Technology came a long way in the 11 years since the BCS computers powered down, and Elon Musk’s latest artificial intelligence bot has CFP ideas.
Grok 3, an A.I. platform, doesn’t care for the 4+4+2+2+1+1 College Football Playoff format that’s laden with auto-bids.
What’s the best and fairest College Football Playoff format? Artificial intelligence suggests a tweaked format remaining at 12 teams.
The more Greg Sankey and Tony Petitti brainstorm ideas for the future of the College Football Playoff, the more I think I’ll be longing for the Bowl Championship Series rankings by the time these commissioners complete their harebrained plan.
Technology came a long way in the 11 years since the BCS computers powered down. Now, computers do much more than spit out rankings. They think for us, too.
I turned to artificial intelligence to see if it could hatch a better idea than the 4+4+2+2+1+1 playoff bracket model the SEC and Big Ten reportedly are considering for expansion in 2026, when the conferences steered by Sankey and Petitti take control of the playoff format.
Let’s see how Sankey and Petitti match wits with Grok 3. He’s Elon Musk’s latest A.I. bot.
Grok 3 needed just a few seconds to spit out ideas when I asked him for the best and fairest CFP format.
Grok started with the disclaimer that “best and fairest” depends on what you value most.
Sure, understood. We all harbor different opinions. But I’m exhausted by the commissioners’ ideas, so, please, Mr. Computer, let’s hear yours.
Grok obliged and suggested four ideas.
He started by offering sticking with the status quo of a 12-team playoff, including automatic bids for the five best conference champions, seven at-large selections, with byes reserved for conference champions.
I already like how you’re thinking, Sir Grok. This initial year of the 12-team playoff worked pretty well. I wouldn’t mind seeing a few more iterations of this setup before we jump to any changes. As Grok pointed out, though, this format works best “when the committee nails the rankings.’ Whether the committee nails the rankings depends on your perspective, but most of us would agree the committee flubbed by seeding Ohio State No. 8. The Buckeyes should’ve been No. 5, reserved in this format for the best at-large team.
LAST PIECE: SEC playing nine league games could finalize playoff expansion
Never mind all that, though, because Grok has other ideas. He suggested an eight-team bracket with auto bids for the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 and Group of Five, plus two at-large bids.
Earth to Grok. This idea is outdated. Musk’s bot must have missed that the Pac-12 became an unrecognizable husk after raids by other power conferences. It appears Grok 3 didn’t work out all the bugs from Grok 1 or Grok 2.
Let’s go easy on him, though. He works for free, unlike a commissioner earning a $4 million salary. Plus, he’s got more ideas.
You might be thinking, if Grok has so many ideas, why do we need Sankey or Petitti?
Or, you might be thinking, couldn’t Grok replace you, Mr. Sports Columnist? Well, that might come around the bend, but, first, let’s see if the bot solves this CFP conundrum.
Grok’s next suggestion: a 16-team playoff, with all the bids filled via at-large selection. The eight first-round games would be played on campus sites.
I like it! I’m typically of the mind that expanding the playoff beyond 12 teams would water down the field, but I so detest the idea of a 4+4+2+2+1+1 model, in which 13 of the 14 bids would be auto bids, that I’m open to fresh ideas.
Grok began to win me over with his rationale for a 16-team bracket filled with at-large picks. He acknowledged that conference championships would be devalued, but the regular season would turn “into a free-for-all,” as Grok put it, while teams jockey to be in the top eight to host or make the final cut of entrants.
Let’s just dispense with conference championships in this 16-team model and insert in their place a 13th regular-season game for all teams. These extra games would offer another data point for playoff selection, plus more revenue opportunities. What do you say, Grok? I think we make a good team when we put our heads together.
Grok is keeping his eye open to future work opportunities, too. Clever fella. He suggested ditching humans selecting and seeding the 16-team field and having a computer decide, although he admitted that would surrender “the human nuance fans love.”
Fair point, Grok, but the more I hear from whiny conference commissioners, the less endearing I find “human nuance.”
Finally, Grok offered the model Sankey and Petitti are pushing for the 2025 season: a 12-team bracket seeded strictly off rankings. Five conference champions would receive automatic bids in this format, but bye protection for conference champions would be removed. Teams ranked in the top four would receive byes, regardless of whether they won a conference championship.
Grok likes this format best, arguing it “strikes the best balance” by respecting the regular season, admitting diverse teams into the playoff and seeding off performance rather than conference tie-ins.
OK, Grok, I hear ya. Not my favorite model. I prefer the current 12-team setup, with byes for conference champions, but he’s also grabbed my interest with his idea for a 16-team bracket selected and seeded by computers.
Notably, Grok made no mention of the zany 4+4+2+2+1+1 idea that originated in the Big Ten and now seems to be gaining steam within the SEC. In this idea that Grok ignored, nearly all of the bids would be divvied up to conferences before the season begins. Four auto bids apiece would go to the Big Ten and SEC, with two each going to the ACC and Big 12, one to the Group of Five and one at-large.
By shunning this plan, Grok earned some credibility. I like how this guy thinks. Why stop with the CFP?
Grok, how would you like to be College Football commissioner? We’ve got a few more issues to solve.
Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network’s national college football columnist. Email him at BToppmeyer@gannett.com and follow him on X @btoppmeyer. Subscribe to read all of his columns.
