What to make of recent CFP changes and why Joel Klatt doesn't want 16-team model

The College Football Playoff will undergo more changes for the 2025 season, with the top four seeds in the 12-team field being the top four ranked teams instead of the four highest-ranked conference championship game winners.

The original structure of the 12-team playoff led to a wonky seeding process. Boise State and Arizona State got first-round byes. Oregon, the only undefeated team entering the CFP, got a bum draw and had to play Ohio State in the quarterfinals. That model wasn't great and penalized the top-seeded team rather than rewarding them. We want to avoid that.

However, there are still some issues with the updated format. For instance, Texas and Penn State would've received first-round byes in the CFP last season even after losing in their respective conference championship games. By doing that, it would've felt like Oregon and Georgia didn't gain a real advantage by winning their conference title games. So, the CFP has devalued conference championship games by going to the straight seeding model, particularly the two strongest conferences in the country.

I certainly don't like the thought of devaluing conference championship games, which should be very important and have consequences. One way to potentially work around it under the straight seeding format would be to get rid of the bracket format and essentially reseed after each round. It's very possible that the top four seeds in the 2025 CFP will be the four teams that play in the Big Ten and SEC championship games, so there has to be a way to work around that for this upcoming season.

Let's look beyond the 2025 season, though. There are still changes that will likely be made to the CFP format in 2026 as we expect the field to expand. Let's dive into my thoughts on the future of the CFP here.

Will the CFP move to a 16-team format in 2026, and if so, what will it look like?

It seems likely that the CFP will expand to at least 14 teams in 2026, but the latest news suggests that a 16-team CFP is on the table as well. There are a pair of different potential models for the 16-team CFP format.

The first is:

• Big Ten: Four automatic bids
• SEC: Four automatic bids
• ACC: Three automatic bids
• Big 12: Three automatic bids
• Group of 5: One automatic bid
• Notre Dame/at-large: One automatic bid

The other model is:

• Big Ten: Four automatic bids
• SEC: Four automatic bids
• ACC: Two automatic bids
• Big 12: Two automatic bids
• Group of 5: One automatic bid
• Notre Dame/at-large: Three automatic bids

The Big Ten and SEC are pushing the expansion of the CFP field in order to get automatic qualifiers. The second model seems to be the one that's on the table. That second model would allow the Big Ten and SEC to potentially get more than four teams in the CFP.

What's interesting about their model for the 16-team CFP is that the four-lowest ranked teams would face each other in the opening round. The 13th-seeded team would take on the 16th-seeded team, while the 14th and 15th-seeded teams would go head-to-head. The winners of those games would advance to the rest of the bracket, and we would essentially have an NFL-style format with the top two teams getting byes into the quarterfinals.

I think there are some holes in that model, but you are trying to go from a selection-based model to an access-based model. This model would move away from a selection committee to an automatic qualifying model.

How would conference championship game weekend be impacted by a 14-team or 16-team playoff?

In the Big Ten and the SEC, those conferences would have an expanded conference championship game weekend. Three games would be played to help determine the four automatic qualifiers from each conference. The top two teams record-wise (No. 1 vs. No. 2) would still go head-to-head in the traditional conference championship game, with both teams earning automatic spots in the CFP, but you would have a game between the third- and sixth-place teams, along with a game between the fourth- and fifth-place teams.

Here's what that would've looked like in the Big Ten last season:

• No. 1 Oregon vs. No. 2 Penn State (neutral site game)
• No. 6 Illinois at No. 3 Indiana
• No. 5 Iowa at No. 4 Ohio State

Here's what that would've looked like in the SEC last season:

• No. 1 Texas vs. No. 2 Georgia (neutral site game)
• No. 6 South Carolina at No. 3 Tennessee
• No. 5 LSU at No. 4 Alabama

The winners of the Big Ten and SEC championship games would almost certainly get the top two seeds and a bye to the quarterfinals every season. So, winning that game would be a huge advantage, even if the loser is still guaranteed a spot in the CFP. Some might push back on the idea that one game could derail the postseason fate of one of the top teams in this scenario (such as Iowa upsetting Ohio State), but I wouldn't have much sympathy for the loser in those games. Those teams would've had the entire season to try and get into their conference championship game. In the case of an upset, the better team would've lost that game at home.

I'm not entirely sure what the ACC and Big 12 conference championship weekend would look like in this format. If both conferences only get two automatic qualifiers, would they have two matchups (No. 1 vs. No. 4; No. 2 vs. No. 3) or would they only have one matchup (No. 1 vs. No. 2 or No. 1 automatically advances, and you have No. 2 vs. No. 3 for the other spot) for conference championship game weekend.

How would I set up the 16-team field?

I like the idea of the No. 13-16 seeds playing each other in the opening round of the CFP during the weekend of the Army-Navy game. However, I would tinker around with the format beyond that round. As mentioned earlier, the CFP should go to a seeding model rather than a bracket model. Winning your conference championship, particularly in the Big Ten or SEC, would really matter in a seeding model rather than the bracket model. If you're the top overall seed, you will get to play the lowest remaining seed in the quarterfinals and the semifinals (if you make it that far).

I would also put the quarterfinals games on campus. We're still unsure where the location will be for some of these games in the 16-team playoff, but the first two rounds would almost certainly be played on campus. After hanging out with the Big Ten coaches at the conference's spring meetings in Los Angeles last week, most of them want quarterfinals games played on campus.

Those coaches are right to feel that way. We saw how advantageous that was in the CFP last season. We also saw the unique advantage that teams who play in cold weather got, with the Tennessee-Ohio State game being a prime example. On top of that, those neutral-site games are often played outside the Big Ten's footprint, so higher-seeded Big Ten teams would lose home-field advantage and be put at a disadvantage in terms of travel. Playing quarterfinals games on campus would also further incentivize the top two seeds. To me, this is a no-brainer.

Is the 16-team format a good format?

Why is the 16-team format on the table to begin with? The Big Ten and SEC want a safety net. Remember how I mentioned earlier that the second proposal for the 16-team format seems likely to be the one that passes? That's because the Big Ten and SEC feel like they shouldn't be giving up extra spots to the ACC and Big 12 because they aren't tough or deep enough to get a third automatic qualifier.

Frankly, I agree that the Big Ten and SEC are much tougher conferences than the ACC and Big 12. However, those added extra at-large bids created by the second proposal are unnecessary and greedy. That's why I don't like the 16-team model. We don't need to be redundant.

That's why CFP expansion should only go to 14 teams, with this being the ideal format:

• Big Ten: Four automatic bids
• SEC: Four automatic bids
• ACC: Two automatic bids
• Big 12: Two automatic bids
• Group of 5: One automatic bid
• Notre Dame/at-large: One automatic bid

That's all we need. We don't need a fifth team from the Big Ten or SEC because they already have access to make the CFP through the conference championship game weekend. They've also already had an entire season to get into their conference championship game. How many more opportunities do these teams need to make the CFP?

You're not just getting into the greed zone with the 16-team format, but you're also allowing the committee to have a large influence again. The committee in the 16-team format scenario could get to choose the three at-large teams instead of letting the automatic qualifiers determine the field. Because of that, we'd likely see teams lighten their non-conference schedule. In fact, it looks more and more likely that Notre Dame and USC will stop playing annually. What are we doing?

If you think about it, the CFP could essentially be a 24-team playoff with the expanded conference championship game weekend, and more games in November would also have major consequences as well.

Now, the major issue with my format is that Notre Dame would get the expanded conference championship weekend off and might not need to play that extra game to make the CFP. To counteract that, Notre Dame would play that weekend if it's ranked in the top 14 and would take on the highest-ranked team that isn't playing in its expanded conference championship game weekend. That would be a tremendous addition to the college football schedule.

I don't love what's being proposed with the 16-team format. I want an access-based CFP that also maximizes the value of the regular season, which a 14-team CFP would accomplish.

Joel Klatt is FOX Sports' lead college football game analyst and the host of the podcast "The Joel Klatt Show." Follow him at @joelklatt and subscribe to the "Joel Klatt Show" on YouTube.

Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily.