Jarrett Karnibad

It seems that no matter what the format is for the end of the season is in college football, people are upset. Notre Dame is just the latest of many to complain that “the system is unfair.” Now, I’ll be the first to say that this current system has its flaws. I was quick to say that the previous system had its flaws cough 2023 Florida State cough. And, even though both iterations of the playoffs have had issues, I have been clamoring for a playoff in college football since I was in Elementary School. So, what is the right way to do it? Is there a way to be objective about this process? Should non-power conference teams be included? How many teams should make the playoffs? These are just a few of the questions that I’m going to try to answer in what I think is the easiest, possible solution that does not require a complete overhaul of the college football landscape.

Let’s start with the process: is the Selection Committee the best and most objective way to select playoff teams. I simply say no, it is not. Was the BCS system perfect? Maybe not, but it was two things that the committee is not: objective and transparent. While I might personally lean towards the pre-2004 version of the BCS with more math and advanced formulas, the final version from 2013 would work just fine. As a refresher, the 2013 BCS Rankings were compiled by combining the Harris Interactive Poll (the AP Poll replacement), the Coaches Poll, and the combination of 6 computer rankings. Each of the three aspects listed above were weighted equally. Here’s my proposal: Call them the CFP+ Rankings. Keep the committee, and let their rankings be one third of the final rankings. The committee’s only job should be to rank the teams based on their performance on the field. The second part of the rankings should remain as the Coaches Poll. Finally, the last part should be computer rankings. I would love to see the same ones used in the BCS, in which case there would be six computer rankings, and each team’s highest and lowest ranking would be dropped, and the four remaining rankings would be averaged.

Example Team: University of Georgia (2025)

Committee Ranking: 3

Coaches Poll Ranking: 2

Computer Rankings: 2*, 3, 3, 4, 4, 6* (*dropped from the computer average)

Committee Ranking (3) + Coaches Poll Ranking (2) + Computer Average ((3+3+4+4)/4)=(3.5)

3 + 2 + 3.5 / 3 = 2.83333

University of Georgia CFP+ Rating: 2.83333

Moving onto non-power conference teams, should they be included, and if so, is that possibly taking a spot away from a power-conference team that might have more talent? I look to the example set by the BCS era. If a non-power conference team was ranked in the top 12 in the BCS Rankings, or was ranked in the top 16 and was ranked ahead of at least one power conference champion, they would automatically be awarded an At-Large spot in a BCS Bowl (Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, Rose). Why not bring this concept back? Using the ranking system laid out above, provide a playoff spot to any non-power conference team that is ranked in the top 18 using the CFP+ Rankings. In 2024, Boise State would have certainly received a playoff bid despite not being in a power-conference due to their Committee Ranking being 9 and their Coaches Poll Ranking being 8 at the end of the regular season. Here’s how the top two non-power conference teams in 2025 stacked up. Keep reading to see if one, or both, would have made the playoffs using my proposed format.

Finally, how many teams should make the playoff, and should there be auto-bids based on conference championships? I believe that 12 teams might be including too many teams, but I acknowledge that they will never reduce the number of teams that qualify for the playoffs now that they made the jump from 4 to 12. If they will not reduce the number of teams, I recommend that the number of teams remain at 12. They should be awarded using the following criteria:

1. The CFP+ ratings are used to create CFP+ Rankings, which are the final rankings to be used for playoff seeding and selection.
2. There shall be auto-bids for the highest-ranked team in each power conference (does not have to be the conference champion). The current power conferences are ACC, Big 10, Big 12, and SEC.
3. If the highest-ranked team in each power conference is not the conference champion, the conference champion will receive an auto-bid so long as they are ranked in the top 18 in the CFP+ Rankings.
4. Non-power conference teams will receive an auto-bid if they are ranked in the top 18 of the CFP+ Rankings.
5. The rest of the spots that are not taken by auto-bids listed above, will be filled using the CFP+ Rankings.

To me, this feels like the most fair and objective way to select the playoff teams. Here’s what the rankings and playoff would look like in 2025:

Tulane just narrowly squeaks into the playoffs by finishing ranked 18th, and knocking the 12th best team by CFP+, BYU, out of the playoffs. The main difference in the 2025 outcome between my proposed playoff system and what actually occurred is that Notre Dame not only made the playoffs, but they made the playoffs as the 9 seed. The Playoff Schedule would feature the following games:

• 12. Tulane @ 5. Oregon (Winner plays 4. Texas Tech)
• 11. Miami @ 6. Mississippi (Winner plays 3. Georgia
• 10. Alabama @ 7. Texas A&M (Winner plays 2. Ohio State)
• 9. Notre Dame @ 8. Oklahoma (Winner plays 1. Indiana)

While my proposed system may not be perfect, I feel that it is objective, fair, and still highly entertaining. It balances the human element with the harshness of computers, and it only gives playoff spots to teams that earn it.