Ryan Day criticizes the College Football Playoff format, stating it’s “not right” and needs adjustments for fairness.
As college football continues to evolve, so too do the debates surrounding its postseason structure. One of the most hotly contested topics is the College Football Playoff (CFP) format, which currently pits the top four teams in the nation against each other for a chance to win the national championship. While the CFP has been praised for its ability to generate excitement and showcase the best of the best in college football, it has also faced criticism from various quarters for being flawed, unfair, and overly exclusive.
In a recent statement that caught the attention of fans and analysts alike, Ryan Day, the head coach of the Ohio State Buckeyes, publicly expressed his dissatisfaction with the current College Football Playoff system. “It’s not right,” Day said, referring to the format’s limitations and the perceived inequities in how teams are selected and ranked. The comments have ignited a new wave of discussion about the CFP’s structure and whether it truly reflects the best teams in college football.
The Criticism: “It’s Not Right”
Ryan Day’s criticism of the College Football Playoff format is not entirely new, as other coaches, analysts, and fans have also raised concerns over the years. However, Day’s remarks come at a time when college football is undergoing significant changes, including the imminent expansion of the CFP to 12 teams in 2024. With this expansion on the horizon, Day’s comments are part of a larger conversation about what the ideal postseason structure should look like and whether the current system, even with its impending changes, will be able to address the long-standing issues of fairness, inclusivity, and accuracy in determining the nation’s top teams.
When Day refers to the current system as “not right,” he is highlighting a number of perceived flaws that have been consistent criticisms of the CFP since its inception in 2014. These issues range from the criteria used to select teams to the influence of conference bias and the controversies over the rankings of teams that do not belong to Power Five conferences.
The Power of the Committee: Selection and Ranking
One of the central points of contention with the CFP system is the way in which teams are selected. The current format is based on a selection committee composed of athletic directors, former coaches, and former players, who evaluate teams and select the top four in the nation. While this committee is tasked with considering factors such as strength of schedule, conference championships, and overall performance, the process has often been opaque, leading to questions about bias, fairness, and transparency.
For Ryan Day, the issue lies in the subjective nature of the selection process. The committee’s decisions can sometimes appear inconsistent, with certain teams—often those from the Power Five conferences—receiving preferential treatment, even if their performance does not necessarily warrant a top-four spot. This has led to accusations of bias, with smaller conferences or non-Power Five teams feeling as though they are being left out of the conversation.
For example, in past seasons, teams like Cincinnati, UCF, and Boise State have dominated their respective conferences, only to be left out of the playoff picture, while teams from the Power Five conferences, with questionable resumes, received higher rankings. This disparity has created an atmosphere where teams from non-automatic qualifying conferences feel like they are playing a game with rules stacked against them. Even when these teams manage to go undefeated or play competitive schedules, they still struggle to earn a spot in the coveted four-team playoff, leading many to wonder if the current system is truly evaluating the best teams in a fair and equitable way.
Day, as a coach of one of the premier programs in college football, understands the significance of the CFP. His criticism stems not from a lack of success in the playoff—Ohio State has made several appearances—but from his belief that the system fails to account for all the variables that make college football unique. Specifically, the emphasis on the “eye test”—where the committee uses subjective judgment to evaluate teams based on perceived strength, talent, and appearance—leaves too much room for interpretation and creates a system that can appear to favor the traditional powerhouses at the expense of other deserving teams.
The Argument for More Inclusivity: A Broader Field
Another key element of Day’s critique of the College Football Playoff is the limited field of four teams. For years, fans, coaches, and analysts alike have argued that the current system does not provide enough opportunities for deserving teams to compete for a national championship. The expansion to 12 teams, which will take effect in 2024, addresses this concern, but Day’s comments reflect an ongoing frustration with the exclusionary nature of the current playoff system.
While the decision to expand the CFP is a step in the right direction, it does not necessarily solve the problem of fairness in terms of team selection. Even with the expanded field, there will still be debates about which teams are deserving of a spot, and the committee’s subjective evaluation will continue to play a significant role. This is particularly concerning for teams from non-Power Five conferences, who may find it even harder to crack the 12-team field despite strong records and quality wins.
Day’s position seems to advocate for an even broader field, potentially with an automatic berth for the top teams from each conference, or even a system where more teams from outside the Power Five conferences are given a chance to compete. Under the current system, many teams from smaller conferences are often forced to play a “perfect” season to even be considered for a spot in the playoff, while teams from the Power Five—despite losses or subpar performances—are sometimes given a pass due to their conference affiliation or brand recognition. For Ryan Day, this lack of equity in the selection process is something that needs to be addressed in order for the system to be truly fair.
Conference Bias: The SEC and the Influence of Power
The dominance of the Southeastern Conference (SEC) in college football has only exacerbated the criticisms of the CFP. The SEC has long been considered the premier conference in college football, and for good reason: it has produced some of the sport’s most successful programs, including Alabama, Georgia, and LSU. As a result, the SEC has regularly placed multiple teams in the College Football Playoff, sometimes even at the expense of other deserving programs.
Critics of the CFP often point to the SEC’s outsized influence on the rankings and selection process as a major flaw in the system. Day’s critique implicitly references this dynamic, noting that the CFP system sometimes favors teams from the SEC over those from other conferences, even if their resumes are not as strong. For example, in certain seasons, teams like Alabama or Georgia have been selected for the playoff despite having a loss or a lackluster conference championship performance, while other teams with similar or better records—particularly those from the Big Ten or Big 12—have been left out of the conversation.
This bias toward the SEC has been a point of frustration for coaches from other conferences, who feel that their teams are at a disadvantage simply because they do not play in the most prestigious and talent-rich conference. Day, as a coach in the Big Ten, understands this dynamic intimately, as Ohio State has often found itself in competition with SEC teams for playoff spots. For Day, the issue is not just about Ohio State’s success, but about creating a more equitable system that allows all deserving teams a fair shot at postseason glory, regardless of their conference affiliation.
What Needs to Change? A Fairer, More Transparent System
While Day’s critique of the College Football Playoff system centers on the need for fairness and inclusivity, it also reflects a broader desire for change within college football. The current system, as effective as it has been in some respects, has significant shortcomings in terms of equity and transparency. Moving forward, a more just system would need to address several key areas:
- More Teams in the Playoff: The decision to expand to 12 teams in 2024 is a positive step, but it is still not enough. A larger field—perhaps 16 or even 24 teams—could allow for more teams from non-Power Five conferences to compete for a national title, ensuring that deserving teams are not left out based on subjective criteria.
- Automatic Bids for Conference Champions: One way to ensure fairness and equity would be to grant automatic berths to conference champions, particularly for those outside the Power Five. This would reduce the influence of subjective rankings and make the selection process more transparent and merit-based.
- More Transparency in the Selection Process: Currently, the selection committee’s decision-making process remains somewhat opaque, with little insight into how teams are evaluated beyond the broad categories of wins, losses, and strength of schedule. A more transparent process, where the committee publicly discusses its reasoning and criteria for rankings, would help alleviate concerns about bias and favoritism.
- Balance the Influence of Power Conferences: The influence of conferences like the SEC needs to be moderated to ensure that teams from other conferences have an equal opportunity. This could be achieved by tweaking the ranking system or ensuring that conference champions from all major conferences—Power Five or otherwise—receive more consideration in the selection process.
A Necessary Evolution
Ryan Day’s comments about the College Football Playoff format are part of an ongoing conversation about the need for fairness and equity in college football’s postseason. As the sport continues to grow and evolve, the CFP system must evolve with it, addressing long-standing concerns about bias, inclusivity, and the subjective nature of team selection. While the upcoming expansion to 12 teams is a step in the right direction, it may not be enough to fully address the criticisms raised by Day and others. For the CFP to truly reflect the best teams in college football, more must be done to create a transparent, equitable, and inclusive postseason structure that rewards teams based on merit rather than conference affiliation or brand recognition.
