When I was told I would have to lose my one and only eye and go completely blind, I was sad to think how I’d never be able to actually see USC win another champiomship. But then I thought about all the Oregon fans and told myself, if they could do it, so could I!

— Jake Olson (@JakeOlson61) January 1, 2025

I feel sorry for them.

The 3:30am crew, my UIAGALELEI FAMILY here at the ROSE BOWL. Right in front of the Stadium 💪🏽💪🏽💪🏽. Come and hangout. pic.twitter.com/v2sIYdmXqK

— Big Dave Uiagalelei (@DUiagalelei) January 1, 2025

This Georgia vs ND game must be JW's fantasies come to life.

Well, the Notre Dame - Georgia game escalated quickly. 17 Notre Dame points in less than a minute of game time.

Looks like the SEC can only win playoff games by the skin of their teeth and after a highly questionable targeting no-call.

(And with a team that just moved in from the Big 12!)

Go Irish!

I find it interesting that all 4 teams with a first round bye lost and had really bad first halves.

Speculating and in stating the obvious, taking nearly a month off makes you rusty. Playing the extra playoff game keeps you sharp.

golden sloth said:

---

I find it interesting that all 4 teams with a first round bye lost and had really bad first halves.

Speculating and in stating the obvious, taking nearly a month off makes you rusty. Playing the extra playoff game keeps you sharp.

---

That said, I still like the idea of rewarding conference champions.

golden sloth said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I find it interesting that all 4 teams with a first round bye lost and had really bad first halves.

Speculating and in stating the obvious, taking nearly a month off makes you rusty. Playing the extra playoff game keeps you sharp.

---

That said, I still like the idea of rewarding conference champions.

---

SEC almost got left out of the round of 4 if not for a double OT win on the back of a blatantly ignored targeting.

That said, the really good news is the inclusion here.

The following teams made the playoffs:

Oregon
Georgia
Boise State
Arizona State
Texas
Penn State
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Tennessee
Indiana
SMU
Clemson

The following teams were a conference championship win away from the playoffs:

UNLV
Iowa

The following teams were within 1 loss of those making their conference championship game:

Miami
BYU
Colorado
Baylor
TCU
Texas Tech
Colorado State
Alabama
LSU
South Carolina
Texas A&M
Ole Miss
Missouri

That's 27 teams that can tell recruits we were ~1 win away from the conference championship/playoffs. In the 10 year history of the 4 team playoffs we saw 15 different teams play in the playoffs at all:

Alabama (8)
Oregon
Florida State
Ohio State (5)
Clemson (6)
Michigan State
Oklahoma (4)
Georgia(3)
Notre Dame(2)
LSU
Michigan (3)
Cincinnati
TCU
Washington (2)
Texas

If you were a recruit and wanted to play in the playoffs your realistic choices were:

Alabama
Clemson
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Georgia
Michigan

It will take some time for things to even out, but this combined with the portal and NIL has the potential to greatly level the playing field.

On the down side? It still gives these power houses a mulligan. Ohio State didn't even make their conference championship game and are likely the odds on favorite to win the playoffs. But still, this is progress.

The last thing they need to do is fix the non playoff bowl games to give them more meaning.

golden sloth said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I find it interesting that all 4 teams with a first round bye lost and had really bad first halves.

Speculating and in stating the obvious, taking nearly a month off makes you rusty. Playing the extra playoff game keeps you sharp.

---

That said, I still like the idea of rewarding conference champions.

---

The obvious answer would be to go to 8 teams (not gonna happen) or 16 teams. No teams rusty off a long bye and more games for ESPN to prop up their shaky empire.

MrGPAC said:

---

The last thing they need to do is fix the non playoff bowl games to give them more meaning.

---

The only incentive I can think of is cash money.

it'll probably go to 16 or 24 at some point, but it'll take a decade. no american sports league is cutting inventory, and at some point conferences & media partners will need to juice revenue again. in terms of access, given the # of teams 24 is probably the most appropriate (24 for 130 teams is pretty close to the 68 for 350 teams in march madness, ratio-wise... though i'd be heavy on byes early otherwise you'd get a bunch of bloodbaths). and i'm pretty sure the fcs playoffs already are in the 20-24 range?

combined with adjusting the transfer portal window somehow so more players can suit up, and it'd be a big improvement imo. but to @mrgpac's point, the number of teams that got in or close is a meaningful improvement for college football. very cool to have so many teams in it so late. and ASU (who no one had in the playoffs at the turn of november) provided a bit of a cinderella team a showing late season run for a non-blueblood program is possible , albeit taken from us too soon

bencgilmore said:

---

it'll probably go to 16 or 24 at some point, but it'll take a decade. no american sports league is cutting inventory, and at some point conferences & media partners will need to juice revenue again. in terms of access, given the # of teams 24 is probably the most appropriate (24 for 130 teams is pretty close to the 68 for 350 teams in march madness, ratio-wise... though i'd be heavy on byes early otherwise you'd get a bunch of bloodbaths). and i'm pretty sure the fcs playoffs already are in the 20-24 range?

combined with adjusting the transfer portal window somehow so more players can suit up, and it'd be a big improvement imo. but to @mrgpac's point, the number of teams that got in or close is a meaningful improvement for college football. very cool to have so many teams in it so late. and ASU (who no one had in the playoffs at the turn of november) provided a bit of a cinderella team a showing late season run for a non-blueblood program is possible , albeit taken from us too soon

---

I like 12. About 10% get a shot. Seems like a reasonable thing.

I would change the playoffs to the following:

1) top 4 rated teams get a bye

2) Conference winners who are not in the top 5 should have a home game. So if you are ranked #12 but won your game, you get a home game. Tulane, Boise, Oregon State, etc would all get home games repping thier conference instead of having to go to Ohio State or Penn State, for example.

3) The rankings set your place on the bracket - just like a regular tournament. But the seeding should be 5 vs 12 plays # 4, #6 vs #11 plays #3, #7 vs #10 plays # 2 and #9 and #8 play #1 for round 2.

I think it would improve the whole thing after seeing one year of this. ASU for example, and Boise did a lot better than SMU and Clemson. Imagine if Texas had to play at Clemson. Would they have won? They barely beat ASU at a neutral site.

bluehenbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The last thing they need to do is fix the non playoff bowl games to give them more meaning.

---

The only incentive I can think of is cash money.

---

The uneven number of teams per conference makes things hard. That said, I'd do something like this:

No team outside the top 4 in each conference is eligible for the playoffs.

Any teams in the top 4 of the power conferences that don't make the playoffs match up in bowl games.

Teams 5 and below match up with another conference. 5 v 5, 6 v 6, etc. Which conference you match up with rotates each year.

Arguing whose conference is the deepest or has the best middle etc is a lot more to play for than the random bowl games we have now.

Then as you said...$$$ for participating. If you want to make things extra spicy...seeding based on conference record. Peer pressure can go a long ways. Plus, with everyone playing the extra game it will normalize staying to play in it with no transfer portals opening until after the first round is complete.

MrGPAC said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The last thing they need to do is fix the non playoff bowl games to give them more meaning.

---

The only incentive I can think of is cash money.

---

The uneven number of teams per conference makes things hard. That said, I'd do something like this:

No team outside the top 4 in each conference is eligible for the playoffs.

Any teams in the top 4 of the power conferences that don't make the playoffs match up in bowl games.

Teams 5 and below match up with another conference. 5 v 5, 6 v 6, etc. Which conference you match up with rotates each year.

Arguing whose conference is the deepest or has the best middle etc is a lot more to play for than the random bowl games we have now.

Then as you said...$$$ for participating. If you want to make things extra spicy...seeding based on conference record. Peer pressure can go a long ways. Plus, with everyone playing the extra game it will normalize staying to play in it with no transfer portals opening until after the first round is complete.

---

I do think that the bowl season itself around the playoffs should be re-configured. I like the idea of the conference challenge. Maybe year 1 it is ACC vs Big 10, year 2 ACC VS SEC, ACC vs Big 12, etc. Have an additional 16 bowl games dedicated to that - a trophy given each year to the winners vs the other conferences.

Do something to bring some excitement to the bowl season other than seeing Jacksonville....

I think if you start Capping playoff participants with x number per year, that becomes the minimum for those conferences.

bencgilmore said:

---

it'll probably go to 16 or 24 at some point, but it'll take a decade. no american sports league is cutting inventory, and at some point conferences & media partners will need to juice revenue again. in terms of access, given the # of teams 24 is probably the most appropriate (24 for 130 teams is pretty close to the 68 for 350 teams in march madness, ratio-wise... though i'd be heavy on byes early otherwise you'd get a bunch of bloodbaths). and i'm pretty sure the fcs playoffs already are in the 20-24 range?

combined with adjusting the transfer portal window somehow so more players can suit up, and it'd be a big improvement imo. but to @mrgpac's point, the number of teams that got in or close is a meaningful improvement for college football. very cool to have so many teams in it so late. and ASU (who no one had in the playoffs at the turn of november) provided a bit of a cinderella team a showing late season run for a non-blueblood program is possible , albeit taken from us too soon

---

FCS playoff has 24 teams. It's worth noting, however, that they do not have conference championship games. Another thing FCS does at this size is guarantee at least one bid per conference, which seems fair to require of FBS too.

Oski87 said:

---

I like 12. About 10% get a shot. Seems like a reasonable thing.

I would change the playoffs to the following:

1) top 4 rated teams get a bye

2) Conference winners who are not in the top 5 should have a home game. So if you are ranked #12 but won your game, you get a home game. Tulane, Boise, Oregon State, etc would all get home games repping thier conference instead of having to go to Ohio State or Penn State, for example.

3) The rankings set your place on the bracket - just like a regular tournament. But the seeding should be 5 vs 12 plays # 4, #6 vs #11 plays #3, #7 vs #10 plays # 2 and #9 and #8 play #1 for round 2.

I think it would improve the whole thing after seeing one year of this. ASU for example, and Boise did a lot better than SMU and Clemson. Imagine if Texas had to play at Clemson. Would they have won? They barely beat ASU at a neutral site.

---

i think people are reading too much into the blowouts. obviously two identical teams can play twice and have wildly different results... see oregon/ohio state.

wrt smu specifically, i have a feeling that whole game could have gone a ton differently if jennings took that early 1st instead of getting greedy and throwing. that set the tone and he never looked right after. but i agree, boise and asu demonstrated that its at least possible you get some upsets and that they belonged

generally agree w/ your points, i tend to just think itll take a few years for the committee to figure out selection criteria specifics. eventually it'll be the well-honed science that bracketology is in march

bencgilmore said:

---

wrt smu specifically, i have a feeling that whole game could have gone a ton differently if jennings took that early 1st instead of getting greedy and throwing. that set the tone and he never looked right after. but i agree, boise and asu demonstrated that its at least possible you get some upsets and that they belonged

---

I thought SMU could have been competitive in that game, but their turnovers (two pick-sixes!) just put them in a big hole and that was that.

bencgilmore said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

I like 12. About 10% get a shot. Seems like a reasonable thing.

I would change the playoffs to the following:

1) top 4 rated teams get a bye

2) Conference winners who are not in the top 5 should have a home game. So if you are ranked #12 but won your game, you get a home game. Tulane, Boise, Oregon State, etc would all get home games repping thier conference instead of having to go to Ohio State or Penn State, for example.

3) The rankings set your place on the bracket - just like a regular tournament. But the seeding should be 5 vs 12 plays # 4, #6 vs #11 plays #3, #7 vs #10 plays # 2 and #9 and #8 play #1 for round 2.

I think it would improve the whole thing after seeing one year of this. ASU for example, and Boise did a lot better than SMU and Clemson. Imagine if Texas had to play at Clemson. Would they have won? They barely beat ASU at a neutral site.

---

i think people are reading too much into the blowouts. obviously two identical teams can play twice and have wildly different results... see oregon/ohio state.

---

The longer break before the playoff games puts the premium on coaching and team preparation, as there is more time to research opponents and implement an optimal game plan. Chip Kelly run circles around Tosh, his D was caught flat-footed and got destroyed 34-0. See also the Citrus Bowl vs Clemson, where Bruce Snyder put together a game plan that handled their defense. It's harder to scout a team and put together a game plan when you have only a few days between two Saturdays.

I think the current format is just about optimal, no need to go to 16 as teams 13 through 16 weren't going to be factors (see Alabama getting pounded by Michigan). Unlike in basketball or soccer, the gap between the top 10 teams and the second batch below is fairly wide. As well those teams ranked in the mid-teens also made a lot of the leftover bowls more watchable.

MrGPAC said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The last thing they need to do is fix the non playoff bowl games to give them more meaning.

---

The only incentive I can think of is cash money.

---

The uneven number of teams per conference makes things hard. That said, I'd do something like this:

No team outside the top 4 in each conference is eligible for the playoffs.

Any teams in the top 4 of the power conferences that don't make the playoffs match up in bowl games.

Teams 5 and below match up with another conference. 5 v 5, 6 v 6, etc. Which conference you match up with rotates each year.

Arguing whose conference is the deepest or has the best middle etc is a lot more to play for than the random bowl games we have now.

Then as you said...$$$ for participating. If you want to make things extra spicy...seeding based on conference record. Peer pressure can go a long ways. Plus, with everyone playing the extra game it will normalize staying to play in it with no transfer portals opening until after the first round is complete.

---

Oh, what the hell! Let's just start the playoff on Aug 31. That way, everyone has a chance. Losers along the way get bowl games, one after another, starting Sep 7.

Why would you have a playoff system that includes teams that have no chance to beat everyone else? The only ones playing should be those that have a realistic chance to win it all.

8 teams - major conference winners plus the 3 highest ranking teams who are not conference winners. But, of course, $$$$$$$$$$ calls the tune these days. So, let those know-nothings tell the emperor that his wardrobe is elegant.

Rushinbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The last thing they need to do is fix the non playoff bowl games to give them more meaning.

---

The only incentive I can think of is cash money.

---

The uneven number of teams per conference makes things hard. That said, I'd do something like this:

No team outside the top 4 in each conference is eligible for the playoffs.

Any teams in the top 4 of the power conferences that don't make the playoffs match up in bowl games.

Teams 5 and below match up with another conference. 5 v 5, 6 v 6, etc. Which conference you match up with rotates each year.

Arguing whose conference is the deepest or has the best middle etc is a lot more to play for than the random bowl games we have now.

Then as you said...$$$ for participating. If you want to make things extra spicy...seeding based on conference record. Peer pressure can go a long ways. Plus, with everyone playing the extra game it will normalize staying to play in it with no transfer portals opening until after the first round is complete.

---

Oh, what the hell! Let's just start the playoff on Aug 31. That way, everyone has a chance. Losers along the way get bowl games, one after another, starting Sep 7.

Why would you have a playoff system that includes teams that have no chance to beat everyone else? The only ones playing should be those that have a realistic chance to win it all.

8 teams - major conference winners plus the 3 highest ranking teams who are not conference winners. But, of course, $$$$$$$$$$ calls the tune these days. So, let those know-nothings tell the emperor that his wardrobe is elegant.

---

64 team double elimination tournament starting after the eighth game. No out of conference games. No byes, all the AAA conference teams, plus the highest rated randoms, ACC and Big12 teams needed to fill out the field.

Rushinbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The last thing they need to do is fix the non playoff bowl games to give them more meaning.

---

The only incentive I can think of is cash money.

---

The uneven number of teams per conference makes things hard. That said, I'd do something like this:

No team outside the top 4 in each conference is eligible for the playoffs.

Any teams in the top 4 of the power conferences that don't make the playoffs match up in bowl games.

Teams 5 and below match up with another conference. 5 v 5, 6 v 6, etc. Which conference you match up with rotates each year.

Arguing whose conference is the deepest or has the best middle etc is a lot more to play for than the random bowl games we have now.

Then as you said...$$$ for participating. If you want to make things extra spicy...seeding based on conference record. Peer pressure can go a long ways. Plus, with everyone playing the extra game it will normalize staying to play in it with no transfer portals opening until after the first round is complete.

---

Oh, what the hell! Let's just start the playoff on Aug 31. That way, everyone has a chance. Losers along the way get bowl games, one after another, starting Sep 7.

Why would you have a playoff system that includes teams that have no chance to beat everyone else? The only ones playing should be those that have a realistic chance to win it all.

8 teams - major conference winners plus the 3 highest ranking teams who are not conference winners. But, of course, $$$$$$$$$$ calls the tune these days. So, let those know-nothings tell the emperor that his wardrobe is elegant.

---

Every playoff system has teams with no realistic chance, because you need to fill out the bracket. People still love March Madness.

We'll call it November Nonsense

sycasey said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The last thing they need to do is fix the non playoff bowl games to give them more meaning.

---

The only incentive I can think of is cash money.

---

The uneven number of teams per conference makes things hard. That said, I'd do something like this:

No team outside the top 4 in each conference is eligible for the playoffs.

Any teams in the top 4 of the power conferences that don't make the playoffs match up in bowl games.

Teams 5 and below match up with another conference. 5 v 5, 6 v 6, etc. Which conference you match up with rotates each year.

Arguing whose conference is the deepest or has the best middle etc is a lot more to play for than the random bowl games we have now.

Then as you said...$$$ for participating. If you want to make things extra spicy...seeding based on conference record. Peer pressure can go a long ways. Plus, with everyone playing the extra game it will normalize staying to play in it with no transfer portals opening until after the first round is complete.

---

Oh, what the hell! Let's just start the playoff on Aug 31. That way, everyone has a chance. Losers along the way get bowl games, one after another, starting Sep 7.

Why would you have a playoff system that includes teams that have no chance to beat everyone else? The only ones playing should be those that have a realistic chance to win it all.

8 teams - major conference winners plus the 3 highest ranking teams who are not conference winners. But, of course, $$$$$$$$$$ calls the tune these days. So, let those know-nothings tell the emperor that his wardrobe is elegant.

---

Every playoff system has teams with no realistic chance, because you need to fill out the bracket. People still love March Madness.

---

not comparable to bb. bb can be played much more frequently with fewer physical demands and injuries, way fewer players and costs. How many people care about scores of 105 to 65, anyway.

A tournament should be played by those who are worthy of contending for a nattie.

Rushinbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The last thing they need to do is fix the non playoff bowl games to give them more meaning.

---

The only incentive I can think of is cash money.

---

The uneven number of teams per conference makes things hard. That said, I'd do something like this:

No team outside the top 4 in each conference is eligible for the playoffs.

Any teams in the top 4 of the power conferences that don't make the playoffs match up in bowl games.

Teams 5 and below match up with another conference. 5 v 5, 6 v 6, etc. Which conference you match up with rotates each year.

Arguing whose conference is the deepest or has the best middle etc is a lot more to play for than the random bowl games we have now.

Then as you said...$$$ for participating. If you want to make things extra spicy...seeding based on conference record. Peer pressure can go a long ways. Plus, with everyone playing the extra game it will normalize staying to play in it with no transfer portals opening until after the first round is complete.

---

Oh, what the hell! Let's just start the playoff on Aug 31. That way, everyone has a chance. Losers along the way get bowl games, one after another, starting Sep 7.

Why would you have a playoff system that includes teams that have no chance to beat everyone else? The only ones playing should be those that have a realistic chance to win it all.

8 teams - major conference winners plus the 3 highest ranking teams who are not conference winners. But, of course, $$$$$$$$$$ calls the tune these days. So, let those know-nothings tell the emperor that his wardrobe is elegant.

---

Every playoff system has teams with no realistic chance, because you need to fill out the bracket. People still love March Madness.

---

not comparable to bb. bb can be played much more frequently with fewer physical demands and injuries, way fewer players and costs. How many people care about scores of 105 to 65, anyway.

A tournament should be played by those who are worthy of contending for a nattie.

---

The FCS playoff field is also bigger than FBS.

sycasey said:

---

bencgilmore said:

---

it'll probably go to 16 or 24 at some point, but it'll take a decade. no american sports league is cutting inventory, and at some point conferences & media partners will need to juice revenue again. in terms of access, given the # of teams 24 is probably the most appropriate (24 for 130 teams is pretty close to the 68 for 350 teams in march madness, ratio-wise... though i'd be heavy on byes early otherwise you'd get a bunch of bloodbaths). and i'm pretty sure the fcs playoffs already are in the 20-24 range?

combined with adjusting the transfer portal window somehow so more players can suit up, and it'd be a big improvement imo. but to @mrgpac's point, the number of teams that got in or close is a meaningful improvement for college football. very cool to have so many teams in it so late. and ASU (who no one had in the playoffs at the turn of november) provided a bit of a cinderella team a showing late season run for a non-blueblood program is possible , albeit taken from us too soon

---

FCS playoff has 24 teams. It's worth noting, however, that they do not have conference championship games. Another thing FCS does at this size is guarantee at least one bid per conference, which seems fair to require of FBS too.

---

No CCG's and an 11 game season, unless there are 12 weeks between Labor Day and Thanksgiving (which happens about 2 of 7 years).

Rushinbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The last thing they need to do is fix the non playoff bowl games to give them more meaning.

---

The only incentive I can think of is cash money.

---

The uneven number of teams per conference makes things hard. That said, I'd do something like this:

No team outside the top 4 in each conference is eligible for the playoffs.

Any teams in the top 4 of the power conferences that don't make the playoffs match up in bowl games.

Teams 5 and below match up with another conference. 5 v 5, 6 v 6, etc. Which conference you match up with rotates each year.

Arguing whose conference is the deepest or has the best middle etc is a lot more to play for than the random bowl games we have now.

Then as you said...$$$ for participating. If you want to make things extra spicy...seeding based on conference record. Peer pressure can go a long ways. Plus, with everyone playing the extra game it will normalize staying to play in it with no transfer portals opening until after the first round is complete.

---

Oh, what the hell! Let's just start the playoff on Aug 31. That way, everyone has a chance. Losers along the way get bowl games, one after another, starting Sep 7.

Why would you have a playoff system that includes teams that have no chance to beat everyone else? The only ones playing should be those that have a realistic chance to win it all.

8 teams - major conference winners plus the 3 highest ranking teams who are not conference winners. But, of course, $$$$$$$$$$ calls the tune these days. So, let those know-nothings tell the emperor that his wardrobe is elegant.

---

I'm not sure I understand your point or if there was a miscommunication here.

Teams 5 and below would not be competing in a playoff. Personally I'd prefer to set the cutoff at max 3 teams per conference but 4 would be an absolute safety net. For reference, the B1G had 4 teams this year and the SEC had 3.

From my earlier post, the more inclusive the playoffs are of teams the more talent will spread throughout college football. There are 25 teams that can say they were a win or two away from the playoffs this year. Before this year 15 teams total had ever competed in the playoffs. Not only is Boise State now out recruiting saying you come here you can compete for the playoffs, so is UNLV. The best of the best want to play for championships...and the access to the playoffs has opened up tremendously with the 12 team playoff.

I agree we shouldn't expand beyond 12 teams. That said, Arizona State nearly came away with a win over Texas that would have shut out the SEC from the final 4. They were the 12th ranked team.

MrGPAC said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The last thing they need to do is fix the non playoff bowl games to give them more meaning.

---

The only incentive I can think of is cash money.

---

The uneven number of teams per conference makes things hard. That said, I'd do something like this:

No team outside the top 4 in each conference is eligible for the playoffs.

Any teams in the top 4 of the power conferences that don't make the playoffs match up in bowl games.

Teams 5 and below match up with another conference. 5 v 5, 6 v 6, etc. Which conference you match up with rotates each year.

Arguing whose conference is the deepest or has the best middle etc is a lot more to play for than the random bowl games we have now.

Then as you said...$$$ for participating. If you want to make things extra spicy...seeding based on conference record. Peer pressure can go a long ways. Plus, with everyone playing the extra game it will normalize staying to play in it with no transfer portals opening until after the first round is complete.

---

Oh, what the hell! Let's just start the playoff on Aug 31. That way, everyone has a chance. Losers along the way get bowl games, one after another, starting Sep 7.

Why would you have a playoff system that includes teams that have no chance to beat everyone else? The only ones playing should be those that have a realistic chance to win it all.

8 teams - major conference winners plus the 3 highest ranking teams who are not conference winners. But, of course, $$$$$$$$$$ calls the tune these days. So, let those know-nothings tell the emperor that his wardrobe is elegant.

---

I'm not sure I understand your point or if there was a miscommunication here.

Teams 5 and below would not be competing in a playoff. Personally I'd prefer to set the cutoff at max 3 teams per conference but 4 would be an absolute safety net. For reference, the B1G had 4 teams this year and the SEC had 3.

From my earlier post, the more inclusive the playoffs are of teams the more talent will spread throughout college football. There are 25 teams that can say they were a win or two away from the playoffs this year. Before this year 15 teams total had ever competed in the playoffs. Not only is Boise State now out recruiting saying you come here you can compete for the playoffs, so is UNLV. The best of the best want to play for championships...and the access to the playoffs has opened up tremendously with the 12 team playoff.

I agree we shouldn't expand beyond 12 teams. That said, Arizona State nearly came away with a win over Texas that would have shut out the SEC from the final 4. They were the 12th ranked team.

---

The last sentences for me is reason why we have the playoff. That was the best playoff game of the past 10 years.

It's seird to me that people are so adamant about the purity of the playoff. Once you get beyond 2 or 3 teams, there generally is not a need. The 4 game tournament is a lot more of an endurance test than win the one game between the 2 best teams. Once we went to 4 and then more - may as well enjoy the games. People are furious that too many football games are being played? Really? I think there is clearly a lot of room to make the playoffs and the other bowls a bit more exciting. This is what people should be focusing on.

Oski87 said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The last thing they need to do is fix the non playoff bowl games to give them more meaning.

---

The only incentive I can think of is cash money.

---

The uneven number of teams per conference makes things hard. That said, I'd do something like this:

No team outside the top 4 in each conference is eligible for the playoffs.

Any teams in the top 4 of the power conferences that don't make the playoffs match up in bowl games.

Teams 5 and below match up with another conference. 5 v 5, 6 v 6, etc. Which conference you match up with rotates each year.

Arguing whose conference is the deepest or has the best middle etc is a lot more to play for than the random bowl games we have now.

Then as you said...$$$ for participating. If you want to make things extra spicy...seeding based on conference record. Peer pressure can go a long ways. Plus, with everyone playing the extra game it will normalize staying to play in it with no transfer portals opening until after the first round is complete.

---

Oh, what the hell! Let's just start the playoff on Aug 31. That way, everyone has a chance. Losers along the way get bowl games, one after another, starting Sep 7.

Why would you have a playoff system that includes teams that have no chance to beat everyone else? The only ones playing should be those that have a realistic chance to win it all.

8 teams - major conference winners plus the 3 highest ranking teams who are not conference winners. But, of course, $$$$$$$$$$ calls the tune these days. So, let those know-nothings tell the emperor that his wardrobe is elegant.

---

I'm not sure I understand your point or if there was a miscommunication here.

Teams 5 and below would not be competing in a playoff. Personally I'd prefer to set the cutoff at max 3 teams per conference but 4 would be an absolute safety net. For reference, the B1G had 4 teams this year and the SEC had 3.

From my earlier post, the more inclusive the playoffs are of teams the more talent will spread throughout college football. There are 25 teams that can say they were a win or two away from the playoffs this year. Before this year 15 teams total had ever competed in the playoffs. Not only is Boise State now out recruiting saying you come here you can compete for the playoffs, so is UNLV. The best of the best want to play for championships...and the access to the playoffs has opened up tremendously with the 12 team playoff.

I agree we shouldn't expand beyond 12 teams. That said, Arizona State nearly came away with a win over Texas that would have shut out the SEC from the final 4. They were the 12th ranked team.

---

The last sentences for me is reason why we have the playoff. That was the best playoff game of the past 10 years.

It's seird to me that people are so adamant about the purity of the playoff. Once you get beyond 2 or 3 teams, there generally is not a need. The 4 game tournament is a lot more of an endurance test than win the one game between the 2 best teams. Once we went to 4 and then more - may as well enjoy the games. People are furious that too many football games are being played? Really? I think there is clearly a lot of room to make the playoffs and the other bowls a bit more exciting. This is what people should be focusing on.

---

This is kind of how I look at it: with filling out an expanded playoff it's less about trying to determine who is the "Best Team" (the playoff itself should take care of that) and more who should be given a chance to compete for the title. IMO the committee basically got that right this time, given their parameters:

-5 best-ranked conference champions (IMO this is important for giving all teams a theoretical chance to make the playoff)
-7 at-large teams who best deserved a shot at the title

Among the at-large selections, even if Indiana and SMU wouldn't necessarily be considered "the best," based on their season's body of work I think there's a good argument that they deserved a chance. SMU won the ACC regular season at 11-1 and barely lost the championship game. Indiana went 11-1 and blew out all of their opponents except OSU and Michigan. Sure, they didn't play a tough schedule outside of that but the victory margins have to be considered; that seems like a team that at least deserves a shot at the big boys, even with a lower seed. Meanwhile, the 3-loss SEC teams were busy dropping games to mediocre opponents with their playoff lives on the line. Seems fine to me that they got left out.

I have quibbles with how they seed the playoff, but not so much with who got selected.

Looks like the two teams playing for the title probably would not have made it if it were still four teams. Kind of validates the expanded format.

sycasey said:

---

Looks like the two teams playing for the title probably would not have made it if it were still four teams. Kind of validates the expanded format.

---

Or invalidates it?

Bobodeluxe said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Looks like the two teams playing for the title probably would not have made it if it were still four teams. Kind of validates the expanded format.

---

Or invalidates it?

---

Don't see how.