Is the College Football Playoff Format Broken? 5 Shocking Changes That Could Cost Teams Everything!

If there’s one truth about college football today, it’s that the landscape is constantly evolving. The only constant seems to be that nothing should be taken for granted in this wild era of the sport. Adaptation reigns supreme, influencing everything from roster management to revenue sharing and the controversial Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements. In this unpredictable environment, even the College Football Playoff (CFP) format faces scrutiny and debate almost annually.

Is the current 12-team structure effective? Should it expand to 16 or even 24 teams? What about the inclusion of schools from outside the power conferences or the treatment of independents like Notre Dame? The questions are endless, and the solutions appear limitless. To delve deeper into this evolving issue, experts from FOX Sports recently convened to discuss potential changes and what should remain in the playoff format after two years of its current implementation.

Experts Weigh In on Change vs. Continuity

RJ Young advocates for extending the CFP to 24 teams. He suggests that allowing the highest-seeded teams to host at least one of the first-round games on their respective campuses would enhance the competition. Young notes that first-round byes have become less advantageous than intended, with teams holding these privileges posting a dismal 1–8 record against opponents who played the previous week. This shift could open up the playoff to Group of 6 programs like Boise State, Tulane, and James Madison, which have recently outperformed traditional powerhouses like USC and Florida. Expanding access to these programs would not only create a more inclusive postseason but also offer a fairer opportunity for historically strong schools to vie for a national championship.

Laken Litman, echoing sentiments from Oregon head coach Dan Lanning, proposes that the college football season should conclude on January 1. This change would streamline the playoff schedule, ensuring games are played weekly until a champion is decided. It would also eliminate the awkward overlap between the postseason and the transfer portal, providing clarity for players and coaches alike. Like Young, Litman believes that first-round byes should be scrapped, as they have increasingly harmed higher-seeded teams.

Michael Cohen emphasizes the unique atmosphere that comes with hosting opening-round playoff games on campus. He recalls the electrifying environments at venues like Notre Dame and Ohio State during the playoffs, where fans experienced the rich traditions of different schools firsthand. With plans for quarterfinal games to also be held at on-campus venues, it would provide a dual benefit: rewarding teams for their successful seasons and boosting local economies.

As for what should remain in the current format, Litman believes that first-round games on campus are a hallmark of the CFP’s success. Witnessing the traditions of various schools and the excited fans experiencing these venues for the first time adds a layer of excitement that is unmatched. Highlights such as the snowy conditions during Notre Dame's matchup against Indiana and the raucous atmosphere at Texas A&M showcase why this element is vital to the playoff experience.

Young advocates for the straightforward approach of straight seeding, which has simplified the complexity that initially plagued the CFP. In a pivotal example, Indiana, the No. 1 team in rankings, matched its seeding, while Miami maintained alignment as the No. 10 seed. This clarity prevents the confusion that arose in previous playoffs, where higher-ranked teams occasionally faced lower-seeded opponents that had higher rankings.

Cohen believes that the 12-team field deserves more time to mature before considering further expansion. Data from the first two iterations of this format indicates that there aren’t currently a dozen teams capable of winning the national championship in a given year. For instance, the average margin of victory was 19.3 points in the opening rounds of 2024, and in 2025, it was 16.3 points, suggesting that adding more teams with weaker qualifications might dilute the competitiveness of the playoffs.

As college football continues to adapt, the ongoing discussions about the CFP format reflect a broader sentiment within the sport: a desire for inclusivity, fairness, and enhanced competition. With experts engaging in these debates, the future of the playoff format remains as dynamic as the sport itself.

Laken Litman covers college football, college basketball, and soccer for FOX Sports. Follow her at @LakenLitman.

Michael Cohen covers college football and college basketball for FOX Sports. Follow him at @Michael_Cohen13.

RJ Young is a national college football writer and analyst for FOX Sports. Follow him at @RJ_Young.