theathletic.com
More than 8 brings 3-loss teams into the equation. I see no reason why they should have their slate wiped clean and be rewarded like a 0/1-loss team.
Well then, Maybe the 0/1 loss teams can beat those 3 loss teams in the playoffs based on seeding. 9-3 teams are many times better teams than their 3 loss records indicate. This would make the post season so much more fun and interesting especially with upsets. That’s what always made college sports fun to watch, at least for me anyway. Any given Saturday…can’t wait to see Alabama, Georgia Oklahoma Ohio State and the occasional Clemson (although not this year) in the annual post season. Yay
That probably makes too much sense for the current rulers of college football.Potential for an 8 team CFP proposal to be put forth. Rather keep as is, but better than 12 at least. Of course all pending on approval.
ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12 to raise 8-team format at next CFP expansion talks: Sources
It is believed that the ACC is the league most attached to the eight-team format, though some administrators also characterized the Big Ten as “in lockstep.”
That has merit only if all schedules are same SOS. Three losses in the BIG East or SEC West is not the same as 1-2 losses in the ACC. I can see where a 2 loss champion gets in but less likely 3 losses. Think it would be very rare.
Think what would be rare, a 3-loss team being invited? Based on the 12 team proposal and CFP rankings from 2014-2019, there would have been 13 3-loss teams over that 6 year timeframe.
That’s a cop out excuse. the more times something is attempted, the odds of it happening increase.
Why?
I get your point but using a few 1,2 or 4 byes and playing say 5 vs 12, etc isn’t totally wiping the slate clean. I can live with anything that changes recruiting for the 4-6 elite teams. As I’ve been saying the “Elite” win, recruit and play in CFP because of a viscous cycle set up with the four team selection committee. As an aside, I would make league championships mean something. The winner gets in regardless of record. Balanced leagues would have more losses but it would be on the field action. Might even give spots to non-power Five leagues the way MBB does. Make ND play minimum 6 games in some league (that may be ACC) and a couple of at-large teams for Conference runner ups. IMLTHO
In a year or two there will be 4 major conferences left. 4-team tournament made up of those conference championship teams just makes the most sense to me. Straight forward and not subjective. Conference championship games would become a de facto first playoff round.
It’s actually plowing through the onion dip part I like
That’s what makes college football unique though. You can’t win just by getting hot at the right time. You have to do it all year. A 16 team playoff would seriously dilute the regular season. 8 teams with each P5 conference winner getting in, the top G5 team getting in, and 2 at-large bids would be perfect.
No to at large bids for me. No subjectivity. You have an 8-team playoff if you make the conference championship games (of the 4 conferences left) the first playoff round.
I say 12 teams with all 10 Conference Champions getting in and 2 at large bids. If there are going to be 10 conferences in the top division of college football, they all should have a shot a winning the title. Top 4 rated teams get a by, with 5-12 playing to see which 4 join them.
Rice hasn't been a part of it for 5 years now, Smith was out in 2019. You now have John Urschel plowing through the onion dip, does that make you feel better?
No.
This has been my position all along. How can you call anything a championship when over 60 teams have no chance due to conference affiliation? There are 10 leagues and all must be represented to have a real championship. This year UTSA is 9-0 and they are ranked...outside of the top 25. Cincinatti is ranked 6.
