Jarrin' Jay said:

---

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!!!

---

We have spent a lot of time lecturing people on how contests will resolve. Why not play the games and see. Could they possibly be less competitive than the Spam and Eggs Bowl in Manchester, England at 6am on a Tuesday? Probably not

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

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.

---

Repeat this for those in the back and/or who are stuck on the soon-to-be antiquated bowl system. One thing the CFP has right so far is that it starts its ranking poll around mid-season to the end of the conference championship games to see which teams are doing good and which teams are not.

I say expand the Division I-A/FBS playoff to 16 teams:

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

This way no allegations of conference favoritism can be made due to each conference having at least one playoff team in the quest for the national championship which will be decided on the field as it should be.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

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.

---

Huh? SEC is pretty much guaranteed to average 25% of the slots or better under an eight team playoff structured that way. It has been years since the B1G or ACC #2 has been on the cusp of of deserving a shot unless you count ND as the ACC.

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

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.

---

You are 100% correct. If people really valued the regular season so much they would make P5 only non-conference games a rule. Prairie View A&M, New Mexico, and Kent St. are devaluing our regular season. Fix that, then we can talk about the rest.

rootube said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Aggieair said:

---

BAS65 said:

---

Makes no sense at all. With all the opt outs the national championship game will be all freshmen and walkons

---

No one has opted out of a playoff game yet. Only non-playoff games. This would definitely reduce opt-outs for high profile games like the NY6.

---

Didn't one opt out from Ohio State a few years ago?

---

I think you are thinking about Bosa in 2018 who opted out the year OSU missed the playoffs. He had nagging injury and ended up the #2 overall pick so probably a good decision for him.

---

Ah. I still could swear there was some player that opted out of the national championship game but I'm probably just mixing them up.

4 said:

---

Then they all need to get better at football

---

That has been clear. They still *****

Read The Athletic article on this(behind a paywall).

The original playoffs were going to be a bigger field but they didn't want to hurt the Bowls. They now understand they've unintentionally reduced the bowls to exhibition games and cited UF and other opt outs this past bowl season.They expect an expanded playoffs to kill many bowls and thus need a big enough playoff field to regain that expected revenue loss.

Playoff viewership has dropped dramatically due to the Southeast domination of the playoff slots as well as a drop off for bowl viewership since they matter even less. They had no idea the damage that would be done to the PAC from not getting in year in and year out. TV will not pay for/sign off on any change that doesn't bring in teams(and viewership) from across the country. You can't change the format until 2026 without it being something TV(ESPN) signs off on as the contracts run thru 2025.

Quote:

---

The fear of fatigue from a significant portion of the college-football watching public is real. With no salary cap and no draft to even out the talent levels among the teams, college football can't rely on rapid changes in teams' fortunes to keep things fresh. That means there is no telling when a new set of teams might cycle up to take the place of some of the current dominant teams.

---

Most amused by the supposed surprise that bowls could be protected when you remove four top teams from the top bowls. The BCS two-team championship also diluted the value of the NY6-style bowls.

This sounds to me like they're managing our expectations after the fact. Though I don't imply this article is false. Supposedly Greg Sankey is the key power wielder. I'll note Bjork brought up the 12-team idea either in the April or May Town Hall. So it sounds like the SEC is providing meaningful thought leadership.

If they went to 16 they could seed ten CCG qualifiers plus GO5 plus five at large and seed them all and give top eight home games. Lose the conference revenue from the CCG, though and it still is a very satisfying game to watch as the challenger tries to take down the presumptive champion.

Interesting article. Bowls were on life support with a four team playoff. With a 12 team playoff they are dead completely. Greed will finally get us to a 12 team playoff, the only surprise is they didn't propose a 24 team playoff to try and offset the loss. Now they just need to abolish FCS non-conference games. Conference only would be fantastic in my book. It would be nice to see SEC east opponents more than once every decade.

Bowl games haven't mattered for 25+ years, why do they still exist?

Would suck to be one of the lower tier conference winners and not get the BYE. You get to play an extra game for your conference championship just to slide into a game with an at-large team, which if you win, nets you a game against one of the rested teams.

I would say expand the College Football Playoffs to 8 teams: The Power 5 conference champions, highest ranked Group of 5 team, and 2 at large bids. The objective part would be auto bids for the Power 5 conference champions, and the subjective part would include ranking the highest Group of 5 team, selecting the 2 at-large teams, and ranking all 8 teams.

5 + 1 + 3? Did I scan that correctly?


You caught it!!!

greg.w.h said:

---

5 + 1 + 3? Did I scan that correctly?

---

Yeah, I corrected it to 5 + 1 + 2. I forgot about that highest Group of 5 team, but I can also understand why many believe G5 teams should never be in the college football playoffs.

So paraphrasing, sounds like they wanna:
- give in, to pacify all the whiners that barely missed out, except that'll never go away, it'll just be #13 instead of #5
- make the non playoff bowls even more irrelevant
- by having the top 4 teams play other teams that are less good, it's gonna create more blowouts and just postpone the near inevitable matchup of two of the Top 4 teams

Personally I've never felt any of these are good things.

This just keeps getting better. I just read that there will be no special exception for Notre Dame in the new 12 team format. Welcome to the ACC ND.

12 team playoff likely blowouts in bold:
Round1
5v12
6v11
7v10
8v9

Round2
1v8
2v7
3v6
4v5

Round3
1v4
2v3

Round4
1v2


That gives you 6 blowouts and 5 real games.

I know - you've got to play the games to know how it turns out (and yes, I know a #4 Bama has won) but I don't thing we've seen a realistic contender outside of the top 6 yet. I don't see a whole lot of value in including #7&8, and almost none in #9-12.

rangerdanger said:

---

Would suck to be one of the lower tier conference winners and not get the BYE. You get to play an extra game for your conference championship just to slide into a game with an at-large team, which if you win, nets you a game against one of the rested teams.

---

When the alternative is to go undefeated and still get left out this is a great deal.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

12 team playoff likely blowouts in bold:
Round1
5v12
6v11
7v10
8v9

Round2
1v8
2v7
3v6
4v5

Round3
1v4
2v3

Round4
1v2


That gives you 6 blowouts and 5 real games.

I know - you've got to play the games to know how it turns out (and yes, I know a #4 Bama has won) but I don't thing we've seen a realistic contender outside of the top 6 yet. I don't see a whole lot of value in including #7&8, and almost none in #9-12.

---

Now do the ****ty bowl games.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

I would say expand the College Football Playoffs to 8 teams: The Power 5 conference champions, highest ranked Group of 5 team, and 2 at large bids. The objective part would be auto bids for the Power 5 conference champions, and the subjective part would include ranking the highest Group of 5 team, selecting the 2 at-large teams, and ranking all 8 teams.

---

I think that boat sailed. We are far more likely to stop at more than 12 teams now than less.

Oh, sure. Games with no real value, to be sure. And opt outs are sucking the life out of them. But they typically feature a more even match up, half of the teams end on a high note, they feature different locations, and if your team is playing you can choose to watch.

Even with it's obvious flaws, I still prefer meaningless bowl games to March Madness.

16 teams. Every single conference champ plus the best of the rest. With the transfer portal it makes all the conferences relevant and will help keep college football relevant beyond the power 5 as a corollary.

rootube said:

---

rangerdanger said:

---

Would suck to be one of the lower tier conference winners and not get the BYE. You get to play an extra game for your conference championship just to slide into a game with an at-large team, which if you win, nets you a game against one of the rested teams.

---

When the alternative is to go undefeated and still get left out this is a great deal.

---

I guess. But I also feel like all the at-large teams need to play each other first, since they didn't have to play in or lost their conference championship.

That screws up the flow they want in the bracket unless they did 10 teams, with only 4 at large playing each other. I would also let the top teams pick who they want to play and define the bracket that way. There would be some intrigue if #1 Bama were to pick some SEC at-large team they've stomped already vs an undefeated Coastal Carolina or something.

rootube said:

---

Interesting article. Bowls were on life support with a four team playoff. With a 12 team playoff they are dead completely. Greed will finally get us to a 12 team playoff, the only surprise is they didn't propose a 24 team playoff to try and offset the loss. Now they just need to abolish FCS non-conference games. Conference only would be fantastic in my book. It would be nice to see SEC east opponents more than once every decade.

---

For the non-conference schedules, Division I football matches will always be played whether it is:

• Division I FBS vs Division I FBS
• Division I FBS vs Division I FCS
• Division I FCS vs Division I FCS

rangerdanger said:

---

rootube said:

---

rangerdanger said:

---

Would suck to be one of the lower tier conference winners and not get the BYE. You get to play an extra game for your conference championship just to slide into a game with an at-large team, which if you win, nets you a game against one of the rested teams.

---

When the alternative is to go undefeated and still get left out this is a great deal.

---

I guess. But I also feel like all the at-large teams need to play each other first, since they didn't have to play in or lost their conference championship.

That screws up the flow they want in the bracket unless they did 10 teams, with only 4 at large playing each other. I would also let the top teams pick who they want to play and define the bracket that way. There would be some intrigue if #1 Bama were to pick some SEC at-large team they've stomped already vs an undefeated Coastal Carolina or something.

---

It's not perfect for sure, but it is so much better than what came before it's hard to quibble about the problems. Personally, i would add more teams and just seed them by ranking.

rootube said:

---

rangerdanger said:

---

rootube said:

---

rangerdanger said:

---

Would suck to be one of the lower tier conference winners and not get the BYE. You get to play an extra game for your conference championship just to slide into a game with an at-large team, which if you win, nets you a game against one of the rested teams.

---

When the alternative is to go undefeated and still get left out this is a great deal.

---

I guess. But I also feel like all the at-large teams need to play each other first, since they didn't have to play in or lost their conference championship.

That screws up the flow they want in the bracket unless they did 10 teams, with only 4 at large playing each other. I would also let the top teams pick who they want to play and define the bracket that way. There would be some intrigue if #1 Bama were to pick some SEC at-large team they've stomped already vs an undefeated Coastal Carolina or something.

---

It's not perfect for sure, but it is so much better than what came before it's hard to quibble about the problems. Personally, i would add more teams and just seed them by ranking.

---

One thing the CFP has right so far is that it starts its ranking poll around mid-season to the end of the conference championship games to see which teams are doing good and which teams are not.

I say expand the Division I-A/FBS playoff to 16 teams:

• Auto-bids for each conference champion of the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, Big XII, AAC, MWC, SBC, MAC, and C-USA respectively.
• Six at-large bids based on the rankings in the final CFP poll; the higher-ranking you are, the better the chances you have of getting selected for an at-large bid.
• After each team is paired, the playoff game will be played at the home field of the higher-ranked team until the national championship at a neutral site.

This way each Division I-A/FBS conference has a fair shot at winning the national championship which will be decided on the field as it should be.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Oh, sure. Games with no real value, to be sure. And opt outs are sucking the life out of them. But they typically feature a more even match up, half of the teams end on a high note, they feature different locations, and if your team is playing you can choose to watch.

Even with it's obvious flaws, I still prefer meaningless bowl games to March Madness.

---

I think people put to much emphasis on if there will be even matchups. There will be nail biters and there will be blowouts but the drama will be 100x times better with more teams fighting for a title.

W said:

---

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

that works against the Irish

---

ND ad was on the proposal committee, im sure they'll be called the independent winner so they can be an 1-12 seed and not be affected, just be whatever their ranking is or something like that.

And anyone who *****es about that better not considering they'd cruise through the acc and always be at least 2nd there

I think your argument for 16 teams is good. I looked at replacing the CCG for the A5 (autonomy) with seeds for division winners. Then best GO5 champion which leaves five slots. I think steering to bowl partners (which the subcommittee is recommending) is probably a "git er done" requirement.

The number games is actually a huge issue with players having access to agents. So avoiding the CCG extra game might be a necessity.

BJC said:

---

rootube said:

---

rangerdanger said:

---

rootube said:

---

rangerdanger said:

---

Would suck to be one of the lower tier conference winners and not get the BYE. You get to play an extra game for your conference championship just to slide into a game with an at-large team, which if you win, nets you a game against one of the rested teams.

---

When the alternative is to go undefeated and still get left out this is a great deal.

---

I guess. But I also feel like all the at-large teams need to play each other first, since they didn't have to play in or lost their conference championship.

That screws up the flow they want in the bracket unless they did 10 teams, with only 4 at large playing each other. I would also let the top teams pick who they want to play and define the bracket that way. There would be some intrigue if #1 Bama were to pick some SEC at-large team they've stomped already vs an undefeated Coastal Carolina or something.

---

It's not perfect for sure, but it is so much better than what came before it's hard to quibble about the problems. Personally, i would add more teams and just seed them by ranking.

---

One thing the CFP has right so far is that it starts its ranking poll around mid-season to the end of the conference championship games to see which teams are doing good and which teams are not.

I say expand the Division I-A/FBS playoff to 16 teams:

• Auto-bids for each conference champion of the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, Big XII, AAC, MWC, SBC, MAC, and C-USA respectively.
• Six at-large bids based on the rankings in the final CFP poll; the higher-ranking you are, the better the chances you have of getting selected for an at-large bid.
• After each team is paired, the playoff game will be played at the home field of the higher-ranked team until the national championship at a neutral site.

This way each Division I-A/FBS conference has a fair shot at winning the national championship which will be decided on the field as it should be.

---

It's more democratic for sure. This whole thing is kind of being forced on the P5 commissioners. I don't see them giving that much away ever.

The proposal is now out.

https://collegefootballplayoff.com/news/2021/6/10/12-team-playoff-proposal.aspx

Interesting bits from reading reactions.

1-4 are the top ranked conference champs and get a 1st round bye which keeps a bit of every game matters. But that means ND/BYU never get a bye unless they join a conference.

First round is played at the higher ranked teams home and Quarterfinals in NYD bowls. Means 1-4 don't get a home playoff game.

Expansion will ruin the sport

Wreckingcrew22 said:

---

Expansion will ruin the sport

---

Interviews with the four committee members indicate they thought a 4 team CFP was ruining the sport from further concentrating talent at the few big name schools with a shot at the present CFP system. Post season TV rating are way down from same teams fatigue. 1-4 get a bye and 5-8 get 1st round home field keeping every game matters.

Ags would have been in the CFP last season hosting Indiana at home in the first round under this system.

Wreckingcrew22 said:

---

Expansion will ruin the sport

---

Isn't this always what some people say when any sport expands their playoff? Shouldn't we have lots of examples by now of sports that have been "ruined"? Can't really think of any tho...