12-Team CFP Model Gaining Steam

Link Here

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

I'm just here for the hot takes on why automatic bids will destroy the sanctity of college football

"I have a PLAN. You just need to have a little goddamn faith, Whit. I just need. more. MONEY." - Justin van der Linde

The "sanctity" being the bowl system and corporate/higher education greed?

Well, that and the sanctity of if we lose to UNC on opening night, we're eliminated from the playoffs even if we win the ACC.

2021 Season Challenge: only comment with Batman memes.

Previous Challenges: Star Wars (2019), Marvel (2020)

You might just be making a joke, but other people have made very serious assertions that we have no shot at the playoff with one loss, and I simply don't believe that is true at all. If we won the ACC with one loss in the first week I bet we would make the playoff. Especially if it's 12-1 VT with a win over 11-1 or 12-0 Clemson in the ACCG and probably our loss being to a 10-2 (required for us to make the ACCCG over them with a loss to them) or 9-3 UNC in week one.

The whole thing is absolutely useless to be theoretically upset about though, because we aren't going 12-1 and winning the ACC against Clemson this season.

You're right that I'm just cruising for laughs. I'm just here for the memes, as always.

That being said, I have to...

2021 Season Challenge: only comment with Batman memes.

Previous Challenges: Star Wars (2019), Marvel (2020)

Because if you have automatic bids it will mean that the team that wins the games they play according to the rules of competition that everyone knows at the beginning of the season will advance. That would lead to anarchy.

We should instead leave it up to a vote like nature intended.

Nature, you say? Sounds like a job for computers to me.

As an avid opponent of autobids for conference champions, I am here to provide freezing cold takes on why providing autobids won't solve any of the problems that CFB is currently facing.

Twitter me

I agree on your later point. Expansion doesn't fix anything. But, I do support autobids.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

this. if you're going to expand, autobids makes the most sense for every reason. But simply expanding isn't going to fix the issues everyone is mad about anyway.

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

I personally love Bar's proposed selection system that provides functional autobids to teams who win their conference and finish within the final top 12. I don't think an 8-4 team deserves an autobid. Being top 12 is more than a reasonable goal. We finished 12th, for example, after the ACCCG with two losses in 2010... to a G5 and an FCS team. There is no context where a 10-2 conference champion won't be in the top 12 unless they lost to two FCS teams (maybe).

Let's bring back the old "Big East" rule from the BCS and any conference that doesn't average 12th or better gets their autobid taken away!

P.S. The BE never had this problem but the ACC did and should have lost their bid to the BCS games.

if you're going to expand, autobids makes the most sense for every reason

Why? I said it in the last thread about this, but the conferences are so uneven (unlike professional sports), it doesn't make sense to me to give everyone an autobid, unless there's some sort of restriction on it (eg; need to win conference and be in top 20).

Twitter me

this is a chicken and egg issue IMO. Part of the problem with CFB is the lack of parity between conferences. Starting all the leagues on the same field (even if they don't currently belong) will drive parity more than trying to artificially manufacture parity through arbitrary constraints on who gets a seat at the table (because some leagues are just better than others). If you're trying to create the most exciting playoff field in the short term, your solution is fine. The problem is that it doesn't adequately address the issue of talent disparity long term. The best players/coaches are going to follow the money and the money is going to be funneled to the teams that get those seats at the big table. Autobids would likely fail to provide the most exciting playoff in the short term but it would lay the ground work for the conferences to come a little bit closer to level in the long term.

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

The 4 team model has shown that the exciting field hasn't panned out. Reward outcomes of actual competition instead of having a beauty contest. I don't want the arguments of whether a 3 loss ACC champion is better than a 3 loss SEC loser. Everybody has a chance to win a conference, no pity parties allowed. The top few exceptions will still get at large invites.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Starting all the leagues on the same field (even if they don't currently belong) will drive parity more than trying to artificially manufacture parity through arbitrary constraints on who gets a seat at the table (because some leagues are just better than others).

Yea, I disagree on this. Recruits care most about relationships and NFL prospects. Ability to win a Natty is much lower on the list. I doubt autobids will lead to more parity.

Twitter me

One step higher. With consistent access to the playoff and the resultant $$, schools will be able to theoretically recruit more talent and sell their brand. It's not that much different than the selling point of much of the SEC bottom feeders - the opportunity to play against the best teams/players and showcase your talent.

I doubt autobids will lead to more parity

I'll concede that autobids probably don't lead to more parity on their own. But that's not my main point. Autobids are a step in the right direction. There are major structural issues within CFB that have led to the massive wealth gap between the haves and have nots. By adding arbitrary qualifiers for the playoffs (e.g. only conference winners ranked in the top 12) you're not addressing any of those structural issues at all. You're just sweeping those issues under the rug and putting a band aid on the problem.

CFB is broken. We know this because the games are getting increasingly boring and the competition at the top is really stale. Clemson, Bama, OSU, rinse and repeat. Simply expanding the playoff isn't going to resolve those issues. I think we agree on this point. The reason that simply expanding the playoff isn't going to resolve those issues is because they run much deeper than just making the playoff more accessible. So expanding the playoff and then adding qualifiers to try and force the most exciting matchups misses the point.

People don't want an expanded playoff per se. People want more variety in the playoff. People don't just love the NCAA tournament because there are lots of teams. They love it because you see different teams in it all the time (yes, the top teams are usually there, but you always have new teams which keeps it fresh). UMBC doesn't belong on the same basketball court as UNC, Duke, or UVA most of the time. But it's exciting when they get that chance. People love that. People don't want to see the top 12 teams every single year. They want to see teams from across the spectrum even if they know some of those teams stand no chance. I think folks would be okay with Bama and Clemson being in the playoff every single year as long as there are other new teams cycling through from the lower leagues.

Does expanding the playoff and having autobids fix college football? No, not in a vacuum. But it provides the foundation to build a more equitable sport through other structural changes. I don't think you would get the most competitive or exciting playoff possible in the first few years but it would be fresh each year and, with other changes, could bring the titans back down to earth a bit while lifting up some of the lesser teams. I'm not advocating for NFL levels of parity in CFB but I do think the disparity between the great teams and the mediocre teams is too great. That range needs to be truncated a bit to make college football interesting again.

VT basketball is not likely to win the NCAA tournament in the next 10 years. But the very fact that we stand a chance at getting to the NCAA playoff makes basketball exciting to watch every year. Fans don't get excited at the prospect of winning the NCAA. They get excited at the prospect of making the NCAA. To do that in CFB, you have to make the playoff realistically accessible. If you're going to expand the playoff, it makes sense to set it up so that conference champions get a seat at the table regardless of their records (and all of this chatter about "no body wants to see an 8-4 conf. champ" is just distracting nonsense. Most conference champions are going to be better than 8-4 so that is going to be the rare exception, not the norm. It's a stupid argument and I'm tired of seeing it)

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

Great explanation. I really don't understand the popular fear of the rare "non deserving" conference champion entering a playoff field of 8, 12, or 16 teams. Same goes for the G5 champs. Nobody is saying they think they are better than some of the other conference runner ups, but they deserve the chance to prove it. Right now, they are playing in a league where there is no feasible way for them to reach a championship. I am fine if they never actually win, but they should have a path. There will still be at large bids for those with the best argument of not winning the conference.

Autobids may also make it more enticing to schedule quality out of conference games, which in my opinion would be better for the sport than anything playoff related.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

The Bowl system has to be eliminated. Nobody cares about dumb meaningless games. Who cares about the history of the cotton bowl or the galleryfurniture.com bowl?

Top 20 playoffs. Top 30. Pick a number where a wide variety of teams get a chance. Make the regular season great again.

I don't have a strong opinion on the bowl games. Some people love the "dumb meaningless games". I also don't necessarily think that bowl games devalue the regular season. I do think that it is important to the health of the sport to ensure that the regular season games retain their importance, no matter what direction we go next. I believe the 4-team playoff could have worked without devaluing the regular season if it had been structured a bit differently.

If there is a hill that I will die on, it's this one: The playoff lost all credibility/value when OSU was picked over PSU when PSU won the B1G. It signaled that the playoff was that in name only but still very much the popularity contest that the playoff was supposed to be replacing because fans didn't like it. That is the point at which I realized the "Playoff" is a sham and CFB is seriously broken. So, as I've said before, just expanding the playoff isn't going to fix anything. The whole system needs to be restructured. I would propose that expanding the playoff is an opportunity to begin that restructure project in a way that the rest of the sport can model to keep CFB healthy in the future. But I also know that the powers that be are selfish and single minded and won't make the changes necessary to keep college football interesting and fun.

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

Agreed. I was very offended on behalf of PSU. They did their job and won the B1G and were deliberately skipped. Same has happened to UCF, etc.

I think whatever expansion, 8, 10 or 12. The conference winners have to be in there and there should be a maximum limit of 2 from ANY conference.

There are lots of issues with the bowl system (greed), but I love dumb meaningless games.

People don't just love the NCAA tournament because there are lots of teams. They love it because you see different teams in it all the time (yes, the top teams are usually there, but you always have new teams which keeps it fresh).

I don't think so - people like the NCAA tourny because it feels like anything can happen. It's just the nature of the sport. It's not possible for one player to get hot and dominate a team of more talented players.

I just don't buy your argument that this will somehow level the playing field in the longer term. ESPN currently pays $470M/year for the playoff. Assuming 4 leagues each get one representative in the playoff, and each league has a profit sharing agreement requiring them to share winnings with their ~14 member schools, that's an extra $8.3M per team per year. The SEC in total brought in $692M in TV deals last year, resulting in almost $50M/team. The way I see it, expanding the playoff - best case - will give G5 teams an extra $8M each year, and all the P5 teams an additional extra $8m each year. In this situation, I think we'd see the same 3ish teams make the final 4 each year and 1-2 'additional' good playoff game (although most years we would've seen this same game in an NY6 bowl game).

EDIT: Under the current proposal (6 autobids, 6 at large bids) there were multiple years where the SEC would've gotten 4 at large bids, and one seasons where they would've gotten 5 at large bids. This 12 team play off will not drive parity.

The fastest way to fix the 'problem' is for Nick Saban to retire.

UMBC doesn't belong on the same basketball court as UNC, Duke, or UVA most of the time. But it's exciting when they get that chance.

I disagree with this. I've only watched one half of a 1 vs 16 match up in my life, and it was the second half of UMBC/UVA. That game is almost never exciting. We shouldn't change the format of the playoff so we can see a major upset happen every 30 years (that's how often a 1 vs 16 happens in NCAABB).

VT basketball is not likely to win the NCAA tournament in the next 10 years. But the very fact that we stand a chance at getting to the NCAA playoff makes basketball exciting to watch every year. Fans don't get excited at the prospect of winning the NCAA. They get excited at the prospect of making the NCAA. To do that in CFB, you have to make the playoff realistically accessible.

I don't want this in college football. I really, really, really don't. The exclusivity of the playoff is the best thing about it. I love the fact that you can lose one game, and no longer control your own destiny. There's a reason many people (myself included) don't watch much college basketball until March - it's because there's no point to it.

Twitter me

I am pretty sure people only like the NCAA for gambling purposes and for watching the #1 overall seed loose to the #64 seed...

I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction:
“I served in the United States Navy"

Never Forget

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

I dont gamble, and I love watching Duke lose.

I just don't buy your argument that this will somehow level the playing field in the longer term.

I don't have all the answers to fix the problems with CFB. I just don't. But structuring the playoff to funnel more money to the richer teams ain't it. Restructuring the playoff isn't the total answer. It's just the start. CFB needs a lot more than just a restructured playoff so regardless of which direction they go, if they stop with a new playoff system, it's useless.

The fastest way to fix the 'problem' is for Nick Saban to retire.

Nick Saban is a great coach but he is not responsible for the broken system. He might be somewhat responsible for taking advantage of the broken system but you can hardly blame him for that. And, again, there is no simple or quick fix. You're not going to fix CFB by changing one thing. And you're certainly not going to fix it quickly.

I disagree with this. I've only watched one half of a 1 vs 16 match up in my life, and it was the second half of UMBC/UVA. That game is almost never exciting. We shouldn't change the format of the playoff so we can see a major upset happen every 30 years (that's how often a 1 vs 16 happens in NCAABB).

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the basketball analogy since the two sports are completely different. I only brought it up because the spirit of the NCAA tournament is rooted in the excitement at the beginning of ever season that every team, including UMBC or Radford or some directional Michigan school, has a shot at the big dance.

The exclusivity of the playoff is the best thing about it. I love the fact that you can lose one game, and no longer control your own destiny.

There are 130 D1 football programs in the NCAA. A 12 team playoff is still pretty darn exclusive so I don't know what your issue is here. You are also hinting at the notion that expanding the playoff and allowing for auto-bids somehow lessens the importance of regular season games. I completely disagree with that line of thinking. In fact, I think it puts more importance on winning games in the regular season. Every conference game matters. And if you have a 12 team playoff with 10 autobids there are two at large spots available. Those spots are going to the teams with the best resumes. Teams will have incentives to win every single game in order to get to the promised land.

Imagine the pomp and circumstance surrounding a game between 9-1 Miami and 9-1 VT in November. The game has national title implications because the winning team secures a spot in the ACC CG with a shot to win the ACC and get a spot at the table. Even though each team has lost one game previously, they're still very much in it. That game matters. Every game matters. For every team.

Think about how important a game in late September is to a 3-0 VT team going up against a 2-1 Miami squad. The winner likely gains control of the coastal with a shot at the ACC CG and potential playoff berth. That game matters. To both teams. Every game matters. For every team.

Imagine how amped a 7-4 Duke team would be to go up against a 10-1 VT team with a shot to knock VT out of contention with a big upset? Think about how badly VT wants to win that game to improve their odds at winning an At Large bid as a 1 loss team with a strong resume? Every game matters. For every team.

But I say all that knowing that you and I just have fundamentally different views of the purpose of the playoff. You think the playoff should be about pitting the "best" teams against each other and seeing who comes out on top. You want to see the teams with the highest rankings from the perceived strongest leagues duking it out. I think the playoff should be about rewarding teams from each league for taking care of business during the regular season, winning their leagues and earning a chance to go up against the best teams from the other leagues. I know full well that all the leagues aren't the same. If I wanted to see the truly best 4 teams play each other I'd just watch the SEC and forget about the rest of CFB. But I don't want that. I want every league to play for something...for the potential to have a team with a magical season earn a chance to play against teams that performed the best in their respective leagues throughout the season. I want every league to matter. I'm tired of the SEC. I don't want to be forced to watch SEC semi-pro teams play each other over and over again. I want to care about the PAC 1X, and the ACC, and the MAC and the AAC etc.

EDIT to reply to your EDIT:

EDIT: Under the current proposal (6 autobids, 6 at large bids) there were multiple years where the SEC would've gotten 4 at large bids, and one seasons where they would've gotten 5 at large bids. This 12 team play off will not drive parity.

I'm not saying that it will. I'm not really sure why you keep bringing this up. Either you're not paying attention to what I'm saying, not understanding it, or just plainly ignoring me. FTR, I haven't seen the proposal but I have full confidence that this group of idiots is going to dream up something that doesn't address any of the deeper issues and ultimately resolves nothing. That said, my entire point is that there are deep structural issues within CFB and expanding the playoff isn't going to be enough to fix any of it. The powers that be need to do a root cause analysis (it's very clear they have not) to find out why people are dissatisfied with the 4 team playoff. It has nothing to do with the playoff being too exclusive. It has everything to do with underlying structural issues that go far beyond the post season system. Expanding the playoff is just a band aid and if they do that and nothing more we're going to have the exact same issues with it that we have with the 4-team playoff.

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but from your above comment (and subsequent comments), it seems like you're suggesting that Bigger Table = More Teams at Table = More Equality for teams and their conference (long term):

Part of the problem with CFB is the lack of parity between conferences. Starting all the leagues on the same field (even if they don't currently belong) will drive parity more than trying to artificially manufacture parity through arbitrary constraints on who gets a seat at the table (because some leagues are just better than others). If you're trying to create the most exciting playoff field in the short term, your solution is fine. The problem is that it doesn't adequately address the issue of talent disparity long term. The best players/coaches are going to follow the money and the money is going to be funneled to the teams that get those seats at the big table. Autobids would likely fail to provide the most exciting playoff in the short term but it would lay the ground work for the conferences to come a little bit closer to level in the long term.

The bolded statements above seem to be the basis for your argument. I just disagree with this.

Twitter me

you are grossly over-simplifying what I'm saying which, as a result, is ending up as you believing I'm saying something I'm not.

More teams at the table does not automatically equal more equality long term. There are a lot of steps that have to happen between "more teams at the table" and "more quality long term" before the latter can be realized. Simply expanding the playoff isn't enough to get that done. I'm going to make an aside here before coming back to this.

Aside: I think you and I probably agree that there is disparity between the leagues in CFB. We may differ on whether or not that is a good thing or a "problem". I think the entire basis of this debate is dependent upon understanding where we each stand on this. I don't want to see NFL levels of parity in CFB but I believe that the disparity right now is too great and problematic. I think the long term health of the sport will suffer if the gap isn't decreased somewhat.

Now, back to my point. Expanding the playoff, by itself, solves nothing. In order to drive parity, there needs to be several, deep, systemic changes made to CFB in general (beyond just the playoff). I do believe there is a problem that needs fixing. I don't believe the playoff is the singular fix. BUT, if you're going to start by fixing the playoff, structure it in view of the vision for the future, not based in the current reality. Set the playoff up to treat each league as equals. That's your starting point. But don't stop there. Continue making changes to the sport to drive the leagues back to a mean.

I believe CFB is broken. You may or may not agree. My argument is based on the idea that it is. If you disagree, then you just won't get my POV because in your view I'm trying to fix something that isn't broken.

I don't think expanding the playoff will drive parity. I don't believe that simply adding teams to the table will do so. I do believe that if you want to drive parity (and some people won't want to) the best way to do that is to START by treating the leagues as equals now and use that model to drive parity through other, systemic changes. By setting up a playoff without autobids or with a bunch of additional qualifiers (like ranking, SOS, resume, etc.) you're doing nothing to address the "problem" of disparity in the sport and only reinforcing the problems that already exist, thus making them more pronounced. If the playoff is based on "resume" or "ranking" then in about 3 years over half of the playoff teams will be from the SEC and the gap between the SEC and everyone else is going to continue growing exponentially until we have NFL, SEC, CFB, High School, Pee Wee.

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

I see. Yes, I am not convinced that college football is broken (from the fans' perspective; it's very broken from the players' perspective), but I do think there is room for improving the post season.

Twitter me

well I'm glad we got that out of the way. Hard to have a civil/constructive debate when we're not even addressing the same problem...haha

If all you think is needed is an improved post season it makes sense that the structure of it would be geared towards "the most exciting matchups". Fair play to you there. Cheers, and have a great weekend.

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

It is pretty obvious how much more engaged the fanbase has been since the basketball team has been in the tournament conversation. If playoffs can do the same for football, it is worth it.

College football exclusivity began to sour on me when the BCS was created. At that point, we went from a group of bowl games that fans could decide order of importance for themselves to being told that BCS bowl games are the most important. Fast forward to the playoff and the gap between playoff games and gator Bowl grows even more. Now a whole lot of fanbases are sitting around feeling like losers thinking there is no way to catch up to the top 5. Bowl games are skipped by seniors. Playoffs provide hope, even if only of the slimmest chances of realization.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Top 20 would be a compromise I would consider. But, with expansion comes an even more watering down of bowls. I would feel better about a very rare +20 team getting in than having that +20 team overcome the odds to win the conference and then play in a bowl game on a baseball field with 50 people in the stands. That rare case if given an invite is either going to prove why they should be there or get bounced by a higher seeded team in round one in a game that is likely to be at least as exciting as the semi finals we have had in recent years.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Fine have auto bids, but with a caveat that you have to also be in the top 20, or have no fewer than one or two losses or something. We need enough of an automatic qualifier to make sure a UCF situation never happens again, and not an automatic qualifier that will inevitably give us an 8-5 Pitt or Southern Cal, because something like that will eventually happen.

Hell, those last two were a fluke game away from happening within that last 6 years or so, had an automatic bid situation been in place.

Also, I absolutely detest the idea of having separat rules for the P5 and G5. Make the qualification strict enough that you can apply is to everyone equally.

Yeah if there's autobids you have to scrap the divisional format. I don't like that for regular season scheduling but its the only way it makes sense

I like this for the sport. Give some other people a chance to knock off some big dawgs and make a run.

"What are you going to do, stab me? - Quote from Man Stabbed

my biggest gripe is that i feel byes are too advantageous. Make it 16 teams and include all the conferences.

Baby steps though

The two days of discussion by the management committee are expected to yield a singular recommendation for the following week. That's when the CFP board of managers, a group of 11 presidents and chancellors from the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame,

That part in bold is probably one of the bigger reasons you'll never see ND join a conference. They'd lose their special invitation only seat to a lot of these power broker meetings. It would default to the rep from the conference.

It's an unwritten law that it's my lunch pail. I've issued the challenge. If someone outworks me, they can get it.
Darryl Tapp

Those bold words are also why I wanted an 8 or ten team conference with auto bids. It would effectively force ND to get off the seat and actually join a conference.

Expansion is good but why do I get the feeling the committee will find a way to stick in 4 or 5 SEC teams every year

I would love a scenario where every conference champion gets an automatic bid. So, simple math, the only way the SEC gets that number is if we have a 16 team playoff.

Give me 8 or 16. No first round byes.

It's Time to go to Work

8 is the right number.

6 and byes is just going to guarantee that 1 and 2 go through to the final and it won't mean anything significant.

Looking at the pre bowl AP poll:

In 2012 did 11-1 Oregon (at #5) deserve to get in? Yeah, probably. Did 10-2 LSU (at #9) behind 3 other SEC schools? Nope.

In 2013 did 11-2 Pac 12 champ Stanford (at #5) deserve to get in? sure. Did 11-2 Mizzou (at #9) again behind 3 other SEC schools? lolnope.

2014 #5 tOSU at 12-1, B1G champs? YUP. #9 Ole miss at 9-3? GTFO.

2015 #5 Stanford, PAC champs? sure. #9 10-2 Free Shoes U? nope

2016 #5 PSU at 11-2. #9 USCw at 9-3

2017 #5 OSU at 11-2. #9 PSU 10-2.

2018 #5 12-1 OSU. #9 10-3 Washington.

2019 #5 11-2 UGa. #9 10-2 Alabama.

2020 #5 8-1 A&M. #9 11-0 Coastal Carolina

It's not always perfect, and some years four is going to be enough, but there certainly are years when #5 close enough that you really can't draw a distinction between the team at 5 and the teams at 2/3/4.

On the other hand, every team at #9 has significant flaws and doesn't have a legit argument that the should be in.

Since you have to draw a line somewhere, I think 8 is right. The line between 'has an argument' and 'GTFO, you have to win something' is going to comfortably fall somewhere between team 3 or 4 and team 6 or 7.

Autobids conference champs within the top 16, including the highest rank G5 champ, fills out from there by the committee. Not perfect still, but when LSU/MIZZOU/OLEMISS/FSU/USCw/PSU/UW/BAMA wants to bitch about how they shouldn't have been the last team left out, there's going to be a pretty convincing argument for how should STFU.

This all pretty clear breaks down in 2020, but so did everything else last year, so whatever.

(I was badly hoping for Texas or Mich to show up at #9 so I could snarkily dismiss them with 'maybe when you beat OU/tOSU' someday)

Old sigline: I've been cutting back on the drinking.

New Sigline: lol it's football season.

Should be 16, 10 conference champs and 6 at large bids. eliminate the bowls and we have our playoffs. Winning all around...

I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction:
“I served in the United States Navy"

Make the playoff game the bowls and I think you have a win win solution for all.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

Whatever happens it will likely not resemble
any of the logical suggestions here.

All SEC teams get a bid (Except Mizzou and Vandy), Bama always get a first round bye, the other bye rotates between GA, AUB, LSU.

(add if applicable) /s

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

12 makes sense...rewards the top 4 (bye), but also includes autobids.

when baseball expanded the playoffs, I screamed, then I saw how expansion actually made winning your division more important than before expansion...expansion CAN actually make the regular season MORE important!

I don't have to take this abuse from you, I've got hundreds of people dying to abuse me.

10 conference champions + 6 at large, provided those six do not play in conference title games, thus making the conference championships a de facto first round of the playoffs. No more than 3 teams per conference. P5 + top 3 G5 conference champions/Independents host.

Tier out the bowls so that the 10 conference championship losers get drawn into the top 5 bowls by a pre-determined bowl selection order, .
Repeat until you run out of eligible teams

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

Ok hear me out, cause this is going to sound a bit insane, but ... well it probably is..

So we make it a 12 team playoff and each conference gets to put in a raffle ticket for each win they have. The name on the raffle ticket could be any school but most likely would be one from the conference. Then we draw 12 teams. So the more the conference wins the more chances. But a conference could put 100% of its votes to one team while others would split them.

Now I know what you're thinking, but it wouldn't be college football with out huge media bias. We fix that by having a number of permanent raffle tickets every year for Bama, USC, anOSU, Oklahoma, Texas, and maybe Mich/Neb to cover the blue bloods.

There will be so much controversy it will be amazing. Especially if an undefeated team loses out.

I like this idea; because neat little piles of CHAOS.

Additionally, I want a televised drawing of lots to see first round matchups.

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

100% television involvement, I want each conference pick delegation televised too.

and none of the picks can be anonymous either. Every team has to declare, after their win, which team they write on their raffle ticket each week. That will amp up rivalries. Would make the whole circus that much more entertaining.

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

I didn't think about weekly but there is only one thing to say about this idea:

I would prefer to use the wins/losses as a way of scheduling out of conference games.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Auto-bids for P5 conf champs? 👍

12-team playoff? 👎💩

I am in favor of any change that a) gives more seats at the table to play for the championship, and b) removes media/voter bias from the process and finally c) does something to dilute the power imbalance in CFB. The situation that exists today is grossly imbalanced, therefore any changes have the potential to improve the competitiveness of CFB and make the product far more interesting. I am sick to death of seeing Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State owning their conferences for the most part and locking up 75 percent of the "playoff" each year. More teams, more upsets, more opportunity please.

Edit: and would somebody please tell Saban that his grandkids miss him and they want him to retire yesterday?

VTCC '86 Delta Company, Hokie in Peru, Former Naval Aviator, Former FBISA, Forever married to my VT87 girl. Go VT!

Pretty sure his grandkids getting free admission to Bama was part of his latest contract extension to 2028.

You're giving OSU too much credit :); Alabama, OSU, and Clemson have only locked up the top 75% twice in 7 years.
Alabama and Clemson definitely have a stranglehold (imo, deservedly so based on their performances).

The Cover 3 podcast from yesterday about this was pretty fun. The argument gets pretty intense between Tom Fornelli and Danny Kanell, and there are a lot of other positions represented throughout.

edit: I actually think every single person should have to listen to Fornelli's argument against 12 teams and how it won't fix many of the things people think it will. I'm not even saying he's 100% right, but I think he brings up a lot of stuff that I am seeing many people on r/cfb gloss over completely.

The playoffs is not what's killing college football, it's national recruiting

Removing features to get people to sign up for your service is something EA would would do.

The playoffs are why recruiting has become such a parity issue. If the same 3-4 teams are in year in year out they begin to suck up all the truly elite talent and allows them to sustain their dominance. Opening it up may not be a sexy option to some but to me it will slowly release the death grip the big teams have on recruiting. Now once the athletes can be paid thing comes that may just swing it right back but who knows.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

Hard disagree. Players care about going to the NFL way more than going to the playoffs. The playoffs have not caused uneven recruiting; rather, uneven recruiting has caused the playoffs to be the same teams.

Twitter me

Also, in an era with more mediums and access to communication than ever, recruits are even more privy to, and capable of creating for themselves, the benefits of bunching together in regards to the NFL.

- You all go to the same place to practice against the best each day. You only get 12-15 games a year, but many, many more practices. This is the iron sharpens iron approach that Bama pitches in terms of preparing players to become the best they can possibly be (which they need to make it to... The NFL).

There is a Playoff/title challenge benefit to this:

- You all go to the same place to increase your chances to get to take plane rides in a team logo wrapped 747, waltz into playoff games in your tailored suits looking swag, and play for a title. This is secondary to the first point, as I totally agree with your assessment, but it's a nice additional benefit of the talent grouping.

However, this is very much secondary to the prospect of providing yourself and your family with generational wealth.

12 team playoff- can't wait for the teams ranked 25-30 to start the " we coulda killed bama or clemson if we had made it in" arguments on talk radio.

Don't know about that, but I think we'll hear App St fan say something to the effect of, "We were beating Bama going into the 4th quarter, and then Saban flipped a switch, and it was over. Just got gassed. At least we still got the mobileissupposedtobeatouristtrap.com Bowl coming up championship week against 8-4 Florida".

Which is better than an App St fan saying, "We went 12-0, and won our bowl game over 8-4 Florida, we're national champions!".

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

mobileissupposedtobeatouristtrap.com

that took about 10 times reading to decipher

(add if applicable) /s

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

Ugh vomit. If you're going to do a 12 team playoff, you need (1) need to seed/award byes based on the ENTIRE body of work - not just conference games, and (2) need to have every game except the championship be home field for the higher seeded team.

Honestly - point #2 is something really important. The BEST thing about college football is the weird, unique, regional quirks. It's Enter Sandman, the Cadets, Sandstorm, waving to the children's hospital, dotting the 'i', touching the stupid rock without tearing an ACL, tailgates at the grove, student sections, the power T, etc. PLEASE don't ruin the sport by playing what will become the 11 most important games of the season in bland, heartless, corporate NFL stadiums

Twitter me

It is the 4 highest ranked conference champs. So you have to win the conference and have an overall body of work. No way in hell should a non conference winner get a bye.

Agree on the home field stuff. I think if bowls want to still be a big part of college football, they need to be regular season out of conference neutral site games.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

No way in hell should a non conference winner get a bye

Why not? What if it's a situation with a conference runner up has a h2h win and a better record than a different conference's champion?

Twitter me

Then they can crawl their way back through the ranks. We have to get away from who we think is better and move toward winning it on the field if a true playoff is the goal. It isn't like they are getting cut out of an opportunity completely.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

We have to get away from who we think is better and move toward winning it on the field if a true playoff is the goal.

But in the scenario I've provided, the conference runner up is clearly better than the other conference champion, and has proven it on the field...

Twitter me

so you're saying that if Clemson beats LSU in the reg season and LSU loses 2 other conference games but wins the SEC Championship and Clemson loses to, say, VT in the ACC CG you think that 12-1 Clemson (ACC runner up) is clearly better than 10-3 LSU even though LSU's other losses were to ranked Florida and South Carolina teams?

I just want to make sure we're on the same page here

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

No - consider the following:

  • LSU beats Clemson in the regular season, Clemson loses to FSU, but Clemson wins the ACC at 11-2
  • LSU runs the regular season table, but loses to undefeated UGA in SEC Championship.

At this point:

  • UGA is 13-0 Conference Champ
  • LSU = 12-1 Conference runner up, with win over Clemson
  • Clemson is 11-2, with a loss to LSU, a worse record than LSU, and (in most seasons) a weaker resume than LSU, and finishes as the 4th highest ranked conference champion

You're telling me that Clemson should get a bye over LSU?

Twitter me

consider the following:

Clemson beats LSU in the regular season, LSU loses to Auburn, but LSU wins the SEC at 11-2
Clemson runs the regular season table, but loses to undefeated UNC in ACC Championship.
At this point:

UNC is 13-0 Conference Champ
Clemson = 12-1 Conference runner up, with win over LSU
LSU is 11-2, with a loss to Clemson, a worse record than Clemson, but a stronger resume than Clemson, and finishes as the 4th highest ranked conference champion

You want to convince anyone outside of the ACC that Clemson is more deserving of that spot than LSU?

I'm trying to highlight the fallacy of your argument which is that conference perception plays too big of a role in determining who is more deserving of this or that. It's pretty much agreed across the spectrum that the SEC is the king of CFB, right? So the idea that a 12-1 Clemson team that beat a bunch of nobodies in the ACC (but lost the CCG) is more deserving than an 11-2 SEC champion who slogged through an arguably tougher schedule, no matter how unlikely you think it is, is absolutely asinine. Your entire argument is based solely on the idea that the SEC by far the strongest league. You're reinforcing that idea which is only going to make it worse. If you want to fix CFB you have to start by treating the leagues as equals (even if, in reality, they aren't) because as long as you keep treating the SEC as better than everyone that is only going to continue and the gap is only going to grow. A playoff structure (to start with) predicated on the idea that a certain league is arbitrarily more difficult to win than another league absolutely won't work if you want to drive the leagues towards more even footing.

edit: grammar

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

shouldn't direct head-to-head results matter the most in determining seeding for a direct head-to-head knockout bracket?

The rest of the resume is academic relative to the head-to-head on the field result that actually took place.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

The NFL has survived with divisional winners getting preference. It is an interesting debate because what I want is head to head priority in the playoff but want to establish a more structured path to get to that point.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

but want to establish a more structured path to get to that point

This is the root of my viewpoint. It's not I want the 'best' teams or anything like that; it's that I don't want a 'structured' path to a championship. I think the ambiguity in college football is a feature, not a bug.

Twitter me

One of the most crucially unique things about college football. I don't want NFL-lite.

This, to me, sounds more like you are actually arguing for what college football used to be before BCS and playoffs. There is some merit there, because I think we have lost some of the things that made it great then. But, at the end of the day, I think there should be a national champion in this sport that isn't argued about for years. That is how we got here. Now, we have different P5 and G5 conferences that seem to almost be playing different sports. But, we are judging them with human eye tests. The conference champion autobids take opinion out. The larger field of 12 or 16 provides enough slots to have 11 consolation prizes each year because the bowl system has been ruined. I would argue to keep the 4 team model if there was a way to preserve the prestige of the bowls, but that hasn't worked. So the playoff isn't about making sure the best team wins anymore, it is about giving teams in the top ten percent of the sport closure on the season that the bowls are now failing with. It also gives the conferences with bad perception a chance at producing a title contender since current bias (even if right most often) is making it impossible. The whole college football layout is broken and I don't know how to fix it all.

After all that rambling, I do not feel bad for a 4th best SEC team being left out of a playoff simply because people THINK they are better than a lesser ranked conference winner. Why even have conferences if that is the case?

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

You lost me at ACC champion UNC 🤢

Yes. LSU will be the highest seeded first round game.

Disclaimer, I would prefer to not have byes at all, which would mean a number other than 12.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Literally, this is always how CFB has been done. Sometimes one conference has two incredible teams that both are contenders.

The problem arises when the 4th (and in SEC's case even 5th) best teams are being let into the field, which mathematically could basically only happen with rankings bias.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

About damn time.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Jet Sweep

Good scenario: the P5s/Indy + AAC, MWC, and CUSA. The four at larges can be filled with Sun Belt/MAC if even necessary, or teams that were strong enough to make their CCG but lost their regional championship OR their actual CCG.

For example, Bama didn't even win their conference yet won the 2018 CFP. Stuff like that.

CompSci

UH BS 20, VT MS 23.

Go Coogs, Go Hokies.

Looking at who would've made it in the past, 12 is definitely too many, 8 is the perfect amount. 5 P5 champs, 1 G5, 2 at large.

Also for the larger conferences: either scrap divisions, or expand conference championships to 4 teams. That way you don't get stuck with a 5 loss champ from the crappy division if they happen to pull one upset.

If you have to go with 12, then its gotta be P5 champs/runner ups and 2 G5 (kinda defeats the purpose of conf championships). Or have rules restricting conferences to no more than 3. Otherwise $EC bias will ruin it (they would have been getting 4 teams in every year and this is before rankings 5-12 actually mattered)

8 is the perfect amount

2021 Season Challenge: only comment with Batman memes.

Previous Challenges: Star Wars (2019), Marvel (2020)

Leg for the Meme.

But 8 teams with the 5 power 5 champs, at least 1 G5, and 2 at large with the caveat that no more than 2 teams from one conference is the perfect number.