We need fewer bowls and more playoff games. 24-32 teams solves most of the issues.

I don't see any reason to have a play-in game for 15 & 16, and I don't see that ever happening.

A big problem - the top 4 seeds did not get an additional home game. The next 4 did. Your top 4 teams had to start the playoff at a neutral site. That is stupid. The current setup leaves a lot of money on the table - and that will be the first remedy.

Quote:

---

Why not just go down to 8 teams? Teams 9-12 looked grossly outclassed.

---

That's this year. Ohio State could have been seeded 9th behind Tennessee. In fact, some were arguing that was proper since both had 2 losses but both of Tennessee's losses were on the road. Ohio State had slightly better wins so I think they (committee) seeded right, but it wasn't a slam dunk. You will have many, if not most, years where 9-12 has very deserving teams that can easily make a run.

The 2012 A&M team is but one example. While 12 looked OK on paper for some, it isn't for the reasons pointed out here and elsewhere:

-- first round bye means almost a month off for top 4 seeds
-- top 4 seeds have no home game while 5-8 do

12 doesn't work. 24 won't work for many of the same reasons. 32, frankly, is out of the question even as big of a playoff proponent as I've been for as long as I've been. 16 is the right number. If 17 or 18 is arguably deserving and left out, oh, well. You have to draw the line somewhere and that's the best place to draw it. Few 15-18 teams are going to compete through 4 games for a title. I said it somewhere before -- the 16th seed in the NCAA hoops tournament a year or two ago won for the first time in like 50 years. Even 15s only win a time or two a decade now. A 16th seed in football winning the title is going to be like an every 30-40 year occurrence at best. That means virtually no team that is on the cut line is missing out.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Quote:

---

Why not just go down to 8 teams? Teams 9-12 looked grossly outclassed.

---

That's this year. Ohio State could have been seeded 9th behind Tennessee. In fact, some were arguing that was proper since both had 2 losses but both of Tennessee's losses were on the road. Ohio State had slightly better wins so I think they (committee) seeded right, but it wasn't a slam dunk. You will have many, if not most, years where 9-12 has very deserving teams that can easily make a run.

The 2012 A&M team is but one example. While 12 looked OK on paper for some, it isn't for the reasons pointed out here and elsewhere:

-- first round bye means almost a month off for top 4 seeds
-- top 4 seeds have no home game while 5-8 do

12 doesn't work. 24 won't work for many of the same reasons. 32, frankly, is out of the question even as big of a playoff proponent as I've been for as long as I've been. 16 is the right number. If 17 or 18 is arguably deserving and left out, oh, well. You have to draw the line somewhere and that's the best place to draw it. Few 15-18 teams are going to compete through 4 games for a title. I said it somewhere before -- the 16th seed in the NCAA hoops tournament a year or two ago won for the first time in like 50 years. Even 15s only win a time or two a decade now. A 16th seed in football winning the title is going to be like an every 30-40 year occurrence at best. That means virtually no team that is on the cut line is missing out.

---

This

Top 16, keep the 5 autobids, seed based on ranking

First round at higher seeds stadium

Quarters, semis and finals all neutral at the ny6 sites plus one more site.



It's fo simple and easy , but those running cfb are trying to preserve snd protect obsolete things like conference championship games, conference fairness and inclusion , etc… that they are inventing convoluted playoff systems with byes for teams that have no business getting byes

Get rid of the ccg's because there's no need for them anymore. Pick the conference champs by best conference record and then tiebreakers if need be

While we have a regular season where 16 and 18 team P4 conferences have their teams only play 8 or 9 regular season games, and the remaining 3-4 non-conference games are a blend of cupcake, pastry, and rarely P4 v P4 opponents, we will have a lot of mismatches and undeserving teams in the playoffs.

Fix the regular season, and improve the playoffs.



I would rather the NCAA determine the playoff format instead of (primarily) 4 conference commissioners that serve their conference first, the bowl tie-ins second, their media partners, and then college football last.
(Note: Not a request for the NCAA to take it over. I'm sure if I watched FCS or D2 or 3, I'd complain about something.)

Not sure if I agree. The goal is to get the best two teams in there at the very least.

You can argue it should be 8, 12 or 16 teams.

I think we have the best two teams in the playoffs so that was accomplished. If the team couldn't perform then that's on the coach or showing they are not deserving. I don't feel adding more teams would have changed things as it would still likely be ND vs OSU.

Comments:
-Add two teams - Creates more games and increases the likelihood of injuries (ND got beat up).
-Reduce teams to 8 - Could be interesting and would conclude earlier
-Play a series (best out of 3) - would get rid of the luck component but prolong it further.
- Timing - Maybe football needs to start a month earlier and end a month earlier so it accommodates the transfer portal and class schedules (Aug 1st to Jan 1st).

Iowaggie said:

---

While we have a regular season where 16 and 18 team P4 conferences have their teams only play 8 or 9 regular season games, and the remaining 3-4 non-conference games are a blend of cupcake, pastry, and rarely P4 v P4 opponents, we will have a lot of mismatches and undeserving teams in the playoffs.

Fix the regular season, and improve the playoffs.



I would rather the NCAA determine the playoff format instead of (primarily) 4 conference commissioners that serve their conference first, the bowl tie-ins second, their media partners, and then college football last.
(Note: Not a request for the NCAA to take it over. I'm sure if I watched FCS or D2 or 3, I'd complain about something.)

---

The NCAA is never deciding D-1 playoffs. At this point we're just biding our time until the acc folds, the big/sec pick it apart, and then form an nfl afc/nfc type deal.

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 [sic].

But we're here, and it's a lovely glass of Jonesy (look it up), so

• Eight. We will never see a bottom-seed winning unless we find another 2012 JFF-led team sneaking in. This will also eliminate byes.
• Auto-bids for conference champions are only guaranteed IF the champion was already ranked in the Top Fifteen prior to the conference championship game. If not, then the next highest-ranked team takes its spot, most likely as the 12-seed.
• Eff it, bring back the computers and let them account for 15-20% of a team's ranking. The committee did a terrible job regarding SOS and eyeballs, so let the algorithms play a role.

Everyone plays 7 regular season games, then the top 128 programs enter the playoffs seeded by some type of computerized power ranking system. Losers in the playoffs continue playing games the rest of the season based on a pre-selected bracket..

Good comments. I still think 16 is the right number if u keep automatic bids. Make it all a committee with a SOS component and 8 is probably enough. No Boise, tu, Indiana, SMU or Clemson this year if it's top 8, most out due to SOS.

With SOS modifier could have been:

8 Arizona St at 1 Oregon
5 Penn St at 4 ND
7 Miami at 2 Georgia
6 Tenn at 3 Ohio St

Still would likely have ND vs Ohio St in the final. Probably all pretty good games tho.

8 makes too much sense.

But there's no way they reduce it.

So just do 16, use the BCS computers and then re-seed after the first round of games.

We watched blowout after blowout in the first round this year and were asking for more teams? More teams that clearly don't belong?

Thankfully it hasn't happened this year but someone is going to lose a vital player in one of the worthless first round games and get screwed at a shot at a title.

Fix? Start by not allowing teams with two losses unless they are a conference champion.

Teams with two or more losses had their chance and failed to "play" their way in to the playoffs.

Based on this criteria and history, there is no need to expand the playoffs.

64 team playoff like basketball.

Don't have any answers, but I do know two things.

We won't go to the first two rounds on campus with either 12 or 16 teams,
because even though it would be much better, lower cost for the fans, and provide a real advantage
that means only using 3 "major" bowl games for the playoff SF and F
and no way the money folks let that happen.

We won't go back to 8 teams, because politics and optics mean that for the near future we have to include P4 + 1 G5 conference champion, so no way SEC and B1G agree to only filling 3 wild spots.

So any solution or "improvement" has to accept those two variables.

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.

---

There is nothing wrong with the current playoff system.

12 teams are perfect.

AGDAD14 said:

---

Fix? Start by not allowing teams with two losses unless they are a conference champion.

Teams with two or more losses had their chance and failed to "play" their way in to the playoffs.

Based on this criteria and history, there is no need to expand the playoffs.

---

Or, just make the regular season a vehicle to get the best teams in the playoffs where they all play each other like every other sport (apart from European futbal which has country/conference championships and the playoffs/champions league).

Even football has extensive playoffs at every level from high school, to college, to professional. It's kind of funny that we're lamenting the fact that Ohio State was afforded the chance to prove it was far better than Oregon in the post season despite the Ducks squeaking by the Buckeyes at home in the regular season.

As it turned out Oregon wasn't close to better. What the regular season earned the Ducks was a bye and the chance to prove it on a neutral field. Going forward they'd have been afforded a chance to beat an easier team in the quarterfinals before getting boat raced by Ohio State in the semis.

OSU and ND are much more legit champs than had Oregon won on a regular season beauty contest.

rootube said:

---

We need fewer bowls and more playoff games. 24-32 teams solves most of the issues.

---

64 or bust!

The use of conference championships to allocate access was a complete bust other than it took decisions out of the hands of the committee.

The NFL with 14 teams seeded purely by record with slightly more curated schedules strength of schedule saw 2s
win over 7s 9-1. Spreading the net slightly wider to 16 just misses top 20 but eliminate awkward bye losses completely if you seed fairly. I think the CCG winners are as deserving as anyone given a 13 game schedule and each conferences true best two settlingbutcfor a real championship giving tremendous value to the regular season and meaningful closure.

But…you might want to read this:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/43443976/dept-education-says-title-ix-applies-payments-athletes

Go to 16
No CCG's 1st round is CCG weekend

No home games in the playoffs
Are we certain that tOSU would win in Knoxville

Notre Dame needs to join the ACC

The SEC & B1G need to stip trying to eliminate the weaker conferences

Minimum 9 game conference schedule

No games against FCS teams

Army Navy needs to move to November preferably the week before Rivalry weekend

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...

Jugstore Cowboy said:

---

rootube said:

---

We need fewer bowls and more playoff games. 24-32 teams solves most of the issues.

---

Why waste time with a regular season? Just go straight into playoffs based on the previous season ending polls, right?

---

Aaah the regular season is sacred argument. I remember when everyone said expanding to 12 would ruin the regular season. We just finished the best and most exciting regular season probably in the history of CFB.

We need a big playoff because the regular season is so terrible. Quality inter conference games in the regular season are as rare as hens teeth. When we do play out of conference in the regular season everyone schedules teams like New Mexico St or Prairie View. Then we pretend we know who is better between the ACC, SEC, B10 and B12. Usually our guesses turn out to be dumb. Just let them play and find out.

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?

---

I don't know how much of this was perception vs reality but it seemed like ESPN just completely inundated those first round games with an endless stream on commercials. Not only were the games pretty noncompetitive, but ESPN made them unwatchable with all the damn commercials. The following rounds just didn't seem near as bad from the TV commercial standpoint.

I don't know if that was some sort of agreement ESPN had with the bowls to not make those games unwatchable and ESPN just said screw the home fans at the schools and sold a millions ads to those other games.

Maybe I am in the minority, but games where one team is obviously more beat up than the other don't interest me when trying to identify the national champion. It is always going to happen, but it was much more prominent this year than others. Either the beat up team wins, and I think the other team shouldn't be there at all, or the more healthy team wins, and in the back of my head there is an asterisk on the win. The problem with turning college football into March Madness is that injuries pile up with each game, so the more rounds you add on, the less the final team resembles the starting ones.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think the current playoff system worked. Everyone who seemed to have a legitimate chance got in, and it's being determined on the field. Some contenders turned out to be pretenders, but I'm grateful that was determined on the field and not by voters or computers. Whoever wins will be seen as a legitimate national champion.

My only gripe is t.u. getting the two lowest ranked playoff teams as their first two opponents. That gift of a bracket should never happen for anyone. They still had to play a real team eventually and the correct result happened.

Loftin said:

---

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think the current playoff system worked. Everyone who seemed to have a legitimate chance got in, and it's being determined on the field. Some contenders turned out to be pretenders, but I'm grateful that was determined on the field and not by voters or computers. Whoever wins will be seen as a legitimate national champion.

My only gripe is t.u. getting the two lowest ranked playoff teams as their first two opponents. That gift of a bracket should never happen for anyone. They still had to play a real team eventually and the correct result happened.

---

So the new playoff dsystem don't work because of seeding the top four champions as byes which mmeans labeled the better teams as lower seeds and you are only talking about Texas?

I think you need to rethink your argument by simply not mentioning Texas and see what you go…

Just need to fix the seeding order. It was apparent that just because teams won their conference doesn't mean they were the top 4 in the country. The teams left are teams that had lower seeds but were clearly the best teams at this point of the season. Yes, still a very subjective process but a heck of a lot more pragmatic them what was done this year. Secret would be to have a totally objective selection committee that doesn't serve any of the bureaucratic nonsense

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?

---

8 teams would be fine if you took the top 8this year you needed 16 to get the best 8.

All teams in a season long double elimination tournament. First 4 rounds, losers forfeit and must return all of their NIL, coaches lose 1/4th of their salary.

1. Reduce to 8 teams with seeding determined after selection

2. Automatic bids for the Power 4 conference winners, but they can be seeded anywhere

3. No bye weeks or home field advantage

4. Play the quarterfinals, semifinals, and championship game at neutral sites

5. Start the playoffs on New Years Eve or New Years' Day to avoid conflict with December Saturday NFL games

6. 9-game conference schedule and one nonconference Power 4 opponent for 10 games against Power 4 opponents

Or… OSU could have not lost to Michigan and proven they were better than Oregon in the conference championship game. OSU struck out twice.

Listen, I know I'm in the minority. Coming from a multiple state championship high school, I have never liked district losers in the playoffs. Going to a small college with multiple national championships, I can tell you that D-1 football fans would not like the regional format they play under. And the NFL, has rules and criteria to promote equity and fairness. D-1 (FBS) is just a different animal, always has been. Just my two cents.