The new 12-team College Football Playoff is effective. I don’t mean it functions like an old TV that you have to whack to get it to work. This system requires no adjustments; it operates as seamlessly as a modern 72-inch flat-screen TV that shows a clear picture with just a click.

Let it be as it is. Enjoy the excitement. Don’t mess with a good thing.

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey and Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti pledged to keep a close eye on the first year of this expanded playoff as they contemplate potential adjustments to the setup.

“This must be an incredible success,” Sankey said back in October. “We need a strong launch.”

Whether this playoff is deemed a successful start likely hinges on who’s assessing the situation. In my opinion, here’s what I think should be changed about the playoff format: nothing at all.

That’s correct; I wouldn’t modify the format in any way.

When Ohio State or Notre Dame celebrates a victory in Atlanta on Monday, a worthy champion will have emerged, having proven itself through four playoff games. There won’t be any questions about whether the selection committee left out the best team in the country. Each team not included in this bracket had its shortcomings and missed its chances.

Should the College Football Playoff Change Seeding and Byes? Absolutely Not.

One of the biggest complaints about this playoff structure is that the four byes go to conference champions. This can lead to some confusing contrasts between a team’s CFP ranking and its seeding in the bracket. For instance, Arizona State was ranked No. 12 in the final CFP rankings, but as the fourth-best conference champion, they were seeded No. 4.

This upset many fans. ESPN’s Rece Davis used the weekly rankings show to advocate for a new seeding system based on the CFP rankings, which would award byes to the top four teams instead.

Why is that essential? Why not reward conference champions with byes?

Had seeding followed the rankings, Arizona State would have been 12th. This change would have allowed teams like Texas and Penn State, who finished second in their conferences, to receive byes, taking the spots of Arizona State and Boise State.

However, when Arizona State faced Texas in the quarterfinals, the Sun Devils played like the No. 4 seed that they were assigned instead of No. 12.

In one of the playoff’s most exhilarating matches, Texas triumphed in double overtime. They made a crucial fourth-and-13 play in the first overtime to keep their chances alive. So, again, what was wrong with Arizona State getting a bye? And what achievements made it so that Texas was deserving of this advantage?

Regarding Boise State, the Broncos were not to blame for their conference’s poor performance, which allowed a Group of Five champion to earn a bye.

Additionally, No. 1 Oregon and No. 2 Georgia also lost in the quarterfinals, which shows that both Arizona State and Boise State weren’t alone in not living up to their seeding.

If teams were seeded according to CFP rankings, college football would be unique among major sports in that wild-card teams would be eligible for first-round byes.

In the NFL, byes are based on the top team from each conference. Major League Baseball reserves byes for the top two division winners from each league.

Granting byes exclusively to conference champions fits nicely with the importance of regular-season performance and conference standings. Then, the postseason can begin to determine which team truly stands above the rest.

Reasons to keep byes with conference champions include:

∎ Conference championship games would lose significance if byes become available to at-large teams. Based on CFP rankings, the four teams that participated in the SEC and Big Ten championship games this season would have received byes, making their results feel less meaningful.

∎ If the format were changed to award byes based on rankings, Notre Dame could qualify for a bye without even participating in a conference championship weekend. This situation would give them an unwarranted advantage, while a third or fourth place team from a major conference could also attain a bye, which seems unfair to teams that earned it through their respective conference championships.

∎ The current arrangement protects deserving conference champions from potentially biased rankings that could unjustly penalize teams from less respected conferences.

The real concern with this playoff system wasn’t about the byes. The committee made a significant error by placing No. 1 Oregon against No. 8 Ohio State, the top at-large team, in the quarterfinals. Don’t point fingers at the format; instead, it’s the committee’s fault for misplacing Ohio State’s ranking, despite the Buckeyes having a strong résumé that included wins against two playoff-bound teams, Penn State and Indiana.

Is Expanding the Playoff to 14 Teams Necessary? No Way

Under a potential 14-team playoff, Alabama and Miami would have been the additional at-large teams. Their absence hasn’t been felt in this playoff. Twelve teams are sufficient. This size means that at least one or two at-large teams might enter with questionable qualifications (see SMU). Expanding the playoff could invite even more of these teams.

A 12-team playoff strikes the right balance, allowing qualified teams with championship potential to compete without compromising the significance of the regular season.

Should We Trust the CFP Selection Committee?

We could argue about the committee’s choices regarding Indiana or SMU. Especially, SMU didn’t justify the committee’s decision with their disappointing performance against Penn State in the first round. However, it’s uncertain whether Alabama or Miami would have fared any better.

I considered Mississippi or Brigham Young to be stronger picks than SMU, but those teams missed their chances during the regular season, and their exclusion isn’t tragic enough to warrant replacing the committee with a computer system or some convoluted metric inspired by ESPN’s Football Power Index.

While the committee miscalculated Ohio State’s seeding, they generally did a fair job.

What Lies Ahead for the 12-Team Playoff?

Making any changes to the playoff format for the upcoming season would require unanimous approval from the ten conferences, plus Notre Dame. This requirement for unanimity makes significant changes unlikely for 2025, though minor tweaks to byes or the seeding structure could happen.

For 2026, things become less predictable. Starting then, the SEC and Big Ten will have more authority to reshape the playoff. It’s uncertain whether Sankey and Petitti can create a format that is better, fairer, and more exciting than the current one. I remain skeptical.

After years of frustration with an outdated postseason format, this 12-team playoff looks absolutely ideal. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Blake Toppmeyer is the national college football columnist for News Network. Follow him on X @btoppmeyer.