If we’ve learned anything in college football over these last few years, it’s to not get too comfortable with status quo. At every turn, massive changes are implemented that completely reshape the sports’ structure. Among those things that seem to be constantly changing is the College Football Playoff, and on Thursday, the leaders of the sport voted to make an immediate change to the current playoff model.
College Football Playoff moving to “straight seeding” model
Starting this season, the College Football Playoff will adopt a “straight seeding” model for the 12-team playoff according to Yahoo’s Ross Dellenger. In the original 12-team playoff, which debuted last season, the Top 4 seeds, which received first round byes, were reserved for conference champions.
This meant that the playoff seeding was not guaranteed to align with the actual CFP rankings, and that was the case in 2024. Though Texas and Penn State were ranked Nos. 3 and 4 in the CFP rankings, they were seeded Nos. 5 and 6 in the field while Boise State and Arizona State, Nos. 9 and 12 in the rankings, received the 3 and 4-seeds.
Now, the rankings and playoff seeding will align. As a result, winning a conference championship is no longer a prerequisite for earning a first round bye. Though the five highest ranked conference champs are guaranteed a spot in the field, the Top 4 seeds will simply go to whoever the Playoff Committee deems to be the four best teams.
How would this have looked last season? Quite compelling.
The first round matchups would have been Clemson at Notre Dame, Boise State at Indiana, Arizona State at Ohio State, and SMU at Tennessee. On paper, those look to be much more competitive matchups overall than what we saw last season, which makes sense considering the seeding would be more reflective of actual team quality.
Straight-seeding is the logical move for the College Football Playoff
I’ll admit that when the original 12-team CFP model was released, I liked having the first round byes reserved for conference champs. One of my concerns with an expanded playoff model was the impact on the regular season. Would the importance of high-profile matchups be devalued? My viewpoint was that by making a bye something that was only attainable by winning your league, you would keep significant stakes on every game considering the value of winning the conference as it pertained to your national title hopes.
What I didn’t consider were the unintended consequences on the quality of playoff matchups and how the top-seeded teams would actually be punished in this format. The original seeding format created far too many uncompetitive games in the first round. Three of the first four games were blowouts with only one being somewhat competitive. And while it’s impossible to know how the seeding will play out year by year, when Ohio State and the nation’s best roster is landing as your 8-seed, you’re probably getting some ugly first round matchups.
And on that note, teams No. 1 and 2, Oregon and Georgia, really suffered from this. The nation’s top ranked teams got matched with the eventual championship game participants in Ohio State and Notre Dame in the quarterfinals because the first round matchups didn’t reflect actual team quality. Earning that bye ended up being a disadvantage due to the bracket.
Again, would that have been the case every year had they kept the original model? We don’t know. But what we do know is that with straight seeding, the advantage is, on paper, going to stay with the higher-seeded team throughout, which is the most fair. And you still create a format where, at the very least, the semifinal, and ideally final, matchups should be fantastic. This was the correct move for the CFP moving forward.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
