The Joel Klatt Show: A College Football Podcast - The College Football Playoff is Changing – for better or worse?

Episode Date: May 26, 2025

FOX Sports’ lead College Football analyst Joel Klatt reacts to the news that the College Football Playoff is changing the seeding model for the upcoming season. He lays out the advantages and disadvantages of the change. He then discusses the growing momentum behind a 16-team Playoff model for 2026 and beyond. Klatt explains what options are on the table and how it would all look in the proposed structure before weighing in with his opinion on whether it’s the right way for the sport to move forward. 0:00-1:40 intro1:41-5:17 CFP moving to straight seeding model for 2025 season5:18-8:13 What the new seeding model means for the playoff in 20258:14-12:12 Will the CFP move to a 16-team format in 2026?12:13-17:50 What are the options for a 16-team playoff format?17:51-19:20 16-team CFP format example19:21-21:16 Top 2 seeds receive byes into quarterfinals21:17-33:04 Is a 16-team format the best model for the CFP? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I should be the college football commissioner, quite frankly. Oregon, which was the number one seed, the undefeated team that won the Big Ten championship, really got a bum draw. It's a safety net. And it's unneeded, it's unwarranted, and it's greedy. As soon as you start getting into that territory, you're bringing the committee back into it. They do not want a selection-based model in any way, shape, or form. I want an access-based model.

College football's never been better. Interest has never been higher. Believe that we are at the dawn of the golden age. of college football. Hey, what's up everybody? Welcome into the Joel Clatt show. I am Joel Clatt. This show, as always, is brought to you by Hampton by Hilton. We thank them, as always, for their support. Well, a lot going on in college football, even though you might not see it and feel it. There's a lot of things going on behind the scenes. And you, I'm sure, have seen some of the reports out there about the proposal for the college football playoff, whether it's for next season or in the years to come.

in 2026 and beyond. Well, I'm here to tell you all of that. What's going on behind the scenes? What are these models that they're proposing? And as always, you know that I'm going to give you my opinion on all of that. But before we dive in, just remember wherever you're listening to this podcast, go ahead and rate and review us, wherever you're watching, i.e. on YouTube, please go subscribe to the channel.

You can leave a comment below. I'll try to get down there and converse you as well. And then wherever you like to social media, we are there. So you can follow us at Joel Clat Show wherever you are at on social media. Okay, let's dive into this. Let's start with the news that next season in 2025, we are going to eliminate the original structure of the 12-team playoff where the top four seeds and those buys that are attached to those top four seeds are going to go to only conference champions.

So remember, it was going to be the highest ranked conference champions, the four of get the buys. But what that led to, if you remember, is a really wonky seeding process where Boise was able to get a buy and, you know, Clemson got in there because they won the ACC but didn't get a buy and it was just kind of funky. We all knew that. Oregon, which was the number one seed, the undefeated team that won the Big Ten championship, really got a bum draw having to, while getting a buy, have to play Ohio State in the Rose Bowl in Ohio State. was better than what their seed was because they were artificially pushed down because of those four buys that got pushed up. So what did they propose? They've proposed a straight seeding model where we don't award those buys and those seeds based on conference championships, but on straight seating by the committee.

So this is what we would have had last season if we would have had the straight seating based on the rankings, one through 12. What are we going to get? and this is what we would have got. Number one, still would have been Oregon. Number two, still would have been Georgia. Remember, they won the Big Ten and the SEC respectively. Now, what is different about this is basically everything else, because rather than buys going to conference champs at the three seed and the four seed,

then in this straight seeding process, Texas, which lost to Georgia, would still get a buy, and Penn State, which lost to Oregon, would still get a buy as the three and four seeds. You would have that Boise Indiana game at the eight, nine, a Notre Dame would have hosted Clemson in the first round. Ohio State would have hosted Arizona State. And then I think the biggest difference of all is Tennessee wouldn't have had to go to Columbus and play in the shoe. They would have gotten to host SMU. So those were the matchups that we would have gotten if we would have had the proposed model last season in 2024. Now, I think it's pretty obvious what the problems are in this model, which is why they built it the original way.

And I understand what they're trying to fix because last year it didn't go, I didn't think great. And in particular for a team that was the best team in the regular season, Oregon goes undefeated through a Big Ten schedule, wins the Big Ten championship, is the number one seed overall. And then they got arguably the toughest quarterfinal draw. We want to avoid that. I would certainly agree with that. However, it's really tough when you're avoiding or excuse me, when you're awarding four buys and those top four seeds. The obvious problem with the graphic that you see right over there is that Penn State and Texas, they wouldn't have been penalized at all for losing the SEC and Big Ten championship game.

Well, that's obviously a problem because the winners of those games, Oregon and Georgia, aren't gaining a real advantage. Maybe you could say the seed that they're getting is going to be better because their potential matchup in that quarterfinal round is better. Okay, you can maybe make that argument. But really, what is the incentive of winning and playing hard in that game now? What they have done for this season in 2025 by going to a straight seeding model is that they have devalued the conference championship games, in particular in the two best conferences in the country where our last two national championships have come from, the Big Ten,

where all the previous national championships have come from over the last 10 years, the SEC, these two conferences, which continue to get better and better and better and house the best teams in the country, now you've devalued the conference championship game. None of us like that. So while the seating might be better for this season and moving forward, I certainly don't like the thought of devaluing a game that I think should be very important and should have some real meaning and consequence for the winner and the loser. Now, what I would rather see is them say, we're not going to play a straight bracket.

And once we seed them, now we're going to play a straight seeding tournament rather than a bracket tournament. Now, what does that mean, Joel? And probably there's better ways to describe that. But what that would mean would be that we're going to play the first round. So all those four games, we're going to play those games. And then the matchups for the second round are going to be determined based on who won those games, not just the bracket and who plays who. So you can't really even scout a team.

What you would say is the lowest remaining seed, Oregon gets to play them. That would be a way to incentivize those teams to play hard in those championship games if you're going to seed them this way in a straight one through 12. model. It's pretty, I don't want to say it's an absolute, but it's really possible, I would say likely that our top four seeds even this year are going to be the four teams that participate in the Big Ten and the SEC championship game. With both of those leagues going away from divisions and you're going to just take the best two teams from each of those leagues and put them against each other, those are going to be the top four team

in the country. Let's be very honest. Now, the only caveat to that being like, we'll see what Notre Dame does. We'll see this year what Clemson does. But that's the proposal for this year. And again, do I like it? No, I don't like it. We have to retain the value of the regular season. We have to retain the value and the importance of the conference championship game. And this doesn't do that. I think a small tweak to try to retain that importance would be play a straight seating model throughout the playoffs rather than a bracket-style tournament where this matchup feeds into that matchup and so on and so forth. So that's 2025, okay? Let's not take away the value of those championship games.

I think what's more interesting is to look forward because what they're talking about in 2026 and beyond is something totally different in a model that in all likelihood is going to grow. It'll go to at least 14. And now what the news is, is what you're reading about out there if you're interested in college football, is that it is likely to go possibly to 16 teams. Now, as soon as I hear 14 and 16, I immediately don't like the thought of a 16 team playoff. For the reason that I want to make sure we retain importance of the regular season,

and we have an access-based model and what I would say, not a rankings-based model. I want to minimize the importance of the committee as much as we possibly can. The more that we can get college football out of that boardroom with those 13 people, the better for all of us. Okay, so I would rather have an access-based model. I would rather have an award for the teams that are the best teams in the regular season by giving them a buy. You do that in a 14-team model because you only have two buys. I didn't think that that was the case with a 16-team model,

but let's get into what they're actually proposing. Because I think it's fascinating, to be honest with you, and it does retain some of that, and they want to try to, quote, unquote, grow the pie. There's a push. There's a push to go to 16 instead of 14. The major reason that they would want to push to go to 16 and not 14 is a safety net. And I'll get to that term safety net.

Just keep it kind of stored away for right now. And we'll get to that here later in the show. Let's get to exactly what it would look like. So the 16-team college football playoff format would go as follows. We'd be pushing for automatic qualifiers. That's the entire reason to grow is that the Big Ten and the SEC want automatic qualifiers. And I would say the Big Ten probably more so than the SEC, but certainly both of them would benefit from this. And they want automatic qualifiers and they want four of them.

Okay, and we're going to tell you why that four number is important in a little bit. Now, the model then differs from there because you can build the 16 team playoff in a couple of different ways after you get the four automatic qualifiers from the Big Ten and the SEC. On one format, you could go three automatic qualifiers from each the ACC and the Big 12. Then you would have one group of five member, and then you would have one, quote, at large spot for either Notre Dame or an at-large team depending on where Notre Dame fell in the rankings. So that's one way to get to 16. Another way to get to 16, and this is the model that most of them are proposing, is a model where you would still retain those four automatic qualifiers for each of the big power conferences, the SEC and the Big 10. Then the ACC and the Big 12, which are not quite as powerful, would get two

automatic qualifiers. And then the group of five would get theirs. And that would bring you to the last three spots, which would all be at large, including Notre Dame. game. So you kind of see what these conferences are getting at. The SEC and the Big Ten are saying, we want four automatic qualifiers, but then, hey, you know what, we're going to get a little bit greedy and we're going to try to open up more access so that's not just four, but maybe we could get a fifth, maybe we could get a sixth team in the college football playoff. What's interesting about their model of the 16 teams is that what you would see is that the four lowest-seeded teams in this tournament would play in round one. So 13 would play 16,

14 would play 15. And then from there, those two winners would jump into the rest of the bracket. And you would have essentially what we get in the NFL, which is a 14 team model with the two top seeds receiving buys into the second round, or in this case, the quarterfinal round. That's kind of the model that they're proposing. I think that it's interesting. It's fascinating. I think that there is some holes in that model. but in large respect, you're talking about trying, at least, and this is where I would get behind.

You're trying to go from an access-based model, or excuse me, a selection-based model to an access-based model. Does everyone understand what we're talking about there, right? Let's move away from the selection committee and get to an automatic qualifying process. How do we do that? How do we best to do that? Well, we do that with automatic qualifiers. then what we would have the ability to do is play an expanded championship game weekend in each of these conferences in order to qualify for those spots. So let's just take the Big Ten and the SEC for example, and what they would propose or try to get to is a model in which their top six teams would be playing each other in games, three games on championship game,

weekend. So you would have the traditional championship game, the top seed versus the second seat overall in the conference, they would go and they would play a conference championship game. But also, you would get, and I've talked about this several times before on this show, you would get the three seed against the six seed and the four seed against the five seat. What would be interesting about those games is that the winner of those games would go to the playoff and earn one of those four automatic qualifying spots from each the Big Ten and the SEC. So if we take last year's standings, this is what those games would have looked like if you'd place this model on last year standings in the Big Ten first and then we'll do the SEC. The Big Ten's championship game would have been unchanged. Penn State played Oregon in Indianapolis.

Oregon ended up winning that game. The three-six game would have been Indiana hosting Illinois. Interesting. So the Illinois would have had an opportunity at a play in 60 minutes for the right to go to the college football playoff. In the 4-5 game, it would have been Iowa at Ohio State. In the SEC, you'd have the same championship game. Obviously, Texas and Georgia would be playing in the championship game. And then the 3-6 game would look like Tennessee hosting South Carolina.

And the 4-5 game would be Alabama hosting LSU. Now, the one team that would be the highest-ranked team that was not in this play-in weekend. Last year would have been Ole Miss. Sorry, Lane, but didn't make it even. still in this expanded model. We'll see where that goes here in the future because I got an idea for you. Lane, I'm here for you. I'm here for Ole Miss and I've got an idea for you guys later in the show you're going

to want to stick around for that. So this is what a championship game weekend would look in the, would look like in the Big Ten and the SEC. I will say at that point in an access model, I don't know what the model would look like for the ACC in the Big 12. I would suspect that they're going to go to a two a queue for that conference. So would you play like one versus four, two versus three? Is that two penal for the team that wins the regular season?

I'm not sure. So I don't know exactly how they would want to award their two automatic qualifying spots. But in the Big Ten and the SEC, it's pretty straightforward. And they would certainly want to retain the value of their championship game. I do want to make sure that this point is made. The winner of the Big Ten championship game and the SEC championship game would almost always, if not foregone conclusion, get those top two buys.

They would be the top two seeds, and winning that game would be a huge advantage because you would go all the way into what would be the quarterfinals. I think that the concerns there would be like, What happens if there's upsets in those three, six, four, five games? Like, what happens if Iowa beats Ohio State? And, you know, I'll be honest, like, I wouldn't have a ton of sympathy for an Ohio state in that regard or an Indiana in that regard or Tennessee who would be hosting

South Carolina or an Alabama who'd be hosting LSU. And the reason is, it's like, one, you've had the entire year to try to get yourself into the championship game. and you failed to do so. Okay, so the regular season has to matter, and now it's mattering. And now you get a home game against the team that you're higher in the rankings then

and certainly higher than in your own standings in your league. So if you can't beat them, I'm not going to cry in my milk over you not going to the college football playoff. To me, that's all the access you need. You've had the opportunity to get the automatic spot with your top two seeds in your conference. via the championship game and you're going to have a home game.

So I don't really need a safety net there for you. Do I know what's going to happen in the other two conferences? No, I don't know. This is where it gets a little bit confusing and I just want this to be abundantly clear. If you're just listening to this, by the way, I highly, highly encourage you to get over to the YouTube channel because our team has done an incredible job with the graphics that are playing during the course of this episode. We've got the big wall here in the studio with all of the information that I'm talking about,

and it's up there visually for you. So if you're not watching on YouTube, you should be. Go ahead and subscribe when you're there. That would be awesome. So this is what it would look like. In a 16-team model where the top two seeds get a buy, only the four lowest seeds would be playing games in round one. That round would be played on the weekend that Army Navy plays their game

just a week after the conference championship games. So the 13th ranked team would play the 16th ranked team, and the 14th ranked team would play the 15th ranked team. So 13 through 16 are playing in round one. So there's your round one. It's only two games and it's only four teams. It doesn't seem like a huge round one, right? It's more like a play-in game.

Yeah, it really is more like a play-in game. Those seeds would be established by the committee, but they would be earned through automatic births, which I'm all for. Now, once we have winners of those games, now we would get into a bracket like you and I know and love, in particular in the NFL, which is kind of a 14-team model with two buys. So you see how now you just slot in those winners into this model that you're seeing up there where you've got number one seed and number two seed

that have buys into the quarterfinals, and then you've got those six games. So the games would be as followed. The three-seed plays the four-seat, 4, 13, 5, 12, 6, 11, 7, 10, 8, 9. All of those games would happen on the, quote, second round of the playoffs. Then we would get into the quarterfinals, which we would incorporate the top two seeds, which had buys to that point, and we would play in from there.

I do want to stress that my idea about playing a seeding-style tournament rather than a bracket-style tournament would apply in this model as well. This would be my suggestion is to play seating and not brackets, so that winning your conference championship in the SEC or the Big Ten would really matter. It would really matter because, sake of argument, if you were the number one seed overall in the playoffs, that would mean that after the first round, those first two games,

and then after the six games of the second round, you would get to play the lowest remaining ranked team. Why not give them that advantage? I would also put that game on campus. I don't know what they're going to do. Proposal-wise, they're still talking about where they want these games to take place. The first round would certainly be played on campus.

The second round would certainly be played on campus because that's what we're doing already. And then the question becomes the quarterfinals. I would argue, and most coaches, and in particular in the Big 10 footprint, I was just with them last week out here in Los Angeles at their spring meetings. And I can tell you that most of the Big Ten coaches want the quarterfinal round played at home on campus. And rightly so, we saw what a big deal home field advantage was in the playoffs last year.

And we also saw the distinct advantage that teams that played in cold weather got when SMU went up to Penn State. And even though they were two cold weather teams that Notre Dame got the host against Indiana and then Ohio State got the host against Tennessee. Tennessee ran out there with their shirts off like they were trying to be tough. And it was like, you're going to lose. You know, I mean, like, that was going to happen. So what we saw in practice was a distinct advantage. And what they're starting to realize, in particular in that footprint, the Big Ten footprint, is that if they go to a bowl game, if they go to a neutral site,

those are warm weather locations, which are outside of the footprint of the Big Ten. So they're going to have to travel quite a distance like Penn State had to do after beating SMU. then they go to the Fiesta Bowl, then to the Orange Bowl, and they're going down and playing these games outside of the Big Ten footprint. Why not at least one of those rounds be in-home stadiums, in particular for the top two seeds, to further incentivize the regular season and winning those two conferences. To me, that's a no-brainer.

I don't think that we need to be mixing the old with the new, like oil and water and college football. New wine and old wine skins doesn't work. It just doesn't work. It's biblical. So that's what I would do is I'd play them on campus. And like I said, the proposal is undecided on whether they would play a straight seating model, where they would go to campus in the quarterfinals.

There's still much to be determined, even the automatic spots. You know, they want to go to 16, but why do they want to go to 16? They want to go to 16 for a safety net. I want to go back to that graphic here. And let's talk about these two different models that the 16 team playoff format kind of entails. So if you remember, what I went over is in each of the models, the SEC and the Big Ten get four automatic qualifying births. In one of them, then the ACC and the Big 12 would get three automatic spots. Then the group of five would get one and Notre Dame at large would get one.

Well, the SEC and the Big Ten don't really like that because they don't feel like they should be giving extra spots to the ACC and the Big 12. They don't feel like those leagues are tough enough. Quite frankly, I agree. They're not deep enough to get the third automatic spot. So they would rather those two conferences have two automatic spots, which would free up those two more at-large births at the end. And Notre Dame and everybody would be fighting for those three at-large births in a 16-team model. Okay, so what are those three at-large births actually represent? And I already touched on this, and that is it's a safety net. And it's unneeded. It's unwarranted, and it's greedy.

I do not like the 16-team model for this reason. It is not needed. We do not need to be redundant. If we go to an expanded playoff, 14 is all we need. All we need is four automatic bursts from the SEC and the Big Ten, two from the ACC and the Big 12, one for the group of five, and one for Notre Dame or at large. That's all we need.

Why? Why is that all we need? What if we need a fifth team from? No, one, we don't need a fifth team from those conferences because we're already giving them access via the access-based model and more in particular with the play-in weekend. So let's go back to that graphic.

And I already touched on this again. What they're trying to do is create a safety net here under Indiana, under Ohio State, under Tennessee, under Alabama, these home teams that would be playing a single game winner goes matchup on playing weekend championship game weekend. But let's just think about this for a second. Do you really need a safety net?

Those teams already are not in the top two in their conference, and they've had an entire season to get to that point. Let's just say sake of argument, like, you know what, though, they're a really good team and they played a tougher schedule and they just got beat out on a tiebreaker. Okay, fine. Well, now they get to be at home versus a team that they are better than because they are higher than them in the standings. I'm not going to cry over a team having a home game and 60 minutes over a team that they would be favored to play against.

And then all of a sudden have to give them a safety net if they lose. Sometimes you got to take the training wheels off. And I say this with respect, but now you're getting into the greed zone. You do not need those. Plus, as soon as you start getting into that territory, you're bringing the committee back into it. We want access-based. We don't want the committee.

College football fans hate the committee. We want them as far away from our playoff system as we can possibly get them. We're still going to have them to seed this thing, which, you know what, it's hard to swallow in the first place. But if you're telling me that we're going to get back into a mode, where we're going to let teams in the back door of the playoff based on the committee, well, guess what?

We're going to increase the probability that teams are not going to play anybody in the non-conference. We're already seeing that. Tennessee and Nebraska got rid of that matchup. USC Notre Dame is not playing. Like, come on. What are we doing? We have to retain the importance of the regular season, continue to encourage quality non-league matchups.

And you can do that through seating, but you're not going to do that through, a model where you're giving access to the college football playoff just based off of wins and losses, you're going to encourage everybody to get rid of those games and just get wins. So I go back to this. I do not want a selection-based model

in any way, shape, or form. I want an access-based model. And we can get that. And the model that I just talked about there, where we have all of these games on championship game weekend, by the way, if you actually think about it, it's not a 14-team playoff. It's a 24-team playoff.

It's a 25-te-play. It's a 26-te-off. All of those teams have massive games on that weekend. And here's the kicker. They would be playing massive games the entire month of December, or excuse me, November, to get themselves into those games. So just think about this for a moment.

Think about this for a moment. Last year, we had amazing matchups that actually didn't really affect the teams that ended up winning the games that, in my model, have been huge. Syracuse beat Miami last year. Syracuse would have played themselves into a potential championship game play-in situation. South Carolina would have played their way into giving themselves a chance last year. Iowa beat Nebraska on a last second field goal in the final week.

They would have played themselves into a play-in game against Ohio State. Illinois beat Rutgers on a 40-yard touchdown with four seconds left late last season. That win means something now. So now we're increasing the number of important games, interesting games, valuable inventory through the month of November. So do I need a safety net? And the answer is no. Now, I'm in favor of a 14 team model. I don't need those extra at-large spots. And now I'm going to give you this caveat that I threw out there.

I have a plan for you, old miss. I have a plan. Let's go back to that graphic of the number of teams that make it the automatic qualifiers. So in a 16-team model, we've got three at-large and Notre Dame. In my model, that would go down to one, right? Because I would go 4-4-2-2-1 for a 14-team access-based playoff. But you know what? You know what didn't sit well with me?

Just this idea that Notre Dame can just play their regular season and then not have to play on championship game weekend, not have to play a play-in game. Everybody else is playing. Everybody else that would get these spots would be earning their way in an access-based model, except for Notre Dame. Well, that didn't sit well with me,

and I was like, well, what could we do there? And I thought about it, and I was like, oh, got it. Notre Dame would play if they were in the top 14 in the country, right? So they would have to qualify for play-in weekend. And if they were, they would have to play that weekend too. Guess who they would play? The highest-ranked remaining team

that is not playing in their conference play-in weekend, which is, from last year, Ole Miss. So all of those games we'd be giving you in the first week of December and Ole Miss would have a chance. And that could be from any conference. The highest remaining team that is not playing in their play in weekend in their conference would go play Notre Dame.

And now Notre Dame's having to earn in an access-based model there at large spot. So you don't even have to call it the Notre Dame at large spot. It's just like that's a play-in game. I think that that would be a tremendous value add for college football to see another game in South Bend. or wherever the highest ranked team would be at that point. We would be having meaningful games the entire month of November. I do not need a safety net.

I do not need the greed and the training wheels of the three at-large spots. So we don't need a 16-team playoff. Another thing that a 16-team playoff does is it extends the length of the season because now I've got to play that first round in order to get to the second round, which is now a 14-team model. And then we've got to go from there in the quarters and the two-byes. And now all of a sudden, we're still deep into January before we're crowning a champion. A 14-team model, we can start right away, right after championship game week, and we can get this thing done.

And that would be a huge advantage for college football and the calendar more specifically, because the calendar is one of the things that has to get fixed. And one of the things that I think that we need to do is finish the regular season. So do I love what's being proposed? Absolutely not. the most access-based model that we can get. I think that we don't need a 16-team model. I think it's greedy and it's a safety net. And we did it make sure that we're maintaining the importance of the regular season. And if we do that and we allow the committee to just

sneak teams in the back door, we're going to continue to see teams get rid of great non-conference matchups, which we've already seen in college football. Last point I would say is I do think it's imperative that we move to a model where we are taking scheduling from teams in the non-conference and scheduling for them. That's another reason why I think I should be the college football commissioner, quite frankly, is because a centralized governing body not only can drive more revenue through better inventory, but we can force teams to play those games. If you want access to the college football playoff, then we're going to sell those non-conference games, and we're going to create great matchups.

And guess what? You can't get out of them because you didn't. schedule them. We'll schedule them. We'll schedule them for you. That's what I'd like to see. Again, I don't think we need 16. I really don't. It's a lot going on. Like I said, I'm thankful that you guys listening to this. If you are just listening, though, you really do need to go and watch the episode because there were so much graphically that you could see that would hopefully clarify some of the content that I was giving you just verbally.

So go over there and do that on the YouTube channel. And while you're at it and you're online, you're watching YouTube, follow us on social media because we are wherever you like to social media at Joel Klatshow. Thank you for listening. We will be back with another episode next Monday and keep those comments coming in the socials, keep them coming on YouTube. And we'll also try to get to a mailbag episode at some point this summer.

So keep your eyes peeled for that. Until then, have a great week.