One of the most debated aspects of the newly expanded 12-team College Football Playoff (CFP) has been the controversial seeding process, and it appears a significant change could be on the horizon for the 2025 season.
In its inaugural year, the 12-team format awarded first-round byes to the four highest-ranked conference champions. While intended to prioritize the value of winning a conference title, this approach has drawn widespread criticism.
Many argue that the four highest-ranked teams in the final College Football Playoff Rankings—regardless of conference affiliation—should instead receive the byes, ensuring the tournament rewards overall performance throughout the season rather than conference alignment.
The current system saw Oregon, Georgia, Boise State, and Arizona State claim the top-four seeds and secure automatic spots in the quarterfinals. Oregon and Georgia, ranked No. 1 and No. 2 respectively in the final CFP Rankings, clearly earned their positions.
RELATED: Referee Left Bloodied During Chaotic Brawl at College Football Bowl Game
However, Boise State and Arizona State, ranked No. 9 and No. 12, sparked significant debate. Critics argue that their conference championships should not outweigh the overall strength of teams like Texas, ranked No. 3, which had to compete in the opening round.
This debate has prompted calls for reform. According to Brett McMurphy of Action Network, CFP officials are planning “in-depth discussions” during the offseason to address these concerns. A potential change could eliminate the automatic byes for the highest-ranked conference champions, instead granting them to the top four teams in the rankings.
However, implementing such a modification would require unanimous approval from decision-makers—a challenging hurdle to overcome.
Proponents of the current format argue that awarding byes to conference champions acknowledges the additional effort and risk associated with playing in a conference title game.
They see it as a fair reward for teams that excel in both regular-season play and high-stakes championship scenarios.
However, detractors question why a team like Arizona State, ranked far outside the top tier, should gain such a significant advantage over a team like Texas, which demonstrated superior performance over the course of the season.
The debate underscores the complexity of balancing tradition, fairness, and competitive equity in college football’s postseason structure.
As the College Football Playoff continues to evolve, adjustments to the seeding process appear increasingly likely. While no changes have been finalized, it is clear that discussions surrounding this contentious issue will shape the future of the playoff system—and possibly the sport itself.
