The first-ever 12-team College Football Playoff has been finalized, but its structure has sparked widespread criticism and debate. College football analyst Greg McElroy raised concerns on December 9, not about the teams included or their paths to qualification, but rather about the playoff bracket’s design, which he believes unfairly disadvantages top-seeded teams like the Oregon Ducks, despite their undefeated season and No. 1 ranking.
McElroy specifically criticized the value of the first-round bye awarded to conference champions. “This whole first-round bye for conference championships needs to go away. It’s honestly ridiculous,” McElroy stated. He suggested that lower-seeded teams without byes, such as Penn State, might have an easier path to the National Championship than higher-seeded teams like Oregon. While teams ranked fifth or sixth must play an additional game to claim the title, their early matchups may be less challenging compared to the daunting paths faced by top seeds.
McElroy highlighted a key example: Oregon, after winning the Big Ten Championship, must face the winner of a clash between Tennessee and Ohio State—both formidable opponents. Meanwhile, Penn State, which lost to Oregon, hosts a first-round playoff game against SMU, a team that barely qualified. If Penn State advances, they’ll meet Boise State, a team they’re heavily favored to beat. This seemingly easier route for Penn State undermines the advantage a top seed and conference champion like Oregon is supposed to enjoy.
McElroy argued that the current format devalues conference championships and creates inconsistent challenges for teams. “We need to just seed teams 1 through 12,” he urged. “[This system] doesn’t make sense, and it needs to be evaluated ASAP.” His critique underscores the need for a reassessment of the playoff structure to ensure fairness and preserve the integrity of the competition.
