Jake Yono
JY Journalism
8/28/25
My Reactions and Objections To The New 12-Team College Football Playoff And What’s Next in 2025
With the 2025 College Football season on the horizon, By now, the new 12-team FCS NCAA Football playoff format is fully underway. This expansion was implemented by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to give the nation’s best talent more flexibility and opportunity to compete for a national championship. While this change has been widely welcomed, it comes with its fair share of issues.
Compared to other levels of college football, Division I has been embarrassingly slow to adopt a playoff format that matches the scale of its competition. For instance, Division II features 28 teams in its playoff system, Division III has 40 teams, and the FCS playoff includes 20 teams. These systems allow programs to have multiple losses and still win a national title. I completely agree with the NCAA’s decision to expand the playoff, but I believe this should have been done as early as 1998 when the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) national championship game was introduced. If they were hesitant to implement a playoff back then, they still had the perfect opportunity in 2014 with the introduction of the four-team playoff system. Frankly, I do not understand what they were thinking. Reports suggest they wanted to preserve the importance of the regular season and conference champions while honoring the BCS system by keeping the format as close to a two-team championship as possible. Thankfully, this is all in the past now, as the playoff has expanded, and college football fans are thriving because of it. One of my main reactions to the new playoff format is how many more teams, including those outside the traditional Power 5 conferences, now have a legitimate shot at winning the national championship. Under the original four-team playoff system, only one mid-major school, Cincinnati, managed to qualify. While the Bearcats did not perform as well as they had hoped, their appearance marked a pivotal moment for the sport. Cincinnati’s success demonstrated that it was possible, though extremely difficult, for a mid-major program to make it to the College Football Playoff (CFP). They had to go undefeated and win their conference, leaving no room for error. This year, under the 12-team playoff format, two mid-major schools—SMU and Boise State—earned playoff spots. Boise State, led by star player Ashton Jeanty, illustrates how this expansion provides opportunities that were previously unattainable. Unlike in the past, these teams did not need perfect records; instead, they proved they belonged by winning their conference championships. The change makes the process much better because it gives deserving programs and athletes a chance to compete at the highest level. Looking back, one of the biggest mysteries of the four-team playoff era was UCF’s undefeated 2017 season, which included a Peach Bowl victory over Auburn. Imagine if that had been a playoff game—how far could they have gone? Unfortunately, we will never know, but the new system ensures that similar teams now have a chance to prove themselves on a national stage.
While I appreciate the NCAA’s willingness to include mid-major teams in the expanded playoff, I, along with many other fans, have concerns about how the seeding is currently structured. As it stands, the top four teams that receive first-round byes are the highest-ranked conference champions. While these teams deserve playoff berths, I believe the top four seeds and byes should go to the best four teams overall, regardless of whether they won their conference. For example, this year’s top-ranked conference champions earning byes were Oregon, Georgia, Boise State, and Arizona State. While Boise State and Arizona State are deserving playoff participants, they are not ready to be in these top spots. In my opinion, the top four seeds should have been as follows for the 2024 season:
Oregon – They were undefeated conference champions.
Notre Dame – Despite not being affiliated with a conference, they played consistently excellent football after their upset loss to Northern Illinois.
Georgia – They won the SEC, which is widely considered the toughest conference in college football.
Ohio State – Even though they lost to Michigan and did not play in their conference championship game, their dominant performances in their 10 victories, with an average margin of 30 points, prove they are among the nation’s best.
These teams represent the strongest programs in the country and deserve the byes that come with such recognition. Revising the seeding criteria would ensure that the best 12 teams qualify for the playoff and that the top four spots go to the most deserving programs, regardless of conference affiliations.
In conclusion, I am grateful to the NCAA for expanding the playoff system to provide more teams with the opportunity to compete, including mid-major programs like SMU and Boise State. However, this change should have been implemented back in 1998 when the BCS system began. Moving forward, the NCAA must revise the seeding structure to reflect the fact that not all conferences are created equal, especially in light of recent realignments.
Thank you for reading my thoughts and reactions to the new 12-team College Football Playoff format.