By Eshan Singh, Co-Copy Editor
“Skattebo has done it! We are all tied up in the ATL!”
That was Joe Tessitore’s call of Arizona State running back Cam Skattebo’s game-tying two-point conversion against Texas in the fourth quarter of the 2024-25 College Football Playoff (CFP) quarterfinal in Atlanta, Georgia. Skattebo’s run wiped away the last of Texas’ 16-point lead and made the game an instant classic, one that never would have happened if college football had not changed its playoff system.
Before this season, only the top four teams in the official CFP ranking qualified for a two-round playoff. Now, 12 teams make the playoffs, with the top four conference champions receiving a bye. The 12th seed is reserved for the fifth-highest-ranking conference champion, and the remaining seeds go to the highest-ranking non-conference champions.
The primary benefit of the new system is that it gives teams that are not ranked in the top four a chance at winning the championship. This year, neither No. 5 Notre Dame nor No. 6 Ohio State would have qualified for the playoffs under the old format, but both teams made the finals this year under the expanded system, showing that they were good enough and therefore deserved the opportunity to do so.
The new format also includes teams with little chance of winning the championship. However, even if it’s unlikely that such teams win all their playoff games, they will sometimes pull off an upset, as shown by the frequency of upsets in the regular season and 12th-ranked Arizona State nearly beating third-ranked Texas in the playoffs this year. These upsets both serve as a threat to championship contenders and provide a lot of entertainment value.
Opponents of the new system complain about blowouts early in the tournament, which happen because more teams creates a larger gap in quality between the best and worst teams. However, there will likely always be good games, as shown by the Arizona State-Texas game. Under the old format, there were zero total and thus zero good games before the semifinal. The worst the new format can ever do is match that.
However, there is a major problem with the new system: seeding. Good teams should be rewarded by getting to play a weak team in the playoffs, but since seeding and ranking don’t match, this often won’t happen. For example, in this year’s quarterfinals, No. 1 Oregon ended up losing to No. 6 Ohio State, while No. 4 Penn State ended up beating No. 9 Boise State. This problem would be solved if the CFP admitted teams into the playoffs the same way but seeded them based on ranking.
Clearly, the new CFP format is a step in the right direction, but some changes need to happen to make it even better.
Eshan Singh can be reached at [email protected].
