system has undergone a seismic shift this year with the introduction of an expanded 12-team format. A non-Power 5 school would require an undefeated season to qualify for the playoffs. Now that more teams are battling for the championship, excitement is undeniably added to the postseason. Yet, questions about fairness and seeding accuracy in this format are being raised.
The expansion from the original four-team playoff, introduced in 2014, offers a postseason spot to a wider variety of teams. Teams that would not have a chance otherwise, such as mid-tier Power Four teams and D1 teams outside the Power Four conference, now have a legitimate shot at competing for a national championship. Now, teams such as Boise State, Indiana, SMU, and Clemson can make the playoffs.
The expanded playoff has also exposed flaws in the seeding process. Undefeated Big Ten champion Oregon Ducks entered the playoff with a perfect 13-0 record. Yet, despite a flawless season, Oregon was forced to face Ohio State in the first round. This resulted in a dominant 41-21 win for the Buckeyes, widely considered the most talented roster in college football, and highlights two key problems with the 12-team format.
Firstly, seeding should reflect both record and talent. According to the CFP website, “The selection committee ranks the teams based on the members’ evaluation of the teams’ performance on the field, using conference championships won, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and comparison of results against common opponents to decide among teams that are comparable.” Additionally, the champions of the four major conferences – the ACC, SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 – receive an automatic CFP appearance and a first-round bye in the 12-team format.
Something that cannot be quantified, but is nevertheless important in evaluating a team’s skill level, is the ‘eye test’: judging an athlete on personal observations rather than statistics or media coverage. In the case of Oregon vs. OSU, Ohio State passes the eye test because the talent of their roster is obvious when you watch them dominate each of this season’s games.
The 12-team format should prioritize the protection of the best teams, allowing them to ease into the postseason and not face their toughest competition immediately.
Ideally, a top team like Oregon should be playing easier opponents, not a juggernaut like Ohio State. A challenge so early in the postseason undermines a manageable path to the semifinals, possibly derailing their championship aspirations before they even get a chance to build momentum.
To ensure that the expanded playoff delivers on its promise of fairness and excitement, the seeding process should be reframed so that teams with the best overall performance are given preferential treatment in playoff matchups. Conference champions should still be guaranteed a spot in the playoff if seeding were based on a combination of their record, strength of schedule, and the competitiveness of their conference.
The task of the CFP committee to ensure just rankings of all deserving candidates is highly difficult. However, the committee should strive to perfect the ranking system to make the playoffs more entertaining and fair.
The 12-team College Football Playoff is a step in the right direction for the sport and will improve excitement, drama, and inclusivity. With some adjustments to the seeding process, the expanded playoff could become the ultimate postseason format for college football—one that rewards teams for their hard work while also delivering the level of competition fans expect. The 2024 season may be just the beginning of a new era in college football.
