I only watch college football I say that to give my perspective. I really thought I would love the 12 team more games the better. Been a little disappointed and surprised I haven't enjoyed it. Just has a different feel about it. I understand with portal and opt outs things have to be like this I guess I could settle for 8 teams but 12 teams with this format just isn't good.

These huge tv contracts won't pay for themselves so I get it but espn wants this to be pro ball and it's just not happening. College has fans tied by school attendance or geography but your not going to find a huge pocket of eyeballs that happen to support teams elsewhere. That's not even addressing the elephant in the room that neither coast and most places other then the south and some Midwest pockets are actually fans of the game. More games will have to be the answer.

4 was the right number.

I've always felt 16 is the perfect number. No play in games though.

Txhuntr said:

---

LincolnBorglum79 said:

---

I'm glad to see a lot of interest in fixing the CFP after 1 year at 12 with all 4 Bye teams losing game 1 and the 7 seed playing 8 seed for the title. To me it's pretty easy:

1. Expand to 16 teams with seeding determined after the 16 are selected.
2. No byes. First 8 games 16 at 1, etc. occur at home field of highest seed.
3. The current 5 automatic bids remain but they can be seeded anywhere.
4. Allow committee to have play in games for the 15 and 16 seeds as they deem appropriate each year.
5. SOS should be considered and used ( A 3 loss team could be more deserving than a 1 loss team with a poor schedule.)

A team like South Carolina this year may have been more deserving than SMU or Indiana, but with 16 up to 18 teams both could be included.

---

Why not just go down to 8 teams? Teams 9-12 looked grossly outclassed. That first round of games was a snore fest across the board. I think I might've followed 1 into the second half. The quarters are where the games started to get interesting. Why don't we just start there instead of trying to make more uninteresting matchups, and giving the committee the authority to add games randomly?

---

The committee needs accountability

rickslatts said:

---

4 was the right number.

---

Nope

Texas_Ag11 said:

---

Won't happen, but the way to do this is:

• Eliminate CCG
• Move every conference to 10 game slates (only way to make a fair "winner" of a conference since most super conferences wont have every team play each other. This at least reduces this limitation.
• Auto Bids for top 5 conferences, but seeds based on computer rankings
• Move to 16, first round on campus
• Regional neutral site for round two. Gives home field advantage at a neutral site game.

This year it would have been:

Game 1 - 16 Ole Miss @ 1 Oregon
Game 2 - 15 Miami @ 2 Georgia
Game 3 - 14 USCe @ 3 ND
Game 4 - 13 Clemson @ 4 Texas
Game 5 - 12 SMU @ 5 Penn State
Game 6 - 11 Bama @ 6 Ohio State
Game 7 - 10 ASU @ 7 Tennessee
Game 8 - 9 Indiana @ 8 Boise State

Round two would be set up to favor the "home" favorite

Game 1 winner vs Game 8 winner @ Rose Bowl
Game 2 winner vs Game 7 winner @ Peach Bowl
Game 3 winner vs Game 6 winner @ Sugar Bowl
Game 4 winner vs. Game 5 winner @ Cotton Bowl

Semis
Game 1/8 vs Game 4/5 @ Orange Bowl
Game 2/7 vs. Game 3/6 @ Fiesta Bowl

Finals

Rotating neutral site similar to Super Bowl

Funny thing is, Texas would have cake walked into the Semis with this format as well...

---

Pretty sure UT-Aus lost to ASU in the final 8

Quote:

---

This is all cigars-and-Port-in-front-of-the-fireplace talk. The playoffs will expand because of money, pure and simple. We'll get to 20 soon enough.

---

This. If the networks and conferences can make a few more bucks by adding a few more teams and games to the playoff, they will. I think 20 would be a good number and this is how I would do it. All 10 conference champions plus 10 at-large teams selected by final ranking. Top 4 teams get double bye to quarterfinals, remaining 16 teams play down to 4 (at home campuses). Highest seed plays lowest remaining seed each round. QFs and SFs in NY6 bowls, championship game at neutral site.

Yes, there will be some first round blowouts with the lower conferences included, but inclusion will keep the politicians at bay. And when there is the inevitable upset, it will be all anyone can talk about for the week (consider that in March Madness #1 seeds have won 99% of games vs #16 seeds, but when UMBC beat UVA, they were the talk of the first round).

For this season, the bracket would have looked like this (only 9 conference champs this year with no PAC 12):

1. Oregon (B10 champ, double bye)
2. Georgia (SEC champ, double bye)
3. Texas (SEC at large, double bye)
4. Penn St. (B10 at large, double bye)

20. Jacksonville St. (CUSA champ) @ 5. Notre Dame (Independent at large)
19. Ohio (MAC champ) @ 6. Ohio St. (B10 at large)
18. Marshall (Sun Belt champ) @ 7. Tennessee (SEC at large)
17. Army (AAC champ) @ 8. Indiana (B10 at large)
16. Clemson (ACC champ) @ 9. Boise St. (MWC champ)
15. South Carolina (SEC at large) @ 10. SMU (ACC at large)
14. Ole Miss (SEC at large) @ 11. Alabama (SEC at large)
13. Miami (ACC at large) @ 12. Arizona St. (B12 champ)

All five conference champions lost their only game. You want more of that?

Scrap it and start over. It was bad in its design and produced some excruciating to watch football. How bad was it? Trump signing executive orders was more entertaining. And when I finally turned it on, the game was over. So much for the 2024 college football season. A word of advice to the powers that be, if you are going to FCK things up, just leave it alone.

Artimus Gordon said:

---

Scrap it and start over. It was bad in its design and produced some excruciating to watch football. How bad was it? Trump signing executive orders was more entertaining. And when I finally turned it on, the game was over. So much for the 2024 college football season. A word of advice to the powers that be, if you are going to FCK things up, just leave it alone.

---

What was so bad about the playoffs?

Im amazed that people are pissed that the National Championship was decided on the field and not by a computer or a committee.

As someone who went to a home playoff game, it should be like fcs and all games on campus until the championship.

Only thing that was terrible, was the seeding. On one hand you could say the playoffs were a success. Both teams who played in the championship game would have not made it the previous years. On the other hand…giving Arizona State and Boise State a bye was a mistake. Conference champs qualify but leave the seeding to the rankings.

ESPN reports that the viewership dropped 12% from last years title game. 3rd lowest title game of the playoff era

TXAG 05 said:

---

ESPN reports that the viewership dropped 12% from last years title game. 3rd lowest title game of the playoff era

---

Last year, the semifinal game was on new years and championship game was on January 8.

Now, the quarterfinals were on or near January 1st, then 7-8 days until semifinals, and then 10 days, but by that point a whole lot of universities have already started.



I am sure that whatever people think the reason is: Trump inauguration day, NIL and Transfer Portal, the playoff format, the ratings being down will support that belief.



I didn't watch semifinals or beyond because I dislike or hate the last 4 teams, and now there are a lot of other options on what to watch.

Let it play out, it's been one year