The College Football Playoff Management Committee convened in Dallas last week to discuss potential modifications to the 12-team playoff format, including adjustments to the seeding process. However, after much discussion, the commissioners ultimately decided to delay any formal decisions, citing the need for more data and analysis.
The meeting, which brought together all 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua, marked the first in person discussion on possible changes to the newly expanded format. Despite a productive exchange of ideas, no resolutions were reached. Instead, the committee opted to reconvene in March for a virtual session to review seeding models and additional data, with another in-person meeting scheduled for April in North Texas.
The Seeding Debate: A Flawed System?
One of the primary concerns discussed was the current seeding process, which guarantees the four highest-ranked conference champions the top four seeds and first round byes. This structure, introduced in the inaugural 12-team playoff last season, proved to be controversial, as it led to significant discrepancies between seeding and final rankings.
For example, while Big Ten CHampionships Oregon and SEC winner Georgia secured the top two seeds in accordance with their No. 1 and No. 2 CFP rankings, the system also awarded the No. 3 seed to ninth-ranked Mountain West champion Boise State and the No. 4 seed to 12th ranked big 12 champion Arizona State. This resulted in the unusual scenario of lower-ranked conference champions receiving higher seeds and first round byes, while higher ranked at large teams were forced to play in the opening round.
The fallout from this structure was evident in the quarterfinals, where all four top-seed teams lost to lower seeded opponents who has played and won their first round games. This outcome prompted discussions about whether straight seeding based on rankings would produce a more balanced and competitive playoff format.
SEC and Big Ten Push for Change
Leading the charge for seeding reform are SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey and Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti, who have publicly expressed their support for modifying the current structure. Just last week, Sankey and Petitti met with their 34 athletic directors and reached a consensus in favor of changes to the seeding process.
Despite their advocacy, the committee’s decision to delay action reflects the complexities of playoff governance. Any adjustments to the format for the 2025 season-the final year of the current CFP contract-would require unanimous approval. With differing perspectives among conference commissioners, reaching consensus remains a challenge.
The Role of Conference Politics
The decision to table discussions until future meetings suggests that conference politics and long term contract negotiations are influencing the process. With the CFP set to enter a new six-year contract with ESPN in 2026, any changes implemented for the 2025 season could set a precedent for the long-term structure of the playoff system.
ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips underscored this point, stating, “You’ve got to look at it in totality. Yes, it’s one contract coming to an end and a new set of a new six-year cycle. But those things have some linkage to them as well.”
This linkage is particularly relevant given the growing influence of the SEC and Big Ten. With their substantial media rights deals and increased representation in the playoff field, these two conferences are expected to wield significant control over future playoff decisions.
Balancing Automatic Bids and At-Large Teams
While the current format guarantees five automatic bids for conference champions and seven at large berths, there is ongoing debate about whether this balance should shift. Critics argue that granting automatic top-four seeds to lower ranked conference champions diminishes the importance of regular-season performance and weakens the integrity of the bracket.
On the other hand, proponents of the current system emphasize the need to preserve access for conference champions, particularly those from the Group of Five. Without automatic bids and guaranteed high seeds, G5 champions like Boise State could struggle to compete with Power Five teams in the playoff structure.
The challenge for the CFP committee is finding a middle groun that maintains competitive fairness while ensuring all conferences retain meaningful access to the playoff.
The Path Forward
With no immediate resolution in sight, the upcoming March and April meetings will be critical in determining whether any changes will be made for the 2025 season. The unanimous approval requirement makes rapid reform unlikely, but continued discussions will shape the future of the playoff beyond 2025.
CFP Executive Director Bill Hancok and the commissioners will need to navigate competing interests, media rights considerations, and fan expectations to arrive at a sustainable solution. Whether the playoff sticks with the current format or adopts a more meritocratic seeding system remains to be seen.
