A Playoff of Champions
How to fix college football's postseason
I love college football. The tradition, the rivalries, the pageantry—it’s a sport like no other. But one thing college football has always struggled with is how to determine its national champion.
For most of its history, the question of who truly was the best team in the country was left to opinion. Early champions were named retroactively by independent organizations using polls or mathematical formulas, with no consistent process. By the mid-20th century, the Associated Press and Coaches Poll became the primary arbiters, crowning champions at the end of the regular season—sometimes before bowl games were even played. This led to split championships and endless debates.
In 1998, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) introduced a computer-driven attempt to pit the top two teams against each other in a single championship game. It was a step forward but often left deserving teams on the outside looking in. The advent of the four-team College Football Playoff (CFP) in 2014 seemed to promise a more satisfying resolution, yet it, too, drew criticism for its subjective selection process and exclusion of deserving teams.
Now, college football is on the verge of its first 12-team playoff. The new format features automatic bids for the top conference champions and at-large bids for the next highest-ranked teams. It aims to strike a balance between rewarding conference success and giving more teams a shot at the title. Still, we are looking at the possibility of a 2-loss SEC team like Tennessee getting left out while a team like Boise State or Indiana gets in without beating a single ranked team. Texas, on the other hand, is safely in over Tennessee despite having a much worse strength of schedule simply because they have one fewer loss. Why would a team in a power conference schedule tougher non-conference matchups if that is going to be the case? Meanwhile, Lane Kiffin has raised the point that the current format could actually punish teams for playing in their conference championship game.
For over a century, college football fans have been asking the same question: How can we crown a champion in a way that balances tradition, competition, and fairness? I would suggest there’s a solution that solves all of these problems. Allow me to introduce you to the Playoff of Champions.
The Proposal
Modification #1: Expand Week 0
To accommodate a more extensive postseason while preserving the integrity of the New Year’s Day bowl games, my proposal adjusts the regular season schedule by starting earlier and ending sooner. This approach avoids pushing the season deep into January and maintains the traditional importance of New Year’s Day for major bowl games.
The 2024 college football regular season kicked off on August 24 and will conclude on November 30, spanning fifteen weekends. The first weekend, known as "Week 0," featured a limited slate of just four games, serving as a soft opening to the season. Typically, the college football regular season lasts fourteen weekends, including Week 0, with most teams playing their full schedule across thirteen weeks. However, due to the way the calendar fell this year, the season gained an extra weekend, giving most teams a second bye week.
Under this proposal, the regular season would end two weeks earlier, wrapping up before Thanksgiving weekend. To make this shift, the regular season would kick off universally during the current "Week 0," the weekend before Labor Day, while maintaining a standard thirteen-week schedule.
Here’s how the 2025 schedule would look:
August 23: Week 1
August 30: Week 2 (Labor Day Weekend - Traditional Week 1)
September 6: Week 3
September 13: Week 4
September 20: Week 5
September 27: Week 6
October 4: Week 7
October 11: Week 8
October 18: Week 9
October 25: Week 10
November 1: Week 11
November 8: Week 12
November 15: Week 13 (Rivalry Weekend)1
November 22-29: Conference championships
December 6-20: Play-In Tournaments
January 1: Playoff of Champions Semifinals
January 10: National Championship Game
By expanding Week 0 and shifting the timeline, this proposal balances tradition with the need for a more comprehensive postseason structure.
Modification #2: Conference Championship Tournaments
With additional room in the schedule, conferences with at least 16 members would have the option to determine their champions through a conference tournament format. These tournaments could include up to four teams and take place during a two-week window following the regular season—the weekends before and after Thanksgiving. Currently, this would apply to the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, and Big 12, as these conferences have the membership size to support such a structure.
These conferences would have the flexibility to decide how best to crown its champion:
Regular Season Champion. Simply select the conference champion based on regular-season performance, giving that team two weeks off between the regular season and postseason play.
Traditional Championship Game. Continue with the current one-game format, allowing the champion one week off before postseason play.
4-Team Conference Tournament. Use a four-team tournament to determine the champion on the field.
For conferences opting for a four-team tournament, scheduling could align with a pod system. Teams would compete in smaller divisional "pods" during the regular season, with the best team from each pod advancing to the tournament.
Conferences would retain ownership of these games, including packaging them with their TV rights and determining where the games are played—whether at neutral sites or with home-field advantage for the higher-seeded teams.
This flexibility ensures that conferences can choose the system that best fits their needs while addressing the current scheduling imbalances that often leave deserving teams out of the championship conversation. Expanding access to championship games allows conference champions to be determined on the field, providing a more equitable and exciting path to the postseason.
Modification #3: Playoff of Champions Bracket
With conference champions determined, the next step is to include all conference champions in a unified playoff system.2 However, it's clear that not all conferences are created equal. Today, the SEC and Big Ten dominate college football. In the current playoff rankings, the proposed 12-team bracket would include 4 SEC teams, 4 Big Ten teams, 1 ACC team, 1 Big 12 team, 1 Mountain West team, and 1 independent. Thirteen of the top 25 teams in the College Football Playoff (CFP) rankings belong to either the SEC (8) or Big Ten (5).
Given this reality, the SEC and Big Ten champions deserve a privileged position in the playoffs. To reflect their dominance, I propose awarding these two conference champions automatic semifinal berths. The remaining conference champions would compete in play-in tournaments for the opportunity to challenge the SEC and Big Ten champions in those semifinal matchups.
With eight remaining FBS conferences (excluding the SEC and Big Ten), the playoff would feature two 4-team play-in tournaments. Unfortunately, we still have independents as well and they should also be given an opportunity to compete for the championship. Allowing the best independent team3 to participate brings the total number of play-in participants up to nine.4 With that in mind, one side of the bracket would have a simple 4-team play-in tournament and the other side would have a 5-team play-in tournament (accomplished with an extra play-in game).
Rather than relying on a committee to seed teams at the end of the season, the playoff structure would be set in advance, reducing subjectivity and bias. Conferences would be divided regionally:
SEC Side. Big 12, Sun Belt, AAC, and C-USA champions compete for a semifinal spot against the SEC champion.
Big Ten Side. Pac-12, Mountain West, MAC, ACC, and the top independent compete for a semifinal spot against the Big Ten champion.
Bear in mind these conference assignments could be adjusted from time to time as conference strength changes. The bracket would be determined before the season (or on a contract basis), ranking conferences rather than teams. This pre-season determination minimizes individual team bias and leverages conference performance over time, which is generally less controversial.
The traditional Army-Navy game would retain its historic significance, played during the first weekend after conference championships (as it is now). It would take place on the same day as the play-in game on the 5-team tournament side (I’m envisioning an afternoon Army-Nave game followed by a play-in game at night).
One concern might be the increased number of games for some teams. However, the difference is minimal:
Current 12-Team Format: Teams can play up to 17 games.
Proposed Format: Teams could play up to 18 games.5
This additional game would only affect a champion from a non-SEC/Big Ten conference that employs a 4-team conference tournament, such as the Big 12 or ACC. Meanwhile:
SEC and Big Ten teams would play up to 16 games.6
Teams from smaller conferences would play up to 17 games, on par with the current system.7
Modification #4: Restore the Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl to Their Rightful Place
College football is a sport steeped in tradition, and few traditions are as iconic as the New Year’s Day bowl games. As the Playoff of Champions moves into the semifinal stage, it’s time to honor that heritage by restoring the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl to their historic roles.
Under this proposal, the winners of the play-in tournaments would advance to face the SEC and Big Ten champions in the semifinals. These matchups would take place in the most storied venues in college football:
The Rose Bowl: The Big Ten champion should always compete in the Rose Bowl, preserving its legacy as "The Granddaddy of Them All."
The Sugar Bowl: The SEC champion should always compete in the Sugar Bowl, where countless epic SEC moments have been forged.
Both games would take place on New Year’s Day, maintaining their traditional significance in the college football landscape.
By anchoring the semifinals in these legendary bowls, this format not only strengthens ties to the sport’s rich history but also enhances the prestige of these games. The Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl would no longer be just rotating cogs in a playoff machine but rightful crown jewels of college football’s postseason.
Modification #5: Allow the Rest of the Bowls to Bid on Remaining Games
College football’s bowl games are a cherished tradition, providing unique matchups, fan experiences, and regional pride. To preserve their significance while integrating them into the Playoff of Champions, this proposal allows the remaining bowl games to bid for hosting rights to the games in the play-in tournaments.
Under this system, bowl committees could submit bids to host specific matchups, with priority given to bowls that have historical or regional ties to the conferences involved.8 This approach ensures continuity with college football’s storied past while offering flexibility to adapt to modern playoff demands.
I’ve gone through and designated what that could look like:
The Cotton Bowl would host the play-in game between the Big 12 champion and the Sun Belt champion. With its location in Texas, the Cotton Bowl has historical ties to the Southwest and Big 12, making it a natural fit to showcase this regional matchup.
The Citrus Bowl would host the play-in game between the AAC and Conference USA champions. Situated in Florida, the Citrus Bowl provides an ideal stage for two conferences with strong presences in the South and Southeast.
The Peach Bowl would host the next round on the SEC side, pitting the winners of the Cotton and Citrus Bowls against one another. As a major bowl with a central location in Atlanta, the Peach Bowl ensures a marquee matchup in the heart of the South.
The Holiday Bowl, traditionally held in San Diego, would host the play-in game between the best independent team and the Pac-12 champion. Its West Coast location makes it a natural fit for a matchup involving the Pac-12. The Holiday Bowl has historically highlighted exciting matchups involving West Coast teams, so this switch aligns with its legacy.
The Alamo Bowl, held in San Antonio, would host the next round for the ACC champion against the winner of the Holiday Bowl game. This provides a central and neutral location for a matchup featuring teams from geographically diverse conferences (e.g., an ACC team vs. the independent/Pac-12 winner). The Alamo Bowl has traditionally featured teams from major conferences, making it a suitable venue for a high-stakes matchup in the playoff structure.
The Fiesta Bowl would host the play-in game between the Mountain West and MAC champions. With its location in Arizona, the Fiesta Bowl continues its legacy of showcasing top teams from outside the traditional power conferences.
The Orange Bowl would host the winner of the Holiday and Fiesta Bowls, serving as the gateway to the semifinals on the Big 10 side. Its historic ties to the ACC and premier stature make the Orange Bowl an ideal venue for a high-stakes game.
Alternatively, bowl games that prefer to maintain their independence from the playoff structure could contract directly with conferences to host teams that did not win their conference championships. This route would allow bowls to retain their identity and purpose while showcasing competitive and entertaining matchups for teams outside the championship picture.
This dual-option system strikes a balance between honoring the history of bowl season and providing meaningful postseason opportunities in a reimagined format. Fans, players, and sponsors alike would benefit from the variety and regional connections that only bowl games can provide.
Benefits
Championships are determined by teams on the field, not by a committee behind closed doors.
Under the current College Football Playoff (CFP) system, the selection of teams is heavily influenced by a committee that meets behind closed doors. This approach, while aimed at fairness, inevitably introduces subjective elements that leave fans and teams questioning the legitimacy of decisions. By placing the determination of championships squarely on the field, this proposal eliminates much of the controversy surrounding committee rankings and selections. Conference champions earn their spot through head-to-head competition, and the path to the national championship is clearly defined and transparent. Fans and teams alike can embrace the fairness and integrity of a system where performance, not perception, dictates the outcome.
Conference championships regain significance.
In recent years, conference championships have lost some of their luster. With the CFP committee often prioritizing overall records and “eye tests,” a team’s conference title isn’t always valued as it once was. We’ve seen teams win the national title without winning their own conference.
This proposal restores the prestige of winning a conference championship by making it the sole path to the playoff. Every conference champion earns a seat at the table, which makes those titles meaningful again. For fans, players, and coaches, the stakes of conference races are heightened, providing more thrilling rivalries and end-of-season matchups. Winning a conference championship once again becomes a crown jewel of a team’s season, not just a stepping stone or a consolation prize.
Conferences can increase their inventory of games.
The fear of punishment by the CFP committee has discouraged conferences from increasing their number of conference games. More intra-conference matchups often lead to more losses for some teams, which can be detrimental under the current system. This proposal frees conferences from that fear, allowing them to prioritize competitive balance and robust schedules. Additionally, the introduction of optional conference tournaments adds valuable inventory for TV contracts, giving conferences a chance to negotiate higher revenues. By packaging these games with their other media rights, conferences can grow their financial base and provide even more compelling content for fans.
College football starts sooner and finishes before NFL playoffs.
The NFL dominates the sports landscape from late December through February, and college football has struggled to maintain attention during that period. This proposal shifts the season earlier, allowing college football to start in late August and conclude its major games before the NFL playoffs begin. Not only does this preserve the tradition of New Year’s Day bowl games, but it also avoids scheduling conflicts with the NFL’s postseason juggernaut. Fans can focus fully on the college football postseason, and the sport can retain its distinct space in the sports calendar.
Teams can schedule freely in non-conference play.
Under the current system, teams often avoid difficult non-conference matchups, fearing that a single loss could harm their playoff chances. This proposal removes that fear, allowing teams to schedule marquee matchups or regional rivalries without jeopardizing their postseason hopes. Fans will benefit from a richer slate of early-season games, while teams gain opportunities to test themselves against high-caliber opponents before entering conference play. This approach not only enhances the fan experience but also builds the sport's national appeal by featuring more compelling inter-conference showdowns.
All teams and conferences are included.
By guaranteeing a playoff spot for every conference champion, this proposal ensures that even the smaller conferences have a chance to compete for the national title. While the SEC and Big 10 may dominate in terms of prestige and resources, this system celebrates the diversity of college football by valuing success across all levels. Smaller schools and conferences now have tangible stakes in the postseason, energizing their fan bases and giving players in those programs the spotlight they deserve. This inclusivity strengthens the sport’s overall appeal and maintains a vital connection between the power conferences and the rest of the FBS.
The importance of the regular season is enhanced.
One of the most compelling aspects of this proposal is that it actually strengthens the importance of the regular season. By allowing conferences to determine their champions on the field—whether through traditional championship games or newly introduced conference tournaments—the regular season becomes a high-stakes competition, with teams fighting not just for bowl eligibility but for a shot at a meaningful conference title and a birth in the regional play-in tournament. This is a stark contrast to the current system, where a team can win its conference and still be left out of the playoff conversation due to external ranking systems or subjective committee decisions.
More players will have increased NIL opportunities.
In addition to improving the on-field product, this proposal could significantly increase NIL opportunities for players from smaller conferences. As it stands, players in programs from non-Power 5 conferences often face challenges in garnering attention from big-name brands or national sponsors, as these athletes don't always compete on the most visible stages. However, with the expansion of the playoff system and the addition of play-in tournaments, players in smaller conferences would gain a more prominent platform.
By ensuring that conference champions—regardless of their size or traditional media market—are in the conversation for a national championship, the proposal opens the door for greater visibility. Teams from the AAC, Mountain West, or Conference USA could compete directly in the playoff system, giving their athletes a chance to shine in front of a national audience. This increased exposure would not only benefit players' athletic careers but also their opportunities to monetize their name, image, and likeness. More televised games, heightened fan interest, and the opportunity to compete on a national stage would all increase NIL offers for players in these conferences, helping level the playing field and expanding opportunities that were previously out of reach for many athletes.
I can hear everyone now… “But what about our Thanksgiving weekend traditions? How could we not have rivalry games played on Thanksgiving weekend?” To that my only response is that I know it may seem weird, but I actually think having those games played two weeks earlier isn’t a bid deal. And, having conference championship games played on Thanksgiving weekend allows an even bigger spotlight for those games.
For purposes of this bracket, we would use the same qualifications the CFP currently uses as to what constitutes a “conference.” It must have at least 8 members.
I don’t think there’s any way around having the independent teams subjectively ranked. That could be done through a formula like the BCS formula or by a committee, but ultimately that’s going to be a price paid by the teams that choose to remain independent. Don’t like it? Join a conference.
This problem could be eliminated if the Pac-12 and Mountain West were to merge (or one were to fail to add enough teams to be recognized as an official conference).
12 regular season games, 2 conference tournament games, 2 play-in tournament games, and 2 Playoff of Champions games. Compare that to NFL teams who might play 21 games in a season (17 regular season games and up to 4 playoff games). Theoretically, the extra play-in game could result in 3 play-in tournament games for 2 teams. The reality, though, is that the tournament could be seeded with that in mind and if you make sure those two teams are an independent and a team from a conference without a conference championship game (e.g., Pac-12), then you can still limit the total number of games those teams play.
12 regular season games, 2 conference tournament games, and 2 Playoff of Champions games.
12 regular season games, 1 conference championship game, 2 play-in tournament games, and 2 Playoff of Champions games.
For example, the Cotton Bowl would be a natural fit to host the first round game involving the Big 12 champion.