The College Football Playoff (CFP) is like this massive, super exciting event that happens every year to figure out who’s the ultimate champion in college football. Picture this: there are four teams, and they face off in two semifinal games. The winners from those games move on to battle it out in the College Football Playoff National Championship game. It’s like the pinnacle of NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) action!
In the blog post, Sportonpoint is going to discuss with you about the selection process, structure, history, income, and many more about the college football playoff ranking
College Football Playoff Ranking: Selection Process, Structure, History, Income, and many more
First of all, let’s start with the history
History
Background
The Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) doesn’t have an official NCAA championship event like other sports. It’s been dubbed a “mythical national championship” because of this absence. Without an official NCAA title, picking the top college football team has caused lots of debates. Various individuals and groups, known as “selectors,” have declared championship teams, but their choices aren’t always in agreement.
Although the NCAA hasn’t officially backed a championship team, it has documented some selectors’ picks. Analysts and organizations have also shared their own selections, sometimes differing from each other and schools’ claims to national titles. The Associated Press (AP) has been a major selector since 1935, conducting the AP Poll, while the Coaches Poll by United Press started in 1950. There have been instances where these polls chose different final national leaders, resulting in a “split” national championship.
Instead of an NCAA-sanctioned tournament, different cities hosted regional festivals featuring postseason bowl games, like the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Cotton Bowl Classic, Peach Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl. These bowl games often had agreements with specific conferences, making it tricky to schedule the top teams to play in one bowl game, let alone all deserving teams.
Calls for a college football playoff came up frequently, notably from Penn State head coach Joe Paterno after his unbeaten teams missed major national titles. Various attempts, like the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance, aimed to set up a No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup, but were hindered by existing bowl contracts.
The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) in 1998 managed to bring the Big Ten and Pac-10 into the mix, rotating the BCS National Championship Game among the Fiesta, Orange, Rose, and Sugar bowls. Initially using polls and computer rankings, the BCS era had its share of controversies, like the 2003 split national championship due to USC being left out of the Sugar Bowl despite being No. 1 in both human polls.
Establishment
In 2014, the College Football Playoff burst onto the scene, introducing this awesome multi-game tournament—a first in college football history! Instead of relying on polls or rankings, a 13-member selection committee seeded four teams for the showdown.[20][76] They also added the Cotton and Peach bowls into the mix. The semifinal games started rotating among these New Year’s Six bowl games, following a three-year cycle with different pairings like Rose/Sugar, Orange/Cotton, and Fiesta/Peach.[15] Finally, the College Football Playoff National Championship went down a week later at a different neutral location.
Enlargement Suggestions
Before the big move to a twelve-team setup in 2024, there was this buzz about expanding the playoff to eight teams. The idea was to lock in all five major conference champs and the top-ranked “Group of Five” champ, leaving two spots for the next highest-ranked teams. They’d then set up the matchups, like 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, and so on, to fit the playoff structure.
Back in 2014, NCAA coaches were asked their take on a bigger playoff system. More than half of those from the Power 5 conferences preferred an eight-team setup over the four-team model, according to the poll. But the CFP executive director, Bill Hancock, stuck to the plan for just four teams until 2026, mentioning no discussions about expansion.
In June 2021, the CFP made noise about studying a jump to a 12-team playoff. They made it clear that any new format’s start date would only come after approval.
Things got interesting in February 2022 when the CFP said no to the playoff expansion proposal, postponing any changes until at least the 2026 season. But then, on September 2, 2022, everything flipped. The CFP Board of Managers voted unanimously to go for the 12-team expansion, potentially kicking in as early as the 2024 season.
During fall 2022, conferences and bowls had some serious talks about this early expansion. The Rose Bowl was a bit of a snag, wanting to keep its exclusive 5 PM ET kickoff on January 1, even during years it hosted the semifinals instead of the quarterfinals. Eventually, things smoothed out when the bowl was given an ultimatum: no special treatment or be left out of the new playoffs. The Rose Bowl agreed to let go of its demands.
2024 Enlargement
Big news for 2024 and beyond! The CFP is going big, expanding to a 12-team playoff. Here’s the lowdown on what’s in store:
The top five conference champs in the CFP rankings get guaranteed bids, no automatic bids for any conference.
Seven more spots are up for grabs for the next highest-ranked teams, possibly including more conference champs.
The four highest-ranked conference champs get a free pass for the first round.
The rest face off in the first round at the better seeds’ home fields, going with the regular 5–12, 6–11, 7–10, and 8–9 matchups.
The quarterfinals and semifinals will rotate between some big bowls: Cotton, Fiesta, Orange, Peach, Rose, and Sugar Bowls.
The championship game stays neutral at a separately chosen site.
No reseeding happens at any point in the playoff bracket.
The action starts with the first round in December, followed by quarterfinals around New Year’s, then semis a week later, and the championship game just one week after the semis.
Also Read…
Heartbreaking Loss in Semistate Overtime for Center Grove Football
Football Drawing: A Comprehensive Guide to Capturing the Beautiful Game’s Essence
The Greatest Goalkeepers in Football History
Highland High School Football (Utah): History and Lagacy
Vinicius Jr. and Maria Julia Mazalli: A Love Story in the Making
Lionel Messi Inter Miami: Impacts and Transformation
alicia aylies and mbappe together
Erling Haaland: The Soccer Phenomenon with a Staggering Net Worth in 2023
Top 10 Bayern Munich Legends – Hall Of Fame
Structure and Locations
Since 2014 till the end of the 2023 season, the College Football Playoff’s been all about this four-team knockout setup to crown the champ. Six big bowls—the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Cotton, Fiesta, and Peach—take turns hosting the semifinals. They switch around every three years: Rose/Sugar, Orange/Cotton, and Fiesta/Peach. Those two semis plus four other top-tier bowls form what they call the New Year’s Six. The deal locks the Rose and Sugar Bowls for New Year’s Day. Originally, three games hit on New Year’s Eve, with the rest on New Year’s Day. But low TV ratings in the first go-around had some games moved as early as December 27 in certain years. The selection committee seeds the top four teams and decides which teams go to the at-large bowls (Cotton, Fiesta, and Peach) in years they’re not hosting semis.
So, in this four-team setup, the No. 1 team faces off against No. 4, and No. 2 tackles No. 3. The seeding picks which bowl gets each matchup; No. 1 gets to choose its bowl to avoid a “road” game situation. Unlike the old BCS rules, there’s no cap on teams from a conference. Still, some non-semifinal bowls stick to their conference tie-ins, similar to how the BCS worked with automatic qualifiers. And a team from one of the “Group of Five” conferences is a sure shot for one of those New Year’s Six bowls.
Cities all over bid to host the championship game each year. The big shots in charge of the playoff pick from those bids, kind of like how they do for other major sports events, like the NCAA Final Four. They’re clear that the championship game moves to a different city every year, and any stadium up for hosting needs at least 65,000 fans. Oh, and under this system, a city can’t host both a semifinal and the big title game in the same year.
Selection process
Selection Committee
Back on October 16, 2013, the College Football Playoff made a big deal about its first-ever Selection Committee. Picture this group as a squad of 13 folks, each usually signing up for a three-year gig. To mix things up, they had a few members start with shorter or longer terms, aiming for this kind of rotation among the gang.
Voting Process
When it comes to picking the cream of the college football crop, the committee has this routine: they reveal their top 25 rankings every Tuesday during the latter part of the regular season. Those top four teams snag their seeding in that order for the playoff. Throughout the season, the committee meets up and drops these rankings about six or seven times, depending on how long the season stretches (games stay consistent, but the weeks they’re played over can change). These meetings go down at the Gaylord Texan hotel in Grapevine, Texas, with the gang reportedly coming together in person around 10 times a year.
What really matters to this crew? A team’s schedule toughness is big on their radar when making picks. They also weigh things like conference championships, team records, head-to-head results, and throw in bits about injuries and weather too. But here’s the twist: unlike the old BCS system or the AP Poll, Coaches’ Poll, and the Harris Poll, they don’t rely on computer rankings. Advanced stats and metrics might show up at the committee’s doorstep, but they’re not officially part of the decision-making. Oh, and committee members don’t have to show up at the games they’re evaluating.
According to Long, they considered less frequent rankings but stuck to the weekly release because “that’s what the fans expect,” saying it’d feel odd to leave college football without rankings for too long. And get this, early on they thought they’d huddle up at the end of the season and pop out with a top four, but that idea didn’t last long. That shift in strategy got some folks talking. Stewart Mandel from Sports Illustrated pointed out how the committee aimed to ditch the simple horse-race style of rankings for a more thoughtful approach but might end up trying to do both anyway. And George Schrodeder from USA Today figured if things worked out as planned, we’d see some real shake-ups week to week, with lower-ranked teams overtaking higher ones without the latter even losing (a rare sight in regular polls).
How do they vote? Well, they’ve got this system using multiple ballots, kind of like how they pick teams for the NCAA basketball tourney. The whole thing’s streamlined with special software made by Code Authority in Frisco, Texas. Starting with a big pool of teams, they take votes on different groups, considering six at a time, hashing out how to rank ’em, then moving on to the next bunch. There’s talk and debate at each step. Every vote’s a secret ballot, and what each member picks stays private. The process resets each week; no past rankings carry weight into the next round of picks. In this dance, they pick the four contenders for the big national championship.
Here’s the kicker: if a committee member’s on the payroll of a school or has close family tied financially (including football players), they can’t vote for that school. When the team they’ve got ties to gets discussed, they step out, but they can give the lowdown on basic facts about the place. Everyone on the committee’s got some history with NCAA institutions, but they agreed to put that aside when it comes to recusal. Long reckons they’re all about integrity and separating from their past ties. Yet, some football scribes like Dennis Dodd and Mark Schlabach reckon this setup isn’t clear or fair, saying alma maters and past coaching gigs should count as conflicts of interest that disqualify members.
Impact on scheduling
Tom Jernstedt, one of the brains on the selection committee, put it straight: “Having a strong schedule is gonna be huge. If you wanna be in the running, you gotta step up your game schedule-wise compared to what you might’ve done before.”
With the spotlight shining brighter on schedule strength, teams are rethinking their game plans for the non-conference part of their schedules. See, some squads used to face off against three or four “easy” non-conference opponents, but those wins don’t really impress the committee much. Selector Oliver Luck mentioned, “For teams teetering on the edge of that top four, schedule strength’s gonna be one of the first things they check.”
Now, teams in the Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac-12 lock in nine conference games out of their twelve-game schedules. That leaves them some room to wiggle with their three non-league games. Some teams are aiming to boost their schedule strength by locking in big games at neutral spots and even playing under the lights on weeknights, snagging some prime-time TV action.
When the new playoff system hit, the Southeastern Conference mulled over bumping their conference schedule from eight to nine games. Alabama’s coach, Nick Saban, was all for it, pushing for the change. But the overall vibe among SEC directors was that the conference was already tough enough without adding that ninth game. Some, like Mississippi State’s athletic director, felt that a nine-game schedule might mean more teams with two losses. On the flip side, Commissioner Michael Slive and others supported beefing up non-conference schedules, which could make a better impression on the committee. The SEC decided that starting in 2016, all teams had to face off against a Power Five foe (like ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, or indie Notre Dame) in their non-conference lineup. That move was meant to boost schedule strength, as Slive put it. In 2014, during the debut year of the College Football Playoff, one team (Georgia) squared off against two Power Five opponents, while nine out of 14 teams faced one Power Five opponent alongside three lower-level teams (including an FCS school), and four teams skipped a Power Five foe. Later on, the SEC decided games against Independents like BYU and Army would count toward their Power Five requirement.
Over in the ACC, they also play eight conference games (plus Notre Dame at least once every three years). They thought about moving to a nine-game conference schedule but stuck with the eight-plus-Notre Dame setup. Instead, they made a rule that teams had to take on one Power Five school in their non-league lineup starting in 2017, whether it’s the Notre Dame game or other ACC schools, and games against another FBS independent, BYU, also fit the bill. Some ACC coaches preferred having more flexibility in scheduling without too many permanent fixtures on the slate. When it came to voting, ADs in the league were split on going for a nine-game schedule. If the SEC did move to a nine-game setup, it’d limit the ACC’s chances to play Power Five non-conference opponents.
Broadcasting
Back in 2013, ESPN scooped up the TV rights for all six CFP bowls and the National Championship, locking it in until at least the 2025 season. They inked 12-year deals to keep airing the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Sugar Bowl after the end of the Bowl Championship Series. Then, in November of that same year, ESPN sealed the deal for another 12 years to broadcast the remaining three bowls, the championship game, and all sorts of extra shows, like those ranking ones. That whole package clocks in at about $470 million per year or a whopping $5.7 billion over the life of the contract.
Viewership figures
The first College Football Playoff games in January 2015 pulled in bigger viewership numbers compared to previous BCS games. The 2015 College Football Playoff National Championship snagged an 18.9 Nielsen rating, drawing in about 33.4 million viewers. According to AdWeek, it marked the largest audience ever for a non-broadcast cable television broadcast. That was a 31 per cent jump from the previous year’s championship game and a 22 per cent spike from the BCS title game’s best cable rating (which hit 16.1 in 2011).[105] The semifinal games, the 2015 Rose Bowl and 2015 Sugar Bowl, each attracted around 28.16 million and 28.27 million viewers, respectively. ESPN chimed in, mentioning that these games set (and briefly held) records for cable TV viewership.
But in 2015, the ratings for the two semifinal games dropped from the previous season’s equivalents. The Orange Bowl hit a 9.7 rating (compared to 15.5 for the 2015 Rose Bowl), and the Cotton Bowl drew a 9.9 rating (compared to a 15.3 rating for the 2015 Sugar Bowl). On the WatchESPN streaming service, except for the 2014 FIFA World Cup games, the Cotton Bowl and the Orange Bowl landed the second and third-largest streaming audiences in the service’s history, following the 2015 national championship. The ratings dip was connected to the New Year’s Eve time slot, with fewer folks at home to catch the game. The drop in ratings played a role in reshaping the future scheduling of CFP semi-final games.
Income
Back in 2012, ESPN struck a deal, dishing out a hefty $7.3 billion over 12 years for the rights to broadcast all seven games. That sums up to around $608 million every year. This chunk includes $215 million annually locked in for the Rose, Sugar, and Orange bowls, plus roughly $470–475 million each year for the rest of the package. Comparatively, the prior contract with the BCS and the Rose Bowl had thrown in about $155 million per year for five games.
The projected revenue for the new system averages about $500 million annually over 12 years. After knocking off $125–150 million for expenses, the Power Five conferences split roughly 71.5 percent of what’s left, averaging out to about $250 million a year ($50 million for each league) throughout the contract. The “Group of Five” conferences share around 27 percent, bagging approximately $90 million annually ($18 million per league). Notre Dame nabs around one percent, roughly $3.5-4 million, and other FBS independents pocket about 0.5 percent of the deal.
Any extra revenue heads towards conferences in deals with the Rose, Sugar, and Orange bowls, divvying up the money equally between their participating leagues. In non-semifinal years, the Rose Bowl’s TV earnings are split between the Big Ten and Pac-12 conferences, while the Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl revenue is funneled to their participant conferences. But when these bowls host semifinal games, the cash gets spread by the playoff system among all FBS conferences. ESPN shells out roughly $80 million per year each for the Rose and Sugar bowls over 12 years, while the Orange Bowl deal comes in at $55 million annually. For instance, in a non-semifinal year, the Big Ten might snag about $90 million (half of its $80 million Rose Bowl deal plus around $50 million from the playoff system).
Conferences earn an extra $6 million per year for each team they place in the semifinals and $4 million for a team in any of the three at-large bowls. Notre Dame grabs the same amount in either scenario, without any additional dough for reaching the championship game.
The Power Five conferences and the “Group of Five” haven’t hammered out their revenue-sharing formulas yet, although initially, the SEC rakes in more revenue than the other four Power Five conferences due to its BCS success. Reports suggest the money will be divvied up based on various factors such as “on-field success, team expenses, marketplace factors, and academic performance of student-athletes”. The playoff system tosses in academic performance bonuses of $300,000 per school for meeting the NCAA’s Academic Progress Rate standard of 930. So, in a hypothetical 14-team conference, $4.2 million ($300,000 x 14) would head to that league, and if only 12 out of the 14 members meet the APR standard, then each of the 12 schools would pocket $350,000 ($4.2 million / 12), cracking down on schools falling below the threshold.
Leadership
BCS Properties, LLC oversees all the aspects tied to the College Football Playoff. The reins are in the hands of Bill Hancock, former BCS commissioner, who now serves as the executive director of the playoff organization, alongside Byron Hatch, ex-SEC Assistant Commissioner for Championships, stepping in as the COO. Similar to the BCS setup, the management committee for the playoff system comprises the conference commissioners representing the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame’s athletic director. You can find the nerve center of the playoff system situated in Irving, Texas.
Board of Managers
The CFP’s operations fall under the governance of the Board of Managers, a group composed of presidents and chancellors from the member universities within the playoff system. This team of eleven holds exclusive authority to craft, scrutinize, and endorse annual budgets, policies, and operational guidelines. Additionally, they’re responsible for appointing the company’s officers.
Here are the esteemed members of this board:
Eric Barron – President, Penn State (Big Ten)
Rodney Bennett – President, Southern Miss (C-USA)
Joe Castro – Chancellor, California State University; former president, Fresno State (Mountain West)
Gordon Gee – President, West Virginia (Big 12)
Jack Hawkins – Chancellor, Troy (Sun Belt)
Rev. John I. Jenkins – President, Notre Dame (Independent)
Mark Keenum – President, Mississippi State (SEC)
Kirk Schulz – President, Washington State (Pac-12)
John Thrasher – President, Florida State (ACC)
Satish Tripathi – President, Buffalo (MAC)
R. Gerald Turner – President, SMU (The American)
Athletics Directors Advisory Group
The Athletics Directors Advisory Group, as per the CFP website, is a team appointed by the management committee with the task of providing guidance regarding the system’s operations. This group serves as an advisory board, offering insight and counsel, although it holds no actual authority in the management of the CFP.
Here are the members of this advisory group:
Gary Barta, Iowa (Big Ten)
Tom Bowen, Memphis (The American)
Tom Burman, Wyoming (Mountain West)
Joe Castiglione, Oklahoma (Big 12)
Jeremy Foley, Florida (SEC)
Dan Guerrero, UCLA (Pac-12)
Chris Massaro, Middle Tennessee (C-USA)
Terry Mohajir, UCF (The American)
Mike O’Brien, Toledo (MAC)
Stan Wilcox, Florida State (ACC)
Did you find this blog post helpful, please let us know via comment
