CFP Blowouts Spark Debate: Is the 12-Team Format Delivering or Disappointing Fans?

The recent first round of the College Football Playoff (CFP) has elicited a wave of reactions from fans and analysts alike, many lamenting the lack of competitiveness in the games. As highlighted by a multitude of inquiries, the dominant performances led to a common cry for help and clarity regarding the future of the playoff format. However, it's important to take a step back and gain perspective on the situation rather than jumping to conclusions. Historically, blowouts are not a new phenomenon in the CFP. A striking 21 out of 30 four-team playoff games have been decided by two or more scores. This raises the question: has everyone forgotten the blowout nature of past CFPs? The expectation that the committee can craft a perfectly competitive bracket is unrealistic. Even in professional leagues like the NFL, blowouts occur, as evidenced by last season’s wild-card round, where five of six games were decided by at least two touchdowns. The notion that the playoff is supposed to deliver nail-biting finishes is perhaps a romanticized view of what postseason football can offer. It’s worth noting that the transition from a four-team to a 12-team format wasn’t solely about increasing competitiveness; it was also about broadening access and including more teams that might not traditionally get a shot at the title. The first round's blowouts should not overshadow the overall success of expanding the playoffs, which allows for more college football excitement throughout December. Yet, the question remains whether 12 teams are too many, especially given this year’s results. The answer is complicated. Historically, playoff formats expand rather than contract—no precedent suggests a reversal to an eight-team model. The consensus for the 12-team model stemmed from differing interests among major conferences, balancing automatic bids for champions while also ensuring that the strongest teams were included. Any move back to fewer teams seems unlikely, given the strong push for inclusivity seen across college athletics. The recent shake-up in college football realignment, particularly the shift to mega-conferences, has certainly complicated the playoff picture. With the Power Five model now shifted to the Power Two and two others, some of the traditional metrics for evaluating teams may need revision. This has resulted in an unusual seeding process that has left the strongest teams facing potentially tougher matchups than lower-seeded teams that had easier schedules. Moreover, the excitement surrounding on-campus playoff games suggests that while the current format may not be ideal for all, there’s an appetite for innovation in how the playoffs are structured. Moving quarterfinals to campus sites could enhance the atmosphere and fan engagement, although logistical challenges remain. The commitment to bowl games through 2031 complicates this potential shift, but many anticipate that changes will come as the landscape of college football continues to evolve. As for the concerns regarding individual matchups and predictions—such as the surprising outcome of SMU against Penn State—it's clear that making calls in college football is never straightforward. Each season presents its unique challenges and surprises, reminding us that unpredictability is part of the sport’s charm. In sum, while the first round of this year's CFP might not have met the expectations of every fan, it's crucial to remember that football is inherently unpredictable. Moving forward, it will be essential for the selection committee and conference officials to adapt to the new landscape created by realignment and changing team dynamics. This evolution will shape not only the playoff format but also how fans engage with and enjoy college football in the years to come.