The most foreseeable consequence of expanding the College Football Playoff from four to 12 teams was that complaining would emerge as a competitive endeavor unto itself. Leading this charge was ACC commissioner, Jim Phillips, who expressed his league’s “shock and disappointment” that Miami fell from No. 6 to No. 12 and very likely out of […]
The most foreseeable consequence of expanding the College Football Playoff from four to 12 teams was that complaining would emerge as a competitive endeavor unto itself.
Leading this charge was ACC commissioner, Jim Phillips, who expressed his league’s “shock and disappointment” that Miami fell from No. 6 to No. 12 and very likely out of playoff contention after their loss to Syracuse. (No mention of how the Hurricanes surrendered a 21-point lead).
Next to object was Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark, who criticized the committee for placing Boise State ahead of both Arizona State and Iowa State, while his league is guaranteed only one playoff slot.
“The committee repeatedly shows that they prioritize logos over accomplishments,” he remarked. (Ignoring the fact that the two Big 12 teams vying for an automatic bid possess just one top-25 victory combined).
Then came the SEC. Danny White, Tennessee’s athletic director, who seems displeased that the Vols might need to face a road game in the first round, stated on a local radio program that a computer ranking method should take the place of the committee (Despite a previous attempt with the BCS that was met with widespread discontent).
Lane Kiffin, the Ole Miss head coach, whose team appears to be on the outside at 9-3, couldn’t hold back his grievances about the playoff process. “This system is flawed,” he stated. “Have any of those coaches (on the committee) ever been to the deep South, into those stadiums and participated in those games? How could they possibly understand?” (One of the committee’s former coaches, Gary Pinkel, had some SES experience at Missouri, but why let the facts spoil a good outburst? And perhaps, Lane, beat Kentucky next time.)
Now, just days away from finalizing the inaugural 12-team playoff roster, it appears that discontent looms over the operation they’ve set in motion. For a forecast of what to expect this Sunday, one can look back to the 24-hour aftermath of every NCAA basketball tournament selection show, when numerous individuals seem to have “Very Strong Feelings” about the last few at-large teams in a 68-member field.
Except last year, when Florida State was swapped out for Alabama—primarily due to the injury of the Seminoles‘ starting quarterback—we didn’t see much of this during the initial years of the four-team playoff. The outcomes tended to be straightforward, and No. 5 teams rarely voiced significant complaints. However, now that mediocrity has infiltrated the picture, everyone within college athletics has an opinion on how unjust and flawed the procedure is—unless, naturally, it turns out in their favor this time.
With that backdrop, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey deserves both some acknowledgment—and a healthy dose of skepticism—when he addressed questions on Thursday regarding the newfound concerns about the format.
Whether its fairness is debatable, Sankey feels exasperated by his fellow conference commissioners (some of whom have departed from college sports) for blocking playoff expansion efforts in 2021 after Texas and Oklahoma joined the SEC. Thus in his perspective, any issues with the system stem from the expansion processes that fluctuated between a slowdown and a quickened pace in preparation for 2024, as another phase of conference realignment demolished the Pac-12 while further concentrating power in the Big Ten and SEC hands. “We don’t want to undergo changes every year,” he stated. “We aim to correctly establish things. Although I recognize we’re entering this new era which will surely spark many inquiries. My viewpoint, as we lost a year for preparation that we can’t reclaim, is that we’ll have more of these adjustment discussions.” He added: “Should we be granting these lower-seeded conference champions that access point? That’s been up for discussion previously. This begins to highlight one of the emerging challenges.” In simpler terms, while Sankey conceded he’d prefer to see eight SEC teams included in the playoff and believes his league has sufficient depth to warrant that consideration, his Thursday press conference did not prioritize the number of teams as a pressing issue. He isn’t prepared to expend his political weight—and he possesses a considerable amount currently—lobbying for a mid-tier SEC team over another contender to claim that 12th spot. When the commissioners reconvene in the upcoming weeks to deliberate the playoff format for 2026 and beyond, it’s more likely that the SEC will establish some boundary markers around seeding that could potentially disadvantage their teams, now that we’ve observed it unfold in real-time. Should the playoff field remain as currently outlined by the committee, the SEC could field three teams in the initial round, with two facing away games: Tennessee at Ohio State and Alabama at Notre Dame. Meanwhile, presumptive champion Texas would enjoy a first-round bye as a No. 2 seed, likely poised to confront Georgia for the third time this season in the quarterfinals. And it’s easy to grasp why that presents an issue. The original concept of the 12-team playoff was for the four first-round byes to be awarded to the four highest-ranked conference champions. On paper, that seems logical and keeps the conference championship games critical until the very end. However, in practice, it results in a bracket that lacks coherence. If the situation remains unchanged, No. 5 seed Penn State would be set to face No. 4 Boise State in the quarterfinals. Furthermore, the victor of the Tennessee-Ohio State matchup, both ranked higher than Boise, would then be matched against No. 1 Oregon. It’s tempting to declare this as inequitable, for college football has historically seen little fairness for the last fifty years. However, it seems misguided that a No. 5 seed could have a smoother journey to the semifinals compared to a No. 1 seed, or that No. 2 seed Texas would encounter a tougher quarterfinal challenge than a No. 4 seed. In any sport that employs a tournament format to determine champions, this is not how it should operate. If Georgia has recorded a superior regular season than Arizona State and is rated higher by the committee, it ought to enjoy a more favorable route to the title. This principle is quite straightforward to grasp. Sankey is accurate in asserting that incessantly altering the format, as the BCS seemingly did each year, is not the preferred direction for the CFP. Such fluctuations only elevate frustration and cultivate suspicion within the process. The problem does not lie with having a human committee. In a sport like college football where teams vie in a mere 12-game season (with some involving massive mismatches), the available data is insufficient for a computer model to produce reliable results. Human input is essential for a well-rounded assessment. The sole genuine problem with the current 12-team playoff is the seeding itself. Not Kiffin’s grievances or Yormark’s assertions. It merely rewards teams with byes that may not merit them.
The crucial matter is whether enough consensus can be reached among conference commissioners to address the issue because – and here’s the skeptical angle – it’s almost guaranteed to favor the SEC for most years while hindering a league like the Big 12, which is fortunate just to have a playoff opportunity this year, given the subpar performance across the conference.
Sankey mentioned his support for re-seeding after the opening round, yet other commissioners were not receptive to that idea. Another potential resolution could simply allow the top two conference champions to enjoy byes into the quarterfinals while ranking the remaining field from Nos. 3 to 12 according to committee evaluations (with automatic berths for the Big 12, ACC, and Group of Five).
“I believe we’ll reassess this and likely have another one of those discussions,” Sankey remarked. “I don’t want our responses to be knee-jerk; I aim for thoughtful consideration of these matters.”
Will modifying the playoff system to emphasize genuine seeding favor the SEC? In most years, likely so. However, that would still be more beneficial than the absurdly convoluted bracket the committee is prepared to reveal on Sunday.
