With all of the bickering and campaigning happening around college football the past two years with regards to the last few spots in the playoff and whether or not a Conference Championship game loser should fall, IDK why they don't just settle things on the field. Personally, I like the 12-team playoff format. I like the tiered benefits of finishing higher: Top four get byes, next four get home games, last for just get in. But the thing I seriously dislike is teams sitting at home on championship weekend and campaigning about how they should move up in the rankings during what amounts to a bye week. So why not just add 5 more high-stakes at-large games to the docket? Make the top 10 teams that don't make a CCG play one another. 

This year, if you worked to avoid rematches, you'd get Utah at Oregon, USC at Ole Miss, Vandy at A&M, Texas at ND, and Miami at Oklahoma. With those additional high-stakes games, not only is there more good football to consume as a fan, but now, you have a full set of new data points to measure teams with. Now, if Bama loses to Georgia and Texas upsets ND, you have a valid reason to swap them, and Texas is able to prove they deserve to be in the field. If USC upsets a coachless Ole Miss, the committee gets to see the impact of them losing their coach and react accordingly. And if Miami spanks Oklahoma, maybe they finally get their resume to the point where head-to-head once again matters against ND. This all seems so simple to me without the need to ever actually expand the playoffs again.

Am I crazy, or would something like this make sense?