Playoff Expansion is Inevitable: What's the Best Format?

David Rosenblum/Icon Sportswire

History of the Playoff

Amidst rapid and unpredictable changes to college football in the last decade or so, the expansion of the playoff has been one of the most significant.

The first "playoff" began in 1998, with the BCS format. Rankings and computer generated metrics determined the top two teams in the nation, and they would play to determine the national champion. Simple enough.

In 2014, the first ever true playoff, with multiple rounds began, and was objectively the best format when the conferences looked as they did at the time. The top four teams in the nation were selected by a committee, and the semi-finals, and national championship would ensue.

Then, as a consequence of conference realignment, the playoff expanded to twelve teams in 2024. The four highest ranked conference champions received a bye week, the highest ranked group of five champion received an automatic berth, and the other seven were seeded around that.

Mark J. Rebilas / USA Today Sports

With the Big Ten and SEC holding all the power, receiving the strongest members of the Pac-12 and Big-12 respectively, the playoff needed to expand. The conferences and conference schedules are much too bloated to send just four teams into post-season play. However, allowing twelve teams into the playoff devalues the regular season. The college football season is too short and historically holds too much value to allow multiple two loss teams into the field, in my opinion.

Changes for 2025

The twelve team format that we had in the 2024/25 season was bad, to say the least. Regardless of how you feel about the twelve team playoff, giving four conference champions the automatic bye assumes that all conferences are built equal. Short answer: they aren't. In fact, that system actually rewarded the teams who lost their conference championships in the Big 10 (Penn State) and SEC (Texas).

For example, Penn State got to play: SMU and Boise State en route to the semi-finals. Oregon, who won the Big Ten over Penn State just weeks before, had to play Ohio State.

The changes this year were just settled on May 22nd. The playoff model (for JUST this year) are going to switch to a straight seeding model, while still including the five highest ranked conference champions. This means that it will just rank the teams as they are, and give the automatic-byes to just the four highest ranked teams, not conference champions.

"After evaluating the first year of the 12-team Playoff, the CFP management committee felt it was in the best interest of the game to make this adjustment... This change will continue to allow guaranteed access to the Playoff by rewarding teams for winning their conference championship, but it will also allow us to construct a postseason bracket that recognizes the best performance on the field during the entire season." - Rich Clark - CFP Executive Director

Proposed Formats for 2026 & Beyond

Conference commisioners and college football pundits have proposed several different formats for the further expanded playoff, and there are a couple different options that could work.

Sixteen Team - 5+11

This format gives automatic qualifiers to the five highest ranked conference champions, meaning the power four champs and the highest ranked G5 conference champion will get the berth, as we see in the current model. Then, there are eleven at-large bids.

While the four AQ's given to the SEC and Big 10 may feel on the surface that they are exercising all the power, this model would most benefit those two conferences. The 5+11 model would likely get more than four SEC teams in the playoff almost every year. If it benefits the SEC, then it's likely what we will receive sadly.

This model reeks. Simply putting the sixteen best teams in the country in a playoff would allow multiple three-loss teams into the playoff, and most likely a four-loss team as well. What happened to the game I love? Devaluing the regular season is never the answer for college football, and should never be.

Do not let casuals convince you that "it's more football games that matter!" The regular season is what should matter in college football. It's not a seventeen game NFL schedule, and if you lose four games on your schedule, you do not belong in a playoff in college football. Those same casuals will also tell you that "more football is never a bad thing!" Well, yes it is, in this case at least. I can assure you that you don't want to see the number one team in the nation play the sixteenth best team in a post-season game. It's a waste of time. Even with the expanded conferences, there are at the very most, about eight to ten teams who could win a national championship each year. To be genereous.

Fourteen Team - Automatic Qualifiers (AQ's) + At Large with Conference Play-ins

SEC - 4 AQ's - Big 10 - 4 AQ's - ACC - 2 AQ's - Big 12 - 2 AQ's - Highest Ranked G5 Champ + one at large bid

Four-Four-Two-Two-One-One. This format would be the SEC and Big Ten wielding their power to the fullest extent, though it makes sense. With the way the conferences are structured, there are not more than two teams from the ACC or Big 12 that could reasonably win a national championship. However, there may not always be a fourth team who could win a national championship in the "power 2," especially in the Big 10. Do we really think Iowa is equipped to win a natty in any given year?

With this format, we would likely see conference play-in games during the traditional conference championship weekend, or potentially during Army vs Navy week, as sad as that would be. In these play-ins, the format would likely go something like this: 1 vs 2 (Conference championship), 6 seed at 3 seed, 5 seed at 4 seed. Both teams from the championship game would make the playoff, but the other two games would be must win matchups in order to qualify for the CFP.

While expanding the playoff may seem like the regular season will only be further devalued, this system can actually fix that, to a degree. This format places all of the attention on the conference races, making those eight or nine games all crucial, and make every game matter again. Yes, the non-conference value is destroyed, but it could end up in some great early season matchups. If it doesn't impact the playoff race, what is stopping Tennessee and Oregon, or LSU and Michigan from setting up home-and-home matchups early in the year?

Perhaps the biggest plus of this format is that it takes the committee out of the selection process. All the committee would do is seed the bracket once the teams have concluded their regular season and conference play-ins. The AQ structure focuses on the conference race, thus making the regular season more important than it did in the twelve team model. I'm a fan. Oh, and it reserves a spot for Notre Dame. Because of course it does.

Why the Change?

If you ever need to ask why there has been a significant change in college football, it almost always is driven mostly, or solely by money. These decisions are being made by people in suits who do not care about college football or its fans.

There are some advantages for specific teams, as their recruiting profiles can and have expanded as a result of moving conferences, and gaining more visibility through the playoff. However, for every one team that it has helped, there are likely two who hate the changes.

The massive conferences and "power 2" set up in college football make a big playoff necessary, whether you like it or not.

What's the Best Model?

In case you couldn't tell by the previously discussed models, the fourteen team, four-four-two-two-one-one model is best. If it puts more value on the regular season, and it invites great non-con games early on, I'm all for it. Plus, that conference championship weekend, featuring the play-in games would be meaningful, and electric.