Bunk Moreland said:

---

12 is the most politically convenient decision. 8 is a nightmare for conferences like the sec, because just as we discussed on the last thread, it would NEVER be a true top 8. Powers that be would make it power 5 conf champion +1 Go5 + 2 at large.

12 makes more sense than 8, but I'm not for any expansion in general.

---

Disagree. You already had a 10 team playoff in the CCGs with CC autobids. Want in? Then win your CC.

Aggieair said:

---

The biggest problem I see with 12 teams is scheduling.

8 teams fits nicely, with the quarterfinals being the weekend after Army-Navy, and the first weekend of bowl season. Allows for roughly a two week gap between CCG weekend, quarterfinals, semifinals, and championship.

12 teams would mean there's now the CCG weekend, the next weekend is 5-12 seed teams playing at the same time as Army-Navy, then having the quarterfinals the weekend immediately after that.

---

I would like to see the traditional NYD bowls used for the quarterfinals. Then rotate which of the NYD bowls gets to host the semi's and CG in the following weeks.

Last year's playoff's TV rating were half of the first year of the playoffs rating. Lose half the viewers in 10 years and TV is going to demand changes since they pay the bills

longeryak said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

12 is the most politically convenient decision. 8 is a nightmare for conferences like the sec, because just as we discussed on the last thread, it would NEVER be a true top 8. Powers that be would make it power 5 conf champion +1 Go5 + 2 at large.

12 makes more sense than 8, but I'm not for any expansion in general.

---

Disagree. You already had a 10 team playoff in the CCGs with CC autobids. Want in? Then win your CC.

---

This is the argument for **** teams and/or good teams who play in ****ty conferences. Going with auto-bid's based off conference champs only does not create a playoff tournament consisting of the best teams in the country. There's too much variance in CFB. It's not the NFL.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

longeryak said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

12 is the most politically convenient decision. 8 is a nightmare for conferences like the sec, because just as we discussed on the last thread, it would NEVER be a true top 8. Powers that be would make it power 5 conf champion +1 Go5 + 2 at large.

12 makes more sense than 8, but I'm not for any expansion in general.

---

Disagree. You already had a 10 team playoff in the CCGs with CC autobids. Want in? Then win your CC.

---

This is the argument for **** teams and/or good teams who play in ****ty conferences. Going with auto-bid's based off conference champs only does not create a playoff tournament consisting of the best teams in the country. There's too much variance in CFB. It's not the NFL.

---

You're going to kill the golden goose. People are tuning out and TV execs aren't happy.

longeryak said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

longeryak said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

12 is the most politically convenient decision. 8 is a nightmare for conferences like the sec, because just as we discussed on the last thread, it would NEVER be a true top 8. Powers that be would make it power 5 conf champion +1 Go5 + 2 at large.

12 makes more sense than 8, but I'm not for any expansion in general.

---

Disagree. You already had a 10 team playoff in the CCGs with CC autobids. Want in? Then win your CC.

---

This is the argument for **** teams and/or good teams who play in ****ty conferences. Going with auto-bid's based off conference champs only does not create a playoff tournament consisting of the best teams in the country. There's too much variance in CFB. It's not the NFL.

---

You're going to kill the golden goose. People are tuning out and TV execs aren't happy.

---

You want to get people to tune out even more? Have a playoffs with Alabama crushing a 3-loss USC and Clemson dominating Boise St while a 1-loss A&M or LSU sits home. Then I'll stop watching that nonsense.

hunter2012 said:

---

There is no way the best team in the country would be ranked 12th in the final polls. I could see a 5th-8th team but not 12. And there's absolutely no freaking way that a 4 loss P5 team that fell ass backwards into the championship deserves to be in the same playoff as an SEC team that ran the gauntlet can came away at large with an at large berth. If they expand there should never be automatic qualifiers because not every conference is created equal and the weak conferences shouldn't be rewarded for it.

---

This is the right answer. It's also what Jimbo has argued, more or less.

The selection committee is going to be worse than political elections Guys like Eric Hyman will surface. Talking heads from the sports world will lobby their team AND their guy on the selection committee. Vegas will be a big part of the dialogue. Should be fun.

AgLaw02 said:

---

hunter2012 said:

---

If they expand there should never be automatic qualifiers because not every conference is created equal and the weak conferences shouldn't be rewarded for it.

---

This is the right answer. It's also what Jimbo has argued, more or less.

---

Of course there should never be, but that's not how the world works. All 5 power conferences will be represented in any expansion of the playoffs by default. It's the only way to get them all to agree. So talking about 'should' immediately goes out the window if we change the current structure.

As I said on page 1, moving to 8 teams with 6 auto's (5 P5 + 1 Group of 5) is not enticing to the SEC, ACC or B1G. They would have no reason to support it because it hurts their possibility of representation more.

Therefore, 12 teams is the politically convenient landing spot.

If you want to kill this sport, go ahead and guarantee that Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State get into the playoffs every year by expanding. Increase the number of games required to be played, so that only the established teams with real depth can survive a season's worth of attrition. Enjoy that a Syracuse or Kansas State or Washington State team that somehow manages to win a conference championship has the privilege of becoming a scrimmage match that you turn off midway through the second quarter.

I feel like everyone is missing the problem with the current playoffs. The reason Alabama has such a stranglehold on this sport is because a four team playoff guarantees them a spot almost every year, which they always have the best chance of winning, due to having the most depth of any team. This leads to a recruiting pitch that no one else can beat, which means they rake in the top recruiting class every year. That then means that they have the best shot at winning the championship the next year. Rinse and repeat. This is also the reason you have seen a single team rise to prominence in four conferences and then not be able to be replaced. It is also the reason for the PAC 12's fall from power: they simply couldn't get a team through all of their in-fighting quick enough so they were the conference left standing after the playoff game of musical chairs ended in 2014-2015.

I admit the G5 teams get a raw deal, and I understand the P12 wanting to shake things up so they have a chance at the pie. That being said, if you want to sabotage that recruiting pitch, you have to remove postseason guarantees rather than adding them.

The SEC makes a fortune from its bowl contracts. I don't believe the SEC truly supports expansion.

I would like to point out that 12 team playoff would all but guarantee that Alabama, Clemson, OU, and Ohio St would get a spot year over year. Anything equal to or better than 8-4 will secure them a spot. Only 7-5 would close them out and I think we can all agree that with the way things are stacked a losing conference record is all but impossible for these teams. The non-SEC teams can now just drift through conference play and fall ass backwards into the playoff like Ohio State last year. They will always be given benefit of the doubt and only a complete collapse for several seasons could get them excluded.

Awful idea. Won't last more than 10 years.

The four team playoff doesn't work as long as Notre Dame isn't held to the same standard and gets in. This is better for CFB as a whole since they decided to have a playoff. The BCS was a better system, but oh well, too late now.

12 is way too many teams. It should go to 8 and that's it. All P5 Champs plus highest ranked G5 team + 2 at-large / wild-card, with a top 12 qualifier for all, if a P5 Champ or highest ranked G5 team is not top 12 then you knock them out and add an additional at-large / wild-card team.

Why are they overthinking this?! The above gives all teams a defined path to the playoffs. This is not March Madness basketball, we don't need 12 teams. 12 teams is almost 10% of the total teams in FBS. That is just crazy.

Regardless, I am for any expansion as that will help A&M and Jimbo. With our schedule it will be much harder for us to go 11-1 or 12-0 every year and expansion dramatically increases our odds of winning an NC. We might be 9-3 but be a much better team than multiple 10-2/11-1/12-0 teams in other leagues in most seasons.

No matter what they settle on, the SEC is going do dominate the at-large / wild-card teams....

I don't think Notre Dame would be in favor of auto bids.

that works against the Irish

Agsuffering@bulaw said:

---

The SEC makes a fortune from its bowl contracts. I don't believe the SEC truly supports expansion.

---

yes, a 12-team playoff would be bad news for the SEC's lower tier bowl partners.

using 2018 as an example...the SEC and B1G would have combined for 7 teams in the playoffs.

so the Citrus (formerly Capital One) Bowl gets a watered down matchup and it trickles down to the Outback Bowl...and who knows what would be left for the Gator, Texas, etc..,

(plus all the opt-outs from those non-playoff bowl games)

What about a 16-team playoff like FCS?

Would be a great chance to see Bama's third string team beat up on UCF.

12 teams is the right number with all P5 champs plus best G5 team. This leaves 6 at-large teams, which is more than now. The best teams will make it in. Even if there are upsets in conference champ games, the best teams will still make it. Those that are worried about a case where a 2-3 loss conference champion takes a spot are worried about nothing because the best teams will still make it.

Those mid-tier bowl games could host neutral site games at the beginning of the season when the games still matter.....just a thought

W said:

---

Agsuffering@bulaw said:

---

The SEC makes a fortune from its bowl contracts. I don't believe the SEC truly supports expansion.

---

yes, a 12-team playoff would be bad news for the SEC's lower tier bowl partners.

using 2018 as an example...the SEC and B1G would have combined for 7 teams in the playoffs.

so the Citrus (formerly Capital One) Bowl gets a watered down matchup and it trickles down to the Outback Bowl...and who knows what would be left for the Gator, Texas, etc..,

(plus all the opt-outs from those non-playoff bowl games)

---

You are correct except for the fact that all lower tier bowls suck already so replacing them with playoff games is a massive improvement.

This is dumb, like everything done by the NCAA an obvious money grab. Let's see, 12th game, conference c-ships, 2 team, 4 team...? I think something needs to be addressed, pretty sure this isn't it. The season has come down to 1 team out of the whole of BCS teams playing for the one available spot. And that spot is only there if Notre Dame isn't half-ass good. The other three are pretty much filled before the season starts.

8 is enough, but I'd be ok with 16. No byes for anyone.

I also don't care if it's the top 8 that's in. It's a myth that the best team always wins the championship anyway.

I am a regular proponent of the system we have now. That being said - if there is an expansion - we should NEVER have automatic conference championship berths.

That incentivizes weak conferences - it did in the past and it will again. Look at the formation of the Big XII. Texas sand OU stayed SPECIFICALLY because they viewed an easier path to the BCS.

Since expansion of the Division I-A/FBS playoff is inevitiable:

If they expand it to 12:

• Auto-bids for champions the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, Big XII; and highest-ranked conference champion of either the AAC, MWC, SBC, MAC, and C-USA.
• Six at-large bids based on the final CFP poll; the higher-ranking you are, the better the chances you have of getting selected. Top four get a first-round bye.

If they expand it to 16:

• Auto-bids for the champions of the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, Big XII, AAC, MWC, SBC, MAC, and C-USA.
• Six at-large bids based on the final CFP poll; the higher-ranking you are, the better the chances you have of getting selected.

The main title that many college coaches will aim for will be the conference championship to secure an automatic bid...

BrotherChad said:

---

What about a 16-team playoff like FCS?

---

Division I-AA/FCS has a 24-team playoff:

10 auto-bids for the conference champions of Big Sky, Big South, CAA, MVFC, NEC, OVC, Patriot League, PFL, SoCon, and SLC and 14 at-large bids for the highest-ranked available teams; top eight get a first-round bye.

Note: Although the Ivy League conference champion is awarded an auto-bid to the Division I-AA/FCS playoffs, the Ivy League abstains citing academic concerns.

Note: The MEAC and SWAC sends their champions to the Celebration Bowl; their runner-ups and below, if ranked high enough, are eligible for at-large bids to the Division I-AA/FCS playoffs.




Opinion: The Ivy League, MEAC, and SWAC should send their champions to the Division I-AA/FCS playoffs instead of abstaining.

I will note that auto bids can create a draft of CCG losers into some of at large spots. I doubt that is intentional, but in essence repeating the CCG round would be nothing short of awful TV wise. Notice how the CCG runners up showed up in the 2019 rankings.

I generally dislike auto bids. They're fine but superfluous in the NCAA Div I Men's Basketball tournament mainly to seed the tournament with theoretically unexpected outcomes. But not workable at the scale of college football. I do agree in the four-team tournament that weighting with the conference championship has often produced the best football, but some of that is very much the discussion of which conference(s) get left out. Reducing that risk seems to me to hurt the game, but to a certain extent is sll acknowledges the bowl system is in trouble and they ate working to augment it. Just take the Rose and Sugar Bowl. At the minimum each is kissing at least one conference champion and is at best a consolation game that is meaningless for a conference champion that didn't get a semi invite. An expansion definitely reduces that further but provides the selection committee more inventory to place at the same locations for meaningful (if sometimes less interesting) first, second, third, and finals rounds.

I imagine 12 is played off with bottom four against 5-8 with 1-4 getting byes. Then quarterfinsls, semifinals, finals. 11 games total and spread over four weeks.

Something will change almost guaranteed.

greg.w.h said:

---

I will note that auto bids can create a draft of CCG losers into some of at large spots. I doubt that is intentional, but in essence repeating the CCG round would be nothing short of awful TV wise. Notice how the CCG runners up showed up in the 2019 rankings.

I generally dislike auto bids. They're fine but superfluous in the NCAA Div I Men's Basketball tournament mainly to seed the tournament with theoretically unexpected outcomes. But not workable at the scale of college football. I do agree in the four-team tournament that weighting with the conference championship has often produced the best football, but some of that is very much the discussion of which conference(s) get left out. Reducing that risk seems to me to hurt the game, but to a certain extent is sll acknowledges the bowl system is in trouble and they ate working to augment it. Just take the Rose and Sugar Bowl. At the minimum each is kissing at least one conference champion and is at best a consolation game that is meaningless for a conference champion that didn't get a semi invite. An expansion definitely reduces that further but provides the selection committee more inventory to place at the same locations for meaningful (if sometimes less interesting) first, second, third, and finals rounds.

I imagine 12 is played off with bottom four against 5-8 with 1-4 getting byes. Then quarterfinsls, semifinals, finals. 11 games total and spread over four weeks.

Something will change almost guaranteed.

---

Conference championships, like before and currently, will still be a ticket to the postseason; but the higher you are ranked the better seeding you will have.

If you do not win your conference title, then ranking will affect your prospects of being selected for an at-large bid...

Conference titles and rankings will still matter....

W said:

---

I don't think Notre Dame would be in favor of auto bids.

that works against the Irish

---

Simple formula for Notre Dame regardless if the Division I-A/FBS playoffs expanded to either 12 or 16 given that they stay independent:

Win all your games and get the highest rank possible to secure an at-large bid.

Basically this is what they do now...

Bunk Moreland said:

---

longeryak said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

12 is the most politically convenient decision. 8 is a nightmare for conferences like the sec, because just as we discussed on the last thread, it would NEVER be a true top 8. Powers that be would make it power 5 conf champion +1 Go5 + 2 at large.

12 makes more sense than 8, but I'm not for any expansion in general.

---

Disagree. You already had a 10 team playoff in the CCGs with CC autobids. Want in? Then win your CC.

---

This is the argument for **** teams and/or good teams who play in ****ty conferences. Going with auto-bid's based off conference champs only does not create a playoff tournament consisting of the best teams in the country. There's too much variance in CFB. It's not the NFL.

---

It creates the playoff that features the best teams each conference has to offer; which conference is the best?

That will be settled on the field, as it should be.

If it were to expand to 16 with all conference champions getting an auto-bid with six at-large, if an unranked C-USA champion happens to win the rest of their playoff football games en-route to a Division I-AA/FBS national championship, would you argue their legitimacy?

W said:

---

I don't think Notre Dame would be in favor of auto bids.

that works against the Irish

---

They basically have an auto-bid, win 9/10 and in...

I've never understood the argument that a larger playoff field devalues the regular season. I get that it means there will be games where a team knows they can lose and still make the tournament, and even some games where both teams are clearly going to make the tournament no matter which team wins.

But if the idea is that the regular season games are important because they can so easily be the difference between a team's championship hopes being alive or dead, that suggests a judgment that that only games with championship implications matter. And if that's true, the majority of regular season games are meaningless as it is, because all but a handful of teams will be eliminated from playoff contention by the halfway point of the season. When those teams are playing each other, it doesn't matter who wins because the result won't affect the playoff picture at all. With a bigger playoff field, a lot more teams have something left to play for as the season goes on, and a lot more of those games do have title implications.

Right now, if all you care about is the championship and your team starts out 3-3, you might as well tune out for the rest of the season. Even if your team comes together and rallies heroically to go 6-0 down the stretch, who cares? But if going 9-3 with a 6 game win streak means going to the playoffs where stringing another three wins together puts you in the championship game, all those games are really exciting.

Personally, I am for a 16 team bracket with the top 16 teams. No autobids. Seed them and play it out. Yes, there may be some mismatches but the vast majority of the time we will all see the games that we wanted to see all year.

Eliminate conference championship games. Hear me out. Most of these games have already been played during the regular season and are part of your resume. The idea that Oklahoma has to beat Texas twice in the same season to be champion is stupid. Every conference can determine how they want to declare a champion (Division champs, Best record, co-champs if tied), and it is still an honor especially in the SEC. The extra game here puts the participants at a disadvantage playing the extra game leading to the playoff. It is like a reverse bye. The best have to play more games and Notre dame doesn't even have a conference.

There is always 16 teams that have great seasons and are dying to play for more. Play a game every two weeks at bowl sites and you just made 15 bowls very relevant in the football landscape. Think about our Orange bowl win against North Carolina. Now think about that win as a win that advances you in the playoff. It just means more.

BJC said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

I will note that auto bids can create a draft of CCG losers into some of at large spots. I doubt that is intentional, but in essence repeating the CCG round would be nothing short of awful TV wise. Notice how the CCG runners up showed up in the 2019 rankings.

I generally dislike auto bids. They're fine but superfluous in the NCAA Div I Men's Basketball tournament mainly to seed the tournament with theoretically unexpected outcomes. But not workable at the scale of college football. I do agree in the four-team tournament that weighting with the conference championship has often produced the best football, but some of that is very much the discussion of which conference(s) get left out. Reducing that risk seems to me to hurt the game, but to a certain extent is sll acknowledges the bowl system is in trouble and they ate working to augment it. Just take the Rose and Sugar Bowl. At the minimum each is kissing at least one conference champion and is at best a consolation game that is meaningless for a conference champion that didn't get a semi invite. An expansion definitely reduces that further but provides the selection committee more inventory to place at the same locations for meaningful (if sometimes less interesting) first, second, third, and finals rounds.

I imagine 12 is played off with bottom four against 5-8 with 1-4 getting byes. Then quarterfinsls, semifinals, finals. 11 games total and spread over four weeks.

Something will change almost guaranteed.

---

Conference championships, like before and currently, will still be a ticket to the postseason; but the higher you are ranked the better seeding you will have.

If you do not win your conference title, then ranking will affect your prospects of being selected for an at-large bid...

Conference titles and rankings will still matter....

---

They will, but imbalanced schedules make them less than interesting in my opinion. Essentially the cross-division rivalry is either competitive or a joke. And the single other game per season is only interesting because it's a good exhibition game and equally imbalanced.

I am not arguing the divisional conference competition is meaningless.

I am more amenable to the 16 game format as long as the CCG games go away and there are zero autobids. Gof5 has to make top 16 to get in but no longer limited to one participant if more than one qualify. Might see a parity break out in fact.

Sgt. Schultz said:

---

....The best teams will make it in. ....

---

Teams ranked 10-12 with 2+ losses have no business playing for an NC, and in any event 99% of the time they are going to get hammered by the teams ranked 1-3, there is just a huge difference between being good enough to be ranked 1-3 vs. 10-12. Outside the top 10, you could just as easily be #21 as #11, that is not the case for the elite teams.

Whatever, just expand it from 4, aTm will be ready!!!