Lyon Life

Social Media

2025 College Football Playoffs recap, flaws, format changes

6–9 minutes

Nathan VanSteenkiste ‘26, Contributing Writer

This year’s College Football Playoffs (CFP) saw the introduction of the 12-team format, a new measure to allow more teams a shot at the championship, reducing the number of deserving teams—especially those that go undefeated—snubbed from playoff contention. During the 2023-24 season, the College Football Playoff Selection Committee, which decides the playoff teams, voted to omit the undefeated Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) Champion, Florida State, from the then-four-team postseason in favor of one-loss Alabama—a widely criticized move. The expanded format hoped to reduce similar controversies. 

Composed of the five highest-ranked conference champions and the next seven highest-ranked teams by the CFP Selection Committee, the new playoff system offered an opportunity for some smaller schools to gain national recognition—and even make a Cinderella-story-esque run—while still rewarding the most dominant programs. Oregon, Georgia, Boise State, and Arizona State were awarded the top four seeds, respectively, and received a bye in the first round. The remaining eight teams were seeded according to their ranking, and they faced off against each other in the first round, with the higher seed hosting. There were no surprises early on, as Texas, Penn State, Georgia, and Ohio State—the fifth through eighth-ranked teams, respectively—each won their matchup by double digits. 

However, all four games in the Quarterfinals—hosted at neutral sites—posed several upsets. In the Rose Bowl, eighth-ranked Ohio State dismantled a sluggish-presenting Oregon Ducks team 41-21. It was obvious that—due to its bye week—Oregon had not played a competitive game in nearly one month, compared to the Buckeyes, who were fresh, having won the previous week. Likewise, Boise State lost to sixth-seeded Penn State, Arizona State fell to fifth-ranked Texas in two overtimes, and second-seeded Georgia lost to Notre Dame, the seventh seed, 23-10, highlighting issues with the tournament schedule and the seeding process. 

In the Semifinals, the upsets continued, as Notre Dame won a close one against higher-seeded Penn State, while Ohio State easily bested Texas. And in the National Championship, which, according to The New York Times, “had the third lowest TV audience (22.1 million) for a CFP national title game,” Ohio State handled the Fighting Irish and won 34-23, marking their first national title since 2014.

Overall, the CFP’s first attempt with the expanded format was surprising. The Buckeyes, a team that would not have qualified with the old format, rose to the challenge, but their victory exposed many of the system’s flaws. 

Firstly, it makes little to no sense why the format rewarded the top four conference champions with byes, as it overly benefited teams like Boise State—actually the ninth-best team in the country, not the third—and Arizona State, which was the twelfth-highest ranked team, and not fourth. Although both deserved to make the CFP, it should not have been at the expense of other schools, including Penn State, who, if the CFP had not messed with the seeding, would have been ranked fourth and would have received a bye. 

Boosting certain seeds led to other unforeseen, unfair circumstances: Penn State, who did not have a bye, had an easier Quarterfinal matchup than the top-seeded Oregon Ducks. While Penn State played Boise State, with whom the Nittany Lions were favored to beat by 11 points, the Ducks had to play the eventual champion, Ohio State. 

Also, because the tournament dragged on for so long, receiving a bye was more of a curse than a tool; the extra preparation time was a disadvantage. All the top four seeds started their respective games slowly; when their scores are combined across the first quarter, the top four seeds only actually scored three points. 

Several things must change to improve the messy, incomplete 12-team format. According to a separate New York Times article, “adding two or four teams to the field or creating multiple automatic bids for the [top] conferences, become far more likely, starting in 2026,” meaning that more changes are certainly on the horizon for the CFP playoffs. But what would make the best scenario? Although not everyone will be entirely satisfied, there are two potential solutions that might be the key to unlocking a much fairer and respected postseason system. 

Option 1: Fewer Teams, But Fairer

Constituents: 

  • Eight teams make the CFP
  • The ranking of the teams will continue to be done by a selection committee
  • The top four conference champions will automatically qualify
    • The two highest-ranked conference champions will be awarded the one seed and two seed respectively
    • Everyone else will be seeded based on the CFP Selection Committee’s ranking
  • No byes
  • No home field advantage in any round
    • All matches will be hosted at historic bowl games
      • The bowls, including which hosts the Championship game, will rotate (yearly)

This year’s seeding (based on this ranking): 

  1. Oregon* 
  2. Georgia*
  3. Texas
  4. Penn State
  5. Notre Dame
  6. Ohio State
  7. Boise State*
  8. Arizona State*

Missed: Tennessee, Indiana, SMU, and Clemson*

*Denotes a Conference Champion

This option combines the old four-team format with some aspects of the expanded one, decreasing the number of teams invited and the time the playoffs take while promoting fairness. 

Although the CFP is looking to expand, downsizing could increase ratings and hype for the event. This year’s tournament saw a drop in viewership after the first week of games—likely due to them being such blowouts—which remained the case for the rest of the tournament. By decreasing the number of teams, the CFP would already be putting more worthy opponents against one another, likely leading to more dramatic, evenly-matched games, producing stellar finishes and ratings. The founder of Sports Philanthropy Network, Roy Kessel, thought an eight-team playoff would increase drama before the playoffs. In an article on his website, he wrote, “There are probably a dozen teams who could reasonably have a chance to make an 8 team playoff that would have zero chance to make a 4 team playoff,” arguing that it would set up critical games. 

Also, keeping the conference championship clause is essential because it ensures that the Playoffs have some representation besides the “Power” conferences. Although, in this format, Boise State and Arizona State would have been the two lowest seeds, they still make the playoffs, allowing them to pull off an upset. Furthermore, option one is fairer for a team like Oregon, as they do not have to wait an extra week to play or have an unusually tough first-round matchup—despite being the top seed.

Option 2: More Teams, More Exposure

Constituents: 

  • 16 teams make the CFP
  • The ranking of the teams will continue to be done by a selection committee
  • The top five conference champions will automatically qualify
    • The two highest-ranked conference champions will be awarded the one seed and two seed respectively
    • Everyone else will be seeded based on the CFP Selection Committee’s ranking
  • No byes
  • Homefield advantage for higher-ranked teams in the first round
  • All matches—from the quarterfinals—will be hosted at historic bowl games
    • The bowls, including which hosts the Championship game, will rotate (yearly).

This year’s seeding (based on this ranking): 

  1. Oregon* 
  2. Georgia*
  3. Texas
  4. Penn State
  5. Notre Dame
  6. Ohio State
  7. Tennessee
  8. Indiana
  9. Boise State*
  10. SMU
  11. Alabama**
  12. Arizona State*
  13. Miami**
  14. Ole Miss**
  15. South Carolina**
  16. Clemson*

*Denotes a Conference Champion

**Additional teams that would make the playoffs

This option creates an even bigger bracket—something that the CFP Committee was already considering—involving more fanbases and ideally boosting ratings. According to sports analyst Ralph D. Russo, even before the first iteration of the 12-team playoff last spring, “there was a push for expansion to 14 [teams].” Creating a postseason with 16 teams—an easily divisible number—eliminates the need for byes and the previously mentioned complications they post while increasing the programs that compete for the championship, as the CFP Committee wanted. Considering 128 teams are eligible for the National Championship, it makes sense for more to be involved. 

Implementing option two would potentially increase the number of viewers and fans in attendance, which, as mentioned, took a hit this year. Widening the field would not only involve more schools but also their students, alumni, and students’ families—in addition to in-person attendance. If the CFP committee is so concerned with viewership, perhaps including more teams and games—especially by adding home games in the first round—will raise the stakes and make it feel more like an event, similar to March Madness, where the NCAA has fans fill out a bracket and bet on who they think will advance. What’s stopping the CFP from doing a similar thing and expanding its audience in addition to the number of schools? 

Overall, the CFP format requires tweaking—whether it be expanding the number of schools or condensing—and improvements must be made to the seeding process to ensure accurate results with some upsets. Ohio State deserved the win this year because they performed the best under the 12-team format; however, the tournament could have been drastically different—and improved—with better seeding rules and the elimination of byes.