BCS 2.0: The Case for a Clearer College Football Playoff

The College Football Playoff Invitational was meant to bring clarity, fairness, and excitement to the sport. Yet after more than a decade, it increasingly feels like the system is guided more by television influence and marketability than by competitive integrity. Networks, sponsors, and narrative-driven rankings often shape the conversation, favoring storylines over substance. This raises an important question…

Is it time to reconsider a system more reminiscent of the old BCS, where computer rankings and clear metrics determined who played for the championship?

Yes, the BCS had flaws. Its formulas were opaque, and teams often felt slighted. But it had one critical advantage… the outcome was determined by data and performance, not by public perception or media hype.

In contrast, the current CFI relies on a selection committee whose members are human, subjective, and inevitably influenced by television companies. The result is a playoff system that is at times unpredictable for all the wrong reasons.

A potential solution is to create two distinct playoff tracks. One for the Group of Five and one for the Power Four. This would respect the realities of competitive balance while giving more teams meaningful postseason opportunities.

The Group of Five Playoff

For the Group of Five conferences (American Athletic, Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West and Sun Belt) a 16-team playoff could crown a true champion among programs that rarely get national attention. Selection would be based on clear metrics like conference championships, strength of schedule, and key wins. The playoff could rotate host sites to maximize exposure and provide fair access for fans. This system would reward excellence without forcing smaller programs into meaningless access bowls just for television slots.

The Power Four Playoff

For the Power Four conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, and SEC) — a 16-team playoff would be ideal. Conference champions should receive automatic consideration, with at-large bids awarded to the next best teams based on objective performance measures. This model preserves the prestige of conference championships while limiting the influence of narratives, rankings, and network-driven interest. With the help of a BCS-like system, the playoff would remain compact, ensuring the regular season still matters and teams are not punished for one bad game or a tough schedule.

Both models would reduce the current system’s susceptibility to media-driven biases. They would clarify postseason stakes, emphasize merit, and ensure that championships are earned on the field.

Fans, coaches, and players would know that performance matters first and foremost.

Returning to a more structured, metric-driven approach does not mean discarding innovation. Modern analytics, advanced metrics and enhanced scheduling can improve the accuracy and fairness of playoff selections. But separating the Group of Five from the Power Four ensures that competitive balance is respected while rewarding programs that perform at the highest levels.

The College Football Playoff Invitational was designed to create excitement, but the excitement is hollow if it is shaped primarily by television narratives. By creating two playoffs we can preserve the integrity of the sport, restore trust in the process, and crown champions that fans know have truly earned their place.

College football deserves clarity, fairness, and meritocracy. Anything less rewards corporate financial gains over performance.