Good post always appreciate creative playoff ideas. Before getting into the counterpoints, here's the version I've been working on. It aims for the same expanded access but fixes several structural issues that come with fixed auto-bids.
My 24-Team Model (Short Version)
1. Selection:
The Top 24 teams are determined by a weighted AP + Coaches Poll formula.
No fixed conference quotas performance drives inclusion.
2. First-Round Byes:
The top eight seeds are the winners AND runners-up of the Power 4 conference championship games, provided they played at least 10 Power-4 opponents in their 12-game regular season.
This keeps title games meaningful and rewards real schedules.
3. Wild Card Round:
The 16 wild card teams are simply the remaining ranked teams (Top 24) that did not play in a Power 4 championship game.
4. Committee Role:
Minimal the formula produces the rankings and seeds.
Committee only steps in for rare tie-break situations.
Why This Works Better Than Fixed Auto-Bids
1. No Pre-Assigned Spots
Auto-bids based on conference identity (6 SEC, 6 Big Ten, etc.) lock in assumptions that don't hold every year.
My model judges everyone on the same national standard, avoiding built-in inequities.
2. Consistent Path to Qualifying
Conference-only qualification creates uneven difficulty.
A ranking-based system avoids weak auto-bids and protects competitive integrity.
3. Byes Are Earned on the Field
Using P4 champ + runner-up with the 10 Power-4 requirement ensures the byes go to teams that truly navigated top-tier schedules.
4. Clean Bracket Math
24 16 8 4 flows perfectly because the Wild Card Round is purposeful, not patched in.
Everyone arrives at the Sweet 16 with equal mileage.
5. Better Football, Fewer Blowouts
No guaranteed spots for weaker league champs.
If they belong, they'll rank in like everyone else.
6. Reduced Committee Influence
Your model still leans on the committee for at-larges and seeding.
This one uses a transparent formula, keeping the decision-making consistent and predictable.
Bottom Line
Your idea aims for inclusiveness, which is solid in theory, but it creates uneven standards, awkward bracket
issues, and more committee involvement than intended.
This model keeps the spirit of expanded access but delivers:
My 24-Team Model (Short Version)
1. Selection:
The Top 24 teams are determined by a weighted AP + Coaches Poll formula.
No fixed conference quotas performance drives inclusion.
2. First-Round Byes:
The top eight seeds are the winners AND runners-up of the Power 4 conference championship games, provided they played at least 10 Power-4 opponents in their 12-game regular season.
This keeps title games meaningful and rewards real schedules.
3. Wild Card Round:
The 16 wild card teams are simply the remaining ranked teams (Top 24) that did not play in a Power 4 championship game.
- These teams become seeds 924.
- They play in the Wild Card Round (9 vs 24, 10 vs 23, etc.).
- Winners advance to join the eight bye teams in the Sweet 16.
- All surviving teams enter the Sweet 16 with 13 games played, same as today's regular season + conference title structure.
4. Committee Role:
Minimal the formula produces the rankings and seeds.
Committee only steps in for rare tie-break situations.
Why This Works Better Than Fixed Auto-Bids
1. No Pre-Assigned Spots
Auto-bids based on conference identity (6 SEC, 6 Big Ten, etc.) lock in assumptions that don't hold every year.
My model judges everyone on the same national standard, avoiding built-in inequities.
2. Consistent Path to Qualifying
Conference-only qualification creates uneven difficulty.
A ranking-based system avoids weak auto-bids and protects competitive integrity.
3. Byes Are Earned on the Field
Using P4 champ + runner-up with the 10 Power-4 requirement ensures the byes go to teams that truly navigated top-tier schedules.
4. Clean Bracket Math
24 16 8 4 flows perfectly because the Wild Card Round is purposeful, not patched in.
Everyone arrives at the Sweet 16 with equal mileage.
5. Better Football, Fewer Blowouts
No guaranteed spots for weaker league champs.
If they belong, they'll rank in like everyone else.
6. Reduced Committee Influence
Your model still leans on the committee for at-larges and seeding.
This one uses a transparent formula, keeping the decision-making consistent and predictable.
Bottom Line
Your idea aims for inclusiveness, which is solid in theory, but it creates uneven standards, awkward bracket
issues, and more committee involvement than intended.
This model keeps the spirit of expanded access but delivers:
- clear, objective criteria
- cleaner bracket design
- fairer seeding
- stronger matchups
- minimal politics