When was the last time someone complained about the eventual National Champion in college hoops? It gets settled on the court. Nobody complains that there are too many teams in the tourney. If teams don't deserve to be there, they get beat.

Teams like Gonzaga and Butler would have never become college hoops powers, without first being dark horses allowed to be in the tournament.

At least 25% of every college football team's regular season schedule is an utter waste of time. Those are the games that need to go away immediately, in order to create a 32-team playoff.

sincereag said:

---

These are first round games and mismatches are to be expected. There's nothing wrong with these types of games. Expand the tournament to 16 and let four more teams in and have no byes and more accurate seeding. This is still great to watch to see which teams rise to the top. So far ND and PS show they are superior teams than their competition.

---

This is not playoff football. It's frikkin lame and all it takes is a star player to go down in this meaningless games to make your shot a championship that much harder.

The Banned said:

---

sincereag said:

---

These are first round games and mismatches are to be expected. There's nothing wrong with these types of games. Expand the tournament to 16 and let four more teams in and have no byes and more accurate seeding. This is still great to watch to see which teams rise to the top. So far ND and PS show they are superior teams than their competition.

---

This is not playoff football. It's frikkin lame and all it takes is a star player to go down in this meaningless games to make your shot a championship that much harder.

---

These games are incredibly meaningful. The bowl games are meaningless.

4 teams was plenty. The BCS got it right way more often than not. "More football = automatically good" is how a child thinks.

I am full of very unpopular opinions on this subject, but I stand by them all.

Artorias said:

---

SOS has to matter more than just wins. Bama, ole Miss, etc. would not be getting run over like this.

---

You sure?

Bama got run over by OU

AggieSouth06 said:

---

4 teams was plenty. The BCS got it right way more often than not. "More football = automatically good" is how a child thinks.

I am full of very unpopular opinions on this subject, but I stand by them all.

---

Welcome to the club.

Txhuntr said:

---

rootube said:

---

24 or 32 teams no bowl games. Let's find out finally who is better between the B10 and the SEC. And it would be nice to have the rest get a shot. Seems fair since they are in the same division of football.

---

So pretty much a pointless regular season since as long as your not one of the 3 or 4 bottom teams in the sec/big 10 you're in the post season

---

This argument really. We couldn't go from four to 12 because it would RUIN the regular season. Guess what happened? The regular season was 10x better.

HoustonAggie427 said:

---

Artorias said:

---

SOS has to matter more than just wins. Bama, ole Miss, etc. would not be getting run over like this.

---

You sure?

Bama got run over by OU

---

Guess the question is how would IU have done on the road against OU.

rootube said:

---

Txhuntr said:

---

rootube said:

---

24 or 32 teams no bowl games. Let's find out finally who is better between the B10 and the SEC. And it would be nice to have the rest get a shot. Seems fair since they are in the same division of football.

---

So pretty much a pointless regular season since as long as your not one of the 3 or 4 bottom teams in the sec/big 10 you're in the post season

---

This argument really. We couldn't go from four to 12 because it would RUIN the regular season. Guess what happened? The regular season was 10x better.

---

I'll again admit that going to 12 didn't detract from the regular season. But a 32 team playoff, and the entire month of November wouldn't have mattered for us as we'd still be in the playoffs. That's a little ridiculous.

March madness generates the money for men's hoops. Which is fine since I, and many others won't start picking up round ball until the nfl playoffs start winding down in February. Do you really want to trade 12 weeks of must watch football for 5-6 weeks?

rootube said:

---

HoustonAggie427 said:

---

Artorias said:

---

SOS has to matter more than just wins. Bama, ole Miss, etc. would not be getting run over like this.

---

You sure?

Bama got run over by OU

---

Guess the question is how would IU have done on the road against OU.

---

They would have gotten drubbed, as would SMU.

I don't see how anyone could watch this weekend and conclude "what we need is more teams in this"

91AggieLawyer said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

4 said:

---

The problem with your argument is that SMU and Indiana are not two of the 12 best teams.

The selection process is the problem

---

But there is no process in which an 11-1 big ten team does not get into a 12 team or more playoff.

---

Yea there is, it's called objectivity and actually considering strength of schedule. I would love to see what the old computer rankings would have looked like.

---

You do realize Indiana had a higher SOS than ND, don't you (at least by one measurement; there are multiple ones out there)?

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/rankings/college-football-rankings-strength-of-schedule-top-25-teams

What you MAY be referring to is win quality. However, that gets into circular reasoning. Alabama's SOS/win quality is high because the team's they beat have high SOS. Why? Because they played Bama, among others. If you try to chart all that in Excel, it will kick out an error because it uses cell references that kick back against each other.

People are going to argue for a "system" that includes teams they want and excludes teams they don't want. It isn't any more objective than that. Someone last night was arguing the Big 10 is overrated and trash. They'll likely have 3 teams in the Quarterfinals after today.

---

You're making this too hard.

Name me a team Indiana beat that had less than 5 losses? Name me 2 that had less than 6. Now tell me the margin of victory/loss against teams they played that had less than 4 losses.

Indiana's computer ranking is even overvalued since it doesn't include strength of opponent when measuring margin of victory and stats. Indiana is a 6 win team with an average SEC schedule. There is no world a resume with no accomplishments should be allowed in the playoff.

4 said:

---

The problem with your argument is that SMU and Indiana are not two of the 12 best teams.

The selection process is the problem

---

Almost half the 4 team playoff games since the CFP started have been decided by 20 or more points. Maybe there just aren't many really good teams.

I thought we were promised highly competitive entertaining games if the playoffs were expanded! Just another falsehood.

Who would have thought 1st round games would largely be one-sided.

jja79 said:

---

4 said:

---

The problem with your argument is that SMU and Indiana are not two of the 12 best teams.

The selection process is the problem

---

Almost half the 4 team playoff games since the CFP started have been decided by 20 or more points. Maybe there just aren't many really good teams.

---

It's why the NFL is better

Panama Red said:

---

I don't see how anyone could watch this weekend and conclude "what we need is more teams in this"

---

Literally everyone on here is speculating that we were better than this team or that. The way CFB is structured is that teams almost NEVER play each other. I think this UT vs. OSU game was the second time these two teams have ever played. These two teams have probably been playing since leather helmet days. This is incredibly common. If we had a 24 + team playoff the likelihood they would have played consistently probably increases by 100% over the years. We can once and for all find out who is better. On the field! Not in a committee. Does this year's selection committee give you confidence they know what they are doing?

Maybe the problem is that two conferences have hoarded all the best teams for the mega tv contracts.

Right now you have the SEC all pissed off that Bama, USC, and Ole Miss were left out. Yeah, no ***** you can't have a "National" Championship based almost solely on a single region's teams.

Eight leagues with eight teams each. Spread the traditional powers evenly and then have a 16-team playoff with the top two teams from each. Something like that anyway. Or, Split the conference more like before and make the sub-conference and conference championships part of the playoff.

It seems obvious that the committee bracketed to help control the result. Get opinions out of rankings and playoff selections.

Panama Red said:

---

I don't see how anyone could watch this weekend and conclude "what we need is more teams in this"

---

Because we're not idiots? The committee did not pick the best 12 teams. So further expansion is needed to take the power out of their hands, you don't restrict the size of the playoff just because some mediocre teams got picked over some better teams. You expand to also include the better teams and let everyone battle it out.

Starting to agree.

tk for tu juan said:

---

Composite of computers
https://masseyratings.com/ranks

Simulated BCS

Here it is, what we’ve been waiting for — the season-ending simulated #BCS rankings. How will the @CFBPlayoff rankings compare? pic.twitter.com/tHvmrDOEVK

— BCSKnowHow.com (@BCSKnowHow) December 8, 2024

---

This is exactly why expansion is needed. You cannot avoid the occasional anomaly like Indiana or SMU having a weak schedule and getting in over better teams. That's just going to happen. The answer is not to decrease the size of the field to leave them out. The answer is to increase the size to include them AND the teams ranked below them who have more talent but played rougher schedules.

Look at those mock BCS rankings. If Alabama, South Carolina, Miami, and Ole Miss had all made the playoff too, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There would be almost no complaining.

You can't compare this current situation to the old 4 team playoff. The 4 team playoff came before NIL and the transfer portal. There is way more parity now, so you can't just limit it to 4 teams anymore.

jja79 said:

---

4 said:

---

The problem with your argument is that SMU and Indiana are not two of the 12 best teams.

The selection process is the problem

---

Almost half the 4 team playoff games since the CFP started have been decided by 20 or more points. Maybe there just aren't many really good teams.

---

Yeah, there are not. There are way too many teams. It's more like F1in that the real competition or sport is about who has the most money.

MaroonStain said:

---

Cool. Now do NFL.

---

Comparing the NFL to CFB is just dumb. They are in no way comparable. This was on display today.

AggieSouth06 said:

---

4 teams was plenty. The BCS got it right way more often than not. "More football = automatically good" is how a child thinks.

I am full of very unpopular opinions on this subject, but I stand by them all.

---

Amen! Interested matchups instead of BORING, non-competitive games.

the most cool guy said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

Composite of computers
https://masseyratings.com/ranks

Simulated BCS

Here it is, what we’ve been waiting for — the season-ending simulated #BCS rankings. How will the @CFBPlayoff rankings compare? pic.twitter.com/tHvmrDOEVK

— BCSKnowHow.com (@BCSKnowHow) December 8, 2024

---

This is exactly why expansion is needed. You cannot avoid the occasional anomaly like Indiana or SMU having a weak schedule and getting in over better teams. That's just going to happen. The answer is not to decrease the size of the field to leave them out. The answer is to increase the size to include them AND the teams ranked below them who have more talent but played rougher schedules.

Look at those mock BCS rankings. If Alabama, South Carolina, Miami, and Ole Miss had all made the playoff too, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There would be almost no complaining.

You can't compare this current situation to the old 4 team playoff. The 4 team playoff came before NIL and the transfer portal. There is way more parity now, so you can't just limit it to 4 teams anymore.

---

Couldn't disagree more. More games...more career ending injuries...whose team's fans could afford additional ticket/travel/lodging costs. More games...STUPID!

I'm fine with the number there will be adjustments made and the games will get better. If they expand it needs to be a play in type game scenario to be the 12th and 11th seed. (Indy vs Smu) to get in that game would've been good.

I'm not hugely opposed to the current model of which 12 are in. I think conference champs should matter and winning the ccg should guarantee the conference a slot but what I don't like is the seeding. It shouldn't guarantee a cc a top spot. Just seed them in the same order as their final rankings and don't overthink it, the #12 or even the 11&12 get bumped because they didn't win their conference, then fine, the Cinderella that won their conference gets that 12 spot.

What I do have a problem with is these new mega conference watering down schedules and getting weeker teams into the CCG in the first place. In the big 10 division, it was fairly rare to get a week team in, maybe slightly weaker, but not someone that went 10-1 and played absolutely no one on the winning half of the conference. For the most past, each team was selected from a smaller pool of teams that had similar enough conference schedules and common conference opponents that comparing their record straight up was a good determining factor. Now there is zero commonality across of the conference teams so record is a far less indicative tool to compare with. This is going to be the bigger problem going forward.

8 teams, 4 P4 conference winners, 1 G5 conference winner, and 3 at large. No byes, play home games in 1st round.

4 said:

---

The problem with your argument is that SMU and Indiana are not two of the 12 best teams.

The selection process is the problem

---

Plenty of 12 teams that could have made all games very competitive. Hell just look at Texas vs A&M game. FAR FAR FAR more competitive than Clemson.

South Carolina got ROYALLY screwed. They were very clearly one of the best SEC teams down the stretch. Easy to see they were superior to Vols in last few games.

And so many other S Carolina teams out there that were overlooked and not even given a chance.

Fire them all. And rework the entire playoffs. Horrific. Embarrassing. Anyone associated should get the axe.

Not saying Ags belonged but I know 110% that Elko is putting out a team against ANY of those 12 that remains in the game in 4th quarter. Might have been an ugly defensive battle but no way they get blown out.

Should have stayed at four, people will ***** and complain if every team made the playoff.

Txhuntr said:

---

Let me preface this by saying I'm very much looking forward to the Tenn/OSU matchup tonight. But these first two games have shown the majority of the back end of the top 12 are not playing the same game as the top end teams. I'm not sure clemson's O will be able to put up double digits on tu this afternoon either. I've turned off both games so far in the first half. Honestly, I'd rather watch smu and Indiana play a bowl game to see who wins than wasting their time vying for a championship they can't.

Bottom line, there aren't 12 great college teams year in year out. Playoffs could probably whittle down to 8, but definitely doesn't need to get further watered down.

---

I think there is value in including the lesser conferences while they still exist. SMU self-destructed in the actual game. Their defense played at tournament level.

I didn't see the Indiana loss, but it appeared to be slaughter.

The inclusion of Tennessee and their performance indicate that adding more teams from the big conferences is not really a guarantee of quality. As with the basketball tournament, it's nice to have a Cinderella possibility. SMU and, maybe, Indiana provide that element.

As for entertainment value, I don't think the world wants to see a bunch of conference rematches.

As with all these arguments, it boils down to one about who is ranked N-2 through N in the playoffs.

Substitute any integer for N greater than 4 and it works.

And I posit that the argument is irrelevant. None of the N-2 through N teams have a right to be playing for the national championship so it doesn't matter who they are.

If you wan the N best teams, guess what? There is no system that ever assures you get them. So deal with it.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

4 said:

---

The problem with your argument is that SMU and Indiana are not two of the 12 best teams.

The selection process is the problem

---

But there is no process in which an 11-1 big ten team does not get into a 12 team or more playoff.

---

Yea there is, it's called objectivity and actually considering strength of schedule. I would love to see what the old computer rankings would have looked like.

---

You do realize Indiana had a higher SOS than ND, don't you (at least by one measurement; there are multiple ones out there)?

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/rankings/college-football-rankings-strength-of-schedule-top-25-teams

What you MAY be referring to is win quality. However, that gets into circular reasoning. Alabama's SOS/win quality is high because the team's they beat have high SOS. Why? Because they played Bama, among others. If you try to chart all that in Excel, it will kick out an error because it uses cell references that kick back against each other.

People are going to argue for a "system" that includes teams they want and excludes teams they don't want. It isn't any more objective than that. Someone last night was arguing the Big 10 is overrated and trash. They'll likely have 3 teams in the Quarterfinals after today.

---

I was one of those people and I stand by it. I also said the Big10 only had 3 good teams with one of those teams being the only good team from the now defunct Pac12 that they poached. And those are the ones in the playoffs. The rest of that conference is not any good, objectively. And those 3 teams benefitted by playing patsies. It doesn't change they might still be really good in a bubble, but they had an easy path to the playoff because the Big10 gets a pass in the rankings because of history.

Regardless of all of that, herein lies the problem straight from the horses mouth:

Quote:

---

When the 12-team field was revealed earlier this month, Selection Committee chairman Warde Manuel made it clear that teams with more wins against weaker competition were given preference over those with more losses against tougher opponents. The Hoosiers got in by going 11-1 against the 42nd hardest schedule in the country, according to TeamRankings.com, while Ole Miss was left on the outside looking in after picking up three losses against the seventh hardest slate.

---

This logic is inherently misguided.

It isn't about picking 12 best.

As to original poster, of course we dont need more teams...this is about money, not football.

Artorias said:

---

SOS has to matter more than just wins. Bama, ole Miss, etc. would not be getting run over like this.

---

Yep. Get rid of automatic bids and select the best teams in the country.