The 2024 college football season was historic, not just for the action on the field but also for the newly expanded College Football Playoff (CFP). For the first time, the field grew to 12 teams, serving its purpose: To include more contenders, spread the excitement, and boost revenue.
Advertisement
However, not everyone believes that the new framework worked. For instance, former NFL safety Ryan Clark remains unconvinced.
Appearing on The Pivot podcast, Clark, whose son, Jordan, plays for Notre Dame, offered pointed criticism based on first-hand experience. He, apparently, spent a month on the sidelines following the Fighting Irish through the playoffs.
Notre Dame took home a cool $23 million, the most by any team in the competition, despite losing the final to Ohio State. Even then, the ESPN analyst was left unimpressed with how some playoff teams were selected.
“It almost feels like… some teams weren’t supposed to be there,” Clark said. “The games wouldn’t be as competitive based on the way things were chosen.”
In other words, the expansion may have allowed too many undeserving teams a ticket to the postseason party. As Laine Higgins of the Wall Street Journal put it, the first round of the 2024-25 CFP “was a complete dud”.
The average final score of the four games? 36-17… Blowouts across the board. Notre Dame defeated Indiana 27-17, SMU lost 38-10 to Penn State, Tennessee fell to Ohio State 42-17, and Clemson lost to Texas 38-24.
The one-sided results prompted Clark to question the logic behind both the selection and seeding of teams. He suggested that the system was trying too hard to please everyone.
“They’re almost trying to say, okay, we gave — now that there’s 12 teams — we can give everybody a little piece. And in trying to do that, I agree,” Clark added. His experience watching Notre Dame’s playoff campaign further reinforced this belief. Channing Crowder, Clark’s co-host, added fuel to the conversation.
Crowder pointed out that the expanded format risks diluting the quality of matchups. He also added nuance by questioning the effectiveness of solutions like automatic bids and the potential dilution of competition.
“We can’t just let everybody in… it can’t be the NCAA basketball tournament in football; it’s just too many games,” Crowder said.
Lane Kiffin, a guest on the show, heard the takes from Crowder and Clark and offered a solution. According to the Ole Miss head coach, appointing a dedicated committee to evaluate team selections is the best way to address the problem.
“I think you’d have to get a really good committee that really spends a lot of time and watches the game with some football people in there to figure out… get the best teams in there,” said Kiffin.
He also suggested expanding the playoffs to 16 teams to eliminate byes and provide home-field advantages. This ensures that every game remains competitive and meaningful.
“I only say [expand it to 16 teams] because you can get rid of the byes. And so it’s the same amount of weeks. If 16, just start playing from the beginning, but give home field because, as you saw, that’s a huge deal that time of year. So it’s still a lot to play for, to be one of those in this, whatever, top eight seeds and get home field,” elaborated Kiffin.
All said and done, the expansion of the CFP, which was supposed to bring more revenue and enhance fan experience, has brought to light the need for a more discerning and objective selection process.
This would ensure that only the most competitive teams are included. It will preserve the integrity of the playoff and uphold the high standards expected in college football — standards that matter more than financial gains.
