Like it or not, the playoffs are going to expand.
If we expand the playoffs in a good way, it could fix many of the problems with the current playoff system, such as:
(1) Rankings are very bad at predicting the outcome of games, yet they are used to determine who gets a chance to play in the playoffs.
(2) Some teams have a 25-day gap between games.
(3) Teams are punished for having a good non-conference game on their schedule (and rewarded for having weak schedules).
(4) Teams are punished for playing in their conference championship games.
In order to have a realistic plan for the CFP playoffs, all of the stakeholders must be on board: conferences, universities, TV networks, and bowl organizers.
This year, in the BIG championship game, both teams were guaranteed a spot in the playoffs and (short of a massive blowout) both teams were guaranteed a bye. However, the game still had the 2nd-largest audience of any non-playoff college football game this year. In the SEC championship game, both teams were a lock to make the playoffs and it was still the 3rd-most watched non-playoff game of the year.
Regardless of how obsolete you might think conference championship games are, they are not going anywhere. Apparently, both fans and TV networks want to keep these games. So, we should make playing in them more valuable and not punish teams for playing in them.
The current bowl game structure is not going anywhere either. It is possible to keep this structure and add 12 more home playoff games.
The 5-Point Plan below would benefit all of the stakeholders and fix the four problems mentioned above. It also adds many benefits like more home playoff games, better non-conference regular season games, more conference rivalry, more meaningful regular season games, and a better reward structure for finishing 1st through 4th in your conference.
1. Group A: Teams that played in a Power-4 conference championship game
All 8 teams that play in the conference championship game for the ACC, BIG, Big 12, and SEC get a one-week bye (they skip Round 0) and get a home playoff game in Round 1. This group of 8 teams is referred to as Group A. The teams are seeded by their CFP ranking; however, teams that played each other in their conference championship game must be in opposite halves of the bracket.
2. Group B: The next two best teams in each Power-4 conference
Based on CFP rankings, Group B contains the two highest ranked teams in each of the Power-4 conferences that are not in Group A. The 8 teams in Group B are seeded in Round 0 so that the highest ranked teams in Group B are matched with the lowest ranked teams in Group A; however, each quarter of the bracket must contain a team from the ACC, BIG, Big 12, and SEC.
An example using this year’s rankings is provided at the end of the 5-point plan.
3. Group C: 8 at-large teams
Based on CFP rankings, 8 at-large teams are selected and referred to as Group C. If the CFP commission insists on having one or two spots reserved for non-Power-4 conference champions, the automatic bids would be part of the 8 teams in Group C.
Regardless of how the teams in Group C are chosen, when seeding in Round 0, the highest ranked teams in Group C are matched with the lowest ranked teams in Group A.
4. Home Games and Bowl Games
In Round 0, Group B vs. Group C, the home team is determined by CFP rankings.
In Round 1, the teams in Group A are the home teams.
Rounds 2 – 4 stay the same: 6 CFP bowl games and the national championship game.
There are 16 different teams with one home playoff game.
5. Scheduling
Conference championship week would remain intact. All 8 Power-4 teams would get a one-week bye (skipping Round 0) to make up for playing an extra game.
Round 0 starts the Friday and Saturday after conference championship week. This is one week before the current 12-team playoff system begins.
Rounds 1 – 4 follow the same schedule as the current 12-team playoff system. The only difference is that Round 1 would have 8 games instead of 4.
Notre Dame and every Power-4 team (whether they played in a CCG or not) would get two weeks between their last non-playoff game and their first playoff game. This eliminates the 25-day gap that exists in the current system.
The bracket using this year’s rankings is shown below:
https://imgur.com/a/ihb92lc (sorry, the website won't let me insert an image)
Each quarter-bracket contains 6 teams: one team from each of the Power-4 conferences plus two at-large teams. The winner of each quarter-bracket goes to the final four.
In Round 0 and Round 1, the team on the bottom is the home team.
Step-by-step details of how the bracket was seeded are at the end of the article.
What are the benefits of seeding the bracket this way?
The bracket is set up so the top four teams in each Power-4 conference are spread across the bracket. Every year, it is possible for the final four teams to all be from the same conference. This promotes rivalry between the conferences, which is good for the fans, good for the conferences, and makes the sport more exciting.
Also, this seeding format follows the tradition of the original bowl games, which were designed to have teams from different conferences play each other. This is good for TV ratings as these games will reach a wider audience. Over time, regional rivalries could develop.
If you do not seed this way, there can be serious problems with the bracket.
If you use last year’s CFP rankings (2024) and seed the teams by ranking in a 16-team bracket (which is what the SEC wants), all 5 teams from the SEC are in the same half of the bracket. See https://imgur.com/7561vUt. This should get the SEC to change their mind.
In the 24-team bracket being proposed, the seeding method ensures that the only way teams could play each other 3 times in one season is if they play in the national championship game.
This plan keeps the CFP selection committee, but greatly reduces their power.
The “bubble teams” are all ranked below 20, so no legitimate title contenders are left out.
Because of the seeding rules, if you change the CFP ranking of a team by a small amount, it usually has little to no effect on the bracket. Given how inaccurate the CFP rankings often turn out to be, it’s good to reduce their impact.
This plan leads to good brackets.
This year, unranked Duke won the ACC and #10 Miami didn’t get to play in the ACC championship game. Even though this puts a “kink” in the bracket, if teams won according to their CFP ranking, the quarter-finals would be: Oregon v Georgia, Texas A&M (or Notre Dame) v Ohio State, Alabama (or Miami) v Texas Tech, and Ole Miss v Indiana. Every game would have two legitimate teams from two different conferences (unlike the 2025 quarterfinals). In addition, there is always the possibility of a Cinderella team because every team with a legitimate chance to win was included in the playoffs.
Due to the seeding of the bracket, a Cinderella team would need to win 2 or 3 games against higher ranked teams in order to make the final four.
Expanding the playoffs makes the regular season Power-4 conference games, and the games with teams ranked #14 – #30, more meaningful.
Games that determine who makes the conference championship game would be more important (Group A gets a one-week bye and a home game). Games that determine 3rd and 4th place in the Power-4 conferences would be more important (Group B get automatic bids and probably a home game). Games involving teams ranked #14 – #30 would be more important (Group C qualifies and possibly gets a home game).
In the last few weeks of the regular season, there would be more teams competing for playoff spots and home field advantage (16 teams get a home playoff game). Furthermore, it gives more fans hope for a meaningful post-season. This is good for the sport and good for TV ratings.
Why have 24 teams instead of 16?
A 24-team playoff allows teams to schedule better non-conference games.
Teams that schedule good non-conference games should be rewarded with valuable in-game experience, without greatly reducing their chances of making the playoffs. If you remove Texas’s non-conference loss to #2 Ohio State in the first game of the year, Texas had two losses and two wins over top-8 teams, including Oklahoma. This would have put them in the playoffs as the highest ranked 2-loss team (ahead of Oklahoma). Texas was punished for playing a good non-conference game – a game that had the 2nd-highest ratings of any regular season college football game. Obviously, fans want football games like this – so do TV networks.
If you want to see good non-conference games at the beginning of the season, then you need a playoff format that includes good teams with 3 losses and a tough schedule.
Texas played #2 Ohio State, #3 Georgia, #7 Texas A&M, and #8 Oklahoma. They lost by 7 points to #2 in the first game of the year and convincingly beat #7 and #8 late in the season. Any team with a resume like that should get a chance to play in the playoffs (as a lower seed). Texas A&M and Oklahoma are both in the playoffs and there is no reason to think that Texas couldn’t beat those teams again.
Why isn’t this 3-loss team better than a 2-loss team who never beat a playoff caliber team?
Currently, Ohio State has non-conference games scheduled with Texas, Alabama, and Georgia. Because Texas was kept out of the playoffs this year, there is already talk about canceling those games (both from Texas and Alabama). A better solution is to fix the broken playoff system and keep these excellent non-conference games – they are good for fans and TV ratings.
A 16-team playoff gives too much power to the ranking committee.
A 16-team playoff punishes teams for playing in their conference championship games.
CFP rankings are very bad at predicting the outcomes of the games.
This year, just like last year, there are several 2-loss teams (and two 3-loss teams) that are good enough to have a legitimate shot at winning the national championship. Ranking teams who have different schedules and opponents is extremely difficult and imprecise.
Even when teams play each other in the same conference, there are problems with the CFP rankings. This year, after #16 Texas soundly beat #3 Texas A&M in the last week of the season, the CFP committee then ranked Texas A&M #7 and Texas #13. Then, #7 Texas A&M lost at home (with the 12th man) to #10 Miami, who just barely made the playoffs. #10 Miami then beat #2 Ohio State.
#23 Iowa convincingly beat #14 Vanderbilt even though Vanderbilt had no opt outs and a 6th-year senior quarterback with something to prove to the NFL.
#4 Texas Tech got shut out and blown out by the 3rd best team in the BIG (according to CFP rankings). We will never know how Texas Tech compares to any other non-Big 12 team, because they didn’t play any teams from the ACC, BIG, or SEC. This is why we need to play the games and not rely on rankings to tell us who the best teams are. The teams who win on the football field are often different from the teams who win the rankings game. Using the AP Poll or the Coach’s Poll would be even worse.
In general, I believe that teams ranked #1 – #5 by the CFP committee (at the end of the regular season) would very likely beat teams ranked #15 – #25, most of the time, so rankings have some validity. However, last year, none of the top 4 ranked teams made it to the national championship game – and the 6th-ranked team won. This year, the #2, #3, and #4 ranked teams did not even make it to the final four.
Since CFP rankings are so bad at predicting the outcome of games, the best solution is to give a spot in the playoffs to every team with a “legitimate” chance to win.
Expanding to a 24-team playoff system fixes this problem.
If you only include 12 or 16 teams, then how you rank #10 – #17 is crucial, even though CFP rankings are a terrible predictor of who would win a head-to-head matchup. If you include 24 teams, then how you rank #10 – #17 doesn’t matter that much.
This year, #10 – #17 includes three teams that actually had a legitimate shot at winning. Now imagine if Penn State, USC (#1 recruiting class 2025), Clemson, LSU, Florida State, Michigan, or Florida were actually good this year. Conferences are huge, the schedules of teams barely overlap, and NIL has spread out the talent. This puts us in a situation where legitimate teams will be voted out of the playoffs every year (even in a 16-team bracket).
Because the conferences have gotten so huge, at the end of every regular season, there are several 1-loss and 2-loss Power-4 teams (or Notre Dame) who haven’t beaten any playoff caliber teams. Often, these teams are over-ranked by the CFP committee because they put so much emphasis on win/loss records. This often prevents better teams, that played a tougher schedule, from making the playoffs. This situation is avoided if we have 24 teams in the playoffs.
Expanding the playoffs can greatly minimize the politicking and bickering.
In a 24-team playoff, every team with a legitimate shot of winning is included. Also, one or two Group-of-6 teams that look dominant, but haven’t played anyone, get a chance to see if they are competitive with the Power-4.
Scheduling
The scheduling of this playoff system follows the current schedule. The only difference is that a Round 0 is added one week earlier.
16 different teams get a home playoff game. This benefits the fans, the universities, the TV networks, the conferences, and even Notre Dame and the group-of-6 teams. In 2025, under this system, #20 Tulane would have gotten a home playoff game against #22 Georgia Tech.
All 8 teams that played in a Power-4 conference championship game get a one-week bye, so no one is punished for playing in a Power-4 CCG. Notre Dame and every Power-4 team (whether they played in a CCG or not) would get two weeks between their last non-playoff game and their first playoff game. This eliminates the 25-day gap that exists in the current system.
The schedule leaves all of the bowl games in the playoffs intact, which benefits the bowl organizers. By starting one week early and then following the current schedule, there is very minimal impact on bowl games that are not part of the CFP. This year, there were two bowl games during Round 0: the Celebration Bowl and the LA Bowl. There was also Army vs. Navy. I’m sure the huge infusion of money from Round 0 would motivate the TV networks to find a way to accommodate those three games.
Details of how to seed the bracket for this year’s teams:
Step 1: Group A (teams that played in a Power-4 conference championship game)
This year, the teams in Group A ranked from highest to lowest are:
#1 Indiana, #2 Ohio State, #3 Georgia, #4 Texas Tech, #9 Alabama, #12 BYU, #19 Virginia, and unranked Duke.
Why is Duke ranked so low when they just beat Virginia in the ACC conference championship game? Why is Virginia ranked so high when they just got beat by an unranked team in a game that Virginia needed to win in order to make the playoffs? Those are good questions for the CFP committee.
Using the standard bracket seeding, you can seed these 8 teams in Round 1 according to their ranking and teams from the same conference will be in opposite halves of the bracket. In some years, you would need to deviate (as little as possible) from the rankings in order to place teams from the same conference in opposite halves of the bracket.
The bracket seeding for the teams from Group A is shown below.
https://imgur.com/a/nptzSyc (sorry, the website won't let me insert an image)
Step 2: Group B (the next two best teams in each Power-4 conference)
This year, the 8 teams in Group B ranked from highest to lowest are:
#5 Oregon, #6 Old Miss, #7 Texas A&M, #10 Miami, #15 Utah, #16 USC, #17 Arizona, and #22 Georgia Tech. Fun fact: 3 teams from this group made it to the final four this year.
The teams in Group A ranked from lowest to highest are:
Duke, Virginia, BYU, Alabama, Texas Tech, Georgia, Ohio State, Indiana.
Start with Duke, the lowest ranked team in Group A. Duke is in the bottom quarter of the bracket with Indiana, so the teams from Group B must be from the Big 12 and the SEC. The highest ranked eligible team is Old Miss, so they are seeded in the bracket in Round 0 where the winner plays Duke.
Next is Virginia, the 2nd-lowest ranked team in Group A. Virginia is in the same quarter bracket as Ohio State, so the teams from Group B must be from the Big 12 and the SEC. The highest ranked eligible team remaining is Texas A&M, so they are seeded in the bracket in Round 0 where the winner plays Virginia.
Next is BYU, the 3rd-lowest ranked team in Group A. BYU is in the top quarter of the bracket with Georgia, so the teams from Group B must be from the ACC and the BIG. The highest ranked eligible team remaining is Oregon, so they are seeded in the bracket in Round 0 where the winner plays BYU.
This process continues until the last remaining team in Group B is seeded in the bracket in Round 0 where the winner plays #1 Indiana.
Step 3: Group C (the 8 at-large teams)
This year, the 8 teams in Group C ranked from highest to lowest are:
#7 Oklahoma, #11 Notre Dame, #13 Texas, #14 Vanderbilt, #18 Michigan, #20 Tulane, #21 Houston, and #23 Iowa.
The teams in Group A ranked from lowest to highest are:
Duke, Virginia, BYU, Alabama, Texas Tech, Georgia, Ohio State, Indiana.
Group C teams are seeded in Round 0 where Oklahoma is matched with Duke, Notre Dame is matched with Virginia, Texas is matched with BYU, Vanderbilt is matched with Alabama, etc.
Because unranked Duke won the ACC, they kicked #24 James Madison out of the playoffs (in a “normal” year, the top 24 ranked teams would be in the playoffs). If the CFP insists that Group C contain two non-Power-4 conference champions, then #24 James Madison would be in the playoffs and #23 Iowa would be left out. The other non-P4 conference champion, #20 Tulane, made the playoffs in Group C because of their CFP ranking – they even got a home game because #22 Georgia Tech is ranked below them.
Below is the final bracket.
https://imgur.com/a/ihb92lc (sorry, the website won't let me insert an image)
