Growing momentum for the 24-team playoff

[katatonic2]

After SEC coaches scuttled the previous plan with the 4-4-2-2-1-1 auto bids format (since they thought it was in their best interest to have more open bids); coaches Smart and Heupel have thrown support behind the B1G's 24 team playoff.

A bit surprised that Smart has changed his mind so early as even with the SEC adding another conference game, UGA should be in pretty much every year even with the current 12 team format (guess he's getting concerned with how much $ the Texas schools and others with deep pocketed donors can throw into their programs).

With someone with the credibility/weight like Smart now supporting the 24 team format, expect more and more SEC coaches to join which will force Sankey to change his tune (again).

Going beyond a 16 team playoff will open the door to more networks/streaming services being able to bid on games, whereas currently, ESPN has a monopoly.

Don't have much of an issue going to 24 teams, especially if 8 teams play in a "play-in" in lieu of the increasingly irrelevant and potentially damaging conference championship game; so it would essentially be a 16 team playoff with 4 play-in games.

The play-in games would not only have significantly more on the line, but would help alleviate the problem with uneven schedules (better to have things settled on the gridiron than in a committee room).

Much has been made of how NIL and the portal has spread out the talent, but another factor helping that has been greater accessibility to competing for the national championship.

When it was just the top 2 ranked teams (or even the top 4), it was basically the same 5-7 schools that had access.

Players want to be able to compete for the natty, and as the no. of teams in the playoff have expanded, we have seen greater disbursement of talent.

This not only helps in making the pathway to the playoff more accessible for the Cats, but helps in talent acquisition as well.

Another considering is the growing noise about a "superleague" which encompasses every P4 school where broadcasting rights would be bundled together (hurting the B1G and SEC and helping the ACC and B12).

Kirby Smart, Josh Heupel embrace 24-team CFP format: Why more SEC coaches could follow suit

With SEC coaches publicly open to the idea, momentum for a 24-team playoff may be gaining steam

www.cbssports.com

 

[Nitt1300]

why not 132?

 

[psuro]

I don't have a problem with the concept of this. However, there are a number of other dominoes that need to fall in order for this to work. Not the least of which is scheduling of games. Football started as a fall sport, then morphed into a fall and early winter sport (with the bowl games), and now is a late summer/fall/early winter sport between bowl games and the playoffs. At this rate, the CFP NC will be played on the Sunday between the Final Four and the NCAA Men's Basketball NC game - by the way, a tournament that started and ended in March and now extends into April.

 

[psuro]

why not 132?

You can make the same argument for any other sport - why not all the teams in that sport and in that league?

 

[MM1994]

This would completely devalue the regular season. Big mistake in my opinion.

 

[psuro]

This would completely devalue the regular season. Big mistake in my opinion.

How so?

 

[Nitt1300]

8 is the right number

 

[Pa$ky859]

I want 10 Regular season games. No conference championship games. Old school Bowl tie in’s. I know this would be problematic in some ways with the PAC 12’s demise, etc. However, I want the B1G 10 champ going to the Rose Bowl, SEC to the Sugar Bowl, etc. After the Bowl games, most teams would have played 11 games. Now rank the top 12 teams. I don’t care if ACC, B1G, SEC, & Big 12 champs get 1-4 & the rest are at large or if you just rank them 1-12.
Play the game playoffs out. A team could go 15 games but many would only play 14.

The biggest problem with my model is non bowl eligible teams would play 10 games and there’s money left on the table.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Still in favor of the 4-4-2-2-1-3 format. Least amount of politics. 24 is WAY too many teams. I doubt the SEC will get too many “Play In” games.

 

[MontereyLion]

A 24 team Playoff will make the regular season far more interesting. When it was a 4 team Playoff how many teams were in the running, in November? 8 maybe 10. With 24 teams atleast 40 will be in the running to make the Playoff down the home stretch, in November. Attendance and TV viewership will only go up for those teams with some hope of making a Playoff game. That translates to more money. Something all schools need now, more then ever.

 

[psu]

Anything above 8 is stupid. If you're not in the top 8 you have no claim to be National champion. This is known yet so many just forget it to get more teams in at any cost.

 

[MontereyLion]

Anything above 8 is stupid. If you're not in the top 8 you have no claim to be National champion. This is known yet so many just forget it to get more teams in at any cost.

Why are there 68 teams in March Madness? The bottom 40 or so teams don't stand a chance of winning it all. Its about giving more fan bases hope. Therefore selling more tickets and driving TV viewership. Its about the Benjamins.

 

[BiochemPSU]

Notre Dame, best dam #24 seed in the country.

 

[Warlerski]

After SEC coaches scuttled the previous plan with the 4-4-2-2-1-1 auto bids format (since they thought it was in their best interest to have more open bids); coaches Smart and Heupel have thrown support behind the B1G's 24 team playoff.

A bit surprised that Smart has changed his mind so early as even with the SEC adding another conference game, UGA should be in pretty much every year even with the current 12 team format (guess he's getting concerned with how much $ the Texas schools and others with deep pocketed donors can throw into their programs).

With someone with the credibility/weight like Smart now supporting the 24 team format, expect more and more SEC coaches to join which will force Sankey to change his tune (again).

Going beyond a 16 team playoff will open the door to more networks/streaming services being able to bid on games, whereas currently, ESPN has a monopoly.

Don't have much of an issue going to 24 teams, especially if 8 teams play in a "play-in" in lieu of the increasingly irrelevant and potentially damaging conference championship game; so it would essentially be a 16 team playoff with 4 play-in games.

The play-in games would not only have significantly more on the line, but would help alleviate the problem with uneven schedules (better to have things settled on the gridiron than in a committee room).

Much has been made of how NIL and the portal has spread out the talent, but another factor helping that has been greater accessibility to competing for the national championship.

When it was just the top 2 ranked teams (or even the top 4), it was basically the same 5-7 schools that had access.

Players want to be able to compete for the natty, and as the no. of teams in the playoff have expanded, we have seen greater disbursement of talent.

This not only helps in making the pathway to the playoff more accessible for the Cats, but helps in talent acquisition as well.

Another considering is the growing noise about a "superleague" which encompasses every P4 school where broadcasting rights would be bundled together (hurting the B1G and SEC and helping the ACC and B12).

Kirby Smart, Josh Heupel embrace 24-team CFP format: Why more SEC coaches could follow suit

With SEC coaches publicly open to the idea, momentum for a 24-team playoff may be gaining steam

www.cbssports.com

Are we totally giving up on the idea that these kids are supposed to be students and the vast majority will not sniff the NFL? On the other hand, maybe we gave up on it gradually and this is the endgame.

 

[Warlerski]

Why are there 68 teams in March Madness? The bottom 40 or so teams don't stand a chance of winning it all. Its about giving more fan bases hope. Therefore selling more tickets and driving TV viewership. Its about the Benjamins.

Correct, there are 3 reasons:
1. $
2. $
3. $

 

[LionJim]

Are we totally giving up on the idea that these kids are supposed to be students and the vast majority will not sniff the NFL? On the other hand, maybe we gave up on it gradually and this is the endgame.

The Division 2 and 3 football playoffs have 32 and 40 teams respectively.

 

[Warlerski]

So

The Division 2 and 3 football playoffs have 32 and 40 teams respectively.

So in other words yes. D1 is just catching up. My son played D2 baseball about 15 years ago and graduated with a double major and now is gainfully employed outside of baseball. Can't see how he could do that today if he played D2 football.

 

[Chumboshifko1]

Correct, there are 3 reasons:
1. $
2. $
3. $

Who would benefit from such a stupid idea?

 

[doctornick]

A 24 team Playoff will make the regular season far more interesting. When it was a 4 team Playoff how many teams were in the running, in November? 8 maybe 10. With 24 teams atleast 40 will be in the running to make the Playoff down the home stretch, in November. Attendance and TV viewership will only go up for those teams with some hope of making a Playoff game. That translates to more money. Something all schools need now, more then ever.

No, it's makes the regular season far more boring. The more teams that have a chance means that losing a few games is ultimately meaningless. It's makes each game far less important because the downside to losing is so much less impactful.

Ask youself how many people pay attention to the regular season in college basketball? The games are pointless in isolation and only matter in aggregate so no one really cares if their team wins a certain game on a given night.

College football used to have the best regular season because losing even a single game was so crippling. That's a good thing because it makes each game so much more important. Yes, the number of teams "in contention" dwindled considerably as the season progresses but that is what make the sport so fascinating. It also allowed there to be meaningful secondary goals besides winning an MNC - winning you conference, getting to double digit wins, winning a bowl game, beating a rival team, etc.

 

[doctornick]

Why are there 68 teams in March Madness? The bottom 40 or so teams don't stand a chance of winning it all. Its about giving more fan bases hope. Therefore selling more tickets and driving TV viewership. Its about the Benjamins.

Exactly. Far too many teams in the basketball tournament too. But that ship sailed a long time ago. College football can still be saved from becoming so much worse, though the decline seems inevitable.

 

[doctornick]

why not 132?

To be honest, a straight single elimination tournament like that would actually be a decent idea. Better than the monstrosities being suggested.

You could have a 5-6 game "season" that is used just to set up seeding. This would enable teams to play local opponents/rivals or whatever they want. The games will be relatively meaningless, but can still happen. Then you just seed everyone and play a bracketed tourney.

 

[[email protected]]

8 is the right number

16

first two rounds at home stadiums

semis and final at bowl sites

 

[KingLando]

Anything above 8 is stupid. If you're not in the top 8 you have no claim to be National champion. This is known yet so many just forget it to get more teams in at any cost.

How are you getting 8 as that number? You picked a random number and just decided it matters.

 

[KingLando]

Are we totally giving up on the idea that these kids are supposed to be students and the vast majority will not sniff the NFL? On the other hand, maybe we gave up on it gradually and this is the endgame.

That idea ended in the 80s

 

[KingLando]

So

So in other words yes. D1 is just catching up. My son played D2 baseball about 15 years ago and graduated with a double major and now is gainfully employed outside of baseball. Can't see how he could do that today if he played D2 football.

You don't think kids that play D2 football can graduate with a double major and have a job outside baseball? Not even know where to start with that nonsense.

 

[KingLando]

No, it's makes the regular season far more boring. The more teams that have a chance means that losing a few games is ultimately meaningless. It's makes each game far less important because the downside to losing is so much less impactful.

Ask youself how many people pay attention to the regular season in college basketball? The games are pointless in isolation and only matter in aggregate so no one really cares if their team wins a certain game on a given night.

College football used to have the best regular season because losing even a single game was so crippling. That's a good thing because it makes each game so much more important. Yes, the number of teams "in contention" dwindled considerably as the season progresses but that is what make the sport so fascinating. It also allowed there to be meaningful secondary goals besides winning an MNC - winning you conference, getting to double digit wins, winning a bowl game, beating a rival team, etc.

See--this is absurd. It makes the top tier matchups less meaningful aside from seeding but adds value to hundreds of other games.
Tons of people watch regular season college basketball.
College football still has the best regular season--even Paterno wanted a playoff decades ago.
The secondary goal is not "make the playoff" so you can achieve the primary goal

 

[PSU Mike]

Things are always get irrationally exciting at the margin of qualification. I mean look at the difference on here the few times our basketball team was in the hunt for a men’s hoops berth in the past 20 years. It’s not like the 1’s ever got nervous about it.

 

[LMTLION]

The regular season is what makes college football the most exciting of American sports leagues. A 24 team playoff completely ruins the regular season, and frankly, there’s not enough weeks to make it happen, even starting at week zero. I prefer 8 for a playoff, and if there must be some sort of tournament, I prefer that to be a conference championship tournament in each power conference.

 

[Warlerski]

You don't think kids that play D2 football can graduate with a double major and have a job outside baseball? Not even know where to start with that nonsense.

Have you had a kid go through college playing a D2 sport and double majoring? If not, you probably shouldn't start.

 

[MtNittany]

24 teams requires byes. I think 16 is a good number.

 

[KingLando]

Have you had a kid go through college playing a D2 sport and double majoring? If not, you probably shouldn't start.

I have a kid playing DI sports that has zero issues with their education
Just like many Penn State football players are graduating in 3 years or less--you may want to accept reality but nah

 

[Warlerski]

I have a kid playing DI sports that has zero issues with their education
Just like many Penn State football players are graduating in 3 years or less--you may want to accept reality but nah

Many PSU FB players are graduating in less than 3years while playing the highest level of CFB? What is their major typically?

 

[KingLando]

Many PSU FB players are graduating in less than 3years while playing the highest level of CFB? What is their major typically?

Yes, many are graduating in 3 years or less with countless different majors. Some meaningless but that's also true for many non athletes who aren't graduating in 4. Not sure why you're trying to pretend it's impossible. See Myron Rolle or John Urschel. Even in today's world, they'd have special degrees.
You also didn't say what your kid's degrees were in--you didn't set a bar. You said, "My son played D2 baseball about 15 years ago and graduated with a double major and now is gainfully employed outside of baseball. " which isn't abnormal even today.

 

[Colt2169]

Are we totally giving up on the idea that these kids are supposed to be students and the vast majority will not sniff the NFL? On the other hand, maybe we gave up on it gradually and this is the endgame.

It’s already gone !

 

[Tgar]

Tgar is completely and totally in favor of this. These games provide couch entertainment and give those that do not catch many games on TV the chance to see lots of other programs and players they have heard about. These players are getting paid, make them play Meaningful games!

 

[Shep]

No, it's makes the regular season far more boring. The more teams that have a chance means that losing a few games is ultimately meaningless. It's makes each game far less important because the downside to losing is so much less impactful.

Ask youself how many people pay attention to the regular season in college basketball? The games are pointless in isolation and only matter in aggregate so no one really cares if their team wins a certain game on a given night.

College football used to have the best regular season because losing even a single game was so crippling. That's a good thing because it makes each game so much more important. Yes, the number of teams "in contention" dwindled considerably as the season progresses but that is what make the sport so fascinating. It also allowed there to be meaningful secondary goals besides winning an MNC - winning you conference, getting to double digit wins, winning a bowl game, beating a rival team, etc.

All of your points are sound and valid, yet the TV ratings do not agree. The ratings have increased sharply with the expanded pool, likely due to the reality that more teams can participate in the playoffs, that's its not the same 6-8 teams every year that dominated to sport for 20 years.
It allows for teams that don't or can't spend as much to have a shot at getting in to the playoffs. Hope is a powerful factor in fan interest.
Personally, I am all for the 24 team format as a PSU fan. We are not on an even playing field with Oregon, Ohio State, Michigan and USC. It will give us a real chance every year to get in versus the 1 in every 3-4 year chance we have now (realistically speaking).

 

[NewEra 2026]

No, it's makes the regular season far more boring. The more teams that have a chance means that losing a few games is ultimately meaningless. It's makes each game far less important because the downside to losing is so much less impactful.

Ask youself how many people pay attention to the regular season in college basketball? The games are pointless in isolation and only matter in aggregate so no one really cares if their team wins a certain game on a given night.

College football used to have the best regular season because losing even a single game was so crippling. That's a good thing because it makes each game so much more important. Yes, the number of teams "in contention" dwindled considerably as the season progresses but that is what make the sport so fascinating. It also allowed there to be meaningful secondary goals besides winning an MNC - winning you conference, getting to double digit wins, winning a bowl game, beating a rival team, etc.

I think the problem is that the secondary goals have become less meaningful in recent years. Once players started sitting out of the Rose Bowl to avoid injury, I'm afraid the writing was on the wall. I would prefer the 4-4-2-2-1-1 format, which still allows for conference "play-in" games during championship weekend. This format would also largely eliminate selection-based criteria from a committee. But it makes too much sense to happen.