The College Football Playoff (CFP) expanded to 12 teams in 2024, introducing automatic bids for the five highest-ranked conference champions and seven at-large spots chosen by a selection committee. This shift has caused intense debate about how teams are selected and how schedules are crafted, with many questioning whether the new format preserves the sport’s essence.
Joel Klatt, a prominent analyst on “The Joel Klatt Show” and CFB on Fox, has emerged as a leading voice in this conversation. He argues that a “scheduling crisis” threatens the regular season’s value and the quality of matchups fans crave.
Joel Klatt’s Case Against the Selection Committee
A deep frustration with the selection committee is at the core of Klatt’s stance. “College football fans hate the committee,” he stated on “The Joel Klatt Show.” “We want them as far away from our playoff system as we can possibly get them.”
View this post on Instagram
This reflects a widespread sentiment among fans who’ve long criticized the committee for inconsistent rankings and perceived favoritism.
In the 12-team format, the committee seeds all teams and picks seven at-large participants, amplifying its influence.
Klatt contends this setup risks prioritizing subjective opinions over objective results, potentially sidelining deserving teams. Past controversies fuel his point, like the 2023 exclusion of an undefeated Florida State from the four-team playoff.
He believes excessive committee power undermines the on-field battles that define college football, pushing teams to strategize around perception rather than performance.
This distrust isn’t new, but the expanded playoff format heightens the stakes. With more at-large bids, the committee’s decisions carry greater weight, and Klatt warns this could distort how teams approach the season.
The Effect on Non-Conference Scheduling
Klatt’s concerns extend beyond selection to how it shapes scheduling. “We’re going to increase the probability that teams are not going to play anybody in the non-conference,” he cautioned on his show.
The logic is straightforward: if committee perception trumps strength of schedule, teams might dodge tough opponents to avoid losses that could hurt their playoff chances.
This trend threatens the marquee non-conference games that kick off each season with excitement. As evidence, he pointed to Tennessee and Nebraska scrapping a planned home-and-home series, initially set for 2026 and 2027.
While USC and Notre Dame played in 2023 and met again on November 30, 2024, he fears such rivalries could wane if the incentive structure doesn’t change.
A New Vision for Playoff Structure
Klatt doesn’t stop at critique; he offers a reimagined playoff model. “We have to retain the importance of the regular season, continue to encourage quality non-league matchups,” he stressed. His vision centers on making November games decisive, potentially through play-in contests or an expanded structure.
He jokingly floated a “24-team playoff” not as a literal blueprint but to highlight how many teams could play meaningful late-season games.
This approach contrasts with the current setup, where early losses can doom a team’s chances, even if they finish strong. Last season, South Carolina ended 9-3, defeating ranked programs like Clemson, but missed the playoff conversation.
Klatt’s advocate system would reward such performances by tying late-season wins to postseason access.
KEEP READING: 2025 Way-Too-Early College Football Top 25 Power Rankings
Critics might argue this dilutes the playoffs’ exclusivity, but he counters that it elevates the regular season’s stakes. Instead of a handful of teams controlling their destiny, dozens could stay in the hunt, keeping stadiums packed and TV ratings high. It’s a radical rethink, one that aims at ensuring every snap in November carries playoff weight.
College Sports Network has you covered with the latest news, analysis, insights, and trending stories in college football, men’s college basketball, women’s college basketball, and college baseball!
