By Luke Fletcher | Atlanta, GA

The expanded College Football Playoff was supposed to end the annual arguments. Instead, it simply moved the debate further down the rankings.

Now the controversy isn’t about who belongs in the top four—it’s about bubble teams, automatic bids, and whether the “best” teams are being punished for scheduling tough opponents while lower-ranked conference champions are being rewarded simply for winning a weak league.

There is a simple fix that preserves the integrity of the regular season, respects conference champions, and settles the argument where it should be settled: on the field.

The Solution: Two CFP Play-In Games

Rather than expanding the playoff into an unwieldy 16-team field or relying entirely on subjective committee decisions, the CFP should add two play-in games to determine the final two playoff spots.

This model adds drama and fairness without diluting the quality of the postseason. The controversy typically arises at the margins. Teams ranked 11 through 14 believe they’re good enough to compete for a title. Lower-ranked conference champions argue they earned their place by winning a league.

Rather than forcing the committee to pick sides, this format gives both groups a chance to settle it on the field.

In this scenario for this year:

• Notre Dame and BYU sit on the playoff bubble—ranked just outside the Top 10.
  
• Tulane and James Madison are conference champions, but ranked lower due to strength of schedule concerns.
  

Instead of forcing the committee to choose between resume and dominance, the solution is straightforward: play it out.

The Play-In Games That Should Have Happened

Play-In Game No. 1

Notre Dame vs. Tulane

Notre Dame’s resume includes Power Conference opponents, national brand scrutiny, and a schedule built for CFP evaluation. Tulane arrives as a conference champion that dominated its league but faced questions about depth and weekly competition.

This is exactly the matchup fans argue about every year. Under this model, there’s no argument—just four quarters.

Play-In Game No. 2

BYU vs. James Madison

BYU, navigating a demanding schedule, believes it’s one of the top teams in the country despite narrowly missing the Top 10. James Madison, unbeaten and a conference champion, insists that wins should matter more than reputation.

Put them on the same field and let the results speak louder than rankings ever could.

Why Two CFP Play-In Games is the Correct Solution

This isn’t about punishing conference champions. If Tulane or James Madison truly belonged in the playoff, beating Notre Dame or BYU would instantly validate their case—and become one of the most memorable wins in program history. At the same time, Notre Dame and BYU wouldn’t be eliminated by committee math or brand bias. They’d be eliminated only if they lost. That’s the kind of clarity the CFP has been missing.

From a fan and television standpoint, these games would be must-watch events. A win-or-go-home Notre Dame–Tulane matchup or BYU–James Madison showdown would generate far more interest than early-round blowouts caused by rigid automatic bids. From a competitive standpoint, the regular season gains meaning. Finishing in the Top 10 matters. Winning a conference matters. But neither becomes an unchecked shortcut.

A playoff system that forces Notre Dame, BYU, Tulane, and James Madison into endless debates is a flawed one. A playoff system that puts them on the same field is a better one. Two play-in games would have transformed controversy into competition, opinion into outcome, and frustration into clarity. And in a sport built on Saturdays settling everything, that’s the fix college football has been waiting for.

The College Football Playoff doesn’t need another overhaul. It needs a smarter filter. College football has spent far too long allowing conference politics to dictate postseason outcomes. Television contracts, automatic bids, and league alliances have too often overshadowed the sport’s simplest truth: the best way to decide who belongs is to play the games. If the College Football Playoff is serious about credibility, it must embrace solutions that reward performance. Hopefully, common sense can finally trump the political tension that has defined the CFP era, allowing the sport to settle its biggest arguments where it always should: between the lines on the field.