1 / 3

Utah wide receiver Ryan Davis, top, hurdles over BYU cornerback Evan Johnson (0) on Oct. 18, 2025, in Provo.

George Frey, Associated Press

2 / 3

Ryan Comer

Ryan Comer, Standard-Examiner

3 / 3

BYU receiver Parker Kingston (11) catches the ball for a touchdown against Arizona on Saturday, Oct. 11, 2025, in Tucson, Ariz.

Rick Scuteri, Associated Press

❮ ❯

The college football playoff system is an objective disaster, and what makes it really such a pity is that it doesn’t have to be.

No system will ever completely eliminate debates and controversy, but we can certainly do a lot better.

The system I propose (which, of course, will never be adopted, but it shows what’s possible) both allows for playoff spots to be determined on the field while preserving the college football tradition of incorporating rankings.

The system

Most importantly, the 12-team playoff needs to be expanded to 24. With the number of college football programs and the lack of conclusive data to definitively rank teams due to the lack of interconference games, the only equitable solution is to create a playoff system that incorporates more teams.

As for how that system would work, I propose a tiered system that starts with each Power Four conference championship game participant being given an automatic bid into the playoffs. This both incentivizes appearing in the championship game and avoids punishing teams who lose them. That takes care of eight spots.

For the next eight spots, I propose that during conference championship weekend, a slate of interconference games takes place among the third- through sixth-ranked Power Four conference teams.

For example, the No. 3 team in the Big Ten would host the No. 6 team in the ACC, while the No. 3 team in the ACC would host the No. 6 team in the Big Ten. The No. 4 and No. 5 teams from the Big Ten and ACC would be similarly matched up, and the SEC and Big 12 would follow the same format.

The conference pairings would be determined based on conference seeding. The No. 1-seeded conference faces the No. 4-seeded conference, while the No. 2-seeded conference faces the No. 3-seeded conference.

The winners of the eight interconference games would receive an automatic bid into the playoffs.

Imagine the following matchups this past weekend with the winner gaining an automatic playoff bid if this was the system:

1. Big Ten #6 at ACC #3 – Iowa at Miami-Fla.
2. Big Ten #5 at ACC #4 – Michigan at Pittsburgh
3. ACC #5 at Big Ten #4 – SMU at USC
4. ACC #6 at Big Ten #3 – Georgia Tech at Oregon
5. SEC #6 at Big 12 #3 – Oklahoma at Utah
6. SEC #5 at Big 12 #4 – Texas at Houston
7. Big 12 #5 at SEC #4 – Arizona at Texas A&M
8. Big 12 #6 at SEC #3 – Arizona State at Ole Miss

The remaining eight spots would be selected from a group that includes the losers of the interconference games and the mid-major conference champions.

What about Notre Dame?

As an independent, Notre Dame is at a disadvantage because it cannot gain an automatic bid from either participating in a conference championship game or winning an interconference playoff game.

Notre Dame would thus be required to play the only other independent (UConn this season) in a matchup that would be treated like a mid-major conference championship. If Notre Dame loses, it’s out of playoff contention. If it wins, it can be eligible for playoff consideration.

Being eligible for playoff consideration is an important distinction, because although many would rightly note that Notre Dame’s game against UConn would appear to be a mismatch, winning that doesn’t guarantee a spot, as will be shown later.

Final playoff seeding

The first four playoff spots would be given to the Power 4 conference championship game winners, with the four champions being ranked according to their final College Football Playoff ranking.

This College Football Playoff ranking wouldn’t be arbitrary, though. It wouldn’t be decided by some committee in a backroom that has no accountability. It would be determined by averaging three metrics (ESPN’s Strength of Record, ESPN’s Strength of Schedule and overall win percentage).

Strength of Record tells you how impressive it is that a team compiled its record against its particular schedule, while Strength of Schedule tells you how difficult an overall schedule is.

Tiebreakers in the rankings could be resolved by using metrics of various priority (i.e. head-to-head, overall record, strength of record, strength of schedule)

The next four spots would be determined by grouping the Power 4 conference championship game losers and the interconference game winners (12 teams total) and ordering them based on their final College Football Playoff ranking. The top four teams would be slotted in that order behind the Power 4 conference champions.

Each of the top eight seeds would receive a first-round bye.

Having selected the top eight seeds, there are eight remaining teams that either played in their conference championship game or won an interconference playoff game. Those teams, having already been arranged according to their College Football Playoff ranking, would be placed in that order behind the top eight seeds.

Finally, the interconference game losers and the mid-major conference champions would be grouped together and arranged based on their final College Football Playoff ranking. Of those, the top eight teams are slotted behind the top 16 teams.

Yes, this means some mid-major conference champions will be left out at the expense of Power 4 conference teams who lost their interconference games. Not all subjectivity can be eliminated. But, presumably, a mid-major conference champion with a College Football Playoff ranking so low that it’s below the ranking of an interconference game loser probably won’t have a whole lot to justify their disappointment. Very few people would argue that Kennesaw State should replace Iowa, or that Western Michigan should replace Georgia Tech.

In this format, Notre Dame, having gained mere consideration for inclusion based on its presumed win over UConn, only qualifies for the playoff if its final College Football Playoff ranking is among the top eight in the aforementioned group. That would only be the case if it had earned it through successes throughout the season.

The matchups

With the 24-team field completed, imagine a first round of the playoffs that could have the following matchups:

1. No. 24 Houston at No. 9 BYU
2. No. 23 Georgia Tech at No. 10 Texas
3. No. 22 Arizona at No. 11 Ole Miss
4. No. 21 Tulane at No. 12 Michigan
5. No. 20 Arizona State at No. 13 USC
6. No. 19 Miami-Fla. at No. 14 Iowa
7. No. 18 Notre Dame at No. 15 Utah
8. No. 17 Oklahoma at No. 16 Virginia

The second round of the playoffs would involve the lowest-seeded first-round winner playing at the highest-seeded team that had a first-round bye. Imagine a second round that looked like the following:

1. No. 17 Oklahoma at No. 1 Georgia
2. No. 15 Utah at No. 2 Indiana
3. No. 14 Iowa at No. 3 Texas Tech
4. No. 13 USC at No. 4 Duke
5. No. 12 Michigan at No. 5 Texas A&M
6. No. 11 Ole Miss at No. 6 Oregon
7. No. 10 Texas at No. 7 Alabama
8. No. 9 BYU at No. 8 Ohio State

Each round would involve the lowest seed remaining playing the highest seed remaining, and the quarterfinals through the championship would be played at neutral sites.

Extra game concern

The drawback to this is obviously the longer schedule. Teams could theoretically play as many as 18 games in a season (assuming 12 nonconference and conference games, a conference championship and five playoff games).

But that’s only one more game than is possible with the current format. Had Penn State defeated Notre Dame in the College Football Playoff semifinals last season, it would have played 17 games (12 nonconference and conference games, conference championship and four playoff games)

Furthermore, that extra game could easily be mitigated by removing a nonconference game. Do we really need Alabama playing home games against UL Monroe and Eastern Illinois? Do we really need Ohio State playing home games against Grambling and Ohio?

Conclusion

Ultimately, we may end up in the same spot as we are now with the semifinals and beyond comprising the same teams advancing that would be expected in the current format. But no football fan would oppose more compelling games, and if it removes the politicking and whining by coaches of certain teams that will undoubtedly get beat resoundingly on the field — helping them see where they truly are — then I’m all for that.

Perhaps exposing these teams in that way will help remove some of the bias that favors certain conferences each season.

It’s time to inject common sense — and actual competition — into the college football postseason format. The solution really isn’t that hard.

Contact Ryan Comer at rcomer@standard.net.