• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

2025 College Football Playoffs Discussion (12 Team Format)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Zurp said:
If I can figure this out, the playoffs would have looked like this:

1. Oregon
2. Georgia
3. Texas
4. Penn State
5. Notre Dame
6. Ohio State
7. Tennessee
8. Indiana
9. Boise State
10. SMU
12. Arizona State
16. Clemson

Notre Dame would have hosted Clemson
Ohio State would have hosted Arizona State
Tennessee would have hosted SMU
Indiana would have hosted Boise State

I would guess that the home teams would win all four of those games.

Second Round:
Rose Bowl: Oregon vs. Indiana
Sugar Bowl: Georgia vs. Tennessee
Another Bowl: Texas vs. Ohio State
Another Bowl: Penn State vs. Notre Dame

I'll guess that Oregon and Georgia would win.
We already know who won the other two games: Ohio State and Notre Dame.
So now we have Georgia vs. Ohio State and Oregon vs. Notre Dame.
Assuming Ohio State beats Georgia, it's irrelevant for who wins the other game, since Ohio State beat both of those teams.

Is that a better playoff? I like the idea that champions get byes, but I do think it's a bit silly that the #5 team would probably have the easiest trip to the Final Four and will get to the Final Four about 80% of the time.
Click to expand...

I have always like playoffs that re-seed after each round. It's a better way to reward the top seeds but I know the complexities of travel, tv and all that make it tough if not impossible.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
If I can figure this out, the playoffs would have looked like this:

1. Oregon
2. Georgia
3. Texas
4. Penn State
5. Notre Dame
6. Ohio State
7. Tennessee
8. Indiana
9. Boise State
10. SMU
12. Arizona State
16. Clemson

Notre Dame would have hosted Clemson
Ohio State would have hosted Arizona State
Tennessee would have hosted SMU
Indiana would have hosted Boise State

I would guess that the home teams would win all four of those games.

Second Round:
Rose Bowl: Oregon vs. Indiana
Sugar Bowl: Georgia vs. Tennessee
Another Bowl: Texas vs. Ohio State
Another Bowl: Penn State vs. Notre Dame

I'll guess that Oregon and Georgia would win.
We already know who won the other two games: Ohio State and Notre Dame.
So now we have Georgia vs. Ohio State and Oregon vs. Notre Dame.
Assuming Ohio State beats Georgia, it's irrelevant for who wins the other game, since Ohio State beat both of those teams.

Is that a better playoff? I like the idea that champions get byes, but I do think it's a bit silly that the #5 team would probably have the easiest trip to the Final Four and will get to the Final Four about 80% of the time.
Click to expand...
Oregon's reward for being #1 was to have to play the best team in the mf country. That wasn't fair to them, no matter how much fun it was.
 
Upvote 0
BigWoof31 said:
My $.02 - stop playing around with it. Let it run, as is, for a couple of years and then adjust.

The flaws in the BCS became evident after 3-4 years. Same for the 4 team CFB.
Let the current structure breathe a bit. Then adjust in say - 2028 or beyond.


Too soon to start monkeying around with something so new.
Click to expand...
Spoken like somebody from the conference that can afford to let a format dick around for several years before making a change. Some teams don't have the luxury of being the guinea pig.
 
Upvote 0
BigWoof31 said:
My $.02 - stop playing around with it. Let it run, as is, for a couple of years and then adjust.

The flaws in the BCS became evident after 3-4 years. Same for the 4 team CFB.
Let the current structure breathe a bit. Then adjust in say - 2028 or beyond.


Too soon to start monkeying around with something so new.
Click to expand...
In many cases this might be mistaken for a thoughtful, reserved approach

The trouble is, the exact problem exhibited in year one is exactly what people said would be the problem as soon as the format was announced

This is like when a group of guys are working on an engine and the biggest guy wants to advance the valve timing and the actual mechanic in the group says, “if you advance it that much it’ll destroy the engine”. The engine starts and is immediately blown, but the big guy, with a broken valve stem embedded in his forehead, says, “let it run fer abit’n see if it don’t smooth out”
 
Upvote 0
BigWoof31 said:
My $.02 - stop playing around with it. Let it run, as is, for a couple of years and then adjust.

The flaws in the BCS became evident after 3-4 years. Same for the 4 team CFB.
Let the current structure breathe a bit. Then adjust in say - 2028 or beyond.


Too soon to start monkeying around with something so new.
Click to expand...

Agree mostly. Progress over perfection is always the way.

I do think you could make simple tweaks every couple of years though on obvious stuff. The mid major gets a bye because they won their conference thing will never make sense so why not change it now (which it sounds like they are doing).
 
Upvote 0
BigWoof31 said:
Wait a minute.
Are you advocating for the Boise State, SMU, Toledo’s of the CFB world?

Who is my understanding that doing so but earn a Perma ban from Buckeye planet?
Click to expand...
I like to be fair in some cases when it's in spite of the SEC, but unfair in other instances when it suits me better.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
Oregon's reward for being #1 was to have to play the best team in the mf country. That wasn't fair to them, no matter how much fun it was.
Click to expand...
I think my issue is that that wasn't the fault of the format. Theoretically, the "best team in the country" is the #1 team. And if not them, it's the #2 team. And if not them, it's the #3 team, which is sorta the #5 team. It's not the #6 or #8 team. Right? I mean, it was, but how common is that?

I'm not against the change to straight seeds, rather than giving preference to conference champions. I probably prefer it. But I don't like the idea of reacting to one season like it was the worst tragedy ever. It reminds me of 2003 when USC got hosed. Despite being #1 in both "real polls" they were #3 in the BCS poll. Rather than pointing and laughing at USC for losing a game, the college football world decided to suplex the formula into something that any noob fan could understand.

I don't think the end result would have changed if we had used straight seeding based off rankings, rather than giving precedence to conference winners. The only thing that would have changed is which round the teams would have lost in.
 
Upvote 0
BigWoof31 said:
My $.02 - stop playing around with it. Let it run, as is, for a couple of years and then adjust.

The flaws in the BCS became evident after 3-4 years. Same for the 4 team CFB.
Let the current structure breathe a bit. Then adjust in say - 2028 or beyond.

Too soon to start monkeying around with something so new.
Click to expand...
www.espn.com

CFP approves new seeding model next season

The College Football Playoff is moving to a straight seeding model, giving the top four teams by seed a first-round bye, the CFP committee announced Thursday.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
The CFP's management committee has been contemplating changing the seeding for this fall for months. While there was overwhelming support in the room to move to a straight seeding format, some commissioners were hoping to tie the discussion into the bigger consideration of format for 2026 and beyond. No decisions were made on the CFP's future format.

Just sayin': Yeah, basically I agree. So far the "straight seeding" is just for 2025; it could all change again in 2026.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top