The NCAA is once again at the drawing board, looking to tweak the structure of the College Football Playoff (CFP) — and the stakes go far beyond the field.
While the debut of the 12-team format brought excitement and unpredictability, it also surfaced cracks in the system. Most notably, the Ohio State Buckeyes — eventual national champions — entered the bracket as a No. 9 seed. That outcome highlighted growing dissatisfaction with the current rules surrounding seeding and automatic bids.
The Seeding Dilemma
Under the current CFP format, the top four seeds — which receive first-round byes — must be conference champions. This well-intentioned rule has unintentionally opened the door for lower-caliber teams to gain a massive advantage simply by winning weaker conferences. In response, major conferences have begun pushing for change.
Both SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti have called for “straight seeding” — ranking teams solely by the playoff committee’s evaluations, regardless of whether they won their conference. At the same time, they’ve proposed that five conference champions still be guaranteed playoff spots.
This shift, however, hasn’t sat well with everyone.
Pushback and Controversy
ESPN’s Paul Finebaum criticized the proposal, arguing that it would only cement the power of the SEC and Big Ten while leaving smaller conferences with fewer opportunities to compete. His concerns reflect a growing fear that college football’s power balance is becoming more consolidated — not more competitive.
Then came an unexpected twist.
According to ESPN’s Heather Dinich, one potential compromise being floated ahead of the annual spring meetings in Dallas could tie automatic bids to more than just wins. A proposed model would allow Power 4 conferences to earn guaranteed playoff spots based on a combination of their teams’ records — and potentially even television ratings.
Yes, ratings.
A Sport or a Show?
The idea that a conference’s access to the playoffs could hinge on how many viewers it attracts raises serious red flags. It suggests the CFP could shift from rewarding on-field excellence to rewarding marketability. While still only a floated possibility — Dinich herself noted the phrasing “maybe even TV ratings” — the mere mention has sparked concern.
For critics, this marks a clear move away from the sport’s competitive roots and toward a more corporate, entertainment-driven model. It raises the question: is the CFP still about crowning the best team in college football, or about who draws the most eyeballs?
What Comes Next?
Changes to the CFP format are inevitable, but what remains uncertain is the core philosophy behind those changes. Will the system evolve to ensure fair competition, or will it tilt further toward favoring powerhouse programs that deliver prime-time ratings?
For smaller schools like Indiana or SMU — teams that may occasionally earn their shot through grit and performance — the future could be dimmer. In the era of streaming wars and media deals, “deserving” might soon take a backseat to “marketable.”
As we look toward the 2026 season and beyond, one thing is clear: the College Football Playoff is no longer just about football. It’s about the product — and the audience that comes with it.
