soon

There should be no automatic qualifiers. Teams that play weak s hedules should be punished for that. Big 12, acc, g5 should play very tough non conference games.

Kozmozag said:

---

There should be no automatic qualifiers. Teams that play weak s hedules should be punished for that. Big 12, acc, g5 should play very tough non conference games.

---

Then again "prove it on the field" should mean you don't have to beat the same team twice.

130+ team is too many for a tournament.

cecil77 said:

---

Kozmozag said:

---

There should be no automatic qualifiers. Teams that play weak s hedules should be punished for that. Big 12, acc, g5 should play very tough non conference games.

---

Then again "prove it on the field" should mean you don't have to beat the same team twice.

130+ team is too many for a tournament.

---

It isn't a 130+ team tournament. Never has been, never will be.

At best there are about 15 or so teams that are contenders, the rest are just the balance of the field. You are really trying hard to make an actual playoff into something it isn't.

schmellba99 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Kozmozag said:

---

There should be no automatic qualifiers. Teams that play weak s hedules should be punished for that. Big 12, acc, g5 should play very tough non conference games.

---

Then again "prove it on the field" should mean you don't have to beat the same team twice.

130+ team is too many for a tournament.

---

It isn't a 130+ team tournament. Never has been, never will be.

At best there are about 15 or so teams that are contenders, the rest are just the balance of the field. You are really trying hard to make an actual playoff into something it isn't.

---

No, I know what it is. A made for TV event to make lots and lots of money and enhance egos. All pro sports are.

And every team in FBS has a chance to earn a spot, so if you include the regular season, it is absolutely a 130+ team tournament.

I don't think it's that big a deal.

I think ultimately, as time goes on, the idea of a "playoff appearance" is going to be less than it has been, so nobody is going to care about a school like ISU getting in and then getting blown out against a school from a major conference. You're going to see coaches get fired 1 year after "making the playoff". It just won't be a big thing.

Now, if ISU gets in for winning a crappy big xii and then rolls through and wins it all, then they've earned every bit of it and will have played/won as many big games as anyone else.

The fact is, for a conference like the big xii, you're as likely to get in as the 2nd team as the 4th or 5th SEC or B10 school. That, plus playing actual programs with a pulse is worth far more than trying to be the best team in a small pool only to get destroyed in the "playoff".

Also, keep in mind the recruiting angle of this - people forget how our recruiting looked prior to our move to the SEC. We routinely battled for recruits against BU, Okie lite & TT. That just doesn't happen very often any longer. Schools in these lesser conferences have a massive governor on their potential. That's not worth whatever easier path folks think they have.

cecil77 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Kozmozag said:

---

There should be no automatic qualifiers. Teams that play weak s hedules should be punished for that. Big 12, acc, g5 should play very tough non conference games.

---

Then again "prove it on the field" should mean you don't have to beat the same team twice.

130+ team is too many for a tournament.

---

It isn't a 130+ team tournament. Never has been, never will be.

At best there are about 15 or so teams that are contenders, the rest are just the balance of the field. You are really trying hard to make an actual playoff into something it isn't.

---

No, I know what it is. A made for TV event to make lots and lots of money and enhance egos. All pro sports are.

And every team in FBS has a chance to earn a spot, so if you include the regular season, it is absolutely a 130+ team tournament.

---

Bit of an overreach since we currently are looking at <10% of teams in the actual playoff. Add another <10% if you count conference championship games which act as play in games for five conferences.

Will it be the 50% we see in the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL??? I doubt it. And does that reduce fan interest REALLY? No.

"Tournament" includes every team, i.e. regular season.

And of course, "fan interest", ie, money, is the primary metric in any entertainment business.

cecil77 said:

---

"Tournament" includes every team, i.e. regular season.

And of course, "fan interest", ie, money, is the primary metric in any entertainment business.

---

So regular season is qualifying but not a play-in. You repeated the claim but dI don't clarify.

I'm not sure fan engagement is solely measured by dollars. Though the conferences and schools undoubtedly want to maximize revenue…

The comparison is the single-game bowl exhibition postseason that lasted until CCGs were added and then the 4-game CFP was added. It's entirely cynical to claim fans didn't demand the BCS NC game or the CFP. Also cynical to suggest there isn't significant can't interest in the expansion to 12. Deflecting by suggesting it only about money isn't supported by your details.

Give up on the evil of money in college football.

Somewhat disagree with OP, yes and no. AP and Coaches poll don't matter, records on 11/1 don't matter.

First, there are NO, ZERO, automatic qualifiers from Power 4, G5, etc. It is simply the five (5) highest rated conference champions. Will that traditionally be SEC, B1G, ACC and Big 12 being included? Likely yes, but there can easily be times when other conference champs are ranked higher than the Big 12 champ, maybe the ACC champ, never for SEC or B1G. It is why Oregon St. and Wash St. are trying to keep and resurrect the PAC 12 at least in name. You don't need to be a Power 4 conference, you just need to be a conference to have a shot for a seat at the table.

Secondly, the CFP committee IMHO still does a MUCH better job than the AP and Coaches polls. They don't release their first ranking until late October, and they take into account schedule, strength of schedule, quality of wins, competitiveness of losses with a view to opponent and location, much more so than just the overall record.

Clearly the Power4 conference champions are going to be in 99.99% of the time. But 10-2 ACC and Big 12 teams will rarely if ever get in or have a legit argument to get in over a 10-2 or maybe even a 9-3 SEC or B1G team. ND can usually get in with a 10-2 record as well despite the NIU loss but given their schedule this season they likely need to be 11-1.

Right now my guess would be 4 SEC, 4 B1G, ACC 2, Big 12 1, G5 1. If ND is 11-1 then subtract one from the B1G.

cecil77 said:

---

One of the best things about the traditional bowl system what that one loss was serious, two could kill you.

---

This was the WORST thing about the old system.

Never asserted anything about "fan interest".

RARay said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

One of the best things about the traditional bowl system what that one loss was serious, two could kill you.

---

This was the WORST thing about the old system.

---

We disagree. Every single game mattered.

Pitt is a pretty good team, they stole Alabama QB and Bama wishes they had him back.
Milroe is not good.

The only team I see with a soft schedule is Notre Dame who got luck with Connor being sick.

Hopefully Haynes King knocks the domes out of the playoff.

https://www.goupstate.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2024/10/11/college-football-playoff-format-selection-sec-big-ten/75587427007/

cecil77 said:

---

RARay said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

One of the best things about the traditional bowl system what that one loss was serious, two could kill you.

---

This was the WORST thing about the old system.

---

We disagree. Every single game mattered.

---

Every single game until you lost one, meaning very few games mattered.

ntxVol said:

---

https://www.goupstate.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2024/10/11/college-football-playoff-format-selection-sec-big-ten/75587427007/

---

It's like an outraged message board post extended to article length. You can feel the author's ire in the caps and lower case sentence.

Quote:

---

. . . Sankey and Petitti, the heads of the SEC and Big Ten families, respectively, said they'll closely evaluate this current playoff format that's on the books for this year and next while determining the format they want for 2026 and beyond

They stated no explicit ultimatums to the playoff selection committee, but fine-tuned ears could not miss their hints: Give us the at-large bids, award us the desirable seeds, or we'll get to work on tilting the playoff more in our favor.
. . .
The playoff format for 2026 and beyond rests in the ruthless palms of Sankey and Petitti. Technically, the other conferences retain a voice, a voice that registers as a whisper. Sankey and Petitti wrested control of the playoff's future format last spring.
. . .
I'm envisioning a playoff selection committee member holding a sign that reads: MuSt SeLeCT B1g aNd SeC TeAMs, oR ThEY'Ll hAvE my HeAd. HaVe MeRcY oN My sOuL!

If this trial run of the expanded playoff works beautifully in favor of the SEC and Big Ten maybe this format retains a chance of continuing. But if the selection committee doesn't do the bidding of the SEC and Big Ten, expect Sankey and Petitti to change the selection rules.

Speculation runs rampant that the two leagues might break off from the other conferences and stage their own hoedown.
. . .
Within the existing sandbox, what might playoff evolution look like? Consider a playoff format in which the Big Ten and SEC earmark as many as three or even four automatic bids apiece for their conferences before the season ever kicks off.
. . .
What a sickening twist, that would be: A playoff that technically includes representation from several conferences, but in which more than half the bids would reserved for two conferences. Forget meritocracy, and insert aristocracy.

Sankey pathetically and successfully grandstanded last season for one-loss Alabama to make the final four-team playoff instead of undefeated Florida State.
. . .
The 13-person playoff selection committee will award their seven at-large playoff bids in December with a guillotine hanging above their necks, and Sankey and Petitti control the trigger.

You shouldn't need a divination guide to tell you who would get the final playoff spot if it comes down to 10-2 Texas A&M or 11-2 Clemson. Enjoy your 11-seed, Aggies, awarded by 13 selectors held hostage by two mafiosos.
. . .

---

I assume that last bit is why you posted the article without comment here.

The article doesn't really say what changed last Spring to where the 2 mafia families now have more control over the playoffs than what they previously had. This article says the same without saying much either. Both conferences have always had the ability to break off, so that can't be what was negotiated.

https://www.magnoliabannernews.com/news/2024/oct/14/sec-big-ten-leaders-mulling-future-of-fast/#:~:text=Big%20Ten%20and%20SEC%20leaders,control%20over%20what%20comes%20next.

Quote:

---

. . . It's likely that two teams will be added to the format beginning in 2026, which is also when ESPN's six-year, $7.8 billion contract to televise the playoffs begin. Big Ten and SEC leaders have made proposals to get three or four automatic spots in the new playoff. Neither idea has been popular among the rest of the conferences, but the SEC and Big Ten have negotiated to have more control over what comes next.
. . .
Connected to the playoff format is a possible change in scheduling that would add an interconference Big Ten-SEC game to each team's schedule.

Part of what the conferences would like to achieve with the new postseason format and more automatic bids would be to eliminate the influence of the selection committee, whose poll doles out at-large berths.

To whatever extent the subjective poll remains part of the formula, a Big Ten-SEC matchup in the regular season would ostensibly help both conferences by improving their strength of schedule, which is a factor in the poll. It would also shrink the number of available opportunities schools from other conferences would have against these teams from the top two leagues.
. . .

---

RARay said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

RARay said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

One of the best things about the traditional bowl system what that one loss was serious, two could kill you.

---

This was the WORST thing about the old system.

---

We disagree. Every single game mattered.

---

Every single game until you lost one, meaning very few games mattered.

---

hmm.. interesting point. The definition of "matter" would then come in to play.

My view, is this is fun as hell to watch. The playoff starting Dec. 20 will be awesome.

And to me if any team like Iowa St, Army, etc win it by "sneaking" in to the top 12, that's what the 12 team playoff is for. Sorry but a 9-3 Alabama team had their chance or even 9-3 ATM team. NIL is maybe causing some more balance overall so tired of hearing how a 2 loss SEC team is way better than an undefeated mid tier team is.

The team that wins the playoff will deserve it more than any other MNC in the past 50 years. To win 3, or possibly 4 games in 4 weeks against the best is the final test.

Fact is, a mid tier vs a 2 loss sec team, who likely played one really good non- conference opponent and multiple highly ranked sec teams and 1/2 of them on the road, is better and more deserving of a playoff berth. You let Vegas give the line on those teams at a neutral site and the sec 2 loss would almost always be the favorite.

cecil77 said:

---

RARay said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

One of the best things about the traditional bowl system what that one loss was serious, two could kill you.

---

This was the WORST thing about the old system.

---

We disagree. Every single game mattered.

---

Undefeated Florida State got left out of a 4 team playoff last year. Every game most definitely did
NOT matter….

Yan2110 said:

---

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.

---

I think that will eventually happen. But they won't take the likes of Vandy and Rutgers with them.

The NIL and transfer portal has increased parity in the SEC. I like the expanded playoffs because its leaves ore margin for error. Also, the opportunity to host playoff games is awesome. The only thing I don't like about the expanded playoffs is that 3 CFP games are aired on the same day as two NFL games on December 21st. I follow both college football and NFL, and I think the two NFL games on NBC and Fox will beat the 2 CFP games on TNT Sports by a landslide for several reasons.

1. The NFL is much more popular than college football.

2. The NFL games on NBC and Fox will be much more accessible to football fans than the CFP games on ESPN because many people don't have cable, including myself.

3. Both NFL games could have playoff implications in week 16.

4. All 4 NFL teams playing on December 21st will play 4 days later on Christmas: Kansas City Chiefs at Pittsburgh Steelers at 1:00 PM eastern time and Baltimore Ravens at Houston Texans at 4:30 PM, and both games will be aired on Netflix. That means NFL fans will get to see these 4 teams play twice in a 5-day span.

The 3rd CFP game on ABC/ESPN will be aired after the completion of both NFL Games.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2024-08-21/2024-25-college-football-playoff-schedule-dates-tv-channel-sites

To me this is the most reasonable way to fix College Sports, but won't happen.

I get the powderpuff schedule teams having nice records SLIDING IN, so to speak. But like the 'Playin Teams' in the NCAA BBall tourney, they might make a few $$$,BUT they get Creamed in that 1st Game. And chances are, their fan base diesn't travel, etc.

Now down the road YOU make the case for MINIMIZING the No of Auto Qualifiers. I agree.

In this format it should NOT be about Making
the Cut. It should be the Path to the NC.

Think about the JFF year. We might have had 1 more home game, but NOBODY WANTED TO FACE US AT THE END OF THAT YEAR. The only team that could beat us was ourselves.

Faustus said:

---

The article doesn't really say what changed last Spring to where the 2 mafia families now have more control over the playoffs than what they previously had. This article says the same without saying much either. Both conferences have always had the ability to break off, so that can't be what was negotiated.

---

I assume he's talking about the fact the SEC and B1G are getting a larger cut of the money. That's only the beginning, they will continue to bully the other conferences to tilt things in their favor. Forget about selecting the most deserving teams or the selection process being fair, it's all about the money, always has been and always will be.

There is some faulty reasoning here. You say we need to lock in at 12 but that may favor lower tier conferences. If you just change to 24 now a lot of that goes away instantly. You also solve the problem of the massively devalued bowl system. Someone just made up 12 teams there is no magic to that number.