Fix the CFP

A plan we can all agree on

The actual 2025 College Football Playoff bracket is:

First Round

Dec 19 - Dec 20

Norman, OK

8 Oklahoma
9 Alabama

Eugene, OR

5 Oregon
12 James Madison

Oxford, MS

6 Ole Miss
11 Tulane

College Station, TX

7 Texas A&M
10 Miami

Quarterfinals

Dec 31 - Jan 1

Rose Bowl (Pasadena, CA)

9 Alabama
1 Indiana

Orange Bowl (Miami Gardens, FL)

TBD
4 Texas Tech

Sugar Bowl (New Orleans, LA)

TBD
3 Georgia

Cotton Bowl (Arlington, TX)

TBD
2 Ohio State

Semifinals

Jan 8 - Jan 9

Peach Bowl (Atlanta, GA)

TBD
TBD

Fiesta Bowl (Glendale, AZ)

TBD
TBD

Championship

Jan 19

Miami Gardens, FL

TBD
TBD

Imagine if it were this instead:

First Round

Dec 19 - 20

Bloomington, IN

1 Indiana
16 USC

Norman, OK

8 Oklahoma
9 Notre Dame

Eugene, OR

5 Oregon
12 BYU

Lubbock, TX

4 Texas Tech
13 Vanderbilt

Columbus, OH

3 Ohio State
14 Texas

Oxford, MS

6 Ole Miss
11 Alabama

College Station, TX

7 Texas A&M
10 Miami

Athens, GA

2 Georgia
15 Utah

Quarterfinals

Dec 31 - Jan 1

Sugar Bowl (New Orleans, LA)

TBD
TBD

Rose Bowl (Pasadena, CA)

TBD
TBD

Orange Bowl (Miami Gardens, FL)

TBD
TBD

Cotton Bowl (Arlington, TX)

TBD
TBD

Semifinals

Jan 8 - Jan 9

Peach Bowl (Atlanta, GA)

TBD
TBD

Fiesta Bowl (Glendale, AZ)

TBD
TBD

Championship

Jan 19

Miami Gardens, FL

TBD
TBD

Better, right?

Here are the fixes to the process:

  1. Expand to 16 teams with no byes
  2. Eliminate automatic qualifiers
  3. Replace the selection committee with the AP poll
  4. Eliminate conference championship games
  5. Assign bowl locations by proximity to top seeds
  6. Move recruiting window after the championship
  7. Move non-playoff bowls to Week 1

1. Expand to 16 teams with no byes

Expanding from 12 to 16 teams doubles on-campus playoff games from four to eight. More playoff atmosphere in college towns, more home-field advantage for top seeds.

All 16 teams play in the first round, maintaining their normal weekly rhythm throughout the playoffs. In the current 12-team format, #1-4 seeds get extended layoffs while #5-12 seeds stay sharp playing meaningful games.

In 2024, all four bye teams (#1 Oregon, #2 Georgia, #3 Boise State, and #4 Arizona State) lost in the quarterfinals. One year of data doesn't prove byes are harmful, but it suggests rust is real.

Why not 12 teams?

A 12-team field leaves too much to chance. Statistical analysis shows that a 16-team bracket captures the best team roughly 95% of the time, compared to ~90% for 12 teams. The marginal cost of four more games is small; the marginal benefit in legitimacy is significant.

For comparison: March Madness includes 17.6% of Division I basketball teams. Applied to FBS football's ~134 teams, that percentage would mean ~24 teams. Sixteen is actually more selective.

Why not 24 teams?

If 16 is better than 12, why not 24? Diminishing returns. A 24-team bracket would require eight byes, reintroducing the rust problem. Teams ranked #17-24 each have less than a 1% chance of being the best team in the country. You're adding games and injury risk for almost no gain in legitimacy. Sixteen is the sweet spot: large enough to capture the best team ~95% of the time, small enough that every team plays every round.

2. Eliminate automatic qualifiers

Select the top 16 teams... and... that's it... nothing else.

Eliminate automatic qualifiers for conference champions. Winning a weaker conference shouldn't guarantee a playoff spot over a better team from a stronger conference. The current system included James Madison (#19 in AP) while excluding higher-ranked teams. Pure merit avoids these distortions and is resilient to conference realignment.

Why not the "5+11" proposal?

The 5+11 format (five automatic qualifiers for conference champions plus eleven at-large bids) is backed by Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, and Notre Dame AD Pete Bevacqua. It has 10 of 11 votes on the CFP governing committee, with only the Big Ten holding out. Conference politics shouldn't determine who plays for a championship.

Why not Petitti's "4-4-2-2-1" plan?

Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti's proposal would allow an 8-4 team (6-3 in conference) to make the playoff as the 6th-place Big Ten team. His justification: ".667 winning percentage makes playoffs in every other sport." But this turns September into NFL preseason. Just stay healthy and finish top-6 in your conference. It's a system designed to guarantee Big Ten/SEC revenue, not to crown the best team.

Doesn't this hurt smaller conferences?

A merit-based system rewards programs in any conference that invest and compete. Boise State finished 9th in 2024 and would make a merit-based field. Indiana was a program with one of the worst historical records in college football. Using the transfer portal and NIL, Curt Cignetti won the Big Ten and led Indiana to their first #1 AP ranking. Utah athletics made a $500M deal with a private equity firm. These tools and other creative ideas are available to any program willing to invest.

Would broadcasters want this?

In 2025, TNT broadcasts the #5-12 and #6-11 first-round games. Under the current system with automatic qualifiers, they broadcast Tulane and James Madison. Under a merit-based 16-team format, those same slots would be Oregon vs. BYU and Ole Miss vs. Alabama. Better matchups, better TV.

Why not add a ranking floor for automatic qualifiers?

ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit proposed requiring conference champions to reach a certain ranking to qualify. This feels like a half-measure: it adds complexity while still not selecting purely on merit. Under the current system, a conference champion ranked outside the top 25 can still make the playoff. Why patch a system built around exceptions? Just select the top 16.

3. Replace the selection committee with the AP poll

Replace the selection committee with the Associated Press poll. This is a long-running, well-understood weekly vote by 62 independent sportswriters and broadcasters.

The top 16 teams in the final 2025 AP poll:

  1. Indiana
  2. Georgia
  3. Ohio State
  4. Texas Tech
  5. Oregon
  6. Ole Miss
  7. Texas A&M
  8. Oklahoma
  9. Notre Dame
  10. Miami
  11. Alabama
  12. BYU
  13. Vanderbilt
  14. Texas
  15. Utah
  16. USC

Seven from the SEC, four from the Big Ten, three from the Big 12, one from the ACC, and one independent.

Why not the selection committee?

The committee has financial conflicts of interest. Its members are affiliated with the schools and conferences who benefit from being selected. They make decisions behind closed doors with a dozen or so voters.

Yes, AP voters have biases too: toward teams in regions they cover, toward brands they follow closely. smoothed out across 60+ independent journalists, not concentrated in a small room of stakeholders. The AP has published weekly rankings in newspapers for decades. Fans understand it. It's transparent, familiar, and respected.

Why not computer rankings like the BCS used?

There are probably more accurate computer systems: ELO, QBERT, WOOKIE. Did I just make up some of those names? You're not sure, and that's the point. Most fans don't understand or trust algorithmic rankings. In the age of AI, going with something human feels traditional and fitting for a sport that goes back more than 150 years.

What about the weekly CFP show?

The weekly rankings show is lucrative, entertaining, and generates discussion. The problem isn't the show; it's the committee being responsible for the rankings. You could still have a show around the AP poll release. Interview different journalists and voters to hear their reasoning. Same entertainment value, less backroom dealing.

Which teams would be left out?

The remaining teams in the 2025 top 25 that would miss the CFP: Tulane (17), Michigan (18), James Madison (19), Virginia (20), Arizona (21), Navy (22), North Texas (23), Georgia Tech (24), Missouri (25). Three from the American, two from the ACC, one each from the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, and Sun Belt.

4. Eliminate conference championship games

Crown conference champions by regular season record and tiebreakers. The AP poll can factor in head-to-head results and strength of schedule without an extra game.

The strongest argument against conference championship games is player safety. Georgia quarterback Carson Beck was injured in the SEC Championship, compromising their entire playoff run. An extra high-stakes game with the best players on the field is an extra chance for season-ending injuries right before the tournament that matters most.

These games have also become strategic liabilities. In 2024, Oregon went undefeated, won the Big Ten Championship, and earned the #1 seed. They then sat idle for 25 days while lower seeds stayed sharp with first-round games. In the Rose Bowl, they lost 41-21 to Ohio State, a team they had beaten in the regular season.

What about the TV revenue from championship games?

Conference championships drew huge audiences in 2025: 18.3 million for the Big Ten, 16.9 million for the SEC, 9 million for the Big 12. But CFP first-round games averaged 10.9 million viewers each. A 16-team playoff has eight first-round games instead of four, doubling the inventory. More first-round playoff games could generate comparable or greater viewership than the conference championships they replace, with less injury risk to the stars who drive ratings in the quarterfinals, semifinals, and championship.

What about Notre Dame and UConn?

The CFP should require conference membership for eligibility. Only two FBS programs remain independent: Notre Dame and UConn. The other 132 FBS teams operate within conferences. If you want to be eligible for the playoff, join one.

This doesn't contradict merit-based selection. Merit determines who gets selected from the eligible pool. Conference membership determines who's in the pool.

Notre Dame is already contractually obligated to join the ACC if they join any conference before 2037. This would give the ACC 18 teams and a 9-game conference schedule like the other power conferences.

Notre Dame's NBC deal (worth ~$50M/year through 2029) isn't a barrier. Unlike full ACC members, Notre Dame never signed the conference's Grant of Rights for football. The ACC could offer full membership while allowing Notre Dame to keep NBC for home games and receive ACC revenue for road games. Two TV revenue streams instead of one.

How would conferences determine champions?

By regular season record. With balanced conferences (18 teams each, 9 conference games), head-to-head results and division records can settle ties. This is how champions were crowned for decades before championship games existed.

What about Army-Navy and the Heisman?

One tradition worth preserving: Army-Navy. The game falls the weekend before the CFP begins, the only college football on the schedule. The march-ons, mutual respect, players who chose service: it's a unique game that reminds us to think about something larger.

That same evening, expand the Heisman ceremony into a regular season-ending awards show. Each conference commissioner recognizes their champion with highlights and campus celebrations. Crown the Heisman at the end. Prediction markets have killed award-show suspense anyway. By Selection Sunday, the winner is 95%+ certain. season, not a reveal.

5. Assign bowl locations by proximity to top seeds

Assign quarterfinal and semifinal bowl locations by proximity to the top seeds' campuses. The #1 seed's side of the bracket gets the nearest quarterfinal bowl, then #2, then #3, then #4. Apply the same logic for semifinals. This reduces travel for top seeds.

Quarterfinal bowl assignments:

Semifinal assignments:

The CFP still sets game days and times, bowl rotations, and broadcasting deals. This just changes which seeds go to which bowls.

What if a lower seed upsets the top seed?

The bowl assignments are locked based on original seeding, not game outcomes. If #16 USC beats #1 Indiana, USC still travels to the Sugar Bowl. This is how March Madness works: regions are fixed, and Cinderella teams travel to the higher seed's assigned venue. The reward for top seeds is proximity, not a guarantee of winning.

6. Move recruiting window after the championship

Move all portal entries, signings, and binding agreements to a single 30-day window that opens the first Monday after the championship game. Let teams focus on winning first and roster-building second.

The transfer portal currently opens January 2 (the day after the CFP quarterfinals) and runs through January 16. Players on CFP finalists get an extra window from January 20-24. But coaches are already negotiating deals and players announcing intentions during playoff preparation. The postseason has become a distraction from itself.

The NCAA (not the CFP) controls the recruiting calendar and would need to make this change.

What about coaching hires during the playoffs?

Moving the recruiting window creates incentives to wait. If players can't commit until February, schools gain little by hiring a coach in December. Instead, everyone benefits from patience: schools can evaluate how coaches perform in the playoffs, coaches can finish their seasons without distraction, and hiring decisions are made with better information.

How many 2025 CFP teams have coaching distractions?

Five of twelve. Ole Miss's Lane Kiffin left for LSU; the Rebels promoted Pete Golding rather than let Kiffin coach the playoff. Others took new jobs but are still coaching: James Madison's Bob Chesney (UCLA), Tulane's Jon Sumrall (Florida), Oregon's coordinators Will Stein (Kentucky) and Tosh Lupoi (Cal), and Texas A&M's coordinators Collin Klein (Kansas State) and Jay Bateman (Kentucky). Split focus, divided loyalties.

7. Move non-playoff bowls to Week 1

The ~35 bowl games outside the CFP have an identity crisis. Are they meaningful? Participation trophies? Should alumni travel for them? The best players skip them to protect their draft stock. Many bowls lose money or face unpredictable situations depending on which teams qualify.

Move non-CFP bowls to Week 1 of the following season. The Citrus Bowl becomes a Labor Day weekend showcase, not a December consolation prize missing star players. Rosters stay intact because it's the start of a new season, not the end of an old one. Matchups can be set in spring when bowl committees know which teams are available. The CFP gets exclusive attention in December and January.

Wouldn't this hurt bowl game traditions?

Bowl games already struggle with opt-outs and declining attendance. Moving them to Week 1 gives them a fresh identity: high-profile season openers with full rosters. The new calendar flows naturally: CFP Championship in late January, recruiting window in February, bowl matchups announced in spring, bowls played as openers in late August.

How would matchups be determined?

Let the market figure it out. Conferences, teams, bowls, and broadcasters negotiate in the spring to maximize their own goals: viewership, brand alignment, fan travel, alumni bases, competitive balance. An athletic director at a championship-contending program might schedule a confidence-building opener against a beatable opponent in a location where fans will travel. A rebuilding program might seek a marquee matchup for national exposure. The free market works this out better than the current quirky bowl system.