SEC needs to stay at 8 games - and do we replace Clemson with a cupcake based on how this committee works? They spoke about how hot ASU is to get #4. We are one of the hottest teams and get left out.
Expand to 16 teams & get rid of the byes - this makes no sense.
- Thread starter Psycock
- Start date
Because they only had 2 losses and just won a conference championship.
This isn't that hard to figure out.
Conference play needs to go to 10 games, not stay at 8, Saban was spot on with that comment. Too many teams, Texas, Clemson, SMU, Indiana , to name a few , had easy conference schedules. If conference champs are getting a bye, then they need to have played more conference games. But to your point, 16 teams in solves a lot of problems. 12 was always a stupid # for a playoff
Yes. Either up to 16 or down to 8. 12 never made sense. With 8 however there must be a clear cut data based formula. No committee sitting around rattling bones and reading fish entrails.
This cracks me up seriously. I tried to tell people when they said the BCS, the bowl system or the 4 team playoff caused too much controversy. Have you paid attention to March madness? You could have 120 teams and there would still be controversy. Give it a rest.
I'm for 16 teams. Based on today's rankings we would play Georgia (#2 vs #15), Clemson would play Oregon (#1 vs #16) if we went to 16 teams and no byes or automatic qualifiers. There would be many other interesting match ups.
Goodness, no. Look at how the chaos increased with them trying to pick 12 teams instead of four. The last thing they need is to try to decide between even more teams. The chaos only expands.
I could get on board with 8 if it forced the G5 schools to reline into G4 by expanding to four 16 member conferences. You'd then have eight conference with eight conference champions in a eight team playoff. Everything is won on the field. No second chances. No invitational. Win and advance. ND joins a conference or is left out.
Otherwise, go to 16 and use the top 16 ranked and seeded by computer.
My preference would be the latter but I would not have a problem with the former as discribed but I dont think I can get on board for an 8 team invitational that looks like what we have now.... at-larges being chosen by committee and the likes.
The playoffs need to contract, not expand. When you start allowing decent, but not great, teams into the playoffs, you're always going to have controversy because there are a lot decent, but not great, teams out there. There are almost always only about 4 teams with a legit claim to being the best in the country, certainly no more than 8.
While we're at it, break up the super conferences and go back to 5 power conferences. Conferences with 16 and 18 teams are unwieldy. One team in a mega conference can have a schedule that doesn't look remotely as difficult as another team's schedule in the same conference.
While we're at it, break up the super conferences and go back to 5 power conferences. Conferences with 16 and 18 teams are unwieldy. One team in a mega conference can have a schedule that doesn't look remotely as difficult as another team's schedule in the same conference.
It's not the number. It's the process. Base it on a real, data based formula and a there won't be any chaos. 4,8,12,16 whatever, just make it objective instead of this subjective committee BS.
FCS has 24 teams in it's playoffs. Eight teams get a first round bye.
Expansion was obviously a horrible idea. But what we know about human nature, they will try to solve it with more expansion.
Nice thought, but going to 8 in a conference is not going to happen. It’s not madness to go to 16. No need to add more after that. Yes, 12 will get us a true national champion, but 16 does solve problems, notably, getting rid of the bye round.
As a South Carolina fan, let’s be real. The evolution to the format we see today was our best chance of ever winning a national championship.
Im all for it.
Not sure how I was misquoted, but I did not state that expansion was a horrible idea. Quite the contrary; I think it's a great idea.
How could anyone look at the wreckage of this CFP process and possibly think expansion was a good idea?
Completely agree, plus, no automatic qualifiers and every participant chosen by a computer-driven system. No concern about conference representation.
For what it's worth, this arrangement only goes one more year by contract. I expect significant changes. The flaws jump out at anyone but an idiot. They should have been foreseeable by people who are supposed to be smart. Lots of everyday fans saw the fallacies foisted on the public in the name of inclusion.
lol, it's almost as if the federal government is in charge of expansion. the typical government response to something that isn't working is to do even more of it.
expansion has been an unmitigated disaster.
expansion has been an unmitigated disaster.
Get rid of the bye and automatic qualifiers from winning conferences. Make the goal be getting the best, strongest, ranked 16 teams.
SEC and Big 10 would never go along with a system that didn't include byes.
That’s what you don’t understand. The chaos is the grease that makes the wheels turn. More chaos more money.
If changes are not made to satisfy the big boys (SEC and the BIG), those 2 will split away from everyone else. Take that to the bank.
I’m still holding out on this I’m not convinced. I’ll explain why. 10 years ago I would have agreed 100%. No way 10 could beat the top 4 most years. However NIL and the transfer portal have created a great shift in the wealth in college football. I’m not talking about money, I’m talking about talent. Talent is much much more diversified. No one has the depth those teams had. Just look at Georgia over a 3-5 year period. Bama as well even with Saint Nick. I think it’s only going to get better.
I say all this to say that it would not surprise me at all if a lower seeded team won it all this year. I think there is some potential for some upsets.
Also keep in mind if there isn’t any “chaos”, then there is nothing to talk about. So they are not going to make the perfect system.
I have this feeling that had we won one more game, say Bama or Ole Miss, we more than likely would have still been out because there was no way no how they were going to limit both the Big 12 and the ACC to one team each. No way in the world they would allow that to happen.
I don't disagree with any of that. An expanded playoff, especially one with automatic byes, ads multiple layers of randomness. There will be at least some chaos, maybe even a lot. But as a college football purist, I find that objectionable. From this year forward, being the college football champion means something different than in prior years. Previously, it meant "best college football team," even if there might have been some controversy. Now, it really just means "playoff winner." Kind of like how we say "Super Bowl Champion" instead of "NFL Champion." Some will like the changes while some won't. Regardless, lots of money will be made.
Expansion was obviously not a horrible idea. It opened the door for far more teams to have a meaningful chance at the championship for far longer. From South Carolina to Ole Miss to Boise State to Indiana to SMU, the door was open and championship aspirations remained very real until the very end of the season.
That's a good thing. Before 2024, none of those teams mentioned would have been in the conversation.
This is the closest college football has ever been to settling the championship argument on the field. Clearly it's not perfect, but it's far better than the four team playoff or polls arbitrarily choosing different teams to share national titles.
This was one of the reasons college football was so good this year. No clear-cut favorite. Oregon appears to be the best team, but they still have played a few close games. Every other contender has a loss (or more). Georgia is the second most picked team on ESPN's bracket challenge, and they lost two games and really should have lost to Georgia Tech. The CFP is wide open.
I think that's a big reason we see as much controversy as we do. The revolving definition of what we are served. To me a champion of the 2024 season would be the winner of a tournament with all the (conference) champions. Anything else is an invitational playoff naming the winner National Champion. With that, now you've got to decide what makes a good enough season to get an invite to the invitational. Clearly SOS has taken a back seat in this committee. Fans and coaches across the country have noticed this omission so this is a real concern. Also evidently taking a back seat is how one is playing now. We may be the hottest team in America with numerous quality wins in the second half of the season so that doesn't appear to be a consideration either. Both of those things they have told us in the past mattered yet somehow they didn't. Sad part is at this point the committee can come out tomorrow and tell us exactly what a team needs to do next year to be included in the playoff and we really wont know if they would honor that because they have moved the goal posts after we think we know what they want... intentionally or not. We need stability in the system and we need to know what we are up against from the onset of a season and we dont have either. We are winging it and making it up as we go along. It cant change soon enough imo.
Again society changes and will continue. It use to cool to behead problem in public.
Saying the old college football systems meant "best college football team" is a stretch. Look at how many years in the poll era had multiple champions. Even in the BCS era you had issues. Look at 2004 or 2009, where 5 teams finished undefeated. Or last year, where FSU was left out of the 4 team playoff as an undefeated conference champion.
With so many college teams out there, having a playoff system is the best way to determine a champion. Just look at the subjectivity of comparing strength of schedules and the different conferences!
"We don't behead people any longer so we should also open the door for more teams to play for the title" isn't a strong argument.