Welcome to college football 2024 and it's myriad of opportunity for teams historically who have no shot. Today there are still 60+ teams who could get into the playoff mathematically and it makes for exciting discussion, games, outcomes, and possibilities for fan bases.

I love the ideas of 12 teams and it possibly expanding in the future... If I was the commissioner, I would lock in on 12 for now and keep it that way. We KNOW we can pinpoint the best team out of 12, and takes the guesswork out of #1 and #2 in the older formats.

But, the curve ball in the whole process is the super conferences... and the ripple effect this may cause. For decades we've had tough conferences (like SEC and SEC west) beating up on each other, making it harder to come out unscathed, but we may have just amplified that problem. The result will be a tougher road for super conference teams, and easier road for mid-tier conferences.

I think one of the more un-intended outcomes will be teams like Iowa State shining supreme from a mid-tier conference, when they would normally have 1-2 losses by seasons end. We are going to breed more undefeated teams, and 1-loss teams who are arguing for a playoff spot, when truly they don't deserve one.

We keep thinking, and assuming the big conferences will get 3-4 slots and others will get their champions only, but after witnessing what is happening, I tend to think it's going to be the opposite. We are going to have more teams like ND, Army, Navy, Pitt, BYU, SMU, etc who have a stellar record, in a gutted conference and 10-1 appeals to the voters who put them into the playoffs.

I think the downside is more mid-tier teams, who have weak schedules, who slide into spots that truly shouldn't be there vs 9-3 Bama team who got taken to the woodshed in the super tough SEC and could trounce the mid-tier teams.

Just an early observation... (let the debate begin).

I agree with everything you just said....

Super Conferences aren't bad if divisions make sense.

B1G and ACC adding western teams inherently doesn't make sense and will lead to more losses like you are saying due to travel and tougher match ups

Also, SEC not having divisions will cause more chaos and keep people out. tu and ou should have joined the west and the alabama schools go to the east, clean line break

So I think it's more the structure of the conferences than the idea of super conferences vs mid tier conferences.



Lastly, I will always die on the hill that it should be 8 teams, no byes, with BCS computer ratings, no committee. First two out are 9 and 10 so you are only discussing top 10 teams

I think the polls will still favor the big programs. It only looks like it'll be trouble right now because there's still a lot of football left to play. Army and Navy plays each other and Notre Dame plays both. Pitt and SMU will play next week and the winner will presumably play against Clemson who easily deserves to be in regardless. Big 12 is tricky to predict as it's setting up to have two potentially undefeated teams in the conference championship. The loser could sneak in with one loss. I think the pollsters know it's tougher to play in the SEC and Big 10 so they'll end up allowing an extra loss so that they end up comparing a 2 loss SEC/Big 10 team to a 1 loss other conference team.

I'm not stressed about an ultra-flawed and vulnerable looking Alabama or ole miss missing out on the 11 seed in favor of an exciting team from a mid tier conference having a great year. It will keep things interesting. No one should reap the benefits of being in the richest conference with the most exposure and then belly-ache after losing three games. Is anyone going to really make the argument they are the best team in the country after losing to three different teams in an 8 game conference slate?

I think it's fair as fans that:

1. WE ask for best 12. I think the top five conferences stabilizes the entire system even if the Go5/6 representative truly is unworthy. We get to see that!

2. WE ask that the committee make fully transparent decisions for rankings. Tell us exactly who voted for which. We already have seen better matchups this year even if you hate the change, but putting three Big Ten and three SEC guaranteed invites just causes problems when a fair ranking build trust. Which Bill Hancock isn't well known for as he grew his fiefdom out of the Georgia/OU anti-trust win against the NCAA. I'm fine with that because the NCAA lost control of television, btw!

3. If we expand, can we please add more on-campus games? Don't care how!!!

Which is exactly why the super conferences will split off eventually (sooner more likely than later). They will not abide giving the extra attention and money to lesser programs for long.

The opaque playoff selection committee was created to maximize revenue by selecting big name teams by whatever logic is necessary. They will begrudgingly let a couple of upstarts in each year, but they have to ensure the big 2 conferences stay happy, lest they take their ball and play elsewhere. You remember 2020, right?

I highly doubt it. BYU & Iowa State are just barely in the top 12/13 and only there because they're undefeated. They have to be PERFECT to stay in the picture and they won't because they will at least play in the title game. K-State is the only other Big XII team ranked. Any losses hurts them tremendously and its still hard to go undefeated. Two Big XII teams are unlikely to get in if they have one loss. If BYU & Iowa State go undefeated and play each other in the championship game and one loses, I doubt the other gets in. The rankings already reflect the love for the SEC/Big Ten. That ain't gonna change.

I would *LOVE* for Army/Navy to upset the apple cart and throw back to a time a century ago when they dominated college football but that just isn't happening. The lower teams aren't getting much respect now and not much is changing.

Quote:

---

If BYU & Iowa State go undefeated and play each other in the championship game and one loses, I doubt the other gets in.

---

I guarantee both get in if that is the scenario. no way they leave out a "power 4" team that was 12-0.

I agree with you.

If it's billed as 'the 12 most deserving teams' it will always fail. In a system as large as the NCAA, you would literally need a shorter 'regular season' and a 'everybody makes the playoffs' scenario where you decide everything on the field. Basketball couldn't eliminate controversy with 64.

However if we understand it as the mot deserving from different groups; then it's more understandable. You have to be in the top couple from your group regardless of how easy or hard it is.

There are better and worse divisions in the NFL too. In the end, you gotta win the games that matter and I don't think any of these mid-tier teams are going to win those games. But if they do, it'll be a fun story.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

If BYU & Iowa State go undefeated and play each other in the championship game and one loses, I doubt the other gets in.

---

I guarantee both get in if that is the scenario. no way they leave out a "power 4" team that was 12-0.

---

They play each other in the conference championship so one is guaranteed to lose.

agchugger said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

If BYU & Iowa State go undefeated and play each other in the championship game and one loses, I doubt the other gets in.

---

I guarantee both get in if that is the scenario. no way they leave out a "power 4" team that was 12-0.

---

They play each other in the conference championship so one is guaranteed to lose.

---

yet they would still be 12-0 to finish the season.

there is no way the committee kicks out the loser of that game.

but this is all academic as both likely lose a game before then

agchugger said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

If BYU & Iowa State go undefeated and play each other in the championship game and one loses, I doubt the other gets in.

---

I guarantee both get in if that is the scenario. no way they leave out a "power 4" team that was 12-0.

---

They play each other in the conference championship so one is guaranteed to lose.

---

That's why he left it at 12-0 vs. 13-0 and 12-1. The thought is the committee won't penalize teams for having to play an extra game in the conference championship.

Edit - too slow.

BMX Bandit said:

---

agchugger said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

If BYU & Iowa State go undefeated and play each other in the championship game and one loses, I doubt the other gets in.

---

I guarantee both get in if that is the scenario. no way they leave out a "power 4" team that was 12-0.

---

They play each other in the conference championship so one is guaranteed to lose.

---

yet they would still be 12-0 to finish the season.

there is no way the committee kicks out the loser of that game.

but this is all academic as both likely lose a game before then

---

Agreed, going undefeated is hard no matter who you are and BYU & Iowa State going undefeated would be tremendous.

Get rid of the cupcake games against community colleges. Or have 2 games at beginning of the season as a pre-season.

Make the W/L record mean something

Until polls and committees are eliminated from the process, it will be flawed.

With unbalanced conference schedules (not playing the same teams) it's flawed.

They don't care. They want schools that draw ratings, damn the "deserved" or the "best".

You guys thinking they care about "fair" are naive.

Faustus said:

---

agchugger said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

If BYU & Iowa State go undefeated and play each other in the championship game and one loses, I doubt the other gets in.

---

I guarantee both get in if that is the scenario. no way they leave out a "power 4" team that was 12-0.

---

They play each other in the conference championship so one is guaranteed to lose.

---

That's why he left it at 12-0 vs. 13-0 and 12-1. The thought is the committee won't penalize teams for having to play an extra game in the conference championship.

Edit - too slow.

---

It really depends on who is left. They're going to be competing with the ACC for slots, not the SEC/Big Ten. Its going to be deciding between a 1 or 2 loss ACC team, not a 3 loss SEC/Big Ten team.

If you look at rankings, there is still a ton of bias towards historical favorites. Look at Miami/Pitt. Both are undefeated. Neither has really played anyone. One is 6, the other is 20. There will always be more bias towards bigger name programs that have played bigger games to get in the championship. BYU/Iowa State will have played one game agains the SEC/Big Ten if they go undefeated (Iowa). I can see them getting left out due to the resume. What would be their best win besides beating each other?

We are stuck with the 12 team format for a few years. At the next iteration, go to 16 teams with no conference championship games. Conferences determine who their regular season champion is since it doesn't really mean much under the playoff system. First round two rounds of playoffs on campuses. If you/we can't get into a 16 team bracket, get better.

In 2005, when I was at Appalachian State and they won the championship 3 years in a row, the Division I-AA playoffs consisted of 16 teams. The now FCS playoff is 28 teams.

Here's how they make their selections:

• The teams are selected regionally
• There are four super regions that will make up four brackets in the tournament. Seven teams from each super region will make the playoffs
• There are no automatic bids for conference champions
• Teams are selected at-large based on published criteria including but not limited to winning percentage against Division II competition, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, results against teams over .500, and more.

it's one of the old time adages of sports -- both college and professional

better to be a big fish in a small pond...than a big fish in a big pond

BYU, Iowa State, Clemson, Miami, Notre Dame, et al....are cruising to the playoff

and several really good 2-loss or 3-loss SEC teams are going to miss out because they played a much tougher conference schedule

just wait until the SEC goes to a 9-game league schedule -- the situation will get worse

CCG need to go away go to 16 teams no byes
If it was 16 it would be
4-5sec
4-5 B1G
The other 6-8 would be acc big 12 group 5 ;Norte dame
And ND needs to join a conference and the SEC needs to go to 9 conference games

I agree on Notre Dame no longer being allowed to not have to go through a tough regular season conference schedule where they have to play home and homes series.

SEC and Big 10 should just form a super super conference, have our own regular season and playoff, and screw everyone else. These teams that are waltzing through the regular season against weak competition are gonna get curb stomped in the playoffs.

When we were at just the BCS Championship game, people would worry about this time of the year that there would be too many worthy undefeated teams to select just 2. MOST years, it worked itself out.

When we went to 4, people would worry about this time of the year that there would be too many worthy undefeated and 1-loss teams to select just 4. MOST years, it worked itself out.


Watching this year unfold, I am confident that the 18-22 y.o. kids on most those undefeated teams will lose focus and drop a game this year. Upsets, flukes, and funny bounces tend to sort these things out.

And the disagreement with the OP is that the curve ball is that super conferences would beat themselves up was not unpredictable.

Mike Sherman could have predicted this. Yes, the Big 12 and ACC might have an easier path for a team or two to land as an at-large team, however the extra $20 mm per year every SEC school makes should be of some comfort for the SEC team that might have gotten left out (and would have been left out in previous formats).

The real downside is that either BYU, Iowa State, or god help us Texas Tech is going to get the #4 spot guaranteed for winning the non-existent 12.

The playoff system devalues the impact of regular season losses. One of the best things about the traditional bowl system what that one loss was serious, two could kill you. And, you never had to beat the same team twice. Probably should go full NFLish - at most 64 teams with tightly controlled schedules and 16 team playoffs. I think it would have little to do with collegiate football - but hell, I'll be dead soon enough anyway...

cecil77 said:

---

The playoff system devalues the impact of regular season losses. One of the best things about the traditional bowl system what that one loss was serious, two could kill you. And, you never had to beat the same team twice. Probably should go full NFLish - at most 64 teams with tightly controlled schedules and 16 team playoffs. I think it would have little to do with collegiate football - but hell, I'll be dead soon enough anyway...

---

The 2 loss team is going to be on the outside looking in just like always. Where it will be dicey in the conference championship games and the name of the two loss team. Right now, Ole Miss is toast. If, big if, the committee can grow some balls and put as many 1 loss teams in as possible it will only help to increase the importance of the regular season.

Totally disagree on trying to put as many one loss teams in as possible. Who you play in the regular season matters. Playing multiple highly ranked opponents vs either no ranked opponents or barely ranked opponents should be a big consideration. SEC should have a minimum of 4 teams in no matter what. BIG should have 3+ in no matter what. Nobody in the Big 12 or ACC would make it through a full SEC schedule with less than 2 losses, more likely 3+.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

The real downside is that either BYU, Iowa State, or god help us Texas Tech is going to get the #4 spot guaranteed for winning the non-existent 12.

---

On the bright side whomever is the 5 seed gets a much easier matchup in their 2nd game than the big 2 conference winners get in their first.

Agilaw said:

---

Totally disagree on trying to put as many one loss teams in as possible. Who you play in the regular season matters. Playing multiple highly ranked opponents vs either no ranked opponents or barely ranked opponents should be a big consideration. SEC should have a minimum of 4 teams in no matter what. BIG should have 3+ in no matter what. Nobody in the Big 12 or ACC would make it through a full SEC schedule with less than 2 losses, more likely 3+.

---

I can see both sides. I know I am tired of seeing of seeing blue bloods get the benefit of the doubt. People "think" a 10-2 name brand team played a tough schedule because they played a bunch of other overhyped name brand teams (see Michigan now) when in reality it is a bunch of middle of the pack teams with media bias in their corner.

Agilaw said:

---

Totally disagree on trying to put as many one loss teams in as possible. Who you play in the regular season matters. Playing multiple highly ranked opponents vs either no ranked opponents or barely ranked opponents should be a big consideration. SEC should have a minimum of 4 teams in no matter what. BIG should have 3+ in no matter what. Nobody in the Big 12 or ACC would make it through a full SEC schedule with less than 2 losses, more likely 3+.

---

I agree in concept, but I'm not a big fan of using those rankings that give certain schools a rankings boost because media slotted them there in August, so certain teams are penalized more for losses while others stay high.

Also, the SEC isn't exactly helping itself by playing only 1 P4 Conference in OOC play and then 3 contract cupcakes. There needs to be more inter-conference play.


The rankings I trust the most is Massey composite rankings of about 70 computer rankings and about 3 human rankings. That has 8 SEC teams in the top 20:
Texas (1)
Bama (4)
Georgia 9
A&M 13
Tenn 14
Miss 16
LSU 19
Missouri 20

SEC and Big 10 should just form a super super conference, have our own regular season and playoff, and screw everyone else. These teams that are waltzing through the regular season against weak competition are gonna get curb stomped in the playoffs.