The current format is not perfect but a massive improvement over a four team format. The only improvement necessary is to add more teams. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out, but CFB football "leadership" is seriously lacking so adapting will be slow and painful unless there are negative consequences for the SEC and B10 in which case they will be fixed eventually.

Some always cry there needs to be more teams included.

Sparkie said:

---

Some always cry there needs to be more teams included.

---

If you think there should be fewer teams you can hope for that and let's see what happens.

cvenag03 said:

---

Four teams is enough

---

Apparently people who decide these things disagree.

The SEC and Big 10 are meeting this week to hammer out a plan that would expand the CFP and add a 9th conference game to the SEC schedule, as soon as next year. @RossDellenger reports: pic.twitter.com/yM5ROmgMeW

— Paul Finebaum (@finebaum) February 17, 2025

Within the Big Ten & SEC, momentum builds for an expanded playoff with multi-AQs per league.

Ahead of the SEC-B1G joint meeting, the industry is closer than ever to a new CFP, reimagined league title games, 9-game SEC sked & SEC-B1G scheduling packagehttps://t.co/Rcl99Wndj9

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) February 17, 2025

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

So the loser on championship Saturday still gets an auto big if their name brand is big enough? Sorry 11-2 ACC runner up but you're out so 9-4 Texas is in! This is just another method for the committee to get more big name brands in while always securing the 2-3 Cinderella stories. If you're a fringe top program you better either have a bye or win on championship Saturday otherwise you will never get in.

---

SMU over Bama excepting of course.

Faustus said:

---

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

So the loser on championship Saturday still gets an auto big if their name brand is big enough? Sorry 11-2 ACC runner up but you're out so 9-4 Texas is in! This is just another method for the committee to get more big name brands in while always securing the 2-3 Cinderella stories. If you're a fringe top program you better either have a bye or win on championship Saturday otherwise you will never get in.

---

SMU over Bama excepting of course.

---

The committee isn't going to let that happen again, especially at the expense of a "blue blood"

What I like about the football playoff format is that there will be less hold-outs for the NFL draft. Ultimately, that is the end goal for collegiate players, but now those guys who would typically sit out for the draft, will have something to actually play for. These bowl games have gotten worse and worse. I don't think many of the players want to play because who cares if you win or lose the Sam's Choice bowl game and now you're a 7-6 team vs a 6-7 team at the end of the season. At least now, the teams in the playoffs will put forth effort because they believe they should be there, even if it is an SMU type team. I'd rather see better effort and less hold-outs in a larger playoff format vs what we've all witnessed in the lower tier bowl games they've come up with over the years.

rickslatts said:

---

Can someone explain to me why I should want a larger playoff? The last playoff was horrible. I mean I get it, larger playoff = we are likely to get in but also means the college football product becomes weaker.

---

Larger takes more decision Ms like the 2020 rebuff out of the hands of the committee. The main problem with this last year was the capitulation by the SEC in best teams and correct seeding to allow other conferences to get showcased with the bye for top four conference champions. Sankey knew the problem but to get the expansion done it was necessary to compromise. And even with the faults last year's playoff showed expanding access works.

The dilution argument has been rejected by the public in having a playoff, expanding it to four teams, and wanting more access for teams like their own school. I think the footprint of top ten plus two is the absolute minimum given not even polls can agree on who the top ten is and the notion a celebrity selection committee serving the broadcast partners is incorruptible and smarter than fans is in a word…disputable.

The alternatives are eight best or sole bigger auto-selection that takes more power from a bad committee. The auto-selection of best five conference champions was well supported by almost all conferences and their supporters because of the historic relationship of conference champions to the New Year classic bowl games especially Rose and more recently Sugar. But the expansion by the Big Ten destroyed the premise of the Rose even though they had a traditional Big Ten/Pac tilt this year.

Take away the auto-byes at a minimum. Expand around championship byes to feed nostalgia. Publish the selection rules and methodology so cigar smoke is cleared from the selection room if possible.

So what if the early games are bad. It isn't harming the later games. 6-3 games really aren't crowd pleasers. Seeing teams all over the country compete is.

4 auto-bids to the SEC

while still a chance to get 5 or 6 teams total in the field

W said:

---

4 auto-bids to the SEC

while still a chance to get 5 or 6 teams total in the field

---

I think auto-bids are a corrrctiom from poor selections in the past and in effect a concession. Usually concessions are like trade protection and cause less competition and provide less value to consumers and higher prices.

I personally prefer they address the elephant in the room and explain why only concessions can resolve the selection transparency problem.

One of the past intriguing thoughts here is that the BCS ranking was good enough. I thought that was not a bad model though there was lots of non-transparent stuff going on there. Both the men's basketball selection and the CFP selection have tried to explain their choices without becoming fully transparent.

That's a cigar-filled room offering consolation not transparency. It isn't satisfying which is one reason to seek auto bids, but perhaps there is a better way. But it's a good "bid" so to speak!!!

I personally really liked this year's set up and this seems like nothing more than making sure the same damn 8 teams instead of 4 get in every year. I like the opportunities for Cinderellas like AZ State to get in. Also like conference championships. Why why why is there such a rush to be NFL lite?

I think only playing other SEC teams puts the SEC at risk of getting exposed by other leagues style of play if they arent ever exposed to it.

SinKiller said:

---

DaShi said:

---

Last years playoff was better than anything in CF post season ever before.

---

It was horrible, at the end, who even cared. It was the third lowest viewed NC game since 2015, and one of the 5 least watched NC games in the last 27 years.

It dragged on way too long, and I think
people forgot about it.

---

Easily offset by having 11 playoff games to 3. The Networks killed it on all the extra playoff games even if the finale did not.

SpineDoc15 said:

---

Current format is terrible

---

hhmmmmmm - not really

TD's

If the Big10 and SEC agree to an interconference agreement which results in A&M getting Ohio State while t.u. gets Rutgers, ima burn the 40 acres.

fc2112 said:

---

SpineDoc15 said:

---

Current format is terrible

---

hhmmmmmm - not really

---

If they fixed the seeding it would be just fine.
Meaning conf. champs like Boise and ASU don't get byes (if there are byes). Either way, teams get in any way available but then rank the teams 1-8 or 1-16 and seed them as such.

There will still be clunkers just as there are in all sports playoffs but probably less often.

DaShi said:

---

Last years playoff was better than anything in CF post season ever before.

---

Out of the 11 games, only 2 were worth watching. Fantastic

SinKiller said:

---

DaShi said:

---

Last years playoff was better than anything in CF post season ever before.

---

It was horrible, at the end, who even cared. It was the third lowest viewed NC game since 2015, and one of the 5 least watched NC games in the last 27 years.

It dragged on way too long, and I think
people forgot about it.

---

I think a lot just got burn out from the long season. Shorten the season back to 11 games and start a week earlier and you've just saved 2 weeks. Would put the NC around the first week of January.

rootube said:

---

The current format is not perfect but a massive improvement over a four team format. The only improvement necessary is to add more teams. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out, but CFB football "leadership" is seriously lacking so adapting will be slow and painful unless there are negative consequences for the SEC and B10 in which case they will be fixed eventually.

---

A big part of the problem is that the leadership primarily serves their individual conferences, their media partners, and the bowls.

There is no single entity looking out for the best interests of D1 College Football.

Another problem is the large allotment of the fan base is brainwashed into thinking that serving up mediocre contract games for 25% of the season is admirable.

16 teams is fair, no dumb byes. 4-auto bids is dumb. Sips should've lost to Arizona State for crying out loud. I understand 3 guaranteed. If it was 16 teams, Alabama and Ole Miss didn't deserve in with their inflated ranking after horrible losses.

They treat the SEC & Big 10 way too preferential compared to the other 2 conferences.

1. Reduce the CFP field 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

Go to 16 teams immediately. Seed them 1-16 with no automatic seeds. However, teams in the same conference have to be seeded in order of their conference record. IE if 2 8-1 SEC teams and a 7-2 and 6-3 teams make it, the 6-3 team can't be seeded higher than the other 3. Plus no conference rematches in round 1. No byes 1 v 16 etc. Set bracket too.1-16 winner plays 8-9 winner etc.

The SEC basketball tournament structure would work instead if you are ok with byes.