Since college football changed how it crowned its champions from one game played between two arbitrarily selected teams, to a four-team playoff in 2014, teams and fans alike have pushed for an expanded playoff field. And in 2024-25, those who wanted the larger field were granted their wish. But despite the expanded field this past season, there was still plenty of controversy surrounding the selection of teams. SEC schools like Ole Miss and Alabama pleaded their cases in vain to the committee over SMU and Indiana, who to the disdain of many, ultimately earned berths over the aforementioned SEC hopefuls. While I think the committee made the right picks, the product said teams put out of the field was not exactly entertaining. That’s why its time to shake up the college football playoff format yet again, but we’ll be expanding it, not shrinking it.
In thermodynamics, the law of entropy dictates that things naturally tend to become more disorderly over time. Such is also the case when it comes to college football conference realignment.
What started out as a trickle in the early 2010s with programs like Mizzou and Texas A&M jumping ship from the Big 12 to the SEC has turned into a full-on flood. In 2024 alone, we saw blue-bloods Texas & Oklahoma leave the Big 12 for the SEC, and Oregon, UCLA, USC and Washington leave the PAC-12 for the Big 10. This has caused a chain reaction of conferences to poach schools from each other all throughout college football. If G6 programs were fighting an uphill battle just to sniff the playoff before, they need to climb K2 now. This is all the more the reason why we need a bigger playoff format.
Critics of the selection of this past years playoff teams argue that SMU and Indiana should not have made the playoff just because of their record alone, and that Ole Miss and Alabama, despite having three regular season losses, deserved a playoff berth more due to a tougher strength of schedule. The plight of Bama and Ole Miss can be partially chalked up to the new superconference that they are a part of. Critics argue that if SMU or Indiana had played an SEC strength of schedule, their record would have more blemishes. A counter argument to that is those teams could schedule non-conference opponents to bolster their strength of schedule. In 2024, Tennessee’s non-conferenceschedule consisted of FCS Chattanooga, Kent State (who went on to be winless), NC State, and UTEP (non P4), while Ole Miss’s was Furman (FCS), Middle Tennessee (non P4), Wake Forest and Georgia Southern. Furthermore, although Indiana’sschedule was one of the weakest in the Big 10, they still won eleven games against the teams put against them in one of the toughest conferences, and if I am the committee, given the format, I have no choice but to respect that.
There are valid cases on both sides, but a new playoff format would eliminate the need for such arguments by being more inclusive of fringe P4 schools while giving the Davids of college football a chance in a world of Goliaths. It would also provide a more level playing field for said fringe teams by not immediately pitting them against college footballs powerhouses, thus creating more exciting matchups.
The football championship subdivision (FCS) has already given us the perfect blueprint for what the playoff should look like, but we can make it better. In the FCS, twenty-four teams make the playoffs. Eight teams receive a first-round bye, and the higher seed hosts every game until the championship, which is played at a neutral site. Although home field advantage is important no matter where you play, playing at a stadium with a capacity of 20,000 versus 100,000 clad in white in Happy Valley is not the same. So, that’s where I would make my first change. Anything after the first round should be played at a neutral site. Although some teams should still be rewarded with a bye, I would limit home field advantage to the play in round, which brings me to my next point.
In my new format for the FBS playoff there would be a total of six rounds. My pitch: Each winner of the Power 4 conferences (ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big XII) get an automatic berth and a byeto the 3rd round. Then, the next highest ranked P4 teams to not win their conference earn a bye to the 3rd round. The next twelve berths would be at large. Six bids would also go to the highest ranked G6 conference winners, who would earn a bye to the second round. The final two bids would be decided by play-in games similar to the First Four in March Madness, this would be between the four lowest seeds as determined by the committee.
In this scenario, there are no losers. What separates this format from the newest iteration isn’t just the number of teams playing. Fans get what they want by seeing fringe teams pitted against one another, putting to bed any arguments on who should have made it, while weeding out obvious mismatches. The reason why teams shouldn’t have home field advantage past the first round is because this isn’t the NFL where all teams are on the same level in terms of resources, college football is the complete opposite. Teams should not be awarded home field advantage essentially because they have more money than another school, which, like it or not, is how it works. Finally, more games means more revenue for everyone involved.
Group of five til' I die 