After thinking about it, I've come around to the idea that the CFP should just go ahead and expand to 24 teams and then stop.

For decades, the Top 25 has been the standard for being a good football team. So it only makes sense to reward those teams.

This would ensure that you basically include nearly all of your 2 and 3-loss teams, and you'd only be allowing a handful of 4-loss teams in most years. Including a 3-loss team is already iffy as-is, but a 4-loss team has ZERO reason to complain about being left out.

Start by rewarding the 8 teams that made the P4 conference championships with byes, no matter record. However, only guarantee a home game for the winners. A title game loser might still have to play a road game, depending on their final ranking.

You would then have the 16 teams that were at home during Championship Saturday play the following week on the campuses of the higher seeds.

Those winners would then play the 8 teams with byes the next week on the higher seed's campus, and then the Final 8 would continue play around New Year's.

Going to 16 teams would just water down the regular season, as there would be no difference between being seeded 1-8.

By going to 24 teams, you would be rewarding teams that do well in the regular season.

Under the current CFP rankings, the matchups would have looked like this during the 1st weekend (Sorry #24 JMU, but Duke's win knocked you off the bubble):

5 Oregon vs 23 Iowa (only 4-loss team in field)
6 Ole Miss vs 22 Georgia Tech
7 Texas A&M vs 21 Houston
8 Oklahoma vs 20 Tulane
10 Miami vs 18 Michigan
11 Notre Dame vs 17 Arizona
13 Texas vs 16 USC
14 Vanderbilt vs 15 Utah

Play 1 game on Thursday, 1 game on Friday, and spread out the remaining 6 games on Saturday (2 at 11am, 2 at 3pm, 2 @ 7pm).

Reseed everyone after the first weekend and then the week 1 winners would play the bye teams the following week.

1 Indiana (guaranteed home game)
3 Georgia (guaranteed home game)
4 Texas Tech (guaranteed home game)
NR Duke (guaranteed home game)

2 OSU (guaranteed home game)
9 Alabama (road game unless 2 losses by seeds 5-8)
12 BYU (road game)
19 Virginia (road game)

Those first two weeks would mirror the 1st weekend of March Madness in excitement, and would keep everyone glued to their televisions.

What isn't to like about this plan?

LTBear19 said:

---

After thinking about it, I've come around to the idea that the CFP should just go ahead and expand to 24 teams and then stop.

For decades, the Top 25 has been the standard for being a good football team. So it only makes sense to reward those teams.

This would ensure that you basically include nearly all of your 2 and 3-loss teams, and you'd only be allowing a handful of 4-loss teams in most years. Including a 3-loss team is already iffy as-is, but a 4-loss team has ZERO reason to complain about being left out.

Start by rewarding the 8 teams that made the P4 conference championships with byes, no matter record. However, only guarantee a home game for the winners. A title game loser might still have to play a road game, depending on their final ranking.

You would then have the 16 teams that were at home during Championship Saturday play the following week on the campuses of the higher seeds.

Those winners would then play the 8 teams with byes the next week on the higher seed's campus, and then the Final 8 would continue play around New Year's.

Going to 16 teams would just water down the regular season, as there would be no difference between being seeded 1-8.

By going to 24 teams, you would be rewarding teams that do well in the regular season.

Under the current CFP rankings, the matchups would have looked like this during the 1st weekend (Sorry #24 JMU, but Duke's win knocked you off the bubble):

5 Oregon vs 23 Iowa (only 4-loss team in field)
6 Ole Miss vs 22 Georgia Tech
7 Texas A&M vs 21 Houston
8 Oklahoma vs 20 Tulane
10 Miami vs 18 Michigan
11 Notre Dame vs 17 Arizona
13 Texas vs 16 USC
14 Vanderbilt vs 15 Utah

Play 1 game on Thursday, 1 game on Friday, and spread out the remaining 6 games on Saturday (2 at 11am, 2 at 3pm, 2 @ 7pm).

Reseed everyone after the first weekend and then the week 1 winners would play the bye teams the following week.

1 Indiana (guaranteed home game)
3 Georgia (guaranteed home game)
4 Texas Tech (guaranteed home game)
NR Duke (guaranteed home game)

2 OSU (guaranteed home game)
9 Alabama (road game unless 1 loss by seeds 5-8)
12 BYU (road game unless seeds 5-8 all lose)
19 Virginia (road game)

Those first two weeks would mirror the 1st weekend of March Madness in excitement, and would keep everyone glued to their televisions.

What isn't to like about this plan?

---

How many games will be played during the season ? Additional games were added to their regular season some time ago. [ more TV revenue ] You will either have to cut back on one regular season game or eliminate the bye weeks in order to get all of this in before the spring semester has already started.

That's putting a tremendous number of hits on the heads of these young men for what? Profit? I don't like it. Especially for the "C" athlete who never gets big NIL money of an NFL contract. (Most of them)

I've got some old threads floating around Premium with similar ideas. I think "Top 24" as the model is a great framing, and it would in fact increase the drama around more regular season games.

24 also gets us much closer to Pro standards for league representation in the a playoff system. For the NFL, 14/32 = 44% of the league making the Playoffs.

By contrast, the P4 is 68 teams and FBS is 136 teams. So a 12 team playoff represent just 9% of FBS and 18% of the P4. 24 would at least get us to 18% and 36% respectively.

We'd probably never have a champ ranked out of the top 15, and yet nearly all of FBS would feel like they have a real shot to at least make the Playoff, and cyclically most of the P4 would make the Playoffs in their programs peak years. That's vital for the long term health of the sport.

Keep the number a power of 2. 32 is correct. Nobody should get a bye. 32/68 = 47% of P4. Max number of additional games is 5, and only 2 teams play that many.

FCS has 24 team playoff with 11 autobids for conference winners and 13 at large. Top 8 get byes.

I'd be good with 16. No auto-bids.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

Keep the number a power of 2. 32 is correct. Nobody should get a bye. 32/68 = 47% of P4. Max number of additional games is 5, and only 2 teams play that many.

FCS has 24 team playoff with 11 autobids for conference winners and 13 at large. Top 8 get byes.

---

32 is what I've preached for years. Makes sense all the way. It would be pretty hard to argue being left out if you can't make Top 32. Use homefield for #1 vs #32. Use the bowls from second round on. 5 games to get your NC.

Don't want it to end up like the BB tournament.

In football. 12-16 is enough. "We deserved to get in" teams will be left out no matter how many teams are in.
If you want in, don't lose low level games in the season, or win your dang conference. Make the in season games mean what they should mean.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Don't want it to end up like the BB tournament.

In football. 12-16 is enough. "We deserved to get in" teams will be left out no matter how many teams are in.
If you want in, don't lose low level games in the season, or win your dang conference. Make the in season games mean what they should mean.

---

Unfortunately the SEC/Big 10 teams will dominate the Playoff field with little chance of other teams getting in. And the bowls not in the playoffs will all fold. We saw a lot of this year.

More is the wrong direction. There aren't more than 4-6 teams that are legitimate candidates. The rest is just participation trophies for being decent, instead of playing in a bowl that could be a really nice and entertaining matchup, instead of Chuck Wepner type best hope of looking scrappy while getting curb stomped.

The closes they came to getting it was when it was just picking two or four teams.

But there will never be a legit playoff in college football. It is not possible as long as there is such lack of control and inequity in the conferences, entitled programs that refuse to join one, and scheduling.

Win a conference, win a spot. That's the only way. It can't happen.

And logistically, it is not possible in football without destroying the entire season.

LTBear19 said:

---

After thinking about it, I've come around to the idea that the CFP should just go ahead and expand to 24 teams and then stop.

For decades, the Top 25 has been the standard for being a good football team. So it only makes sense to reward those teams.

This would ensure that you basically include nearly all of your 2 and 3-loss teams, and you'd only be allowing a handful of 4-loss teams in most years. Including a 3-loss team is already iffy as-is, but a 4-loss team has ZERO reason to complain about being left out.

Start by rewarding the 8 teams that made the P4 conference championships with byes, no matter record. However, only guarantee a home game for the winners. A title game loser might still have to play a road game, depending on their final ranking.

You would then have the 16 teams that were at home during Championship Saturday play the following week on the campuses of the higher seeds.

Those winners would then play the 8 teams with byes the next week on the higher seed's campus, and then the Final 8 would continue play around New Year's.

Going to 16 teams would just water down the regular season, as there would be no difference between being seeded 1-8.

By going to 24 teams, you would be rewarding teams that do well in the regular season.

Under the current CFP rankings, the matchups would have looked like this during the 1st weekend (Sorry #24 JMU, but Duke's win knocked you off the bubble):

5 Oregon vs 23 Iowa (only 4-loss team in field)
6 Ole Miss vs 22 Georgia Tech
7 Texas A&M vs 21 Houston
8 Oklahoma vs 20 Tulane
10 Miami vs 18 Michigan
11 Notre Dame vs 17 Arizona
13 Texas vs 16 USC
14 Vanderbilt vs 15 Utah

Play 1 game on Thursday, 1 game on Friday, and spread out the remaining 6 games on Saturday (2 at 11am, 2 at 3pm, 2 @ 7pm).

Reseed everyone after the first weekend and then the week 1 winners would play the bye teams the following week.

1 Indiana (guaranteed home game)
3 Georgia (guaranteed home game)
4 Texas Tech (guaranteed home game)
NR Duke (guaranteed home game)

2 OSU (guaranteed home game)
9 Alabama (road game unless 1 loss by seeds 5-8)
12 BYU (road game unless seeds 5-8 all lose)
19 Virginia (road game)

Those first two weeks would mirror the 1st weekend of March Madness in excitement, and would keep everyone glued to their televisions.

What isn't to like about this plan?

---

Terrible idea. Four conferences...16 teams/conference...two divisions per conference...9 conference games...3 OOC...one game allowed outside of 64. Top 2 from each conference goes to the playoff. Simple, straightforward and make the conferences regional and stop the insane travel.

Only conference champion should make the playoffs. Quit rewarding losing because it makes money.

if you go to 24, then nos. 25,26,27, . . .

you get the idea.


kinda like the Kool-Aid bear fans thinking 5-7 baylor oughta be playing for the national championship

Stranger said:

---

if you go to 24, then nos. 25,26,27, . . .

you get the idea.


kinda like the Kool-Aid bear fans thinking 5-7 baylor oughta be playing for the national championship

---

Yep, no matter how many teams you add, there will be even more teams complaining they were more deserving.

That's not what it is supposed to be about.

That's why the bowl system was awesome.

El Oso said:

---

Only conference champion should make the playoffs. Quit rewarding losing because it makes money.

---

The SEC would not be happy, so that's never happening. They say Jump and NCAA says How high!

Assassin said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Only conference champion should make the playoffs. Quit rewarding losing because it makes money.

---

The SEC would not be happy, so that's never happening. They say Jump and NCAA says How high!

---

You are correct, they wouldn't. And they started this mess. But that's how it should be, and the same for Notre Dame. Join a damn conference or shut up and go be in a bowl game.

Stupid idea. No team ranked 15-25 is winning it all.

Twelve is fine. No one things that Texas or Notre Dame is winning the NC this year.

Sixteen would be fine but just for more $$$. Seeds 13-16 are not winning it either.

#25 & #26 will just raise Hell and claim they got screwed!!

Bearknuckle said:

---

I've got some old threads floating around Premium with similar ideas. I think "Top 24" as the model is a great framing, and it would in fact increase the drama around more regular season games.

24 also gets us much closer to Pro standards for league representation in the a playoff system. For the NFL, 14/32 = 44% of the league making the Playoffs.

By contrast, the P4 is 68 teams and FBS is 136 teams. So a 12 team playoff represent just 9% of FBS and 18% of the P4. 24 would at least get us to 18% and 36% respectively.

We'd probably never have a champ ranked out of the top 15, and yet nearly all of FBS would feel like they have a real shot to at least make the Playoff, and cyclically most of the P4 would make the Playoffs in their programs peak years. That's vital for the long term health of the sport.

---

Bearknuckle gets it.

The long term health of the sport should definitely be taken into consideration, and inclusion will help achieve that goal/objective.

There are flaws with nearly every setup, minus the 24-team model.

Picking 2-4 teams was ridiculous to begin with, because you were constantly messing over a worthy team that had a legitimate shot. Criteria for selection was all over the place, and rarely fair.

I'll always believe that our 2013 team could have beaten FSU or Auburn in a legitimate playoff setting. Just a shame that 1-loss Auburn got to face FSU instead of us.

12 teams is also a bad number, because you still run the risk of leaving out a worthy 2-loss team. Despite people's feelings towards the Irish, they very well could have won out in this year's CFP. I think they were a top 3-4 favored team according to Vegas.

Then 16 and 32 do not reward a team for having a really good regular season. You have to incentivize the regular season to some degree. Otherwise, we'll be stuck with a bunch of horrible nonconference games moving forward, and championship games will mean zilch.

24 teams, however, is the sweet spot. There is a reason FCS uses that model. And they've been quite successful.

As mentioned, teams 25 and 26 will have zero reason to complain, since you'd almost always be dealing with a team that lost 4 games or more. Their complaints would fall on deaf ears, and rightfully so.

Also, 24 still allows for high stakes games even through Championship Saturday, because teams would be playing for byes and homefield, along with general inclusion (even a team like Houston would have been playing for a shot to get in the playoffs in their last game). A mis-step in even the final week of the season could be the difference in playing at home in Tuscaloosa instead of on the road in Lubbock. Or playing nowhere at all.

And for those who are complaining about including more teams, I will once again post the matchups that would have happened last weekend over a 3-day window.

5 Oregon vs 23 Iowa
6 Ole Miss vs 22 Georgia Tech
7 Texas A&M vs 21 Houston
8 Oklahoma vs 20 Tulane
10 Miami vs 18 Michigan
11 Notre Dame vs 17 Arizona
13 Texas vs 16 USC
14 Vanderbilt vs 15 Utah

All of those games would have been intriguing, and almost everyone here would have been happily glued to their tv's watching.

The reality is that playoff expansion is coming, whether we want it or not.

Might as well do it right.

I don't watch bowls because they are just not that interesting in the way that NFL preseason games are uninteresting to me.

I watch the playoff games so the more games the merrier. I think 16 is the right number but if you want to take 24 teams I'll watch the games so 24 works for me.

They should go to 16 team playoff and incorporate conference championship games (12 teams) from 6 conferences as part of the eight games (16 teams) played first week with the remaining 4 teams the four highest rated teams not in a conference game. After first round, 8 are done, 8 go to four games the next week.

Trying to seed the teams based on games played and strength of schedule is thrown in the trash, since there is too much manipulation of these stats based on who you play in conference and who you schedule out of conference. (In 2024, the top 4 seeds lost in their first CFP game). The committees job is to select the remainder of the 16 teams who dont get there by playing for a conference championship, probably from the highest rated not playing in a championship game.

Games would be played at neutral sites hosted by a bowl that would otherwise be eliminated due to lack of teams to sustain the bowl setup that exists today.

Seeding as it now exists is a joke Hokey Pokey game. Seeding of the 16 teams should be done by random draw lottery before any games are played. This seeding stays with team for entire tournament. Based on this draw, home team for conference championships would be highest seeded teams regardless of record. Of the four teams not playing for their conference making up the remaining two first week games, this random draw seeding would determine opponent and home team. After first week, 8 go home, 8 go to next week and highest seed is home team in a bowl game.

This puts all teams involved on an equal basis. Currently it's not fair since Teams who currently get a bye get another week to heal the walking wounded, while Teams who have to play first week have walking wounded getting banged up who may not be healthy for that second game.

This is what I would do if I could. Sixteen who play for
8 spots, who play for 4 spots, who play for the 2 spots in that final game.

For Baylor, more is undeniably the correct decision - not a close call.

If this year's expanded playoff has shown anything it is that the playoff needs to shrink to prevent absurd outcomes, not expand.

Oregon and Ole Miss ran both their G5 opponents out of the stadium.

Alabama and Georgia are on opposite sides of the bracket. If both win out and meet in the national title game, Georgia will have to beat Alabama 3 times in one season to claim the title. Otherwise the Crimson Tide will claim the title despite having a 1-2 record against the Bulldogs.

A smaller playoff where conference champions play for a title makes sense.

Make the regular season great again.

Bama best GA in the regular season

After watching JMU and Tulane get absolutely destroyed by teams with WAY more money and WAY better athletes, I can definitively confirm that I do not want more match ups.

The answer (from a quality of football perspective) is and always has been 8 teams, no byes.


Power 4 champs and 4 at large bids appointed by a BCS style AI that actually watches the games and is trained on actual football models not some committee of TV network fart sniffers.

I prefer it as is or expanded. One year sample is not enough to make people want it to be an exclusive blue blood tourney especially from folks who are not alums of a blueblood.

There are little teams all the time who get blown out the first round of the hoops tourney. Sometimes they knock someone off. Sometimes they have a Cinderella year. This will happen over time in football as well. What happened yesterday with JMU and Tulane have not changed my view an all about expanding.

PartyBear said:

---

I prefer it as is or expanded. One year sample is not enough to make people want it to be an exclusive blue blood tourney especially from folks who are not alums of a blueblood.

There are little teams all the time who get blown out the first round of the hoops tourney. Sometimes they knock someone off. Sometimes they have a Cinderella year. This will happen over time in football as well. What happened yesterday with JMU and Tulane have not changed my view an all about expanding.

---

Basketball is a different animal. That JMU vs Oregon game could be played 100 times, and Oregon wins 100 games. Basketball can turn on a shooter getting hot or going cold. The games are also played in strange places and odd times, introducing an element of uncertainty into the equation.

Dragging a G5 team from Virginia to Eugene to play a night game against some of the best football players on the planet in front of a hostile home crowd is not the same as some well known 5 seed losing to a team I've never heard of 12 seed at some Kansas City convention center turned basketball arena at 1pm on a Tuesday.

I think neutral sites are better just like in men's hoops. That is one thing I would change.

Why are we pretending like playoff blowouts are new? Did anyone watch the 24 playoff? Higher seeds got wrecked.
And guess what in the quarters this year there's going to be a blowout or 2. If you expand further the blowouts will become even more common. And if you eliminate a G5 bid all you really are is 1 step closer to the B12 losing their bid.
Don't kid yourselves the B12 is closer to being G5 than they are part of the P2

Time to rework the entire system. Take the top 120 D1 schools and form 12 10 team conferences geographically. Every conference has 9 conference games, so everyone plays each other in the conference, no ducking the tough games. Only the 12 champions go to the playoffs. Still have 4 byes going to the 4 highest ranked champs.

KajunKarlsdad said:

---

Time to rework the entire system. Take the top 120 D1 schools and form 12 10 team conferences geographically. Every conference has 9 conference games, so everyone plays each other in the conference, no ducking the tough games. Only the 12 champions go to the playoffs. Still have 4 byes going to the 4 highest ranked champs.

---

Unfortunately for most of us fans, this isn't about good football, it's about TV ratings.

BUATX2000 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

I prefer it as is or expanded. One year sample is not enough to make people want it to be an exclusive blue blood tourney especially from folks who are not alums of a blueblood.

There are little teams all the time who get blown out the first round of the hoops tourney. Sometimes they knock someone off. Sometimes they have a Cinderella year. This will happen over time in football as well. What happened yesterday with JMU and Tulane have not changed my view an all about expanding.

---

Basketball is a different animal. That JMU vs Oregon game could be played 100 times, and Oregon wins 100 games. Basketball can turn on a shooter getting hot or going cold. The games are also played in strange places and odd times, introducing an element of uncertainty into the equation.

Dragging a G5 team from Virginia to Eugene to play a night game against some of the best football players on the planet in front of a hostile home crowd is not the same as some well known 5 seed losing to a team I've never heard of 12 seed at some Kansas City convention center turned basketball arena at 1pm on a Tuesday.

---

In basketball you only have to buy 5 to 7 players, not 40.

This will move towards a similar thing as FCS. It's all about the money and Oregon JMU drew more viewers than an NBA semis game 6. They'll slide games up to Week 0. 6-8 highest ranked conference champs auto qualify with rest at large. Seeding decided by a dumbarse committee over fancy wine and cheese boards to maximize revenue. Conference champ week will stay or become opening round of playoff. Maybe they make it into a play in game. Like Vandy/Texas and BYU/ND would square off for a bid.

Whatever draws the viewers will be what they do and more playoff games is more viewers so that's what will come.

Anyone talking about the number of teams going down at this point is kidding themselves.

It's NOT going to happen.

It's the same reason Championship Games will not go away either.

There's simply too much money to be made by playoff expansion (and by keeping those conference title games).

Which is why you expand to 24 and stop there, just like FCS.

If you give byes to the 8 title game participants from the P4 leagues, then that is fair and still rewards those teams for regular season excellence.

Plus, this would ensure that all 24 participants (minus any G5 champs) would only play a max of 5 postseason games.

'Conference Champs Only' is not fair, because not all conferences are created equally.

Does anyone in their right mind think the SEC would be ok with getting the same number of teams into the postseason as the American Conference?

Of course they wouldn't, which is why at-large bids are going to always be a part of the tournament.


It's time to be realistic folks.

Expansion IS going to happen.

We're either going to 14, 16, or 24.

I choose 24, because it is the most fair of those 3 options, still allows for the regular season to have high stakes games, and rewards regular season performance.

Plus, we'd all get more high stakes playoff games and would finally have a legitimate playoff (and not this invitational).

You'd almost be 100% certain that the true champ came from that group of 24 teams.

If you love March Madness, then you should be in favor of a 24-team format.

It's that simple.

We found one thing this year, the new Playoff system has destroyed a plethora of lower bowls. That means two teams from each one of those bowls has nowhere to go. An expanded playoff system is needed. I'm a fan ot 32, nobody gets a bye and those 32 teams come from the voting for the Top 32 teams, no byes, no conference winners, etc. It depends on how you played during the season