Here is a Playoff format I have said to people I know and not a single one has objected to this idea. I also think it solves a lot of the issues around the playoff itself.

Auto Bids & Byes: You give the winners of the top two conferences autobids and byes. The top two conference will be calculated at the end of each season based off their over all conference strength, record, out of conference opponent strength, and any other metric that makes sense to use to determine those seeds. The next three conferences all get auto bids but can be seeded anywhere from 12-3. This would encourage the conferences to get better as a group to move up into one of those top two conference slots. It would also encourage the conferences to schedule harder non-conference schedules to either solidify one of those top two spots or move up into one of those top spots.It doesn't devalue conference championships but rewards all of them and especially the ones in the best conferences. Never will happen but novel idea of mine.

No. Current format extended to 20 teams and a clearer difficulty component would be fine with top six conferences champions, top four champions getting bye, and two other conference champions with otherwise top 14 teams taking into account difficulty (NOT classical SOS.)

The beauty of top four conference champions getting byes is it takes dsome secretion away from the committee…which should be a GOAL.

greg.w.h said:

---

No. Current format extended to 20 teams and a clearer difficulty component would be fine with top six conferences champions, top four champions getting bye, and two other conference champions with otherwise top 14 teams taking into account difficulty (NOT classical SOS.)

The beauty of top four conference champions getting byes is it takes dsome secretion away from the committee…which should be a GOAL.

---

Only 5 conferences get an autobid (4 byes)

Conf champ and runner up from SEC, Big 10, Big 12 and ACC get in. The conf champs in these conferences get byes. Take out any human subjectivity. Next 4 highest rated teams get last 4 spots. Metric will use wins, losses, SOS, SOR, Margins of Loss/win, and other metrics to determine next 4. There is currently too much subjectivity used. People look at rankings and teams that start out ranked high get the most benefit while teams that have good years out of almost nowhere don't. Taking out subjectivity is the key. One last thing. Don't release anything until at least November. Maybe not until the week of conf championship games.

btglow87 said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

No. Current format extended to 20 teams and a clearer difficulty component would be fine with top six conferences champions, top four champions getting bye, and two other conference champions with otherwise top 14 teams taking into account difficulty (NOT classical SOS.)

The beauty of top four conference champions getting byes is it takes dsome secretion away from the committee…which should be a GOAL.

---

Only 5 conferences get an autobid (4 byes)

---

I says expand to 20. Try reading for context?

greg.w.h said:

---

btglow87 said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

No. Current format extended to 20 teams and a clearer difficulty component would be fine with top six conferences champions, top four champions getting bye, and two other conference champions with otherwise top 14 teams taking into account difficulty (NOT classical SOS.)

The beauty of top four conference champions getting byes is it takes dsome secretion away from the committee…which should be a GOAL.

---

Only 5 conferences get an autobid (4 byes)

---

I says expand to 20. Try reading for context?

---

Lol yes you want to reward even weaker conferences lol amazing

btglow87 said:

---

Here is a Playoff format I have said to people I know and not a single one has objected to this idea. I also think it solves a lot of the issues around the playoff itself.

Auto Bids & Byes: You give the winners of the top two conferences autobids and byes. The top two conference will be calculated at the end of each season based off their over all conference strength, record, out of conference opponent strength, and any other metric that makes sense to use to determine those seeds. The next three conferences all get auto bids but can be seeded anywhere from 12-3. This would encourage the conferences to get better as a group to move up into one of those top two conference slots. It would also encourage the conferences to schedule harder non-conference schedules to either solidify one of those top two spots or move up into one of those top spots.It doesn't devalue conference championships but rewards all of them and especially the ones in the best conferences. Never will happen but novel idea of mine.

---

Also to clarify the 3rd and 4th seeds get byes (obviously) but it's simply the next best 2 teams. Doesn't mean it can't be one or both of the conference champions (after those top two conferences) just means to get a bye you don't have to be a conference champion (3rd and 4th seeds). Again top 5 conference champions would all get in under this hypothetical but only the two top are guaranteed byes.

Admiral Nelson said:

---

Either have 8 or 16 in a playoff. Byes are bad policy. Why pick 12 or 20?

---

I was working off the current system but I don't like byes either. With that said, if you want buy in from all the conferences you got to reward champions. And if you are going to have byes then you need to have a hierarchy that is justifiable and I think conference overall strength makes a lot of sense.

btglow87 said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

btglow87 said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

No. Current format extended to 20 teams and a clearer difficulty component would be fine with top six conferences champions, top four champions getting bye, and two other conference champions with otherwise top 14 teams taking into account difficulty (NOT classical SOS.)

The beauty of top four conference champions getting byes is it takes dsome secretion away from the committee…which should be a GOAL.

---

Only 5 conferences get an autobid (4 byes)

---

I says expand to 20. Try reading for context?

---

Lol yes you want to reward even weaker conferences lol amazing

---

No. want the decision out of the selection committee's hands. Feel free to make me sound like an idiot instead of discussing. That should show your character well!!!

Nothing will ever fix the "current problems" until all subjectivity is removed from the selection process. No polls, no committees, no politicking. The teams that get in are subjective, as are the teams that get first round byes and first round home field, all of which means $$ to the teams involved. As long as it's all subjective, somebody's gonna have a beef with the outcome.

The big problem to me is teams ranked high at the beginning of the year can lose two to three games and not drop out of the top 20.

Also:

Whatever metric used the old computer rankings took emotion, eyeballs, butt's in the seats, advertising, NIL, and bias out etc. out.

greg.w.h said:

---

btglow87 said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

btglow87 said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

No. Current format extended to 20 teams and a clearer difficulty component would be fine with top six conferences champions, top four champions getting bye, and two other conference champions with otherwise top 14 teams taking into account difficulty (NOT classical SOS.)

The beauty of top four conference champions getting byes is it takes dsome secretion away from the committee…which should be a GOAL.

---

Only 5 conferences get an autobid (4 byes)

---

I says expand to 20. Try reading for context?

---

Lol yes you want to reward even weaker conferences lol amazing

---

No. want the decision out of the selection committee's hands. Feel free to make me sound like an idiot instead of discussing. That should show your character well!!!

---

Ok first thing I didn't say anything about a committee. In fact I said I would like some sort of algorithm or formula to determine seeding. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough so my fault. But let me restate my solution/position. (based off 12 teams)

Top two conferences: get first round byes (you can create an algorithm to determine this by each conferences strength of record, opponent, schedule, margin of victory, etc.

The other 3 conferences get an auto bid but will be seeded along with the other 7 who get in. That seeding can be done with a system like the BCS, Josh Pates power ranking system, or some other agreed upon formula.

Going back to my first point about the top two conferences. The top two are not set in stone and could change over time. Hence incentivizing conferences to improve both in conference and out of conference schedule wise. I think that is a good incentive across the board.... this system would still reward conference champs but also allow for the obvious truth of the matter, which is some conferences are better than others.

oneeyedag said:

---

The big problem to me is teams ranked high at the beginning of the year can lose two to three games and not drop out of the top 20.

Also:

Whatever metric used the old computer rankings took emotion, eyeballs, butt's in the seats, advertising, NIL, and bias out etc. out.

---

100% make it all based off an agreed upon algorithm I would just have a 2nd algorithm for conference rankings as well which that is what helps lock up the top 2 spots

btglow87 said:

---

Here is a Playoff format I have said to people I know and not a single one has objected to this idea. I also think it solves a lot of the issues around the playoff itself.

Auto Bids & Byes: You give the winners of the top two conferences autobids and byes. The top two conference will be calculated at the end of each season based off their over all conference strength, record, out of conference opponent strength, and any other metric that makes sense to use to determine those seeds. The next three conferences all get auto bids but can be seeded anywhere from 12-3. This would encourage the conferences to get better as a group to move up into one of those top two conference slots. It would also encourage the conferences to schedule harder non-conference schedules to either solidify one of those top two spots or move up into one of those top spots.It doesn't devalue conference championships but rewards all of them and especially the ones in the best conferences. Never will happen but novel idea of mine.

---

Scrap it. Just name Oregon the champ

GrapevineAg said:

---

Nothing will ever fix the "current problems" until all subjectivity is removed from the selection process. No polls, no committees, no politicking. The teams that get in are subjective, as are the teams that get first round byes and first round home field, all of which means $$ to the teams involved. As long as it's all subjective, somebody's gonna have a beef with the outcome.

---

There will always be problems since there are about 4 tiers of conferences, yet we treat them like there are only P4 and G5 teams. The G5 conference schools aren't in the same category as the SEC of course, but neither are the ACC,nor B12.

SEC and Big Ten
Big 12, ND and ACC
American and Mtn West (and Pac 12 remnants).
Sun Belt, MAC, C-USA.



Instead of completely modifying the playoffs, how about improving the regular season with 3 weeks of interconference play among the P4? SEC plays Big Ten one week, ACC the next and the Big 12 the next. It at least allows for more data points when comparing conferences.

And honestly the American and Mtn West could play each other 3 times, just to get a view of which of those two is better.

When you have 120+ teams that don't all play each other it's kind of impossible to make an algorithm to tell you who the best two conferences are.

We all know the answer, but the math won't work without a heavy thumb on the scale. At which point you are just back to a committee anyway.

The best format…

Top 16 make playoff in a typical tournament bracket.

Next 16 make the NIT tournament.

Anyone outside the top 32…nobody cares. Try again next year.

I like the NIT idea because it gives meaning to the lower-tier teams who would instead be going to lower-tier bowls

My fear would be that players would opt out of an NIT because it's not the "big ticket" playoff

Either way, NIT is a pipe dream

This is my favorite thing to think about that I have absolutely no control over.

1 option is turn to a soccer style points system. If SOS doesn't matter, then this works well. Keep scheduling as it is now then award:

1 point - FCS win / OT Loss
2 pts - Win vs G5 at home or neutral
3 pts - Win at G5
4 pts - Win vs P4 at home or neutral
5 pts - Win vs P5 at home
7 pts - Win Conference Championship Game

Math it out and get your top 5 champions and next 7.

I got bored last weekend and did the math based on this season. Conference Championship games and Playoffs look a bit different.

2nd, which requires P4 to all buy in.. split 16 teams into 2 divisions. Play FCS, 7 conference games, and a Challenge weekend like basketball. SEC vs Big 10. ACC vs Big 12. Teams with 3 home conference games get home challenge game. Opposing conference picks matchup.

Play your 9 games, then an "in season tournament" to end the year. Seed your divisions 1-8, top 4 seeds play home game vs bottom 4 of other division. Winners keep playing winners. Losers keep playing losers to get to 13 games. Everyone guaranteed 2 more home games.

Could go a bunch of different ways with playoffs after results are in. Maybe move to 16 teams. Make it to CCG in P4 you're in, then winners of G5 are in, then 3 at large?

Anyways, there's gotta be a better way than 20 ADs from blue blood finding ways to pick blue bloods over results

If only there was a tried and true playoff format in another college sport that has been proven to be wildly successful that CFB could imitate Or maybe if not in college, maybe some other level of football has been successful, maybe at the high school level. In other words, just get to the point and do 64 team playoff like CBB and TXHSFB and it solves all of the problems. Early rounds are you .com bowls and the NY6 rotates the late rounds.

standfast said:

---

If only there was a tried and true playoff format in another college sport that has been proven to be wildly successful that CFB could imitate Or maybe if not in college, maybe some other level of football has been successful, maybe at the high school level. In other words, just get to the point and do 64 team playoff like CBB and TXHSFB and it solves all of the problems. Early rounds are you .com bowls and the NY6 rotates the late rounds.

---

lol we already have a 12 team game that won't sell out… no way you do these at bowls early.

Re setting bracket by rank is all that's needed. And teams to not lose to multiple 6-6 teams

1. 18 Teams. EVERY FBS Conf champ (9 total) gets auto bid- really it would be great for every player of every team to know they at least have a CHANCE to compete in playoff without relying on opinions.

2. No byes- 16 teams are seeded.

3. The bottom 4 (15/16 seeds and 2 unseeded) have a play-in to be the # 9 and #10 seeds meeting #7 and #8 in the first round of 16. and the #1 or # 2 in the second round if they become a Cinderella team and win their first. much more interest in that game against the top seeds than if they met in Rnd 1.

(No one wants to watch the #1 seed play against the lowest team, but there WOULD be good interest in a, say, Appalachian St vs a #8 like a Notre Dame.)

SUMMARY OF BEST POINTS:

A.Every FBS team/conf has a seat at the table.

B. the field of the "Power" teams is effectively increased from 12 to about 15.

C. Less controversy at top since no byes and field is expanded without "crummy" games.

Go to 16

4 auto bids for both SEC and Big 10.
2 auto bids for ACC and Big 12.
1 auto bid for next best conference.
3 at large.

Rules

First and second rounds are home games similar to NFL.

I wish there could be a rule set in place to make ND join a conference.

SEC should get rid of conference champ game. Just a chance to get players hurt prior to the playoffs.

btglow87 said:

---

Admiral Nelson said:

---

Either have 8 or 16 in a playoff. Byes are bad policy. Why pick 12 or 20?

---

I was working off the current system but I don't like byes either. With that said, if you want buy in from all the conferences you got to reward champions. And if you are going to have byes then you need to have a hierarchy that is justifiable and I think conference overall strength makes a lot of sense.

---

Reward for champions is they get in

Seeding should be based off best teams not best champions

Based on the committee rankings, This years seeding of the top 4 should be:

1.Oregon
2. Georgia
3. Texas (barf)
4. Penn st

The newspapers and bloggers should just vote on who they think the best team is.
Whatever school gets the most votes is the National Champion.

btglow87 said:

---

Here is a Playoff format I have said to people I know and not a single one has objected to this idea. I also think it solves a lot of the issues around the playoff itself.

Auto Bids & Byes: You give the winners of the top two conferences autobids and byes. The top two conference will be calculated at the end of each season based off their over all conference strength, record, out of conference opponent strength, and any other metric that makes sense to use to determine those seeds. The next three conferences all get auto bids but can be seeded anywhere from 12-3. This would encourage the conferences to get better as a group to move up into one of those top two conference slots. It would also encourage the conferences to schedule harder non-conference schedules to either solidify one of those top two spots or move up into one of those top spots.It doesn't devalue conference championships but rewards all of them and especially the ones in the best conferences. Never will happen but novel idea of mine.

---

I object. Auto bids are not the problem. The problem is the conferences are not created equal. You can easily fix that problem by making the playoffs much bigger and killing the dumb bowl system. It's not really that hard and the silly insistence that we need to keep the playoff field small is idiotic. We need far more playoff games not less. It will become obvious when we get to watch actual playoff games.

Honestly how do you compare Indiana and Illinois to Ole Miss and SCAR? You can't. But there is a dead simple way to find out and that is to let them play and find out. A side benefit is that the games will be amazing.

We have already destroyed the narrative that expanded playoffs will hurt the regular season. It in fact made the regular season 100x more exciting.

Admiral Nelson said:

---

Either have 8 or 16 in a playoff. Byes are bad policy. Why pick 12 or 20?

---

I don't like first round byes either. By having either 8 or 16 teams in the playoffs, every CFP team will have to win 3 or 4 playoff games to win the national championship. 8 teams would mean 3 rounds instead of 4 rounds and could avoid conflict with Saturday NFL regular season games in December. 16 teams would mean 8 playoff games in the first round and that will likely mean some conflict with Saturday NFL regular season games.

the auto-bids and auto-byes have to go

and I think they will in 2 years

Expand to 16 playoff teams:
1. No first-round bye

2. Auto bids for the conference champions and runners up from the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, and ACC.

3. The next 8 highest rated teams gets the last 8 spots

4. The Power 4 conference champions and the next 4 highest rated teams get home field advantage in the first round.

5. Stagger the 8 first-round playoff games across 3 days: 2 games on Thursday, 3 games on Friday, and 3 games on Saturday

6. Quarterfinals and beyond move to neutral sites.

Divining Rod said:

---

1. 18 Teams. EVERY FBS Conf champ (9 total) gets auto bid- really it would be great for every player of every team to know they at least have a CHANCE to compete in playoff without relying on opinions.

2. No byes- 16 teams are seeded.

3. The bottom 4 (15/16 seeds and 2 unseeded) have a play-in to be the # 9 and #10 seeds meeting #7 and #8 in the first round of 16. and the #1 or # 2 in the second round if they become a Cinderella team and win their first. much more interest in that game against the top seeds than if they met in Rnd 1.

(No one wants to watch the #1 seed play against the lowest team, but there WOULD be good interest in a, say, Appalachian St vs a #8 like a Notre Dame.)

SUMMARY OF BEST POINTS:

A.Every FBS team/conf has a seat at the table.

B. the field of the "Power" teams is effectively increased from 12 to about 15.

C. Less controversy at top since no byes and field is expanded without "crummy" games.

---

Unfortunately with the powers that be (ESPIN, SEC, and BIG) expanding was never about getting everyone a seat at the table. It was about getting more SEC and BIG teams in, they only expanded because the other conferences were complaining when the SEC and BIG were getting 2 of the 4 spots in the 4 team so they agreed to expand only to stipulate that they would still fill most of the at large bids as well. That is why there is only 1 guaranteed spot for G5. If you notice there was only ever one G5 team close to the top 12 this season even though there were 3 G5 teams included (11-1 Army) in the 22-25 range of the final rankings. Yes I know Army lost to Navy so they are 11-2 and everyone will claim SOS. The committee will only ever have 1 G5 team in the top 15 because they have to. As well none of those 3 G5 teams ever cracked the top 20. Meanwhile they kept holding Missouri in week after week.

I hate to say this but if G5 teams want a legitimate shot at a national title, they need to break off and do a playoff of their own like the FCS. They will always be set up for failure and like others have said G5 schedules =/= P4 Schedules. Similar to a 6A Texas football team playing a 1A team. You occasionally have the Boise St.'s and the Cincinnati's of a few years ago and we will have to see if BSU can hang (I don't feel is likely) but Cincinnati was just fed as a lamb to slaughter.

CFP will expand to 16 teams, also they will drop the 4 highest rated conf. champs being top 4 seeds, it will just go by the final CFP rankings top 4.

Other than that I don't see any other changes forthcoming. Expansion to 16 may or may not happen, as then you are definitely including multiple 9-3 teams, but it is almost a certainty they will drop the latter after this season.

Shorten the season to 8 games and just have the rest of the games be one big tournament. 128 teams, plus play-ins

+

12 teams. No auto bids or auto byes. Top 4 in the rankings get byes. Or either 8 or 16 teams and no byes at all.