The introduction of the 12-team playoff in college football in 2025 has been met with great anticipation, promising a more dynamic postseason and an expanded opportunity for teams to compete for a national title. However, while the concept of the new playoff format is revolutionary, the initial round of games in this inaugural 12-team playoff season has raised eyebrows for an unexpected reason: blowouts. Ohio State’s dominant win in the fourth game of the first round of the playoffs adds to a growing narrative of uneven competition. While the new format allows more teams to participate, it has also highlighted some of the weaknesses in the current system.
As Ohio State dismantled their first-round opponent, it became the fourth blowout in as many playoff matchups, leading many to question whether the expanded playoff format, designed to bring more excitement and inclusivity, has instead exposed significant gaps between the top-tier teams and the lower-ranked programs. This raises questions about the true competitive balance of college football’s postseason, and whether the 12-team field is the best way to ensure that the most deserving teams have a shot at the national title.
The 12-Team Playoff Format: An Overview
The shift to a 12-team playoff format represents one of the most significant changes in the history of college football’s postseason. In previous years, the College Football Playoff (CFP) consisted of just four teams, which limited opportunities for non-Power Five schools and smaller conferences to break into the elite ranks. With the expansion to 12 teams, the playoff now includes six at-large bids, five conference champions, and one spot for the highest-ranked Group of Five champion. The goal is to increase access and provide more teams a legitimate opportunity to vie for the national championship.
The first-round games of the 2025 playoff provided a chance to see how this new structure would unfold. With the expanded field, fans were hopeful that the increased number of games would deliver more competitive, high-stakes matchups that would bring excitement to the postseason. However, as the dust settled after the first four matchups, one common theme quickly emerged: blowouts.
Ohio State’s Dominant Performance: The Fourth Blowout
Ohio State’s victory in the first round of the 2025 playoff was emblematic of the overall trend. The Buckeyes, who entered the playoff as the third seed, faced off against the 14th-ranked team in the field. From the opening whistle, it was clear that there was a vast disparity in talent and execution between the two teams. Ohio State’s offense, led by quarterback Kyle McCord and a plethora of elite wide receivers, dominated every aspect of the game. The Buckeyes’ offensive line overwhelmed their opponents, giving McCord ample time to pick apart the defense, while the defense itself stifled any offensive momentum the underdog team tried to muster.
The game’s final score was lopsided, with Ohio State cruising to a comfortable victory by a margin of over 30 points. This was not an isolated incident in the 2025 playoffs, as all four first-round games featured similar disparities in talent, coaching, and execution. Ohio State’s win merely added to a pattern that has raised concerns among analysts, players, and fans alike about whether the expanded playoff format is truly delivering on its promise of competitive postseason football.
The Other Blowouts: A Troubling Trend
Ohio State’s win wasn’t the first blowout of the 12-team playoff, nor was it the last. The first three games of the first round had already set the tone, with each contest resulting in a decisive victory for the higher-seeded team.
Game 1: The Top Seed Dominates
The opening game of the playoffs saw the number one seed, Georgia, face off against the 16th-ranked team in the field. Georgia, the defending national champions, came into the game with one of the most talented rosters in the country, including a defense that many considered the best in college football. Despite a valiant effort from the underdog, Georgia’s superior depth and physicality were simply too much to overcome. The Bulldogs ran away with a 45-10 win, sending a clear message that they were not to be taken lightly.
Game 2: The Second Seed Flexes Their Muscle
In the second matchup of the first round, Michigan, the number two seed, squared off against the 15th-ranked team. Michigan’s balanced offensive attack and ferocious defense made the game seem like a mismatch from the start. The Wolverines controlled the game from the opening whistle, with their running back tandem and offensive line overpowering their opponent. Michigan’s defense, led by standout linebacker Junior Colson, stifled any attempt at a comeback. By the end of the game, Michigan had secured a 38-7 victory, further solidifying their spot as one of the top teams in the nation.
Game 3: The Third Seed Makes a Statement
Next up was Ohio State against the 14th seed, and as previously mentioned, this game followed the same script as the others. The Buckeyes’ offensive firepower, led by McCord and wide receivers Marvin Harrison Jr. and Emeka Egbuka, overwhelmed their opponent early. The defense, which had been dominant throughout the regular season, suffocated any offensive opportunities for the underdog. Ohio State cruised to a comfortable 42-10 victory, reaffirming its position as one of the top contenders in the playoff.
Game 4: The Blowout Continues
The fourth game of the first round was similarly one-sided, as the fourth-seeded Florida State Seminoles faced off against the 13th-ranked team. Despite Florida State’s struggles in some early-season games, their elite playmakers like quarterback Jordan Travis and defensive end Jared Verse proved to be too much for their opponent. Florida State triumphed with a dominant 41-14 scoreline, once again exposing the talent gap between the top seeds and the lower-ranked teams.
The Uneven Matchups: A Sign of the Times?
The common thread in all four of these games is the sheer disparity between the top-tier teams and the lower-ranked programs. The 12-team playoff format, designed to bring more teams into the fold, has inadvertently highlighted the gap between college football’s elite programs and those further down the rankings. While the inclusion of more teams has been lauded for increasing access, it has also exposed the widening gap in talent between the upper-echelon schools and those on the periphery.
One of the issues with the expanded format is that the lower-ranked teams—especially those ranked 13-16—often face an uphill battle from the start. The top four seeds in the 12-team playoff are among the most consistently dominant programs in college football, boasting elite recruiting classes, top-tier coaching staffs, and years of experience competing at the highest levels. By the time these teams enter the playoff, they are typically operating on a level far above the competition.
In contrast, the teams ranked 13th-16th are often comprised of programs that have had strong seasons but may lack the depth, talent, or experience to compete against the true national powers. These teams often rely on an underdog mentality to get through the regular season, but when faced with the best of the best in the playoffs, their limitations become glaringly obvious.
Should the Playoff Format Be Reconsidered?
As the first round of the 12-team playoff unfolds, the question inevitably arises: is this format truly the best way to determine the national champion? The expanded field was supposed to offer more opportunities for teams to showcase their talent, yet it has also produced a series of one-sided games that fail to capture the drama and excitement fans expect from postseason football.
There are several potential solutions to address these concerns, some of which have already been discussed among college football analysts and executives. One option is to consider reseeding teams after the first round, ensuring that the top four seeds face off against the lower-ranked teams. This would give the higher seeds an advantage, but it might also create more competitive matchups in the opening round. Another possibility is to alter the bracket structure to allow for more competitive groupings, potentially leading to more evenly matched games.
Alternatively, there could be calls to reduce the size of the playoff field. While a 12-team playoff offers greater inclusivity, it may be more practical to shrink the field back to eight teams or even maintain a four-team playoff in order to ensure that the most deserving teams are given the opportunity to compete on an equal footing. The 12-team format, while exciting in theory, may have inadvertently devalued the significance of the regular season by allowing teams with multiple losses or less-than-impressive resumes to sneak into the playoff field.
