Shaping the Future: Bold Changes Coming to College Football Playoff for 2025
The enlivened rhythm of the offseason keeps us all on edge, featuring a set of ricocheting developments from both the Pac-12 legacy institutions and university districts far and wide. Highlights underscore four main changes you might have failed to notice. The first involves a shift in the College Football Playoff (CFP) for 2025 – the ushering in of a new and a rather intriguing seeding model. The CFP’s management team gave the go-ahead all in align, shining the green light on an innovative system that organizes the playoff teams on merit, as outlined in the selection committee’s final ranking results.
In this new era, the top four slots will no longer be reserved solely for the cream of the crop among conference champions. Free-for-all entitlement is the game’s new dynamic, paving the way for any team to propel their way up. This means not just the crowned champions but even runners-up or third-placed teams could have a potential shot at the top four slots. This development bodes well for the Big Ten and SEC, providing potential opportunities even for those not at the absolute pinnacle.
One could envision such empowered institutions, housing their teams of limitless capabilities, cornering the market on the four most coveted seeding positions, thereby promising themselves a direct pass to the quarterfinals. This power dynamic could put the ACC and Big 12 champions in the backseat. To put this into context, had this model been implemented last season, the Arizona State team would be denied a direct line to the quarterfinals, making their bid to face Texas in the Peach Bowl a little more complicated.
Instead, the 11th-ranked Sun Devils would find themselves toe-to-toe with Ohio State, away from home turf. However, on a brighter note, teams like Boise State could have found themselves in a more head-to-head, evenly-matched scenario, squaring off with Indiana rather than engaging in a clash with Penn State in the Fiesta Bowl following an extended hiatus. This arguably more challenging cup tie plays into the subtleties reaped from the updated 2025 format.
Breaking it down, the most desirable seeds are not necessarily the top ones – No. 1, 2, 3 and 4. As it stands, the positions with the most perks – No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 – allows teams to play an instrumental home game in the preliminary round, avoid an extended break ahead of the quarterfinals, and earns a payout on par with a quarterfinalist’s. Finances matter undeniably making this a key consideration in the altered schema.
The new format relied heavily on the collective agreement of the governing bodies of the 10 conferences and Notre Dame. The outcome of this cooperation should unfold progressively in the forthcoming months. Secondly, an important note about Trump’s athletic commission, which met with a temporary standstill, so legislative work that helps college sports can take precedence.
Senator Ted Cruz, who chairs the commerce committee, is spearheading the legislative activity undergirding the future of college sports. To establish lasting harmony in collegiate sports, an antitrust safeguard, or written rules from legislators, or perhaps both, must be established. Otherwise, the perpetual cycle of lawsuits will continue to undermine the system while individual states draft their own Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) laws to suit their interests.
Thirdly, ongoing mediation efforts continue between the Pac-12 and Mountain West. The talks, stretching over a period of several days, and perhaps even the whole week, are aimed at addressing the poaching penalty and exit fee litigation that weighs in at over $100 million. However, the confidentiality of the negotiations is being strictly respected, as any leaked information could potentially derail the mediation process.
There have been no announcements about any agreements or even a foundational framework for a possible settlement. The lawsuit in question pits the Pac-12 against the Mountain West, in addition to three schools embroiled in the exit fee dispute. Moving forward, it’s becoming clear that both conferences need to find a resolution to these legal complications before they can negotiate their media rights deals.
Fourthly, there’s been a stalling in the House v. NCAA settlement case. Many people were surprised that Northern California District Judge Claudia Wilken did not issue a ruling this week on this significant antitrust lawsuit. With no word from Judge Wilken, the college sports landscape is currently in a state of suspense.
From the evolving discourse around revenue sharing to the talk of disbursing $2.8 billion to ex-athletes, not forgetting the ongoing controversy over roster cuts and the formulation of a NIL enforcement strategy, everything hangs on Judge Wilken’s impending decision. If she approves, school-athlete monetary sharing will commence on July 1 with athletic programs from the power conferences introducing a mechanism for managing NIL deals.
Should the ruling be rejected, the relative unpredictability of the past two years will pale in comparison to what may likely unfold. That said, it’s important to remember that these comprehensive changes are part and parcel of a dynamic sporting landscape. Its constant evolution not only ensures balance and equity but also incites competitive spirit among participating teams in college sports.