This whole discussion is why I hate 12 teams vs 8 or 16. I think it's farsical to try and determine which 4 teams get a bye based on ranking and conference. Even though all of those 4 lost this year, I think every team should play the same number of games and let the committee try to initially seed them. In the end, in theory, you have to beat the 2nd best team to win the Natty, whether in 1st round or in the championship game.
4 vs 12 Teams
- Thread starter MaxyJR1
- Start date
MaxyJR1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 12,774
- Reaction score
- 7,315
- Points
- 113
Agree, but it can’t increase until 2026. They can change seeding next year but top 5 conference champs have to be in the field per contract.
Needs to go to 16 with a mix of auto bids and play in games. That would be the mother load.
I can’t believe people watched this playoff and are arguing for less access for certain conferences
Just seed top 12 and committee could easily put ole Miss, South Carolina, and bama in over Arizona state, Boise state, and Clemson for no reason whatsoever and can justify it with any metric they choose.
And if you think they wouldn’t look at what happened in the 4 team playoff era
I understand the big ten and SEC arguing for it though
Gophers2Omaha
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 18
Totally disagree with this. Would be a total farce and joke to award multiple auto bids to specific conferences. The B1G and SEC are very likely going to get multiple bids every season. I have no problem with that at all. Mandating multiple auto bids would just be embarrassing.
There probably will be a year where the ACC, Big 12, or gulp (Not me gulping, I love the little guys getting a chance!), the G5s warrant more than 1 bid. For example, it is not far fetched to think Clemson, Florida State, and Miami (FL) will all have very good teams in a particular season in the future.
If the 'powers that be' mandate multiple bids why not go the next step and really rig the thing: Ohio State and Michigan get auto bids every year from the B1G; Alabama and Georgia from the SEC; Lock in Notre Dame. Would really guarantee eye balls watching the games...
it wouldn’t guarantee people watch the games
Full Speed Ahead
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 3,846
- Reaction score
- 4,215
- Points
- 113
I like that each conference only gets one team into the bye round. In college football, the rich get richer. Keeping it to one-team-only helps to give more visibility to conferences other than B1G and SEC, which I think is needed to keep college football strong. If the playoffs end up being basically just SEC vs B1G, then a large part of the country isn't going to be really interested.
Here's what I'd like to see:
Here's what I'd like to see:
- Only teams that play in their conference championship game are eligible for the playoffs. If you're not in a conference, then this rule obviously doesn't apply.
- The winner of each of those P4 games gets a bye in the first round.
- The eight teams that play in their championship games are automatically in the 12-team playoffs.
- The next four teams that are the highest ranked also get invited to the playoffs, with the exception that...
- Each conference can have at most three teams in the playoffs.
- Seeding after the top 4 is done per the rankings (e.g., the losers of the P4 playoff games could end up being seeded 9-12).
Last edited:
MaxyJR1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 12,774
- Reaction score
- 7,315
- Points
- 113
I like the forced round robin within conferences that get you back to divisions likely.
I also like giving the 4P conferences 2 auto sports and then have a play in format for conference championship weekend.
Won’t happen as long as 2P conferences are treated differently.
I also like giving the 4P conferences 2 auto sports and then have a play in format for conference championship weekend.
Won’t happen as long as 2P conferences are treated differently.
2P conference currently aren’t treated differently in terms of the structure and rules
They’re only treated differently by the committee
MaxyJR1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 12,774
- Reaction score
- 7,315
- Points
- 113
I’d take the top 2 from each P4 conference as auto bids and then have the 3-4th place teams play a play in game on conference championship weekend to get in. That’s 12 spots won on the field. Now add ND, G5 and two at large and play a clean bracket of even rest, outside of the bye week to the teams that sit during conference championship weekend.
MaxyJR1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 12,774
- Reaction score
- 7,315
- Points
- 113
Like a 9-3 B12 team being top ten two years ago and this year the league champion at 12-2 was #12.
I would say 9 conference champs in a 16 team field if I had my choice
Yup.
Two loss texas with 2 decent wins was ranked 3rd
Laughable
They beat ASU but were clearly the less physical team vs Arizona State. They’re about the same as the top teams in the big 12 but get free passes for being in the SEC even though they only had one win in the top 8 of rhe SEC
Gophers2Omaha
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 18
I certainly wouldn't watch it. A large amount of people/fans watch those teams though. More $$$ for the networks. It bores me to death to have the same teams dominate year after year. Haven't watched 1 second of the 'final four'. Watched all of Indiana/Notre Dame, SMU/Penn State (Okay, the first half and part of the 3rd quarter...), Boise State/Penn State, and Arizona State/Texas. Once those "new" teams were eliminated, that was it for me.
Also, the $$$ that the viewership of these teams brings in explains why many of the people announcing the games; analyzing the games before, at halftime, and after; and podcasting about the games before and after, just happen to be alums of those schools or are affiliated directly with them in one way or another. I like to call them 'judas goats' (look up the definition) because I think that is essentially the role that they are playing in this whole thing. At the expense of all of us fans of other teams.
On a positive note, I am very glad that the playoff has been expanded and believe that it is a very good thing overall. Hopefully it will lead to other teams rising up and challenging the Blue Bloods on a consistent basis. Would be really fun if it played out that way.
Gophers2Omaha
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 18
Would be greatness and grow the sport!!
Full Speed Ahead
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 3,846
- Reaction score
- 4,215
- Points
- 113
Twenty teams in the playoffs is too much dilution of the importance of the regular season for me. This means one of Missouri/Ole Miiss/Bama/LSU/SC/Texas A&M, who all went 5-3 in the SEC, would have been in this year's playoffs. Per your plan, there are 20 teams in the playoff field, 12 of which in a sense get a first-round bye. IMO you can't have three conference losses and still be playing for the national championship. I want regular season games to mean more than that.
MaxyJR1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 12,774
- Reaction score
- 7,315
- Points
- 113
This is probably where the P4 breaks off from the G5.
short ornery norwegian
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 21,801
- Reaction score
- 15,775
- Points
- 113
on the seeding - no seeding system is going to be perfect - because no matter how you seed the teams, somebody - or some guy - is going to complain about it.
when you have teams from different conferences playing different schedules - and teams from within the same conference that only play some of the teams in their conference - any comparison is going to involve some subjectivity.
If Michigan beats MN in the B1G, how does that compare to Alabama beating Auburn in the SEC?
I suppose some super-computer could reduce everything down to a mathematical formula and spit out the results - but people would still argue. "the people who programmed the computer were biased!!"
It's never going to be "perfect." It's a game. you can't guarantee an outcome.
when you have teams from different conferences playing different schedules - and teams from within the same conference that only play some of the teams in their conference - any comparison is going to involve some subjectivity.
If Michigan beats MN in the B1G, how does that compare to Alabama beating Auburn in the SEC?
I suppose some super-computer could reduce everything down to a mathematical formula and spit out the results - but people would still argue. "the people who programmed the computer were biased!!"
It's never going to be "perfect." It's a game. you can't guarantee an outcome.
MNVCGUY
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 20,704
- Reaction score
- 22,591
- Points
- 113
12 team playoff has been fun. Probably need to tweak how they determine who gets the first round bye but I've enjoyed watching it play out. Definitely have been more invested in it then I ever was in the 4 team format in terms of interest level in the games.
The amount of at large bids we have right now is about right I think.
We have 7. They went to:
Ohio State
Notre Dame
Penn State
Texas
Indiana
Tennessee
SMU
I think Miami and BYU should’ve been in over Tennessee and SMU personally.
The committee thinks bama goes before both of them and OLe Miss and South Carolina before BYU.
If you go to 16 with 9 conference champs: the number of at larges doesn’t change.
If you go to 16 with 5 conference champs you have another 4 teams get in with at large and BYU is the first team out.
If go to 17 or more without adding a guaranteed 6th conference champ you really break the thing. But other years could and will play out differently than this year
At least with a formula everyone knows the rules at the beginning of the year and the committee can’t make up new rules week to week.
I actually have zero problems with the current seeding system
I also would have zero problems going 1-12
But neither of these options fixes the real problem
I have major problems with the ranking system.
There are kind of two different discussions.
Last edited:
That’s not going to happen so that won’t be why they break off.
I would guess it’ll go to 14 or 16 with 5 conference champs.
I am guessing the top 4 champs will be in the top 8 to guarantee either a bye or a home game to try to increase representation.
If it goes to 4 I wouldn’t be surprised if the big ten and SEC say their champs have to be 1-2
And then the compromise from the other league says no but expands it to 16 so there are no byes
When it can expand in two years with just a majority vote:
my guess it ends up 16 with 5 conference champs. 4 of the champs in the top 8.
What will actually cause them to break away is when a network offering a new TV deal tells them if you create a schedule with only power 4 and ND on it we will pay you X
Gopher Mac
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2024
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 49
- Points
- 13
I think a lot of people are forgetting the OSU lost to Michigan last game of the season. I don't think anybody had them ranked in the top 5.
Last edited:
MaxyJR1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 12,774
- Reaction score
- 7,315
- Points
- 113
I think there is a difference in thinking they’re top 5 and considering they have 2 losses. (It’s the deserving vs best team argument). It’s like the SEC and their hypotheticals. tOSU as the 6th ranked team was favored in every game and expected to win.
Correct.
If you are doing “deserving” they should be either be behind both penn state and Indiana or ahead of both. No logic path should put them behind penn state but ahead of Indiana
they beat penn state but lost to two teams Penn state didn’t play.
Indiana had a better case to be ahead of Ohio state than Penn state because Indiana beat Michigan and only had one loss.
If they’re doing “best” they should have been above both
SeaBee_Gopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2022
- Messages
- 364
- Reaction score
- 447
- Points
- 63
I like the way you laid this out:
1) Do 50/50 objective (computer rankings) and subjective (people rankings). This allows the people to lower a teams ranking when they lose their starting quarterback at the end of the season, for example, but the computer ranking will still give them credit for their whole body of work. A little for both sides of the argument because both have merit.
2) Notre Dame getting $20M without splitting it up with the ACC (their "conference") and the other teams that make up it's annual schedule will NOT continue! The current arrangement benefits no one except them.
3) Agreed. A balance between automatic conference bids (ONLY for conf champions) and bids based on ranking can be worked out with just a little more tweaking. I think #1 would help with this.
We're close. I love 12 teams vs. 4!