bluehenbear said:

---

College football is now even more of a meat grinder. FBS already has a 12 (or 13) game schedule. This could add as many as 4 more games, against the highest level competition (e.g., size, skill and speed). Crazy.

---

As I said before, it's no different than the number of games FCS playoff teams might have to play (just substitute their extra playoff round for the conference championships in FBS).

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After watching this sport for over a half century, I have to say I like the system exactly where it is now. 12 teams is just the right amount. The bowl tie in was done as well as can be expected. And honestly, a controversy over the 11th and/or 12th spots can be accepted as opposed to the 4 team system when an undefeated team doesn't even get it. It's fine now, really hope they don't expand to 16, just leave it.

---

I would keep the tournament at this size but as noted above, seed based on the actual rankings and not conference winners (conference winners still get auto-bids though).

---

We don't want to end up with 3 or 4 top seeded SEC/B1G teams, this is better.

---

Nah, I don't think it's better to have the 9th and 12th ranked teams jumped up to 3 and 4. It doesn't pass the smell test for most fans.

---

Had SMU won last Saturday, the ACC would have been be left with one team seeded near the bottom.

A lot of fans who aren't SEC or B1G fans might prefer to not have these 2 conferences monopolize all the top seeds, they already have too many advantages as it is.

---

Or Miami could have played better and earned their way to a top seed.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

After watching this sport for over a half century, I have to say I like the system exactly where it is now. 12 teams is just the right amount. The bowl tie in was done as well as can be expected. And honestly, a controversy over the 11th and/or 12th spots can be accepted as opposed to the 4 team system when an undefeated team doesn't even get it. It's fine now, really hope they don't expand to 16, just leave it.

---

I would keep the tournament at this size but as noted above, seed based on the actual rankings and not conference winners (conference winners still get auto-bids though).

---

We don't want to end up with 3 or 4 top seeded SEC/B1G teams, this is better.

---

Nah, I don't think it's better to have the 9th and 12th ranked teams jumped up to 3 and 4. It doesn't pass the smell test for most fans.

---

Had SMU won last Saturday, the ACC would have been be left with one team seeded near the bottom.

A lot of fans who aren't SEC or B1G fans might prefer to not have these 2 conferences monopolize all the top seeds, they already have too many advantages as it is.

---

Or Miami could have played better and earned their way to a top seed.

---

Miami's fortunes were sunk the day they fell behind 35-10 to Cal. Let me repeat: Down 35-10 to Cal! Any team worthy of competing for a championship should be able to put four good quarters of football together.

sycasey said:

---

They do need to tweak the seeding system IMO. I think it's good and fair that some auto-bids go to conference champions, but it should be like in basketball where you get a spot but not a guaranteed high seed. No one believes that Clemson* or Boise State are really top-four teams. It hurts the legitimacy of the tournament to have it laid out like this.

*correction: ASU

---

I disagree. I think it makes it more interesting and takes some of the power away from the SEC and Big 10. Otherwise you will end up with all of those guys only making the final 4. No way the ACC or Big 12 get into a bye situation pretty much no matter what. You can see what is happening on the field - the spreading of the talent, the diminishment of the SEC (or at least Alabama), the rise of the second and third tier teams. This is good for college football, and the reason why the conference championship weekend was so cool was that the conference winner really matters.

Oski87 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

They do need to tweak the seeding system IMO. I think it's good and fair that some auto-bids go to conference champions, but it should be like in basketball where you get a spot but not a guaranteed high seed. No one believes that Clemson* or Boise State are really top-four teams. It hurts the legitimacy of the tournament to have it laid out like this.

*correction: ASU

---

I disagree. I think it makes it more interesting and takes some of the power away from the SEC and Big 10. Otherwise you will end up with all of those guys only making the final 4. No way the ACC or Big 12 get into a bye situation pretty much no matter what. You can see what is happening on the field - the spreading of the talent, the diminishment of the SEC (or at least Alabama), the rise of the second and third tier teams. This is good for college football, and the reason why the conference championship weekend was so cool was that the conference winner really matters.

---

What sycasey suggests is what will be the format when the playoff changes for the 2026 season. They won't let a G6 champ take a top 4 seed. Also, it is likely the playoff will then have 14 teams, and only 2 teams will get first round byes.

Oski87 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

They do need to tweak the seeding system IMO. I think it's good and fair that some auto-bids go to conference champions, but it should be like in basketball where you get a spot but not a guaranteed high seed. No one believes that Clemson* or Boise State are really top-four teams. It hurts the legitimacy of the tournament to have it laid out like this.

*correction: ASU

---

I disagree. I think it makes it more interesting and takes some of the power away from the SEC and Big 10. Otherwise you will end up with all of those guys only making the final 4. No way the ACC or Big 12 get into a bye situation pretty much no matter what. You can see what is happening on the field - the spreading of the talent, the diminishment of the SEC (or at least Alabama), the rise of the second and third tier teams. This is good for college football, and the reason why the conference championship weekend was so cool was that the conference winner really matters.

---

If Miami had gotten through the season with just one loss, they probably would have gotten a top 4 ranking. If an ACC or Big 12 team manages to go undefeated they would get one too. There is absolutely a path even without the guaranteed seeding. I wouldn't be too worried about this.

BearSD said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

They do need to tweak the seeding system IMO. I think it's good and fair that some auto-bids go to conference champions, but it should be like in basketball where you get a spot but not a guaranteed high seed. No one believes that Clemson* or Boise State are really top-four teams. It hurts the legitimacy of the tournament to have it laid out like this.

*correction: ASU

---

I disagree. I think it makes it more interesting and takes some of the power away from the SEC and Big 10. Otherwise you will end up with all of those guys only making the final 4. No way the ACC or Big 12 get into a bye situation pretty much no matter what. You can see what is happening on the field - the spreading of the talent, the diminishment of the SEC (or at least Alabama), the rise of the second and third tier teams. This is good for college football, and the reason why the conference championship weekend was so cool was that the conference winner really matters.

---

What sycasey suggests is what will be the format when the playoff changes for the 2026 season. They won't let a G6 champ take a top 4 seed. Also, it is likely the playoff will then have 14 teams, and only 2 teams will get first round byes.

---

Yeah, ultimately I think it's headed this way because it's how every other NCAA postseason tournament does it: conferences get auto-bids for their champs, but seeding is just seeding and a conference title doesn't get you anything but a bid.