The 12 team playoff was an exciting development for college football, but allowing first round games to be played at the home field of one of the playoff teams is a tremendously unfair advantage. You would think they would at least give each team a similar ticket allotment, but they don't even do that.

After conference champions are determined, seeding of the remaining teams seems to be pretty arbitrary. For example, the 9 seed has to play at the home field of the 8 seed in a hostile environment. How the committee awards those seeds is tremendously important.

If they won't allow the games to be played at neutral sites, I'm hoping that next year they can at least allow each team a similar ticket allotment.

Chuckroast said:

---

The 12 team playoff was an exciting development for college football, but allowing first round games to be played at the home field of one of the playoff teams is a tremendously unfair advantage. You would think they would at least give each team a similar ticket allotment, but they don't even do that.

After conference champions are determined, seeding of the remaining teams seems to be pretty arbitrary. For example, the 9 seed has to play at the home field of the 8 seed in a hostile environment. How the committee awards those seeds is tremendously important.

If they won't allow the games to be played at neutral sites, I'm hoping that next year they can at least allow each team a similar ticket allotment.

---

whoever said life is fair?

Is the NFL unfair because they play games at the higher seed's home stadium until the Super Bowl?

For example, Tennessee and Ohio State finished with identical records, but in different conferences. The committee chose to seed Ohio State one spot ahead of Tennessee which makes an absolute world of difference. If you want to play the game at Ohio State, that's fine, but why can't you at least give the teams equal ticket allotments?

The women's NCAA basketballtournament allows the higher seeds to host early round games at home, but I think the reason for that is due to money. The men could do that but choose to play at neutral sites, and every team is given an equal allotment of tickets. If you can do that in a 64/68 team tournament, don't see why you can't do it in a 12 team tournament.

Chuckroast said:

---

For example, Tennessee and Ohio State finished with identical records, but in different conferences. The committee chose to seed Ohio State one spot ahead of Tennessee which makes an absolute world of difference. If you want to play the game at Ohio State, that's fine, but why can't you at least give the teams equal ticket allotments?

---

Tennessee could have played that game 100 times in Knoxville in front of 100k of their fans and would still lose to Ohio state 100 times.

The reality is we don't need 12 teams…or more than 8 to determine who the best team in the country is. The drop off in talent after 8 is severe. 9-12 are simply there to be cannon fodder…and to sell tickets to another home game

GoldenBear007 said:

---

I think we're going to learn in this playoff, that teams getting that first round home game will benefit more than those teams who got the bye.

---

I think that is very possible.

We also might learn there isn't unlimited cash even among the top fanbases. Trotting across the country three times in a few weeks will be a huge stretch unless you're as rabid as say Nebraska. The numbers don't add up unless each neutral location supports heavy through local interest.

If I am a fan of one of the four visiting teams that lost, I have not experienced a bowl game this year. I'm not a happy camper.

BUATX2000 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

For example, Tennessee and Ohio State finished with identical records, but in different conferences. The committee chose to seed Ohio State one spot ahead of Tennessee which makes an absolute world of difference. If you want to play the game at Ohio State, that's fine, but why can't you at least give the teams equal ticket allotments?

---

Tennessee could have played that game 100 times in Knoxville in front of 100k of their fans and would still lose to Ohio state 100 times.

The reality is we don't need 12 teams…or more than 8 to determine who the best team in the country is. The drop off in talent after 8 is severe. 9-12 are simply there to be cannon fodder…and to sell tickets to another home game

---

I would wait to see how #9 and #12 pan out first. If either of them win a single game, then the 12-team makes sense even in the first sample size. Even if they don't, you'll have to wait for more CFP sample sizes anyway

They also said a 16 would never beat a 1.

12 is good. Can it be tweaked? Sure. But stick to 12.

Especially if they're in Columbus or Happy Valley against a team who may not have any players who have ever played in a game below 40.

BUATX2000 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

For example, Tennessee and Ohio State finished with identical records, but in different conferences. The committee chose to seed Ohio State one spot ahead of Tennessee which makes an absolute world of difference. If you want to play the game at Ohio State, that's fine, but why can't you at least give the teams equal ticket allotments?

---

Tennessee could have played that game 100 times in Knoxville in front of 100k of their fans and would still lose to Ohio state 100 times.

The reality is we don't need 12 teams…or more than 8 to determine who the best team in the country is. The drop off in talent after 8 is severe. 9-12 are simply there to be cannon fodder…and to sell tickets to another home game

---

It is not about that, it is about access and opportunity. We all know the top 5 are better than everyone else, but giving more than those fanbases a path to take part is how you get a Nat Champion. You thought IU was going to beat ND? Or, SMU at PSU? No, but they had the chance. Leave it like it is keep access for all conferences.

BUATX2000 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

For example, Tennessee and Ohio State finished with identical records, but in different conferences. The committee chose to seed Ohio State one spot ahead of Tennessee which makes an absolute world of difference. If you want to play the game at Ohio State, that's fine, but why can't you at least give the teams equal ticket allotments?

---

Tennessee could have played that game 100 times in Knoxville in front of 100k of their fans and would still lose to Ohio state 100 times.

The reality is we don't need 12 teams…or more than 8 to determine who the best team in the country is. The drop off in talent after 8 is severe. 9-12 are simply there to be cannon fodder…and to sell tickets to another home game

---

The fact that Ohio State lost at home to Michigan disproves your theory. No doubt Ohio State played a flawless game against Tennessee and looked great, but they laid an egg against Michigan at the end of the season. I would agree with you in years past, but the landscape is different this year. There is no dominant team this year.

And home game environments are absolutely huge in college football. Tennessee laid an egg against Ohio State just as they did against Arkansas earlier in the year on the road, and I'm not suggesting that Tennessee is an elite team. But I don't think we have an elite team this year.

Chuckroast said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Is the NFL unfair because they play games at the higher seed's home stadium until the Super Bowl?

---

Totally different. They play more games and at large seeding is determined by record. Seeding is not determined by a committee. There are plenty of interconference matchups throughout the season so that everyone has similar schedules.

---

Also the NFL is only 32 teams, not the dozens in the P4 plus dozens more G5. They don't play the same kinds of cupcakes college teams play.

Chuckroast said:

---

Totally different. They play more games and at large seeding is determined by record. Seeding is not determined by a committee. There are plenty of interconference matchups throughout the season so that everyone has similar schedules.

---

Yeah. Also, the NFL has a salary cap. College football doesn't.

Chuckroast said:

---

The 12 team playoff was an exciting development for college football, but allowing first round games to be played at the home field of one of the playoff teams is a tremendously unfair advantage. You would think they would at least give each team a similar ticket allotment, but they don't even do that.

After conference champions are determined, seeding of the remaining teams seems to be pretty arbitrary. For example, the 9 seed has to play at the home field of the 8 seed in a hostile environment. How the committee awards those seeds is tremendously important.

If they won't allow the games to be played at neutral sites, I'm hoping that next year they can at least allow each team a similar ticket allotment.

---

It didn't bother me.

BUATX2000 said:

---

Tennessee could have played that game 100 times in Knoxville in front of 100k of their fans and would still lose to Ohio state 100 times.

---

Hyperbole much? Ohio State is the better team, but did you see them against Michigan? But I'll take your bait. If they played in Knoxville 100 times, OSU would win 59 times to Tennessee's 41.