As the College Football Playoff prepares to expand from four to twelve teams, fans across the country are hailing the shift as long overdue. For years, criticism of the old system has centered on its exclusivity, its opaque selection criteria, and its repeated snubbing of deserving teams outside the traditional power structure. Yet, while this expansion is a step forward, it still falls short of a truly equitable and competitive postseason. Ironically, the perfect playoff model has existed for years—just not at the FBS level. The Football Championship Subdivision, or FCS, has already figured it out. If the FBS wants a postseason that delivers on fairness, drama, and legitimacy, it should stop tinkering and simply copy what the FCS has already perfected.
The FCS playoff has been a staple of college football since 1978 and currently includes 24 teams. It features automatic bids for conference champions and a selection of at-large teams chosen based on performance, record, and strength of schedule. Top-seeded teams host early-round games, rewarding regular-season excellence with home-field advantage, while the national title is decided at a neutral-site championship game. The system is meritocratic, inclusive, and, most importantly, it plays out on the field rather than behind closed doors. Every year, the FCS delivers thrilling matchups, underdog runs, and a clear, satisfying conclusion to the season. It’s the kind of format that FBS fans have long dreamed of.
In contrast, the FBS has clung to tradition and television ratings at the expense of fairness. For decades, national champions were decided by polls, computers, and arbitrary bowl matchups. The introduction of the four-team playoff in 2014 was supposed to fix that, but it only slightly improved the situation. The same handful of powerhouse programs dominated the bracket year after year, with Group of Five teams and even some Power Five schools left out despite stellar records. Even with the upcoming twelve-team format, skepticism remains. The structure still privileges conference champions from power conferences and provides limited access for lower-profile programs. A single at-large berth for a Group of Five school feels more like a concession than a commitment to inclusivity.
There’s also the matter of games being played on campuses. The FCS rewards its best teams with the chance to host playoff games, generating electric atmospheres and well-deserved advantages. The FBS, on the other hand, has long prioritized bowl-site games that benefit sponsors and host cities more than players or fans. Although the expanded playoff will feature some first-round campus games, later rounds remain tied to neutral-site bowls, limiting the excitement and authenticity that come with true home-field competition. The FCS approach demonstrates that high-stakes playoff games can be successfully played across various college towns without compromising integrity or profitability.
Critics might argue that the FBS is simply too large or too complex to implement a similar system. But if the FCS can manage travel logistics, academic calendars, and competitive balance across 24 playoff teams, there’s little reason to believe the FBS couldn’t do the same, especially with its significantly larger budgets and infrastructure. The idea that major college football can’t support an actual tournament is not only outdated—it’s disproven every December by the very schools that play just one tier below.
Ultimately, the FCS model works because it embraces the spirit of competition. It doesn’t try to protect the elite or gatekeep opportunity. It allows conference champions to earn their shot and gives strong at-large teams a second chance. It’s a true playoff, not an invitational. If the FBS truly wants to crown the best team in college football each year, it should stop compromising and start learning. The blueprint already exists. All it has to do is copy the FCS.
Leave a Reply