1. Wins over #4, #15, and #24, undefeated
2. Wins over #6 and #11, loss to #14
3. Win over #24, undefeated
4. Loss to #1, blew out most unranked competition
5. No wins over ranked competition, technically undefeated (due to highly controversial ref call)
6. Loss to #2, blew out most unranked competition
7. Win over #14, loss to unranked team
8. Win over #10, loss to G5 team
9. Wins over #17 and #20, undefeated
10. Wins over #16 and #25, loss to #8
11. No wins over ranked competition, undefeated
11. Loss to #2, blew out unranked competition
13. No wins over ranked competition, undefeated
14. Win over #2, losses to #7 and an unranked team
15. Loss to #1, blew out most G5 competition
16. Win over #19, losses to #10 and an unranked team
17. Loss to #9, blew out most unranked competition
18. Undefeated
19. Loss to #16 and an unranked team
20. Loss to #9
21. Undefeated, have blown out G5 competition
22. Loss to #15
23. Loss to #17 and an unranked team
24. Losses to #1 and #3
25. Losses to #10 and #14

People are going to realize the 12 team playoff isn't as big as people thought. There are a lot of undefeated or one-loss teams, meaning 10-2 may not be a shoe-in like people thought. The ACC and Big10 can potentially have three 12-0 teams, along with the Big12 having two. Add that to the G5 winner and the potential log jam of good SEC teams, and the the bubble may be too narrow for 10-2.

12 team playoff is too big, not sure why we need more than 8. Big drop off after 8.

TexanJeff said:

---

12 team playoff is too big, not sure why we need more than 8. Big drop off after 8.

---

Based on the latest AP poll, that big drop off after 8 would currently leave out 5 undefeated teams and the current SEC leader.

Each of the 3 "non-mega conference" auto-bids could be "unworthy" so should be complemented with three at-large bids. This means we start with SEC & Big10 champs +3+3 = 8. Then when you consider unbalanced schedules in SEC and BIG10, you add 2 more each for the SEC and BIG10 or an occasional outlier. This gets you 12.

There's a lot of football to play. In few years do we get past conference championships with more than 3 teams who "belong in the conversation" by observed play and resume.

What the expanded playoff functionally does is give second chances to 1 and 2 loss teams because they "deserve" to "be in the bracket" - not because anyone really thinks that a Dec No. 12 is truly the best team in the nation.

By resume it should be:
1 - Oregon (actual - 1)
2 - Georgia (actual - 2)
3 - BYU (actual - 9 - most underrated)
4 - Penn State (actual - 3)
5 - Miami (actual - 5)
6 - ND (actual - 8)
7 - A&M (actual - 10)
8 - Tennessee (actual - 7)
9 - Ohio State (actual - 4 - most overrated)
10 - Texas (actual - 6)

EDIT: BYU over Penn State.

Love the listing.

Iowa State has such an unimpressive resume, wow. I'd argue Indiana's trouncing of Nebraska is enough to warrant them in ISU's spot.

BYU at least has wins over two ranked opponents that have otherwise not lost a game.

Clemson's resume is bad. They have played no one. They could lose one or both of the Louisville and Pitt games.

A lot of these issues will have more data points in a few weeks once these in-conference match ups start shaking out.

True, but playoff teams aren't determined based this week's polls since there are still 4 or 5 games to play in the season. So that won't be true at the end of the season.

I'm conflicted on the number of playoff games. Since the introduction of playoff format, the other bowl games are even more meaningless than before (at least to me). So more playoff games means more meaningful football. On the other hand, I think 8 is the right number because if you aren't a super obvious choice to make the top 8, then I'd say you have no solid argument that you should be the national champ. More than 8 just increases the probability that you may end up with a team that really isn't the best... rather that they had a good run to end the season. Kind of like college basketball & baseball. Often it's not the best team that wins the tourney, it's the hottest. But of course the excitement factor is higher with more teams in the tourney/playoffs. And if your definition of champ is the hottest team at the end of the year, I wouldn't say that's wrong. It just cuts against the rest of the body of work.

Solid points.
I like the idea of a couple extra weeks of meaningful games the first 2 rounds the playoffs will provide. Bowl games don't mean a whole lot any longer with the top players sitting out. Just make all the playoff games bowl games and then fill the remainder of the other bowl games with non-playoff teams. I'm sure there are plenty of sponsors that would love to bid on putting their name on the first 2 rounds of games. I also like having more late regular season meaningful games with more teams now still vying for a playoff spot. Going into the last 1-2 weeks there were usually 6-8 teams still in contention where as now we should have 15-20 possibly.

The accomplishment should be where they were ranked when you beat them.

TexanJeff said:

---

12 team playoff is too big, not sure why we need more than 8. Big drop off after 8.

---

This is CFB with the transfer portal and NIL. Those teams you are saying are a drop off may just have a roster full of Sr lineman and a really good QB and I for one hope to see some upsets.

I will never understand how people can want less CFB.

TexanJeff said:

---

12 team playoff is too big, not sure why we need more than 8. Big drop off after 8.

---

I agreed with this until pretty much this week. The Big 10 being so big and not very deep I think validates having 12 teams in cfp.