In a sport where rankings can spark riots and bowl selections feel more like backroom politics than postseason planning, Penn State head coach James Franklin has stepped into the fray with a blistering critique of the College Football Playoff (CFP) selection process—and his suggestion may leave traditionalists gasping: What if the BCS wasn’t so bad after all?
Yes, the very formulaic, cold-blooded, computer-driven BCS system—the same one fans spent years lambasting for its controversial pairings and algorithmic arrogance—is suddenly looking more appealing in contrast to the subjective chaos of the current CFP setup. And Franklin isn’t alone in that sentiment.
“We’re All Biased”: Franklin Takes Aim at CFP Committee’s Human Element
In an era when eyeballs and opinions hold as much sway as yards and wins, Franklin’s call to reconsider a formulaic approach exposes a growing tension: Can a human committee truly make fair decisions in a sport brimming with emotion, allegiance, and regional bias?
“It’s funny,” Franklin said, “because there were so many complaints about the BCS. Then we moved to this system—and suddenly, we’re dealing with the same, if not more, controversy. Everyone involved in the process—whether they admit it or not—has bias.”
Franklin’s remarks were sparked by last season’s head-scratching decisions from the CFP committee, most notably the inclusion of SMU and Indiana over multiple more competitive, higher-profile SEC programs. These selections raised eyebrows nationwide, and some saw the final bracket as less of a football meritocracy and more of a popularity contest.
Even former CFP selection committee member Scott Stricklin recently admitted the current model is “not ideal,” backing Franklin’s frustrations and fueling calls for reform.
Rise of the Machines: Could a Cold, Calculating Formula Be the Answer?
The BCS system, though universally maligned in its heyday, was at least consistent. It leaned on stats, strength of schedule, rankings, and computer-generated data to crown two national championship contenders. No 13-person panel. No emotions. No late-night politicking.
Franklin now sees the value in its rigidity.
“A formula takes the bias out. It doesn’t care if you’re from the SEC or the Pac-12. It just crunches the numbers,” he said. “And frankly, maybe that’s what we need again.”
But wait—didn’t fans beg for its destruction? Absolutely. The BCS often delivered unpopular matchups, and its inability to accommodate more than two teams in a title race sparked frustration. But as Franklin points out, perhaps the pendulum swung too far in the other direction.
Regional Bias, Time Zone Fog, and the Human Blindspot
Franklin didn’t stop at committee criticism—he called out the very structure of how games are watched and judged, highlighting a flaw baked into college football’s media ecosystem.
“You’ve got East Coast voters making calls on West Coast teams they haven’t seen because the games end at 2 a.m. their time. That’s not fair. That’s not consistent.”
Add to that the variety of conference schedules, non-conference matchups, and inconsistent game counts, and what you get is a melting pot of confusion—not clarity.
Hybrid Future? Franklin’s Compromise Solution
To be clear, Franklin isn’t suggesting a full regression to the BCS. Instead, he proposes a hybrid approach—where statistical models and human intuition meet in the middle.
“I also think maybe there’s a way to kind of do both,” he said. “Maybe that’s what we’re doing now, but if so, we need to lean harder into the formulas that work and soften the parts that don’t.”
In Franklin’s ideal world, a transparent and data-informed ranking system would guide the committee, not merely advise it. Human bias wouldn’t disappear, but it would be checked—and, perhaps more importantly, justified.
The Bigger Picture: Can the CFP Evolve Before It Implodes?
Franklin’s comments arrive at a pivotal time. The CFP is expanding. Television deals are multiplying. The pressure to get it right—and the blowback when they don’t—has never been higher.
In the current landscape, college football is no longer just a sport; it’s a billion-dollar brand. Decisions made in that committee room don’t just shape playoff brackets—they define legacies, influence recruiting, and drive revenue.
So when a high-profile coach like Franklin openly questions the system, it’s not just a hot take—it’s a warning.
“There’s never going to be a perfect system,” he concedes. “But we can—and must—do better than this.”
Final Whistle: What If the BCS Was Right All Along?
Maybe the most ironic twist in this saga isn’t the committee’s mishaps—but the idea that the BCS, the system fans begged to dismantle, might have been more trustworthy all along.
As college football hurtles toward another high-stakes postseason, Franklin’s message echoes loud and clear: It’s time to put bias on the bench—and let the game, not the narrative, decide who gets to play for a title.
