What the CFP’s new seeding means and how it would have affected the 2024 bracket
-
Bill Connelly
After months of meeting to discuss things to discuss at future meetings, the people in charge of the College Football Playoff actually made a decision on Thursday, and it was one we’ve assumed they’d make for a while. After last year’s 12-team CFP gave byes to the four most highly ranked conference champions, this year’s will not.
Conference commissioners voted to go to a straight seeding format (with five spots still reserved for conference champions) in 2025.
There are still plenty of things to discuss regarding what the CFP will look like in 2026 and beyond — and good lord, don’t even get me started on how much I don’t like where we’re probably headed in that regard — but with the 2025 season starting in less than 100 days, we at least know how things will take shape this fall. Here are a few thoughts regarding these changes.
A 2024 simulation
To see what something might look like in the future, my first step is always to revisit the past. Last year’s 12-teamer, the first-ever genuine tournament at the highest level of college football, indeed handed out byes to conference champions and gave us the weird visual of having two different numbers listed next to the teams in the bracket.
Boise State, for instance, was ranked ninth in the overall CFP rankings, but the Broncos got the No. 3 seed as the third-ranked conference champ. Arizona State was simultaneously 12th and fourth. Granted, the NFL does something similar, giving the top three seeds in each conference to the winners of each individual division (which occasionally gives us odd pairings such as 9-8 Tampa Bay hosting 11-6 Philadelphia in 2023 or the 10-7 Los Angeles Rams hosting 14-3 Minnesota in 2024). But from the start, it was clear there was some dissatisfaction with this approach. And when both BSU and ASU lost in the quarterfinals — all four conference champions did, actually — it became abundantly clear that this was going to change. It just took about five months to actually happen.
Regardless, let’s look at how the 2024 playoff would have taken shape with straight seeding instead of conference-champ byes.
First round
12 Clemson at 5 Notre Dame (SP+ projection: Irish by 13.1, 79.4% win probability)
11 Arizona State at 6 Ohio State (OSU by 24.2*, 93.6% win probability)
10 SMU at 7 Tennessee (Tennessee by 7.0, 66.9% win probability)
9 Boise State at 8 Indiana (Indiana by 12.5, 78.3% win probability)
(* Here’s your reminder that SP+ really didn’t trust Arizona State much last season, primarily because the Sun Devils were a pretty average team early in the season. At 5-2 with a number of close wins and a sketchy-looking loss at Cincinnati without injured quarterback Sam Leavitt, they entered November ranked in the 50s. While they certainly rose during their late-year hot streak, they finished the year only 35th. They were genuinely excellent late in the season — just ask Texas — but they were 6-1 in one-score games heading into the CFP, and they were lucky to reach November with the Big 12 title still within reach.)
In last year’s actual first round, the four home teams (Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State and Texas) were projected as favorites by an average of 7.2 points per SP+. The average spread was Home Team -8.9. The results were actually much more lopsided than that, and that probably wouldn’t be any different with the matchups above — here, home teams are projected favorites by an average of 14.2. Changing to straight seeding wouldn’t have made the first round more competitive.
Assuming all four home teams win in this simulation, that gives us the following quarterfinals.
Quarterfinals
Rose Bowl: 1 Oregon vs. 8 Indiana (SP+ projection: Oregon by 5.9, 64.4% win probability)
Fiesta Bowl: 4 Penn State vs. 5 Notre Dame (PSU by 0.7, 51.8% win probability)
Sugar Bowl: 3 Texas vs. 6 Ohio State (OSU by 7.1, 67.1% win probability)
Peach Bowl: 2 Georgia vs. 7 Tennessee (UGA by 2.4, 55.9% win probability)
Interestingly enough, we got two of these four matchups in real life, but they were the two semifinals — Ohio State’s 28-14 win over Texas in the Cotton Bowl and Notre Dame’s late 27-24 win over Penn State in the Orange Bowl. Now these games take place in New Orleans and Glendale, Arizona, respectively. We’ll conveniently project those results to remain the same. Meanwhile, SP+ says there’s only about a 36% chance that the other two projected favorites (Oregon and Georgia) both win, but we’ll roll with that.
Semifinals
Cotton Bowl: 1 Oregon vs. 5 Notre Dame (SP+ projection: Oregon by 2.1, 55.3% win probability)
Orange Bowl: 2 Georgia vs. 6 Ohio State (OSU by 6.8, 66.6% win probability)
With those win probabilities, there’s only about a 37% chance that both projected favorites win, and this time we’ll heed that and project an upset: Conveniently, we’ll say Notre Dame upsets Oregon, giving us the exact same Fighting Irish-Buckeyes title game we got in real life.
Final
5 Notre Dame vs. 6 Ohio State
Again, we saw this one.
Who would have benefited from this change?
In all, using my pre-CFP SP+ projections from December, here’s a comparison of what each team’s national title odds were heading into the tournament versus what they’d have looked like with straight seeding.
Not surprisingly, Arizona State’s and Boise State’s odds would have sunk without receiving a bye, but their title odds were minimal regardless. The teams that actually ended up hurt the most by the change would have been 2-seed Georgia, original 5-seed Texas and original 11-seed SMU. The main reason for the downshift in odds? They’d have all been placed on Ohio State’s side of the bracket. Meanwhile, Ohio State’s and Tennessee’s odds would have benefited from the simple fact that they would no longer be paired with unbeaten No. 1 Oregon in the Rose Bowl quarterfinal. Obviously Ohio State handled that challenge with aplomb, but the Buckeyes still had to ace that test, then win two more games to take the title.
Beyond Ohio State and Tennessee, both Indiana and Oregon would have seen their title odds improve a bit with straight seeding, though for different reasons. Indiana would have gotten a first-round home game instead of having to travel to South Bend, while Oregon would have avoided Ohio State until a potential finals matchup.
Takeaways
Good: The No. 5 seed isn’t quite as uniquely valuable now
We never got to see the 12-team playoff as originally envisioned, with six conference champions earning bids from a universe that featured five power conferences. Instead, between the announced adoption of the 12-team playoff and its actual arrival, the SEC officially added Oklahoma and Texas to its roster while the Big Ten, with help from the Big 12, cannibalized the Pac-12. With only four power conferences remaining, we ended up with only five conference champions guaranteed entry, and with the distribution of power getting further consolidated (we still have four power conferences, but it’s clearly a Power Two and Other Two), that left us with an awkward bracket.
For starters, the new power distribution meant that the No. 5 seed — almost certainly the higher-ranked team between the losers of the Big Ten and SEC championship games — would get an almost unfair advantage. As I wrote back in December, “the odds are pretty good that the teams earning the No. 4 and 12 seeds (aka the two lowest-ranked conference champs) will be the weakest teams in the field …. Texas, the top-ranked non-champion and 5-seed, is indeed pitted against what SP+ thinks are the No. 17 and No. 30 teams in the country and therefore has excellent odds of reaching the semifinals.”
As you see above, Texas actually entered the CFP with better title odds (17.2%) than Georgia (16.6%), a higher-ranked team in SP+ and the team that had just defeated the Longhorns in the SEC title game. In theory, giving a team a bye and asking them to win three games instead of four would be a massive advantage. But in practice Texas’ odds of winning two games (against Clemson and ASU) were better than Georgia’s odds of winning one (Notre Dame). That’s not particularly fair, is it?
Bad: Conference title games mean even less now
Making this change would have indeed given the SEC champion better title odds than the SEC runner-up. That’s good, but it comes with a cost. In the re-simulation above, you’ll notice that both the winners and losers of the SEC and Big Ten title games ended up with byes and top-four seeds. That means there were almost literally no stakes — besides a quest to avoid major injuries like what afflicted Georgia — in either game.
Meanwhile, in the ACC championship, SMU lost to Clemson but barely fell in the CFP rankings (and, more specifically, still got in) because the playoff committee didn’t want to punish the Mustangs for playing a 13th game while others around them in the rankings were already done at 12. Add to that the fact that the straight-seeding approach diminished the above title odds for four of the five conference champions in the field, and it leads you toward a pretty easy question: Why are we even playing these games?
Commissioners of the power conferences have pretty clearly had that in their minds as they’ve discussed a convoluted (and, in my own opinion, patently ridiculous) new playoff structure that hands multiple automatic bids to each of the top four conferences: up to four each for the SEC and Big Ten and likely two each for the ACC and Big 12. With this structure in place, they can drift from title games and toward multiple play-in games within each conference. I absolutely hate this idea — if you want to wreck the integrity of the regular season, nothing would do that faster than a 7-5 or 8-4 Big Ten team potentially stealing a bid from a 10-2 or 11-1 comrade that was vastly superior in the regular season — but you can at least understand why the commissioners themselves, facing a world with diminished conference title games (and always looking for more TV spectacles), would try to get creative in this regard.
Straight seeding doesn’t change all that much. Ohio State was given a harder title path last year than would have existed with straight seeding, but the Buckeyes cruised regardless, winning four games by a combined 70 points. Meanwhile, even with a bye, Boise State and Arizona State weren’t likely to win three games and go all the way. The team that best peaks in December and January will win 2025’s title just like it did in 2024, we’ll enjoy ourselves all the same, and we’ll be facing another change in 2026 no matter what.
The countdown toward 2025 continues.
-
Ryan S. Clark
-
Kristen Shilton
There’s an ancient South Florida proverb about numbers: Not one. Not two. Not three. Not four.
Opening the Eastern Conference finals with five goals in Game 1 on Tuesday showed that at least for one game the Florida Panthers could find a breakthrough against the Carolina Hurricanes. Only for Thursday to arrive and the Panthers to once again post five more goals in a 5-0 win to take a 2-0 series lead before heading back to Sunrise for Game 3.
How did both teams perform? Who are the players to watch next game, and what are the big questions facing the Hurricanes and Panthers ahead of Game 3 on Saturday?
Say what you will about the offside goal being akin to Charlie Brown getting the football pulled out from under him by Lucy. While it’s possible that the disallowed goal could have provided momentum, there were other things that suggested the Hurricanes were going to struggle.
Under Rod Brind’Amour, they’ve become one of the teams that consistently generates the highest number of shots per game. They entered Game 2 averaging 33.2 shots per game, yet they hadn’t even cracked double digits until there was 14 minutes remaining in the third period. Natural Stat Trick’s metrics showed they had two high-danger scoring chances midway through the third period, and after giving up seven goals throughout the entirety of the second round, they’ve allowed 10 goals in the first two games.
Or view it this way: The Panthers had more goals than the Hurricanes had high-danger scoring chances. — Clark
What more is there to say about Florida, really? The term “clinic” doesn’t seem to cover it. The Panthers have done it all against Carolina in these first two games.
Thursday was another dominant performance by the reigning Stanley Cup champions in an offensive and defensive effort that requires no notes. The Panthers set a tone early with Gustav Forsling‘s goal just 1:17 into the game and never relented. The Hurricanes were averaging over 33 shots per night in the postseason (second most among playoff teams), and Florida limited their chances to seven shots through the first two periods alone — while the Panthers pummeled Carolina with 16 shots and four goals in the same span. It was enough to chase Frederik Andersen from the net, when he was replaced by Pyotr Kochetkov with a four-goal deficit.
The Hurricanes’ top scorers were simply no match for Florida’s attack or a locked-in Sergei Bobrovsky, who, while not heavily challenged, was a match for all comers in a 16-save shutout. The way Florida is playing right now, one has to wonder how the Hurricanes can get back in this series as the teams shift down to Florida. — Shilton
Three Stars of Game 2
0:52
Panthers go up 3-0 on Sam Bennett’s power-play goal
The Panthers threaten to run away with it after Sam Bennett’s power-play goal makes it 3-0 in the first period.
He had two goals and a helper, as the Panthers dominated the Hurricanes in Game 2. This is Bennett’s second career 3-plus point playoff game and second career multigoal playoff game.
2. Team defense
The Hurricanes were averaging 33.2 shots per game this postseason, second in the playoffs to the Colorado Avalanche. But the Panthers, with their efficient and suffocating defense, held Carolina to five shots in the first 30 minutes of the game. Near the end of the second period, the fans at Lenovo Center were growing tired of it and started chanting “shoot the puck” at their team. Carolina did have more shot volume in the third period, ending with 17, but nothing got past Sergei Bobrovsky.
3. Offside reviews and coaching tactics
Normally, I’m not the biggest fan of lengthy offside reviews. I wish there was a timer — if you can’t make the call in 90 seconds, then the call on the ice stands. But the Florida Panthers executed one to perfection in Game 2. Up 3-0 in the second period, the Hurricanes scored, but thinking the play was offside, the Panthers called a timeout to buy more time to see every angle available, eventually calling for the challenge. It was indeed determined to be offside and the goal was taken away. — Arda Öcal
Players to watch in Game 3
Let’s start here with the Hurricanes. There’s no shortage of options. Part of the reason Svechnikov is in this space is because he leads the Hurricanes in goals this postseason. The rest of it has more to do with whether the Canes can rely on a certain postseason pattern for Svechnikov holding true. After going goalless in Games 2 and 3 against the New Jersey Devils in the first round, he responded with a hat trick. He didn’t score in the first two games against the Washington Capitals only to then score a goal in three straight games. Could Svechnikov respond by grabbing at least one goal in Game 3? Or are the Canes in store for more offensive struggles once they arrive in Sunrise? — Clark
The Panthers’ instigator had been quiet since Florida’s first-round series win over Tampa Bay, recording just five assists in eight games heading into Game 2 against Carolina. But Tkachuk looked more like himself Thursday, agitating the Hurricanes and making his physical presence felt. He also emerged early on the score sheet, registering an assist on Gustav Forsling’s game-opening salvo and adding a goal — Tkachuk’s first in 10 games — in the opening period to extend Florida’s lead to 2-0. It was a testament to how commanding Tkachuk’s line was with Sam Bennett (two goals and an assist) and Carter Verhaeghe (three assists) that he was able to finally appear as the Tkachuk of old. If this was indeed Tkachuk’s reawakening after a slow stretch, then the Hurricanes better be well aware of Tkachuk going forward because he was as dangerous as ever at both ends of the ice in Game 2. — Shilton
0:54
Matthew Tkachuk taps it in to pad the Panthers’ lead
Matthew Tkachuk sneaks the puck past the goalie to pad the Panthers’ lead against the Hurricanes.
Big questions for Game 3
What’s the response to their worst playoff loss this year?
Several questions will be asked when it comes to what adjustments can be made before Game 3. Could one of them be about what the Hurricanes must do to get off to a stronger start? Allowing two first-period goals in Game 1 already presented the reality that the Panthers were going to remain aggressive. But to then give up the first goal less than two minutes into the first before giving up three in total in an opening frame that saw the Panthers record just five shots on net? That only adds to the degree of difficulty for a team that has now lost two straight playoff games after losing two postseason games in total over the first two rounds, especially when the last time the Hurricanes were down 0-2 to the Panthers in a playoff series was during the 2023 Eastern Conference finals in which they were swept. — Clark
Will Sam Reinhart be back at full strength for the Panthers?
Florida saw one of its top skaters exit in the first period after Sebastian Aho delivered a hit that forced Reinhart out for the remainder of the game with a lower-body injury. While Florida had Game 2 well in hand even before Reinhart became unavailable, it’s safe to say the Panthers are a better team when he’s in the lineup. Reinhart’s status going forward is significant for Florida overall. Reinhart paced the Panthers with 39 goals and 81 points in the regular season and notched 11 points in 13 postseason tilts going into Game 2. Florida must hope that Reinhart isn’t just available for Game 3 (and beyond), but that he’s not too banged up to continue operating at a high level. — Shilton
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway