Here is an idea that just popped into my head.

What if the playoff required a hefty payment from each conference to opt in, which contributes to NIL funding for the playoff games. The SEC, Big 10, ACC and Big 12 could easily contribute, maybe the PAC. The poors conferences could either pony up or say "naw, no thanks."

Then you don't have to water down the playoff with championships for the poors getting blown out. They can fight for another nice post season trip that makes sense for them.

Or you can have all of those poors conferences partner for one joint payment so that one or maybe two reps from those conferences would qualify, based on their own mini-playoff or some other selection process just for them.

Then you have 4 or 5 conference champs, and one or two poors champs, and maybe a wild card if necessary. So the polls won't factor, as they shouldn't, unless they need to fill up an 8th and final playoff spot.

I'm sure there are lots of reasons people will say it won't work, but it would be far better than anything they have tried are are advocating to this point.

That's as good an idea as anything the people in charge come up with.

historian said:

---

That's as good an idea as anything the people in charge come up with.

---

Thanks, but it isn't all that hard. It just takes some attempt at practicing logic, which isn't a factor for the people in charge dreaming up how they can pile up a couple billion more to sell out college sports.

That's what makes it so special! LOL

Nah. 24 teams is the way to go.

For all intents and purposes, it changes the postseason from an invitational to a true playoff.

If you can't crack the Top 25, then you probably aren't going to win a national title.

Some of yall need to let this 8 team idea go, as it's NEVER going to happen at this point.

Nor should it.

Just elimnate the subjectivity and eye test nonsense, give the best teams a shot at proving they're the best on the field, and let the chips fall where they may.

With 24 teams you ruin both the playoff and the bowls, as well as any meaning of conference titles.

8 should be the most.

Dia del DougO said:

---

With 24 teams you ruin both the playoff and the bowls, as well as any meaning of conference titles.

8 should be the most.

---

And go back to that beauty contest nonsense that everyone hates?

No thank you.

Like you always say - let the teams battle it out on the field and put it on paper!

LTBear19 said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

With 24 teams you ruin both the playoff and the bowls, as well as any meaning of conference titles.

8 should be the most.

---

And go back to that beauty contest nonsense that everyone hates?

No thank you.

Like you always say - let the teams battle it out on the field and put it on paper!

---

No, you go more like the greatness of bowl season that everyone loved before the BcS started the destruction of the post season.

Having a playoff that lasts as long as half the regular season, with a bunch of teams that clearly haven't proven as good as teams in their own conference, is just ludicrous.

If you don't have to even win your conference to get a pity invitation, what is the purpose of a conference championship game? The CCG's should be the beginning of the qualification process.

Dia del DougO said:

---

LTBear19 said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

With 24 teams you ruin both the playoff and the bowls, as well as any meaning of conference titles.

8 should be the most.

---

And go back to that beauty contest nonsense that everyone hates?

No thank you.

Like you always say - let the teams battle it out on the field and put it on paper!

---

No, you go more like the greatness of bowl season that everyone loved before the BcS started the destruction of the post season.

Having a playoff that lasts as long as half the regular season, with a bunch of teams that clearly haven't proven as good as teams in their own conference, is just ludicrous.

If you don't have to even win your conference to get a pity invitation, what is the purpose of a conference championship game? The CCG's should be the beginning of the qualification process.

---

Why is winning the conference such a huge thing in football for some to qualify for the playoffs but not in basketball or baseball? There have been plenty of teams that don't win their conference or tournament in those sports compete for and win their natty there.

Even with 24 teams the odds of the Bears getting a playoff spot are near zero unless some big money decides to enter the game, get a new coach and try to buy a playoff spot with roster upgrades.

There are a lot more teams playing in Match Madness than is possible in a cfp.

historian said:

---

There are a lot more teams playing in Match Madness than is possible in a cfp.

---

Which proves my point. He said only conference champions should make the playoffs. March madness is a playoff, one in which more than just conference champions participate. Why should football be only conference champions?

cowboycwr said:

---

historian said:

---

There are a lot more teams playing in Match Madness than is possible in a cfp.

---

March madness is a playoff....

---

Not it isn't. It's an invitational tournament.

And it's basketball. Not football.

Big difference.

No, it shouldn't be limited to only 4 teams. That idea was rejected already. I think the P4 conference champs should automatically be in and probably the runners up. Those are the teams in each with the best records and who have earned those slots on the field. The others should come from G6, independents, or other teams in the P4 with exceptional records. There should be no SEC or Big 10 team with 2-3 losses getting in if they didn't even make the title game. I also would like to see 8 or 16 slots with no byes for anyone. Personally, I'd like their be a requirement like the B12 has now: each team must play at least one P4 ooc team and no cupcakes in November. The level of the ooc opponents should be a factor in ranking and maybe seeding.

The problem with so many of these ideas is that their purpose is to rig the system with more P2 teams getting in, including some that clearly don't belong, which would mean they would dominate.

In my mind, it should resemble March Madness as much as possible with everyone treated equally and no one advances without winning. Obviously, 16 is about as many as is reasonably possible because of the realities of football.

Of course, all of this is opinion and idle speculation. It's unlikely that any of our ideas will be applied. The cfp will remain the "ESPN Blue Blood Invitational."

Dia del DougO said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

historian said:

---

There are a lot more teams playing in Match Madness than is possible in a cfp.

---

March madness is a playoff....

---

Not it isn't. It's an invitational tournament.

And it's basketball. Not football.

Big difference.

---

Yes it is. It is the top teams from ALL the conferences that then play to determine the National Champion. IN the case of the P4 the top 6+ teams from each conference get in most years guaranteeing the field is made up of the best teams in the country that have a true shot at winning it all. Very rarely does a team that gets left out have a good record that matches up to top stats across the board against good competition. When a team gets left out that has a good record with just a few losses it is because they played nobody.

historian said:

---

No, it shouldn't be limited to only 4 teams. That idea was rejected already. I think the P4 conference champs should automatically be in and probably the runners up. Those are the teams in each with the best records and who have earned those slots on the field. The others should come from G6, independents, or other teams in the P4 with exceptional records. There should be no SEC or Big 10 team with 2-3 losses getting in if they didn't even make the title game. I also would like to see 8 or 16 slots with no byes for anyone. Personally, I'd like their be a requirement like the B12 has now: each team must play at least one P4 ooc team and no cupcakes in November. The level of the ooc opponents should be a factor in ranking and maybe seeding.

The problem with so many of these ideas is that their purpose is to rig the system with more P2 teams getting in, including some that clearly don't belong, which would mean they would dominate.

In my mind, it should resemble March Madness as much as possible with everyone treated equally and no one advances without winning. Obviously, 16 is about as many as is reasonably possible because of the realities of football.

Of course, all of this is opinion and idle speculation. It's unlikely that any of our ideas will be applied. The cfp will remain the "ESPN Blue Blood Invitational."

---

I never said it should be limited to 4 teams. Are you replying to the correct person? This is two replies in a row that don't seem to match up to what I am saying.

I have said it should be the conference champions of the P4, at least one guaranteed G6 conference champion and then just the highest ranked teams after that- which would mean the runner up from each P4 plus others. The rankings need to be based on data not on arbitrary sports writers choosing their teams to prevent it from just being P2 schools.

My apologies. I was replying more generally. I agree with you.

LTBear19 said:

---

Well, it looks like the 24-team playoff is about to happen (and possibly as early as next year).

However, it appears that the conference title games might be going away, which makes very little sense, imo.

You can keep the title games AND still do the 24-team playoff without any issues.

It's an easy fix, and I even mentioned it last year in a similar thread.

Start by rewarding the 8 teams that make 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.

It amazes me how none of these TV execs or conference heads can figure this out.

Guess we'll see how it all plays out soon enough.

---

They should absolutely be dropped. Their only purpose was to generate more TV revenue and give winners an extra data point with BCS computers, then after that, the invitational committee.

One thing is for damned sure. We won't be one of 24.

We wouldn't make a 48 team playoff, either.

I think we could maybe make the 47th spot? Dunno.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Timbear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

College football used to be my favorite sport, I watched multiple games a week and could tell you players on every team and knew every head coach but my interest is now gone. I haven't watched much the last 2 years outside of Baylor

---

From one old guy to another, if you like football, why deny yourself the fun of the season? Everyone is entitled to their likes and dislikes, but your martyr complex only makes your life more boring and uneventful, and doesn't persuade anyone. Times change, man. Is this the way you deal with changes in your life? If so, do you ever have a good day?

---

I'm not old, I'm 26 and I still like football, but primarily NFL. I don't care for college because they change the rules every off season. At least I can build a connection with my NFL team because they will hold onto to their players for a few years

---

Nascar is a perfect example of how changing the post season format every few years is devastating, fans have left in droves. They need to get the playoff format right and LEAVE IT ALONE! IMO 12 teams is too much, I would have preferred a 6 team playoff using the NY6 bowls as hosts but I do prefer the 12 over the 4.

bossbowman said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Timbear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

College football used to be my favorite sport, I watched multiple games a week and could tell you players on every team and knew every head coach but my interest is now gone. I haven't watched much the last 2 years outside of Baylor

---

From one old guy to another, if you like football, why deny yourself the fun of the season? Everyone is entitled to their likes and dislikes, but your martyr complex only makes your life more boring and uneventful, and doesn't persuade anyone. Times change, man. Is this the way you deal with changes in your life? If so, do you ever have a good day?

---

I'm not old, I'm 26 and I still like football, but primarily NFL. I don't care for college because they change the rules every off season. At least I can build a connection with my NFL team because they will hold onto to their players for a few years

---

Nascar is a perfect example of how changing the post season format every few years is devastating, fans have left in droves. They need to get the playoff format right and LEAVE IT ALONE! IMO 12 teams is too much, I would have preferred a 6 team playoff using the NY6 bowls as hosts but I do prefer the 12 over the 4.

---

I'm with ya. I like 6 and 8 the most. But unfortunately they just want as many SEC and B10 schools that they can fit

bossbowman said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Timbear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

College football used to be my favorite sport, I watched multiple games a week and could tell you players on every team and knew every head coach but my interest is now gone. I haven't watched much the last 2 years outside of Baylor

---

From one old guy to another, if you like football, why deny yourself the fun of the season? Everyone is entitled to their likes and dislikes, but your martyr complex only makes your life more boring and uneventful, and doesn't persuade anyone. Times change, man. Is this the way you deal with changes in your life? If so, do you ever have a good day?

---

I'm not old, I'm 26 and I still like football, but primarily NFL. I don't care for college because they change the rules every off season. At least I can build a connection with my NFL team because they will hold onto to their players for a few years

---

IMO 12 teams is too much, I would have preferred a 6 team playoff

---

6 teams? So, you are in the exclusionary camp. The FBS has 138 teams. Inviting 6 means just 4% of FBS teams get invited. That is an exceptionally small pool.

This isn't geared towards you specifically, but the anti-expansion "exclusionary" camp as a whole.

I've never understood the exclusionary camp. The stance is anti competitive and anti democratic. It's especially baffling when the anti expansion crowd comes from small schools like us. If there was a 12 team playoff in place, we would have made the playoffs in 2013, 2014 and 2021. Instead, we were on the outside looking in. We were excluded.

I don't agree with most of the arguments that I've seen from those camps. The most common are, "how many outside of the top 4/6/8 are going to win anyway?", "It will devalue the importance of bowl games" and lastly, "It makes the regular season irrelevant". TBH, I think all of those arguments are short sided and 2 are outright moronic. There are of course other positions against expansion, I'm just pointing out the most common.

A larger pool of teams is about inclusion. More teams = more interest from various fan bases = more growth for the sport. Most years I didn't watch the "playoffs" bc I didn't give a rat's ass about the 2-4 teams in it. It felt rigged, exclusionary and anti-competitive.

Every single pro sports league has a far greater % of teams making the playoffs. For College FB, it also lends a bit more legitimacy to this being an actual playoff. It's still an invitational, but not nearly as bad as the BCS, 4 team or 12 team setups.

Even a push up to 24 teams leaves CFB less than half of the nearest pro league, as a percentage.

PLAYOFF PARTICIPATION IN MAJOR PRO LEAGUES:

NBA -53% and 66% with play-in
NHL - 50% of its teams
NFL - 43.75% of its teams
MLB - 40% of its teams
FBS 24 team - 17.4%
FBS 12 team - 8.7%

For me, the cut offf is 24. I don't see the value in going higher unless the FBS expands to +150 teams. I would perhaps make a small increase to 26 if that were the case.

Jacques Strap said:

---

Even with 24 teams the odds of the Bears getting a playoff spot are near zero unless some big money decides to enter the game, get a new coach and try to buy a playoff spot with roster upgrades.

---

This isn't true. Other than the 2024 squad, which dug too deep a hole out of the gate, every good team we've had in the modern era would have easily made a 24-team playoff.

We're a good coach and well-put-together roster away from being a contender again. There's nothing wrong with Baylor other than the fact that we can't seem to separate ourselves from the terminally mediocre coach we've hitched our wagon to the last seven years. Cut out that cancer, make a good hire and there's no reason we can't be successful again.

jikespingleton said:

---

bossbowman said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Timbear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

College football used to be my favorite sport, I watched multiple games a week and could tell you players on every team and knew every head coach but my interest is now gone. I haven't watched much the last 2 years outside of Baylor

---

From one old guy to another, if you like football, why deny yourself the fun of the season? Everyone is entitled to their likes and dislikes, but your martyr complex only makes your life more boring and uneventful, and doesn't persuade anyone. Times change, man. Is this the way you deal with changes in your life? If so, do you ever have a good day?

---

I'm not old, I'm 26 and I still like football, but primarily NFL. I don't care for college because they change the rules every off season. At least I can build a connection with my NFL team because they will hold onto to their players for a few years

---

IMO 12 teams is too much, I would have preferred a 6 team playoff

---

6 teams? So, you are in the exclusionary camp. The FBS has 138 teams. Inviting 6 means just 4% of FBS teams get invited. That is an exceptionally small pool.

This isn't geared towards you specifically, but the anti-expansion "exclusionary" camp as a whole.

I've never understood the exclusionary camp. The stance is anti competitive and anti democratic. It's especially baffling when the anti expansion crowd comes from small schools like us. If there was a 12 team playoff in place, we would have made the playoffs in 2013, 2014 and 2021. Instead, we were on the outside looking in. We were excluded.

I don't agree with most of the arguments that I've seen from those camps. The most common are, "how many outside of the top 4/6/8 are going to win anyway?", "It will devalue the importance of bowl games" and lastly, "It makes the regular season irrelevant". TBH, I think all of those arguments are short sided and 2 are outright moronic. There are of course other positions against expansion, I'm just pointing out the most common.

A larger pool of teams is about inclusion. More teams = more interest from various fan bases = more growth for the sport. Every single pro sports league has a far greater % of teams making the playoffs. For College FB, it also lends a bit more legitimacy to this being an actual playoff. It's still an invitational, but not nearly as bad as the BCS, 4 team or 12 team setups.

Even a push up to 24 teams leaves CFB less than half of the nearest pro league, as a percentage.

PLAYOFF PARTICIPATION IN MAJOR PRO LEAGUES:

NBA -53% and 66% with play-in
NHL - 50% of its teams
NFL - 43.75% of its teams
MLB - 40% of its teams
FBS 24 team - 17.4%
FBS 12 team - 8.7%

For me, the cutofff is 24. I don't see the value in going higher unless the FBS expands to +150 teams. I would perhaps make a small increase to 26 if that were the case.

---

Great post.

When it was super exclusive and left teams out I often did not truly watch championship games. I know I did not watch a second of Bama vs Georgia or the LSU/Bama rematch.

bear2be2 said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Even with 24 teams the odds of the Bears getting a playoff spot are near zero unless some big money decides to enter the game, get a new coach and try to buy a playoff spot with roster upgrades.

---

This isn't true. Other than the 2024 squad, which dug too deep a hole out of the gate, every good team we've had in the modern era would have easily made a 24-team playoff.

We're a good coach and well-put-together roster away from being a contender again. There's nothing wrong with Baylor other than the fact that we can't seem to separate ourselves from the terminally mediocre coach we've hitched our wagon to the last seven years. Cut out that cancer, make a good hire and there's no reason we can't be successful again.

---

"We're a good coach and well-put-together roster away from being a contender again. "

"unless some big money decides to enter the game, get a new coach and try to buy a playoff spot with roster upgrades."


I think we're saying the same thing.

Jacques Strap said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Even with 24 teams the odds of the Bears getting a playoff spot are near zero unless some big money decides to enter the game, get a new coach and try to buy a playoff spot with roster upgrades.

---

This isn't true. Other than the 2024 squad, which dug too deep a hole out of the gate, every good team we've had in the modern era would have easily made a 24-team playoff.

We're a good coach and well-put-together roster away from being a contender again. There's nothing wrong with Baylor other than the fact that we can't seem to separate ourselves from the terminally mediocre coach we've hitched our wagon to the last seven years. Cut out that cancer, make a good hire and there's no reason we can't be successful again.

---

"We're a good coach and well-put-together roster away from being a contender again. "

"unless some big money decides to enter the game, get a new coach and try to buy a playoff spot with roster upgrades."


I think we're saying the same thing.

---

Once we finally fire Aranda, I see no reason to believe we won't hire a well thought of coach. Our pay is competitive and our patience is legendary.

I'm not the fatalist most on this board are. The only thing wrong with our program currently is that it's led by the wrong person. The right person could absolutely have success in Waco.

Dia del DougO said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

historian said:

---

There are a lot more teams playing in Match Madness than is possible in a cfp.

---

March madness is a playoff....

---

Not it isn't. It's an invitational tournament.

And it's basketball. Not football.

Big difference.

---

Yep. A BB team can play at top form again after only 48 hours' rest, sometimes less. There's a reason FB playoff rounds are played with a week's rest between them.

Well, the 24-team playoff is officially a go, starting next year.

Just hate that the conference title games are going away.

With leagues being the sizes they are, they really are necessary in order to crown a legit champion.

Plus, it still gives a team something to strive for outside of making the 24-team field.

For example - this year we actually still have a chance to win the title. Under the new format, that would not be possible, and we could still get left out of a 24-team field if a committee doesn't deem us worthy of being a Top 24 team.

Conference title games still allow teams to truly earn a spot in the dance.

Happy for expansion, but not a fan of getting rid of the title games.

I'll say it again - they should have given the top 2 teams from each P4 conference a bye into the 2nd round and the chance to play for homefield in that round by winning the title game.

The host cities would still make money, fans would be happy, and it would result in more football.

It really wasn't that hard to figure out.

So no more conference title games? Can we still have champions? Back in the day you crowned a champion without playing a game, hopefully we can do that again because Baylor needs something that they can realistically win

LTBear19 said:

---

Well, the 24-team playoff is officially a go, starting next year.

Just hate that the conference title games are going away.

With leagues being the sizes they are, they really are necessary in order to crown a legit champion.

Plus, it still gives a team something to strive for outside of making the 24-team field.

For example - this year we actually still have a chance to win the title. Under the new format, that would not be possible, and we could still get left out of a 24-team field if a committee doesn't deem us worthy of being a Top 24 team.

Conference title games still allow teams to truly earn a spot in the dance.

Happy for expansion, but not a fan of getting rid of the title games.

I'll say it again - they should have given the top 2 teams from each P4 conference a bye into the 2nd round and the chance to play for homefield in that round by winning the title game.

The host cities would still make money, fans would be happy, and it would result in more football.

It really wasn't that hard to figure out.

---

Column on ESPN this morning made the observation that if the 24 team playoff had been in place this year, the only game this past weekend that would have really mattered would have been Oregon-OhioSt (loser eliminated from consideration). Every other "big" game (ND-Miami, BYU-Utah, Bama-LSU, UGA-Ole Miss, Tenn-Kentucky, UT-Mizzou) would have been just jockeying for seeding, although LSU, Ole Miss and Mizzou would be on precarious ground.

whitetrash said:

---

LTBear19 said:

---

Well, the 24-team playoff is officially a go, starting next year.

Just hate that the conference title games are going away.

With leagues being the sizes they are, they really are necessary in order to crown a legit champion.

Plus, it still gives a team something to strive for outside of making the 24-team field.

For example - this year we actually still have a chance to win the title. Under the new format, that would not be possible, and we could still get left out of a 24-team field if a committee doesn't deem us worthy of being a Top 24 team.

Conference title games still allow teams to truly earn a spot in the dance.

Happy for expansion, but not a fan of getting rid of the title games.

I'll say it again - they should have given the top 2 teams from each P4 conference a bye into the 2nd round and the chance to play for homefield in that round by winning the title game.

The host cities would still make money, fans would be happy, and it would result in more football.

It really wasn't that hard to figure out.

---

Column on ESPN this morning made the observation that if the 24 team playoff had been in place this year, the only game this past weekend that would have really mattered would have been Oregon-OhioSt (loser eliminated from consideration). Every other "big" game (ND-Miami, BYU-Utah, Bama-LSU, UGA-Ole Miss, Tenn-Kentucky, UT-Mizzou) would have been just jockeying for seeding, although LSU, Ole Miss and Mizzou would be on precarious ground.

---

Yep. You're extending the postseason at the massive expense of the regular season, in which conference championships don't exist, because conferences don't matter, so that a bunch of teams from two conferences get most of the playoff spots. So you take away the drama of several CCG races against your rivals, and a lot of the anticipation and excitement. And that is extended into a bunch of early round playoff games that likely don't generate a ton of excitement from most fans, that aren't going to care that much until the final 4, except the few the survive the playoffs.

So we already have seen that there is more apathy, with lower ratings during the season. It's just going to get worse. And you have also basically put the final nail in the coffin of any relevance or interest in bowl games.

whitetrash said:

---

LTBear19 said:

---

Well, the 24-team playoff is officially a go, starting next year.

Just hate that the conference title games are going away.

With leagues being the sizes they are, they really are necessary in order to crown a legit champion.

Plus, it still gives a team something to strive for outside of making the 24-team field.

For example - this year we actually still have a chance to win the title. Under the new format, that would not be possible, and we could still get left out of a 24-team field if a committee doesn't deem us worthy of being a Top 24 team.

Conference title games still allow teams to truly earn a spot in the dance.

Happy for expansion, but not a fan of getting rid of the title games.

I'll say it again - they should have given the top 2 teams from each P4 conference a bye into the 2nd round and the chance to play for homefield in that round by winning the title game.

The host cities would still make money, fans would be happy, and it would result in more football.

It really wasn't that hard to figure out.

---

Column on ESPN this morning made the observation that if the 24 team playoff had been in place this year, the only game this past weekend that would have really mattered would have been Oregon-OhioSt (loser eliminated from consideration). Every other "big" game (ND-Miami, BYU-Utah, Bama-LSU, UGA-Ole Miss, Tenn-Kentucky, UT-Mizzou) would have been just jockeying for seeding, although LSU, Ole Miss and Mizzou would be on precarious ground.

---

The games would have mattered because you still want to get a top 8 seed and bye into the second round.

I'd rather avoid the extra game, if possible.

Similar to the NFL in that sense.

But with eliminating the conference title games, and an objective way of identifying your top 8 seeds, it leaves the door open to a bunch of shenanigans involving both the SEC and Big Ten, as they'll try to game the system by giving their teams byes and as many slots as possible.

The title games help ensure that some amount of fairness is still involved in the whole process.

Who will be the first SEC or Big 10 team to get in the CPH without a win over a top 25 team?