“It’s not right,” Ryan Day said of the College Football Playoff model, highlighting concerns about fairness and competition.

As college football continues to evolve, so too does the conversation around its postseason structure. The College Football Playoff (CFP), which was established in 2014 to determine the national champion, has been met with its share of controversy and criticism since its inception. While the four-team playoff model was hailed as a step forward from the previous BCS system, it hasn’t been without its flaws. The current system has led to discussions about the fairness, competitiveness, and representation of teams, particularly as college football programs grow and the sport’s landscape shifts.

One of the most vocal critics of the CFP format has been Ryan Day, the head coach of the Ohio State Buckeyes. A successful coach with multiple Big Ten titles and College Football Playoff appearances under his belt, Day has experienced firsthand the pressure and challenges that come with competing in the current playoff structure. Recently, in an interview, Ryan Day voiced his concerns about the College Football Playoff system, calling it “not right” and underscoring the need for a more fair and representative format that better aligns with the realities of college football in the 21st century.

Day’s comments sparked a renewed debate about the CFP, particularly regarding its structure and how it affects teams, players, and fans alike. In this article, we’ll explore Day’s critique of the CFP format, the issues he raised, and why his perspective is important in the broader conversation about college football’s postseason. We’ll also look at the potential implications of a playoff expansion and what changes could make the system more equitable for all teams involved.

The Current College Football Playoff System

The College Football Playoff format was introduced in 2014 to replace the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) system, which had been in place since the late 1990s. The BCS had been criticized for its reliance on computer rankings and a convoluted selection process that often led to controversial decisions. The CFP sought to address those concerns by creating a selection committee made up of coaches, athletic directors, and other college football experts who would choose the top four teams in the country to compete for the national championship.

Under the current format, the four top-ranked teams receive invitations to the playoff. These teams are then matched up in two semifinal games, with the winners advancing to the national championship game. The teams that do not make the playoff are placed in one of the major bowl games, such as the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, or Fiesta Bowl, depending on their ranking.

While the CFP was a significant improvement over the BCS, it has faced its own criticisms over the years. One of the most frequent complaints is that it leaves out deserving teams, particularly from non-Power Five conferences. The system’s reliance on rankings, which are heavily influenced by factors such as strength of schedule and the performance of other teams, has led to arguments that the best teams aren’t always getting a chance to compete for the championship.

Ryan Day’s Critique of the CFP Format

Ryan Day’s comments about the College Football Playoff format were a direct response to the inequities he sees within the current system. Day, who has led Ohio State to multiple playoff appearances, acknowledged the flaws of the current model, saying that it “isn’t right.” Specifically, he pointed to several key issues he believes undermine the fairness and competitiveness of the playoff system.

1. Limited Access for Non-Power Five Teams

One of the primary issues Day raised was the lack of access for non-Power Five teams to the College Football Playoff. The Power Five conferences—comprising the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Pac-12, and Big 12—have long dominated college football, and under the current system, the vast majority of playoff spots go to teams from these conferences.

Day’s concerns echo a longstanding debate about the gap between Power Five teams and their counterparts from non-Power Five conferences, such as the American Athletic Conference (AAC), Conference USA, and the Mountain West. Despite the success of teams from these conferences, such as the University of Cincinnati’s 2021 playoff appearance, the current format often overlooks their efforts. For example, in 2020, Coastal Carolina, a team that finished the season undefeated, was left out of the playoff in favor of teams with losses from Power Five conferences.

Day believes that the current format gives preferential treatment to Power Five teams, even when non-Power Five teams perform at a high level. “It’s not right that some of these teams have no shot, regardless of how well they perform,” Day said. “If a team goes undefeated and wins their conference, they deserve a chance to compete for a national title, not just be a token representative in a New Year’s Six bowl.”

2. The Limitations of a Four-Team Field

Another major criticism from Day centers around the limited nature of the four-team field. While the playoff format provides a clear path to the national championship for the top four teams, the reality is that many deserving teams are left out of contention, even if they have strong seasons. Under the current format, only the top four teams, as determined by the selection committee, are eligible to compete for the championship. This leaves out teams with one or two losses, even if those losses came against other highly-ranked teams.

This has led to debates about whether the four-team format accurately represents the entire college football landscape. Day is among those who believe that the four-team system is too narrow and that more teams should be given a chance to compete for a title. His concerns about the limitations of a four-team playoff are shared by many in the college football community who argue that the current structure is too exclusive.

With more than 130 FBS programs, it’s difficult for the selection committee to determine the top four teams definitively, especially when there are multiple teams with similar records. As Day pointed out, the four-team format leaves out teams that may have strong résumés but fail to secure a spot due to the committee’s preference for teams from the Power Five conferences.

“The reality is, there are always going to be a handful of teams left out, and that’s not fair to them,” Day said. “If you’re going to call it a playoff, it should be open to more teams. There are just too many good teams out there to limit it to four.”

3. The Bias Toward Conference Championships

Day also highlighted the bias inherent in the current format’s preference for conference champions. Under the current system, conference championships are given significant weight when determining which teams make the playoff. While conference championships are certainly important, Day believes that it isn’t always an accurate reflection of a team’s true ability.

For example, a team from a Power Five conference could lose one game during the regular season and still make the playoff if it wins its conference championship, even if other one-loss teams from non-championship conferences are left out. Conversely, a team that loses in a tough conference championship game might be excluded from the playoff, despite having an overall strong season.

In Day’s view, a team’s body of work throughout the entire season should be given more weight than just a conference championship. “The best team might not always be the one that wins its conference,” Day said. “You’ve got to look at the whole season, not just one game at the end.”

4. Increased Expansion is the Answer

Perhaps the most significant aspect of Day’s critique was his call for an expansion of the College Football Playoff field. While he didn’t specify an exact number of teams, Day suggested that the current system should be expanded to allow more teams an opportunity to compete for the national championship. Expanding the playoff to eight or even 12 teams has been a widely discussed topic, with proponents arguing that it would give more teams a fair shot at a title and reduce the controversies surrounding exclusion.

The 12-team playoff model, which has been discussed extensively in recent years, would include the six highest-ranked conference champions and six at-large teams, creating a more inclusive and competitive postseason. Under this model, teams that are left out of the current four-team format would have an opportunity to compete for the championship, regardless of conference affiliation.

Day is a supporter of such expansion, believing it would create a more equitable system that gives more teams a chance to showcase their talent on a national stage. “The idea of expanding the playoff, I think, is a positive thing for college football,” he said. “It’s something that would give more teams an opportunity to compete for a national title and would make the postseason a lot more exciting.”

The Future of the CFP: What’s Next?

Ryan Day’s comments are part of a broader conversation about the future of the College Football Playoff. While the current system has served its purpose, it’s clear that the landscape of college football is changing. With the growing influence of NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) deals, the rise of super-conferences, and the potential for a 12-team playoff in the future, the CFP model will likely continue to evolve.

As more teams push for playoff expansion and fairer representation, the College Football Playoff committee will face increasing pressure to reconsider the current format. Day’s critique of the system brings attention to the growing call for change, and his position as a top coach in college football only strengthens the argument for reform.

The future of the CFP is still uncertain, but the conversation about its fairness and inclusivity will undoubtedly continue, with voices like Ryan Day’s playing a critical role in shaping the direction of the sport. The 2025 season could be a pivotal moment for the College Football Playoff, and as changes loom on the horizon, the structure of the postseason may be in for a much-needed overhaul.