TyperWoods said:

---

Home games are a bad idea for the playoffs.

Every home team so far has built at least a 20 point lead.

Need neutral site games for all playoff games.

---

I don't think it was the location of the games that contributed to these non-competitive results…

The point of a playoff is to identify and declare a champion, not to create more games. None of these first-round losers were serious championship contenders.

Viper16 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Someone's butthurt

Really exciting competitive game @CFBPlayoff 🧐. Great job!! https://t.co/HEjQ1AcXba

— Lane Kiffin (@Lane_Kiffin) December 21, 2024

---

He's not wrong.......his team would have been a much better, and not so boring competitor to Notre Dame than the Hoosiers!

---

Lane Whiffin should be coaching instead of whining.... Watch Ole Piss lose their bowl game against Duke

Citizen Reign said:

---

What?

Another thread with the OP not wanting to have more CFB with topped-ranked teams matched up?

It sucks that we can't have less CFB.

---

I mean really... how many times do we need to see a team get beat before we realize they aren't championship material? More games that lead to none of the games mattering

Playoff needs to go to 16. Probably goes to 14 with two byes so conference champ games still can be justified.

Bowls games are a total waste. This is only sport and only at this level that had not used extended playoffs except for this year.

What this year has shown is home field matters. Thus, getting in the top 8 would be critical and thus make the regular season just as meaningful.

Just do March Madness for football. Let the teams settle it on the field. Leave the "experts" out of it. It's wildly successful in TXHSFB and College Basketball. "dotcom" bowls first rounds and big bowls at the end.

LB12Diamond said:

---

What this year has shown is home field matters. Thus, getting in the top 8 would be critical and thus make the regular season just as meaningful.

---

Home field always matters. I didn't realize we needed this year to show that.

What matters even more is being the better team. Combine that with homefield advantage and things get even tougher.

Does anyone think Indiana, SMU, Clemson, or Tennessee win those games even playing at home?

HoustonAggie427 said:

---

No way 12 teams deserve a shot to be national championship.

Garbage Big 12 teams with 2 losses
Non conference champions without a ranked win
Whiny SEC teams with 3 losses... grow up you lost 3 games

---

False. This year kept the conversation on who was going to be in the playoffs. It improved interest in more games. And calling a game garbage while at the same time noticing the bowl games are garbage just proves the evaluator loathes everything.

I admit that getting more of the decision making out of the selection committee's hands and
reducing their choices for wishing to the margins should be a goal. I'm not a huge fan of the audience shaping they do to serve the bottom line, but since it's t benefits our school to have a bigger bottom line I accept some flaws in the system.

SMU and Indiana, no because they don't have huge stadiums where home field really comes into play.
I think Clemson and Tennessee might've been a little more competitive if they were home team but the way they got manhandled showed who the better teams were.

Edit to add that Clemson was the lowest ranked team to get in and were only in it due to winning their CCG.

HoustonAggie427 said:

---

No way 12 teams deserve a shot to be national championship.

Garbage Big 12 teams with 2 losses
Non conference champions without a ranked win
Whiny SEC teams with 3 losses... grow up you lost 3 games

---

You do understand based on 100+ years of history, we only will make it to CFP with as large a pool as possible? Give me a chance to make a run with a hot team like 2012 any day.

The next time we finish the regular season in top 4 will be the first time since pre WWII???

8 would be fine, but again, pretty much rules us out 99 years of 100.

HoustonAggie427 said:

---

No way 12 teams deserve a shot to be national championship.

Garbage Big 12 teams with 2 losses
Non conference champions without a ranked win
Whiny SEC teams with 3 losses... grow up you lost 3 games

---

What do teams need to do to "deserve a shot at a national championship"?

they should cut a game off the regular season, if you play the SEC championship and then 4 more games that's crazy

Emilio Fantastico said:

---

SMU and Indiana, no because they don't have huge stadiums where home field really comes into play.
I think Clemson and Tennessee might've been a little more competitive if they were home team but the way they got manhandled showed who the better teams were.

Edit to add that Clemson was the lowest ranked team to get in and were only in it due to winning their CCG.

---

Rankings are opinions. They got in as CCG winners and there was going to be a fifth one in…

The BCS was much better whether people want to admit it or not. Postseason placements that are decided by computers as opposed to humans who have conflicts of interest are almost always going to be better.

16 teams, first round hosted by higher seeds at home stadiums, the quarters/semis at NY6 bowls like now.

Get rid of conference championship games and use the same conference tie breakers that determine the participants to simply declare the champion that way.

Top 5 conference champions ranked in the CFP top 20 are guaranteed a spot, but are seeded based on their CFP ranking only.

All conferences of 12 teams or more that wish to take part in the CFP have to standardize to a 9 game conference schedule. Do something about Notre Dame to 'encourage' them to join a conference (like Independents have to be top 8 to get in as an idea).

zb008 said:

---

The BCS was much better whether people want to admit it or not. Postseason placements that are decided by computers as opposed to humans who have conflicts of interest are almost always going to be better.

---

Human polls and computers selected the teams.

Iowaggie said:

---

zb008 said:

---

The BCS was much better whether people want to admit it or not. Postseason placements that are decided by computers as opposed to humans who have conflicts of interest are almost always going to be better.

---

Human polls and computers selected the teams.

---

While the human polls were a part of the formula, the computers were the determining factor when it came to selecting the teams.

2, 4,12,16,???

Make it 68 and people will still *****.

Sparkie said:

---

2, 4,12,16,???

Make it 68 and people will still *****.

---

This. The basketball tournament is talking about expanding to 76.

College football was not intended to be an invitational basketball tournament with a consolation bracket.

As long as there is a committee, or any other subjective invite system, you are going to get crappy games, or potentially an undeserving champion

Need a set of rules & criteria (prior to the season) based on number of wins & losses. I don't care what conference you play in. You can't lose 25% of your games or not play in your conference championship, to earn a national championship in college football.

The. Pollution is so simple it's ludicrous that these crazy formats with byes etc are being pushed through

16 teams seeded 1 through 16 based on ranking and go play

End of story.

Putting in all these crazy formats with byes and auto bids is just dumb

At 16 teams all power conferences will likely get representation and even a g5 team or 2


They are clinging so hard to maintaining meaning for conference championship games that they are royally screwing up the playoffs by giving byes to teams like house and Arizona st and making the one seed play Ohio st who might just be the best team in the country right now

TXAG 05 said:

---

Sparkie said:

---

2, 4,12,16,???

Make it 68 and people will still *****.

---

This. The basketball tournament is talking about expanding to 76.

---

lol. Stop having a regular season then. That is simply a money grab.

Zero reason to even have a regular season.

Sample size= 1season.

I'm pretty sure this is not a statistically valid sample size.

TyperWoods said:

---

HoustonAggie427 said:

---

No way 12 teams deserve a shot to be national championship.

Garbage Big 12 teams with 2 losses
Non conference champions without a ranked win
Whiny SEC teams with 3 losses... grow up you lost 3 games

---

What do teams need to do to "deserve a shot at a national championship"?

---

For starters, go undefeated, or at least play in your conference championship game without losing 25% of your regular season games regardless of what conference you play in.

Nope, 16 is the number.

Just going to keep repeating for the hard heads.

Every single sport at every single level has multiple rounds of playoffs.

Quit your complaining.

AGDAD14 said:

---

TyperWoods said:

---

HoustonAggie427 said:

---

No way 12 teams deserve a shot to be national championship.

Garbage Big 12 teams with 2 losses
Non conference champions without a ranked win
Whiny SEC teams with 3 losses... grow up you lost 3 games

---

What do teams need to do to "deserve a shot at a national championship"?

---

For starters, go undefeated, or at least play in your conference championship game without losing 25% of your regular season games regardless of what conference you play in.

---

Make the playoff. All that is required to be deserving…

LB12Diamond said:

---

Just going to keep repeating for the hard heads.

Every single sport at every single level has multiple rounds of playoffs.

Quit your complaining.

---

But no other sport has the talent disparity of college football. Any given year there are only a handful of teams good enough to have a chance at winning it all.

I think 8 teams would be the right number of playoff teams with the Power 4 conference champions and 4 at large spots because I don't like the idea of first round byes and CFP games conflicting with Saturday NFL games. In an 8-team playoff format, all the CFP games from the quarterfinals to the national championship game would be played at neutral site games and start on New Years Eve or New Years' Day instead of around 12/20.

In that format, the 8 teams would be

1. SEC Champion Georiga
2. Big 10 Champion Oregon
3. Big 12 Champion Arizona State
4. ACC Champion Clemson
5. Texas
6. Penn State
7. Notre Dame
8. Ohio State

Or, hear me out, avoid an anti-trust suit with the current or expanded format since the NCAA and CFP really don't need to lose more lawsuits??? The conferences that were torn apart by expansion have been stabilized by the current system.

Artimus Gordon said:

---

It's DEI NCAA college playoff football at its worst. Way too much overkill. 8 would be the max.

---

Yeah, eight teams decided by a group of old guys and ESPN. That doesn't sound like competition to me.

It sounds like the best avenue to simplified corruption and the media controlling the narrative.

I prefer a sport that lets the players determine the outcome.

It helps to notice there's always an argument that fewer teams are superior in non-explainable characteristics. If it smells like tautology or begging the question it likely is a fallacy…

TXAG 05 said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

Just going to keep repeating for the hard heads.

Every single sport at every single level has multiple rounds of playoffs.

Quit your complaining.

---

But no other sport has the talent disparity of college football. Any given year there are only a handful of teams good enough to have a chance at winning it all.

---

LOL

You are kidding right?

LB12Diamond said:

---

TXAG 05 said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

Just going to keep repeating for the hard heads.

Every single sport at every single level has multiple rounds of playoffs.

Quit your complaining.

---

But no other sport has the talent disparity of college football. Any given year there are only a handful of teams good enough to have a chance at winning it all.

---

LOL

You are kidding right?

---

I don't think it is incorrect. The depth and talent needed to get through a regular season and then win even 1 (and now 3) against other good teams is why there has never really been more than 3 legit contenders in most years over at least the past 4 decades.

You can't ride a hot 3 point shooter or benefit from an opponent going ice cold as happens in basketball & baseball. 1-2 players only get you so far in football.

Now, women's bball has big talent discrepancies as there just aren't that many good women's players and they seem to all go to a handful of programs. But, who cares?

You totally missed my point.

Most sports only have 4-5 teams or individuals that can really win the thing.

World Cup, tennis major tournaments, NFL, etc

But they still ALL have expanded playoffs.

The ONLY reason people are complaining on this one is bc this is the one sport that is finally catching up.

I don't see complaining for all those other sports that also just have a few teams or individuals that are true contenders.

Winning a playoff game or two is actually a big accomplishment for some in many sports and it will be the same now in college football.

Gotcha. I will argue that the NFL, MLB & NHL all have plenty of examples that contradict you. Wild card Super Bowl & World Series champs. A hot goalie, etc.

College sports. Nope. Too much talent concentration at the top.