The current CFP format would have been great in the pre-NIL Era

QuaoarsKing

All-Conference
Mar 11, 2008
5,868
2,513
113
Take 2014 through 2019, every single P5 champion finishes in the top 9, and the top G5 champion is always in the top 20. So every year, it's just the top 11 and 1 G5 team who at least doesn't get embarrassed by the #5.

2020 is a weird year, but the above also applies, except that COVID opt-outs led to a 3-2 Oregon team getting to play in and win the Pac-12 championship game. Even in the early NIL days, 2021 through 2023, you still don't see a P5 champion ranked worse than #12, although you start seeing a big dropoff on the G5s.

The mega expansion and big mass of random unbalanced schedules has killed this format. It's basically just luck now who happens to get into the conference championship games. Combine that with NIL opening up a clear gap between the SEC/Big 10 and the ACC/Big 12, and an even bigger one between the ACC/Big 12 and the best G5s, and you get a bunch of uninteresting games. Not entirely bad - 2 of the 8 first round games over the last 2 years have come down to the wire - but in the 2010s, it would have been a lot more common.

What's a realistic solution? Go back to divisions in each conference. I would prefer to eliminate conference championship games, but I doubt the conferences go along with it. (I'd also rather unwind all of the realignment, but that's even less likely.) But at least this way, you have two teams who earned their way into the championship games rather than just getting lucky on the schedules.

Second, adopt the SEC's plan for 16 teams, 5 champions and 11 at-large, but no byes or crazy bracket designs. With a more traditional division setup, Miami is probably the ACC Champion, so only Tulane gets in as a G5, and it's like a special reward for the #1 team only. You might see a bracket like this (obviously, schedules would have been different, so who knows exactly what everyone's W/L record would have been):
16 Tulane @ 1 Indiana
15 Utah @ 2 Ohio State
14 Vanderbilt @ 3 Georgia
13 Texas @ 4 Texas Tech
12 BYU @ 5 Oregon
11 Notre Dame @ 6 Ole Miss
10 Miami @ 7 Texas A&M
9 Alabama @ 8 Oklahoma

Tulane still loses in a blowout, but all of the other 7 would have been watchable, and I think Notre Dame and Texas have a pretty good chance at the road upset. I wouldn't count out Pavia and Vanderbilt either. Also, every team that could plausibly win the bracket makes it.
 

QuaoarsKing

All-Conference
Mar 11, 2008
5,868
2,513
113
Use the BCS ranking system. Let the top 12 teams get in.

THE END.
We can't. 5 of the 6 computer polls had secret formulas that couldn't be audited. You may think it's not a big deal, but the 1 who had a public formula made a mistake the in final results one time, and they had to be re-released with a couple of teams (not in the top 2) moving around. You have to wonder if that ever happened in any of the other formulas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: patdog

MississippiTexan

Sophomore
Jun 11, 2014
115
104
43
Take 2014 through 2019, every single P5 champion finishes in the top 9, and the top G5 champion is always in the top 20. So every year, it's just the top 11 and 1 G5 team who at least doesn't get embarrassed by the #5.

2020 is a weird year, but the above also applies, except that COVID opt-outs led to a 3-2 Oregon team getting to play in and win the Pac-12 championship game. Even in the early NIL days, 2021 through 2023, you still don't see a P5 champion ranked worse than #12, although you start seeing a big dropoff on the G5s.

The mega expansion and big mass of random unbalanced schedules has killed this format. It's basically just luck now who happens to get into the conference championship games. Combine that with NIL opening up a clear gap between the SEC/Big 10 and the ACC/Big 12, and an even bigger one between the ACC/Big 12 and the best G5s, and you get a bunch of uninteresting games. Not entirely bad - 2 of the 8 first round games over the last 2 years have come down to the wire - but in the 2010s, it would have been a lot more common.

What's a realistic solution? Go back to divisions in each conference. I would prefer to eliminate conference championship games, but I doubt the conferences go along with it. (I'd also rather unwind all of the realignment, but that's even less likely.) But at least this way, you have two teams who earned their way into the championship games rather than just getting lucky on the schedules.

Second, adopt the SEC's plan for 16 teams, 5 champions and 11 at-large, but no byes or crazy bracket designs. With a more traditional division setup, Miami is probably the ACC Champion, so only Tulane gets in as a G5, and it's like a special reward for the #1 team only. You might see a bracket like this (obviously, schedules would have been different, so who knows exactly what everyone's W/L record would have been):
16 Tulane @ 1 Indiana
15 Utah @ 2 Ohio State
14 Vanderbilt @ 3 Georgia
13 Texas @ 4 Texas Tech
12 BYU @ 5 Oregon
11 Notre Dame @ 6 Ole Miss
10 Miami @ 7 Texas A&M
9 Alabama @ 8 Oklahoma

Tulane still loses in a blowout, but all of the other 7 would have been watchable, and I think Notre Dame and Texas have a pretty good chance at the road upset. I wouldn't count out Pavia and Vanderbilt either. Also, every team that could plausibly win the bracket makes it.
If you don't change anything other than going to a 16 team playoff, this year you get the exact same bracket other that you have other than Indiana plays James Madison and OSU plays Tulane and Utah gets left out. So you don't have to change anything other than that and you get a much better round 1 of the playoffs. The only real change I could see with the playoff rules would be to change the 5 highest ranked champions to the 4 P4 champions and highest ranked G5 champion. Although I don't think it would have made a difference between James Madison, Duke, or even Virginia against Indiana or OSU. But looking at a 16 team bracket and the match-ups, it's definitely the way to go.

Personally, I'm glad we got rid of divisions. Typically what we got with divisions was on division much stronger than the other overall and the schedules never changed. How many times did we use to say if we would have been in the SEC east we would have been much better off. And almost every conference was the same way with one division much stronger than the other. Divisions sucked. At least now if our schedule sucks it will only suck for 2 years and then we play a bunch of different teams (which may still suck, but it's a different suck).
 
  • Like
Reactions: MSUDOG24

QuaoarsKing

All-Conference
Mar 11, 2008
5,868
2,513
113
I was definitely on the "get rid of divisions" train for years, but seeing the results of it, I'm going to have to admit I was wrong. None of the conferences have good tiebreakers or a good way to rank the teams without them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: patdog

patdog

Heisman
May 28, 2007
56,623
25,944
113
I was definitely on the "get rid of divisions" train for years, but seeing the results of it, I'm going to have to admit I was wrong. None of the conferences have good tiebreakers or a good way to rank the teams without them.
Same here. I thought it was a good idea. It was a terrible idea. Better than either is a pod system. For SEC:
A-UF, UGA, USC, Uk
B- Tenn, VU, Bama, Aub
C-LSU, MSU, UMiss, Ark
D-A&M, Tex, Okie, mizzou
play everyone in your pod, pods rotate playing each other so you play everyone every 3rd year, + 1 permanent opponent from each of the 2 pods your pod doesn’t play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MississippiTexan

MississippiTexan

Sophomore
Jun 11, 2014
115
104
43
Probably the best change they could make is to keep it at 12 and just get rid of the conference champion auto bid. This year Oregon would have played BYU and Ole Miss would have played Notre Dame. That would have provided two much better games. Tell the G5 to get better, play a tougher schedule and actually beat P4 teams to get a better ranking to get in top 12. Just take the top 12 no matter what.
 

MississippiTexan

Sophomore
Jun 11, 2014
115
104
43
Same here. I thought it was a good idea. It was a terrible idea. Better than either is a pod system. For SEC:
A-UF, UGA, USC, Uk
B- Tenn, VU, Bama, Aub
C-LSU, MSU, UMiss, Ark
D-A&M, Tex, Okie, mizzou
play everyone in your pod, pods rotate playing each other so you play everyone every 3rd year, + 1 permanent opponent from each of the 2 pods your pod doesn’t play.
Actually like that pod idea, but other than the 1 permanent opponent from each of the 2 pods your pod doesn't play set it like the NFL. If you finish 3rd in your pod, you'll play whoever finished 3rd in the other 2 pods. So 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4.
 

patdog

Heisman
May 28, 2007
56,623
25,944
113
Actually like that pod idea, but other than the 1 permanent opponent from each of the 2 pods your pod doesn't play set it like the NFL. If you finish 3rd in your pod, you'll play whoever finished 3rd in the other 2 pods. So 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4.
In a perfect world, I agree. But UGA-Auburn, Bama-Tenn are going to be played every year. Maybe let some teams play per many rivals while the rest float based on conference standings.
 

L4Dawg

All-American
Oct 27, 2016
10,252
7,109
113
How about this: Add 8 teams to the FBS. That gives you 144. Split it into 8, 18 team conference. Each conference has 2 divisions of 9. Champions of the divisions advance to the conference title game. The conference champions advance to the playoffs. That settles everything ON the field, no beauty contests.
 

anon1768925248

Heisman
Oct 27, 2022
6,836
15,353
113
Use any system you want. But at some point people have to quit acting like it’s a big deal who gets that last at large bid. It’s not.
Yes it is. Notre Dame (as much as I hate them) have the 3rd best metrics in the country. They can beat anyone. This isn’t 2013. The lack of depth has created a lot of parity and there are teams that got left out that can compete with anyone on any given day.
 

patdog

Heisman
May 28, 2007
56,623
25,944
113
Yes it is. Notre Dame (as much as I hate them) have the 3rd best metrics in the country. They can beat anyone. This isn’t 2013. Anyone can beat anyone.
Maybe they should have beat Miami. Or A&M. Or anyone better then Southern freaking Cal. Their 2nd best win is Pitt.
 

anon1768925248

Heisman
Oct 27, 2022
6,836
15,353
113
Maybe they should have beat Miami. Or A&M. Or anyone better then Southern freaking Cal. Their 2nd best win is Pitt.
That is a different argument. I’m not saying the playoff committee got it wrong. The system of how they pick teams is wrong and saying it doesn’t matter who gets the last spots is wrong. Notre Dame, Vandy, and Texas could have beaten anyone that played yesterday. Could have lost to them as well. Change the system to get the best teams in and let everyone see who is truly the best instead of pandering to a group that has no business being there.
 

patdog

Heisman
May 28, 2007
56,623
25,944
113
That is a different argument. I’m not saying the playoff committee got it wrong. The system of how they pick teams is wrong and saying it doesn’t matter who gets the last spots is wrong. Notre Dame, Vandy, and Texas could have beaten anyone that played yesterday. Could have lost to them as well. Change the system to get the best teams in and let everyone see who is truly the best instead of pandering to a group that has no business being there.
I agree. The system sucks. Notre Dame & Vandy definitely deserved to be in more than Tulane & JMU. My point is it’s always going to be pretty close between the last team in & 1st team out. Neither has any room to complain if they’re the one out. Not everyone can make the playoffs. Sucks it’s not you, but you should have won another game and/or played a better schedule.
 

anon1768925248

Heisman
Oct 27, 2022
6,836
15,353
113
I agree. The system sucks. Notre Dame & Vandy definitely deserved to be in more than Tulane & JMU. My point is it’s always going to be pretty close between the last team in & 1st team out. Neither has any room to complain if they’re the one out. Not everyone can make the playoffs. Sucks it’s not you, but you should have won another game and/or played a better schedule.
Yea I don’t feel sorry for the ones that didn’t make it. Me as a fan I just want to see good, competitive games during the postseason. The best chances for that are to put the best teams in there. There will still be blowouts, but they will happen at a much lower rate if the best teams get put in yearly. Just stop pretending those G6 schools are playing the same game as the ones spending 40 million dollars a year on rosters. They just are not the same. Need their own playoffs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: patdog

patdog

Heisman
May 28, 2007
56,623
25,944
113
Yea I don’t feel sorry for the ones that didn’t make it. Me as a fan I just want to see good, competitive games during the postseason. The best chances for that are to put the best teams in there. There will still be blowouts, but they will happen at a much lower rate if the best teams get put in yearly. Just stop pretending those G6 schools are playing the same game as the ones spending 40 million dollars a year on rosters. They just are not the same. Need their own playoffs.
Completely agree. Those last 2 games were a farce.
 

paindonthurt

All-Conference
Apr 7, 2025
3,789
2,749
113
We can't. 5 of the 6 computer polls had secret formulas that couldn't be audited. You may think it's not a big deal, but the 1 who had a public formula made a mistake the in final results one time, and they had to be re-released with a couple of teams (not in the top 2) moving around. You have to wonder if that ever happened in any of the other formulas.
You can. You just just fix the issue and then make it to where it can be audited.
 

paindonthurt

All-Conference
Apr 7, 2025
3,789
2,749
113
Use any system you want. But at some point people have to quit acting like it’s a big deal who gets that last at large bid. It’s not.
Oh I agree. But make it objective and not subjective. It’s pretty simple.
 

OG Goat Holder

Heisman
Sep 30, 2022
12,218
11,302
113
Take 2014 through 2019, every single P5 champion finishes in the top 9, and the top G5 champion is always in the top 20. So every year, it's just the top 11 and 1 G5 team who at least doesn't get embarrassed by the #5.

2020 is a weird year, but the above also applies, except that COVID opt-outs led to a 3-2 Oregon team getting to play in and win the Pac-12 championship game. Even in the early NIL days, 2021 through 2023, you still don't see a P5 champion ranked worse than #12, although you start seeing a big dropoff on the G5s.

The mega expansion and big mass of random unbalanced schedules has killed this format. It's basically just luck now who happens to get into the conference championship games. Combine that with NIL opening up a clear gap between the SEC/Big 10 and the ACC/Big 12, and an even bigger one between the ACC/Big 12 and the best G5s, and you get a bunch of uninteresting games. Not entirely bad - 2 of the 8 first round games over the last 2 years have come down to the wire - but in the 2010s, it would have been a lot more common.

What's a realistic solution? Go back to divisions in each conference. I would prefer to eliminate conference championship games, but I doubt the conferences go along with it. (I'd also rather unwind all of the realignment, but that's even less likely.) But at least this way, you have two teams who earned their way into the championship games rather than just getting lucky on the schedules.

Second, adopt the SEC's plan for 16 teams, 5 champions and 11 at-large, but no byes or crazy bracket designs. With a more traditional division setup, Miami is probably the ACC Champion, so only Tulane gets in as a G5, and it's like a special reward for the #1 team only. You might see a bracket like this (obviously, schedules would have been different, so who knows exactly what everyone's W/L record would have been):
16 Tulane @ 1 Indiana
15 Utah @ 2 Ohio State
14 Vanderbilt @ 3 Georgia
13 Texas @ 4 Texas Tech
12 BYU @ 5 Oregon
11 Notre Dame @ 6 Ole Miss
10 Miami @ 7 Texas A&M
9 Alabama @ 8 Oklahoma

Tulane still loses in a blowout, but all of the other 7 would have been watchable, and I think Notre Dame and Texas have a pretty good chance at the road upset. I wouldn't count out Pavia and Vanderbilt either. Also, every team that could plausibly win the bracket makes it.
Disagree with your subject. I think the games would have been bigger blowouts back then.
 

QuaoarsKing

All-Conference
Mar 11, 2008
5,868
2,513
113
Disagree with your subject. I think the games would have been bigger blowouts back then.
I don't think so. The portal and conference expansion have killed G5 football.

Yes, the G5 teams would have usually lost, but they wouldn't have always been the worst seeds like they are nowadays, and they wouldn't have always gotten blown out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: patdog

Perd Hapley

All-American
Sep 30, 2022
5,788
6,831
113
I was definitely on the "get rid of divisions" train for years, but seeing the results of it, I'm going to have to admit I was wrong. None of the conferences have good tiebreakers or a good way to rank the teams without them.
The problem isn’t that there are no longer divisions. The problem is the leagues are too damn big for the schedules….divisions or no divisions. Nobody can determine a legit champion this way, nor can you really determine who the best teams in the league are.

With a 16 team league, you need a bare minimum of 11 conference games to get enough cross-pollination for a legitimate conference championship to occur. That means an SEC team plays 11 of the other 15 schools, or 73.3% of the league. For reference, in the old 12-team SEC, you’d play 8 of the other 11 teams (72.7%), and even then there were occasional mini-controversies when someone from the West would miss all out of UF / UGA / UT from the East.

The only solution is 12-game schedule with 11 conference games and one P4 for every team. Otherwise this problem will continue indefinitely.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: patdog