We’re heading toward a 16-team College Football Playoff whether we like it or not. Expansion is happening. The question now is simple: What format gives us the most balanced, fair, and exciting playoff system?
The answer couldn’t be clearer—five automatic bids for conference champions, and 11 at-large selections based on rankings. Period.
If we’re going to do this, let’s do it right.
The idea of 5 automatic qualifiers ensures that the top five conferences—however that shakes out in the next few years—are still rewarded for crowning a champion. That doesn’t mean you have to be in the SEC or Big Ten. It means you just have to win your league and earn your spot. The remaining 11? Those should go to the best of the best, regardless of where they come from. That’s how you protect the integrity of the regular season while still opening the door for more programs to make a run.
But the conversation can’t stop there.
Let’s Talk About Who’s Making These Calls
A playoff system is only as good as the people behind the curtain. And right now, there’s real concern—rightfully so—that the current selection committee leans too heavily toward the interests of the SEC and Big Ten. It’s not just perception either. Anyone who has followed the playoff over the last several years has seen how quickly a two-loss SEC team can climb, while a one-loss team from a “lesser” conference is practically ignored.
That’s not going to fly in a 16-team setup. If we’re going to expand the field, then we need to expand the diversity and neutrality of the committee making those decisions. This shouldn’t be a room full of conference reps patting each other on the back. This needs to be a truly balanced group of experts—coaches, former players, analytics professionals, journalists, maybe even some representatives from independent outlets. People who actually watch the games, understand the metrics, and don’t have a stake in any particular league.
If you want the rankings to be respected, the process has to be respected first.
Bring Back the Computers
Here’s the part that the committee doesn’t want to hear: it’s time to bring back some form of computer rankings. We don’t need to rely solely on them, but we do need an unbiased metric in the room. The BCS had a lot of flaws—but the one thing it got right was pulling the emotion out of it. It was never perfect, but it provided a needed counterweight to human bias.
Right now, we have nothing like that. It’s all subjective, and when it’s all subjective, the power conferences—especially the SEC and Big Ten—get the benefit of the doubt every single time.
By incorporating data-driven models—strength of record, game control, adjusted efficiency—we’d bring a sense of objectivity back into the conversation. It wouldn’t eliminate bias, but it would at least hold the committee accountable. If the numbers say one thing and the rankings say another, we’d all see the disconnect immediately.
The Future Deserves Better
We don’t need 16 teams. Most fans know that. But if we’re going to live in that world, then let’s build the best possible version of it. That starts with a playoff model that balances access and excellence—five automatic bids for champions who earned it on the field, and 11 spots for the next best teams, determined by a truly fair process.
That means revamping the committee.
That means bringing back the computers.
That means moving away from the politics of power and toward a system that reflects the full picture of college football.