SUPPORT US. OUR SITE IS 100% OWNED BY A 2002 CLEMSON GRADUATE→ Get THREE Months of CST+ for just $1.00
College football is barreling toward a crossroads. Realignment, ballooning media rights deals, NIL, and the expanded College Football Playoff have reshaped the landscape more in five years than in the previous fifty. Yet for all the structural change, one element remains maddeningly archaic: the beauty pageant aspect of selection.
For years, the national champion was determined by the votes of members of different polls, including, most recently, the AP and Coaches Poll. It was a fundamentally subjective system, and the result was predictable: controversy. Split titles, regional biases, and endless debate over who really deserved to be No. 1 created a sense that the sport's crowning achievement was often earned as much through perception as performance.
For multiple years, the No. 1 and No. 2 teams didn’t even face off in a bowl game, leaving subjectivity at the top.
The Bowl Championship Series tried to fix that. By pairing the top two teams, it guaranteed a unified champion—but it solved one problem only to reveal another. Fans wanted inclusion. They wanted a path. They didn’t want a computer to end their season before December. And so the four-team College Football Playoff arrived, ushering in a new era that—despite its flaws—offered clarity. You knew the contenders. You knew the stakes. And for the first time, championships were settled on the field, or so we thought.
Even the playoff era couldn’t escape the sport’s deepest flaw: the underlying beauty pageant mentality still influences who gets in. Committees still weigh “good wins,” “game control,” “strength of schedule,” and even brand reputation. That subjectivity may be fine in figure skating, but not in a sport built on physical results.
Now in just the second year of a 12-team model fans aren’t happy and debates remain about who should be in and more significantly who should be left out.
The solution moving forward is not another expansion. It’s not more committee members. It’s not more metrics. It’s a structural overhaul—one that mirrors the simplicity of the professional model.
Reimagining the Playoff: A Two-Sided Structure That Actually Makes Sense
College football already operates like two separate ecosystems: one anchored by the Big Ten and SEC, and the other by the ACC and Big 12. Rather than treating this imbalance as a problem, the postseason should embrace it with a model that creates two distinct sides of the bracket—much like the AFC and NFC.
Here’s the vision:
- One side of the playoff features the Big Ten and ACC, while the other features the SEC and Big 12.
- From each league, the top four teams qualify. No voting. No committee politics. No preseason bias carrying into December. The standings decide everything.
- Once seeded, teams match up in reverse order—No. 1 vs. No. 4 across conferences within each side of the bracket.
This does three things:
- Rewards excellence while acknowledging conference strength.
- Ensures competitive balance without artificially favoring or excluding any league.
- Creates potential for powerhouse matchups deep into the postseason when it matters most.
And perhaps most importantly, if the SEC and Big Ten believe their fourth-place teams are stronger than the top teams from other leagues, the field gives them the opportunity to prove it on the field—not in a committee room.
This is fairness. This is clarity. This is college football taking a step into competitive adulthood.
BIG 10 / ACC Side
Quarterfinal Matchups (Round 1)
- #1 Big Ten vs. #4 ACC
- #3 Big Ten vs. #2 ACC
- #2 Big Ten vs. #3 ACC
- #4 Big Ten vs. #1 ACC
Semifinals (Winners of the above four games)
- Winner of #1 Big Ten / #4 ACC vs. Winner of #3 Big Ten / #2 ACC
- Winner of #2 Big Ten / #3 ACC vs. Winner of #4 Big Ten / #1 ACC
Conference Side Final → National Semifinalist
Winner of the two semifinals above advances to the National Championship Game
SEC / BIG 12 SIDE
Quarterfinal Matchups (Round 1)
- #1 SEC vs. #4 Big 12
- #3 SEC vs. #2 Big 12
- #2 SEC vs. #3 Big 12
- #4 SEC vs. #1 Big 12
Semifinals (Winners of the above four games)
- Winner of #1 SEC / #4 Big 12 vs. Winner of #3 SEC / #2 Big 12
- Winner of #2 SEC / #3 Big 12 vs. Winner of #4 SEC / #1 Big 12
Conference Side Final → National Semifinalist
Winner of the two semifinals above advances to the National Championship Game
NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP
Winner of the Big Ten/ACC bracket vs.Winner of the SEC/Big 12 bracket
Eliminating the Unnecessary: Conference Championship Games
In a model where standings determine postseason access, conference championship games serve little purpose. They add wear-and-tear, risk injuries, and often do more harm than good to deserving teams.
A more streamlined system—with guaranteed bids for league finishers—removes the need for a self-inflicted obstacle at season’s end. The top team in the league wins the conference championship and the conference’s No. 1 seed in the playoffs.
Notre Dame and The Group of Five
The modern landscape demands consistency. With conferences driving scheduling, media rights, and postseason qualification, independence no longer fits the sport’s long-term vision.
Notre Dame must make a choice. Join a conference and compete for one of the playoff spots, or operate entirely outside the Power Four ecosystem. Being “half-independent” is no longer tenable in a model built on universal access and accountability.
Additionally, the expanded playoff has not meaningfully improved access for Group of Five programs. They remain long shots forced into mismatches, often serving as early-round opponents rather than legitimate contenders.
A dedicated Group of Five playoff solves that—and adds value:
- More meaningful games for those teams
- A true championship that fans and players can celebrate
- Revenue proportional to participation
- A competitive ecosystem that rewards excellence at that level
With financial support from the Power Four, the Group of Five championship could rival top-tier bowls in both prestige and payout.
This isn’t exclusion. It’s empowerment. It gives those programs a postseason that actually matters.
A Ten-Year Test for Every Program
Under this model, the expectation is simple: any program in the Power Four should break into the top four of its league at least once per decade. If they can't, the issue isn’t the playoff structure—it’s the program itself.
The postseason should reward performance, not perception. If a team can't rise to that standard, it shouldn’t expect special accommodation.
The Next Evolution Must Be About Fairness, Not Familiarity
College football has reinvented itself multiple times: From polls → to the BCS → to the four-team playoff → to the current expanded format.
But each evolution has tried to solve structural issues without rethinking the system at its core. A model based on standings, clear pathways, and conference-defined brackets removes the sport’s last major ambiguity.
The beauty pageant era was part of the sport for decades—but it had a shelf life. Fans no longer want explanations. They want results. They want transparency. They want a postseason that feels earned.
No one in the NFL talks about teams not deserving to be in the playoffs or how tough a division is to justify being in. It’s about how you play vs. your contemporaries, and that’s who gets in the playoffs.
This model delivers all of it. Plus, it positions college football for a future where the champion is crowned not by debate, but by competition—just the way it should be.
