Mods: This is my first forum post, so please make any corrections if necessary.
I've been thinking about this topic for a long time, and I finally wanted to gather people's thoughts on it. I believe the current CFP format is very flawed, particularly the fact that the top four conference champions are all ranked 1-4. This seems unfair and doesn't reward the top teams. It’s also quite unnecessary.
It’s pretty much a consensus opinion that the eventual winners of the ACC and Big 12 championships this year (who will almost certainly be granted the 3rd and 4th seeds) will be two of the weakest teams in the CFP field—yes, this includes Miami, which has played a joke of a schedule. We’ve been hearing for years about how many conference championship games are useless and how more value should be added to them. That logic supports giving the top four conference champions the 1-4 seeding, aside from the obvious financial factors. However, the Big 12 and ACC championship games would still hold significant meaning, even if it weren’t for the two teams competing for a top-four seed. The reason is simple: it’s likely that the ACC and Big 12 will each only get one representative in the CFP anyway, unless the CFP decides to include a 12-1 Miami if they don't win. Given that these games are possibly, if not likely, playoff elimination games, they should already have enough at stake.
It's also simply not fair to give them a 3rd or 4th seed. You’re telling me that the ACC and Big 12 champions, who play a much easier schedule, deserve a bye week over the loser of the Big Ten or SEC championship games? Almost certainly not!
Lastly, perhaps most importantly, I believe that the fifth seed—not the first seed—has the most advantageous path in the current CFP format. Think about it for a second. While the first seed has a bye, the fifth seed will be playing a home game against an inferior G5 team (most likely Boise State). This is a game they will most likely win, regardless of who it is. Then, in the quarterfinals, the fifth seed will likely face the Big 12 champion, while the #1 seed will have to contend with a much tougher opponent. I can almost guarantee that whoever wins the 8/9 game will be better (probably significantly) than the Big 12 champion. This gives the #5 seed a much easier quarterfinal matchup, which will almost certainly lead to a relatively easy path to the semifinals. The same can be said for the winner of the 6/11 game, who will likely be facing an inferior ACC champion. Additionally, the bye week can be a double-edged sword. While the top four seeds benefit from a bye week, I believe that such a break can be detrimental in this new format. Coaches may appreciate bye weeks for allowing their players to heal after a long season (and for giving them more time for recruiting), but these teams will have a 23-24 day layoff, while their opponents will only have a 10-11 day layoff. This could cause the team coming off a bye week to come out a little flat, potentially leading to upsets against teams that are likely top-six caliber. We’ve seen this happen in professional sports.
In theory, the #1 seed should have the easiest path to the CFP semifinals, and I don’t believe that’s the case under the current format. The #5/12 and #6/11 seeds shouldn’t have an easier quarterfinal matchup than the #1 and #2 seeds.
Solution:
While the playoff will be expanding to 14 teams in 2026 anyway, I propose this format for next season:
- The top two (not top four) conference champions should receive a bye week. This would ensure that the Big Ten and SEC championship games have significance, while the Big 12 and ACC championship games would potentially serve as playoff elimination games.
- The top five conference champions receive automatic bids. This will ensure that the ACC and Big 12 champions still make the playoff, but their seed wouldn’t be inflated.
- Rank the rest of the teams 3-12 accordingly.
What are your thoughts on this?
