New College Football Playoff format has some major flaws, but one is not so obvious

As expected, the proposed 12-team College Football Playoff format was unanimously approved on Tuesday. This has been the one in discussion for months now. It is not perfect, but it is a vast improvement over the four-team format that actually did what it sought out to do, which was to give us the four best teams. At the end of the day, the college football consumer didn't actually want that.

For those of you who need a refresher on what the 12-team format entails, I have got you covered...

• Five highest-ranked conference champions, seven at-large teams make up the bracket.
• Four highest-ranked conference champions are seeded No. 1-4 with first-round byes.
• No. 5 plays No. 12, No. 6 plays No. 11, No. 7 plays No. 10 and No. 8 plays No. 9 at higher-ranked team's home stadium in the first-round game.
• The New Year's Six Bowls (Cotton, Fiesta, Orange, Peach, Rose, Sugar) become the national quarterfinals and national semifinals on a three-year rotating basis.
• No conference automatically qualifies.
• There are no limits to the amount of teams per conference.

Here is what Mississippi State University president Dr. Mark Keenum had to say as the Chair of the College Football Playoff Board of Managers about the recently approved 12-team playoff format.

"This is a very logical adjustment for the College Football Playoff based on the evolution of our conference structures since the board first adopted this new format in September 2022. I know this change will also be well received by student-athletes, coaches and fans. We all will be pleased to see this new format come to life on the field this postseason."

While there is a lot to like about the new format, there are unintended consequences to its creation.

New College Football Playoff format will have unintended consequences

Before I unpack where additional future changes need to be made, let's first celebrate a few things it got right. Going from 6-6 to 5-7 after the Pac-12's dissolution was the right call. It affords the new Power Four probably one more spot in the 12-team field for an at-large team, as well as assuring us all that the Group of Five champion still has a seat at the table, probably as the No. 12 seed most years.

Some may think the Group of Five seed being shoehorned in there could be problematic, but you have to remember this. A 12-team playoff without the guaranteed inclusion of a Group of Five champion was never going to be ratified. Think of March Madness in college basketball. The little guy rarely wins big, but just being invited to the tournament is a huge deal and should be celebrated by all.

To me, as long as we are getting as close to nationwide participating in the 12-team format, then we all win as consumers. This is because we will have something invested in the new postseason setup of the greatest sport ever. The idea of having four first-round home playoff games has me chomping at the bit. We are getting more cool games in potentially hostile environments. This is outstanding TV.

And finally, I am actually on board with the New Year's Six becoming the four quarterfinals and two semifinals. These six bowl games do a fantastic job year in and year out. Those six stadiums and surrounding cities are well-equipped to handle such big events. Together, they will make the sport feel big, even though the neutral-site locations could be a bit stale. Then again, 50-50 splits are fun.

So now that we've got some of things the College Football Playoff got right with the new format, let me peel back the curtain a bit to point out a few potential shortcomings that could arise from the next setup. The first is obvious. In most years, the No. 12 is going to be the Group of Five champion shoehorned into the playoff. That team will technically be the No. 12 seed, but is closer to the No. 20.

I don't think we need to argue about who the 12th best team really is. That team probably went 10-2 or 9-3 in its Power Four league and has maybe one win to write home about. Do better! While some may say the extra first-round game hurts a non-champion, it does put an emphasis on winning your league. The best team will come out of this tournament on top, but attrition can be very problematic.

While those two potential faults in the system are fairly obvious, I did uncover one on a recent episode of False Start when talking about Brett McMurphy of The Action Network's projected playoff teams in a conversation with my FanSided colleague Cody Williams. The No. 6 seed will continue to get screwed over horrifically for as long as the Big Ten and SEC separate from the ACC and Big 12.

With the Pac-12 going away, the Power Five has become the Power Four, but really the Power Two. In McMurphy's projection, the Big Ten and SEC account for eight of the 12 teams. Ohio State, Oregon, Penn State and Michigan are your four Big Ten teams, while Georgia, Texas, Missouri and Alabama are your four SEC teams. The other four teams are Florida State, Utah, Notre Dame and Boise State.

In this projection, Florida State is the No. 3 seed as the ACC champion and Utah is the No. 4 seed as the Big 12 champion. Boise State obviously won the Group of Five as the Mountain West champion and is the No. 12 seed. Notre Dame, who is a national independent, slots in as the No. 7 seed. In most years, the ACC and Big 12 will get between three and four teams in, with Notre Dame in that cluster.

So why is this a problem? Well, right now, the four best teams entering next season are arguably Georgia, Ohio State, Texas and Oregon, possibly in that order. While Georgia and Ohio State get No. 1 and No. 2 seeds for winning their respective leagues, Texas and Oregon are slightly underseeded as No. 5 and No. 6 seeds. In short, Florida State and Utah are elevated a bit for winning their leagues.

Where things stand now, those are probably closer to 12th to 18th-best teams in the country, as opposed to third or fourth. In time, the best teams in the ACC and Big 12 will be elevated to something closer like the sixth or eight best team. Again, even if that ends up being the case, they are elevated beyond what they actually are worth. They are overseeded and will end up paying for it.

So why is No. 6 Oregon way worse off than No. 5 Texas? Well, because No. 5 Texas will get to host No. 12 Boise State at home, while No. 6 Oregon gets to host No. 11 Michigan. No. 12 Boise State would be closer to the 20th best team than its actually ranking of 12. Michigan at No. 11 would still be No. 11, a tougher first-round opponent for the presumptive Big Ten runner-up in this particular situation.

Assuming Oregon beats Michigan at Autzen, the Ducks would have to play No. 3 Florida State. The Seminoles may not actually be the third best team in the nation, but they would still be the better team over No. 4 Utah, whose ranking was also artificially inflated by winning a conference. You win that neutral-site game, then you have to play Ohio State for the third time in one season. Good luck!

And even if you win that national semifinal game over the Buckeyes, you have to play whoever wins the third meeting between SEC foes in Georgia and Texas for a national title. Basically, not only does the true fourth best team get screwed out of a first-round bye, but their path to winning a national championship is far more treacherous than the third best teams who is also two spots worse off.

In time, I would fully expect for the four best teams to get first-round byes, no matter if they won their league or not. While the five highest-ranked conference championships should all get in, this is like having a sub-.500 NFL team hosting a home playoff game over the best Wild Card team in its league, despite being three or four wins worse than them. Eventually, the playoff will fix this massive mistake.

Going forward, keep an eye on how the No. 6 seed performs in future postseason tournaments.