2025 College Football Playoffs Discussion (12 Team Format)

[Gizmo]

More reasonable than BYU upsetting TT, is Duke upsetting UVA.

That would very likely put JMU in to go with the AAC winner (Tulane/UNT). Assuming chalk holds everywhere else, that is the scenario that knocks ND and the ACC out.

(I think)

Nope, it's either JMU (or whomever) or Virginia. That spot has nothing to do with ND/BYU who get that other spot. Top 5 conference champs guaranteed, so it's Either Virginia from the ACC with 1 G5, or just 2 G5. If chalk holds elsewhere, BYU is out and ND is in, unless they actually drop Bama with a loss, in which case Miami might sneak in.

 

[CincyInterloper]

MUST watch!

Something needs to change. Playoff expansion has made the conference championships largely superfluous at best, and detrimental to the participants at worst. Maybe it’s time to dump the conference championship games, expand the field to just the 16 highest ranked teams, and play the first round games at the higher seeded team’s stadium.

 

[BB73]

MUST watch!

All this does is expand the playoff and give the committee more power and more leeway to arrange things. No thanks.

He does have a point about the disadvantage of playing in a CCG while the 3/4/5/6 teams in each conference sit out. At the B1G Media Days before this season started, Tony Petitti talked about having additional games during the CCG week. The B1G 3rd place team would play the 6th place team, and there would be a 4th/5th matchup as well.

I wasn’t wild about the idea when I first heard it, but it does accomplish a couple of things. First, there would be a few more games for TV, and some of those games would be relevant just prior to the CFP selection. It also takes away the disadvantage of the top-2 teams risking player injury while the soon-to-be at-large teams sit and get healthy.

This year would have created Oregon-Iowa and USC-TTUN rematches. And perhaps Ole Miss-Texas and aTm-Oklahoma in the SEC (sorry, Vandy). It would be more football being played and less posturing by the non-CCG teams this week.

The other thing I would prefer is an expansion only to 14, not 16, and have the 2 highest ranked CCG winners get the only byes. That retains a real value to the Conference Championships. This could be embraced by the 2 most powerful conferences, since the majority of the time their CCG winners would be receiving the CFP byes.

 

[Gizmo]

All this does is expand the playoff and give the committee more power and more leeway to arrange things. No thanks.

He does have a point about the disadvantage of playing in a CCG while the 3/4/5/6 teams in each conference sit out. At the B1G Media Days before this season started, Tony Petitti talked about having additional games during the CCG week. The B1G 3rd place team would play the 6th place team, and there would be a 4th/5th matchup as well.

I wasn’t wild about the idea when I first heard it, but it does accomplish a couple of things. First, there would be a few more games for TV, and some of those games would be relevant just prior to the CFP selection. It also takes away the disadvantage of the top-2 teams risking player injury while the soon-to-be at-large teams sit and get healthy.

This year would have created Oregon-Iowa and USC-TTUN rematches. And perhaps Ole Miss-Texas and aTm-Oklahoma in the SEC (sorry, Vandy). It would be more football being played and less posturing by the non-CCG teams this week.

The other thing I would prefer is an expansion only to 14, not 16, and have the 2 highest ranked CCG winners get the only byes. That retains a real value to the Conference Championships. This could be embraced by the 2 most powerful conferences, since the majority of the time their CCG winners would be receiving the CFP byes.

Problem with that is you still have teams playing an extra game, risking injury, etc. when compared to other teams that just sit and wait. It all needs to just get blown up. Either shrink the Conferences back to 10, or split them into divisions. ONLY and I fucking mean it, and said the same thing last year... ONLY conference champions get into the playoff. I say 8 teams, but whatever, I don't care. Take all subjectivity out of it, win divisionals, go to regionals, win regionals, go to nationals. If fucking Glee can figure that shit out, so can the NCAA.

 

[Zurp]

I wasn’t wild about the idea when I first heard it, but it does accomplish a couple of things. First, there would be a few more games for TV, and some of those games would be relevant just prior to the CFP selection. It also takes away the disadvantage of the top-2 teams risking player injury while the soon-to-be at-large teams sit and get healthy.

This year would have created Oregon-Iowa and USC-TTUN rematches. And perhaps Ole Miss-Texas and aTm-Oklahoma in the SEC (sorry, Vandy). It would be more football being played and less posturing by the non-CCG teams this week.

What would this accomplish for the teams involved? I get that you and I get more quality football to watch, but what is the motivation of the teams involved?
I mean, what is the motivation for Ohio State and Indiana? From what we're speculating, the loser will still be top 4. The winner might have an easier path to the championship, but if there's a similar situation in the future, and Team A goes down 21-0 early in the second quarter, what motivation do they have to fight to bring this back to a close game?
If we do 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5, do the winners get credited with a quality win? What's Oregon's motivation this year? What's Ole Miss's motivation this year? Or aTm's? Those teams are already in.
I like the idea of more football, but only if it's a game both teams want to win.

 

[BB73]

Problem with that is you still have teams playing an extra game, risking injury, etc. when compared to other teams that just sit and wait. It all needs to just get blown up. Either shrink the Conferences back to 10, or split them into divisions. ONLY and I fucking mean it, and said the same thing last year... ONLY conference champions get into the playoff. I say 8 teams, but whatever, I don't care. Take all subjectivity out of it, win divisionals, go to regionals, win regionals, go to nationals. If fucking Glee can figure that shit out, so can the NCAA.

I wanted the most recent conference expansion to result in 4 conferences where the CCGs were the CFP quarterfinals, but that ship has sailed.

 

[BB73]

What would this accomplish for the teams involved? I get that you and I get more quality football to watch, but what is the motivation of the teams involved?
I mean, what is the motivation for Ohio State and Indiana? From what we're speculating, the loser will still be top 4. The winner might have an easier path to the championship, but if there's a similar situation in the future, and Team A goes down 21-0 early in the second quarter, what motivation do they have to fight to bring this back to a close game?
If we do 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5, do the winners get credited with a quality win? What's Oregon's motivation this year? What's Ole Miss's motivation this year? Or aTm's? Those teams are already in.
I like the idea of more football, but only if it's a game both teams want to win.

Did you not get to the part about the top-2 CCG winners getting byes?

 

[Zurp]

Did you not get to the part about the top-2 CCG winners getting byes?

I did, and I like that idea. I noticed that you cleverly (either intentionally or not) left out the words "Big Ten" and "SEC", even though we all know that 80% of the time both are getting those 2 spots. But 20% of the time, ACC or Big 12 will zurp into one of those spots.
I think my example of Ohio State and Indiana was a tangent to my point: why play the 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 games? Again, I like football and would enjoy those games. But why would #3 Oregon care about playing #6 Iowa? If they win, they're in the playoff. If they don't play the game, they're in the playoff. What if they lose? Might they be out? I mean, we hear that the playoff committee isn't going to punish teams for losing the CCG's. But would they punish the #3's for losing to #6?

I wanted the most recent conference expansion to result in 4 conferences where the CCGs were the CFP quarterfinals, but that ship has sailed.

I remember that idea, and it isn't so bad, except that you're making all 3 OOC games totally meaningless. Remember when Northwestern went 0-3 in their OOC games, including losing to Miami (OH) (or someone else in the MAC)? Then they went 8-1 in conference, and won the western division. And, even if we say that there are no divisions, anymore, it's possible for them to have gone 9-0 in conference. In this scenario, those 3 games mean nothing. Why play meaningless games?
If you're going to do this, increase the conference games to 10, and everyone will just schedule 2 shlub home games. Then make all games count for your conference record. All 12.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Lots of details to work out but I’d turn it into a play in weekend. Keeps the tv money and the two teams playing have put themselves on n a bubble so no one can play the disinterested game.

Conference champs get decided by tie breakers and split titles. It’s not perfect but what plan is?

 

[CincyInterloper]

Problem with that is you still have teams playing an extra game, risking injury, etc. when compared to other teams that just sit and wait. It all needs to just get blown up. Either shrink the Conferences back to 10, or split them into divisions. ONLY and I fucking mean it, and said the same thing last year... ONLY conference champions get into the playoff. I say 8 teams, but whatever, I don't care. Take all subjectivity out of it, win divisionals, go to regionals, win regionals, go to nationals. If fucking Glee can figure that shit out, so can the NCAA.

I'm with you. Four conferences each with two divisions, each division having eight teams. Divisional teams play each of the other teams in their division, and one emerges as the division winner. They play the other division winner in the conference championship game. Conference champions advance to the playoffs. Does a 3-5th place conference team really have any business in the playoffs? They couldn't even place in their own conference. This is all a fantasy though. I can't see it ever happening.

 

[BB73]

I did, and I like that idea. I noticed that you cleverly (either intentionally or not) left out the words "Big Ten" and "SEC", even though we all know that 80% of the time both are getting those 2 spots. But 20% of the time, ACC or Big 12 will zurp into one of those spots.
I think my example of Ohio State and Indiana was a tangent to my point: why play the 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 games? Again, I like football and would enjoy those games. But why would #3 Oregon care about playing #6 Iowa? If they win, they're in the playoff. If they don't play the game, they're in the playoff. What if they lose? Might they be out? I mean, we hear that the playoff committee isn't going to punish teams for losing the CCG's. But would they punish the #3's for losing to #6?


I remember that idea, and it isn't so bad, except that you're making all 3 OOC games totally meaningless. Remember when Northwestern went 0-3 in their OOC games, including losing to Miami (OH) (or someone else in the MAC)? Then they went 8-1 in conference, and won the western division. And, even if we say that there are no divisions, anymore, it's possible for them to have gone 9-0 in conference. In this scenario, those 3 games mean nothing. Why play meaningless games?
If you're going to do this, increase the conference games to 10, and everyone will just schedule 2 shlub home games. Then make all games count for your conference record. All 12.

I think Petitti’s idea was to make the 3-vs-6 and 4-vs-5 matchups as play-in games, so the B1G would have 4 teams in the playoff: 1, 2, and the 2 play-in winners. It was part of an expanded playoff model with the B1G and the SEC both guaranteed 4 spots.

I think there would be years where it’s problematic, With so many teams in a conference now, it’s actually possible to have 3 undefeated teams after the regular season. There would certainly be years where a deserving 1-loss #3 team could get nailed by a 4-loss #6 team.

I don’t support the play-in concept. They won’t stay at 12 CFP teams, and I really want them to only expand to 14 with the 2 byes for CCG winners. Having the extra games during CCG week is my way of allowing them to get an extra 10 games of football to appease the greed for TV dollars without expanding the playoff beyond 4 rounds. The 10 being 2 more CFP games due to 2 less byes, and a pair of 3/6 and 4/5 matchups for each of the Power-4.

I really think it‘s important to retain the value of the CCGs by having only the 2 byes.

 

[CincyInterloper]

I think one problem with the conference championships is that conferences have gotten too big to pick the champion without a conference playoff. Schedules don't allow teams to play enough games within the conference to figure out who the two best teams in the conference are on the field.

 

[Gizmo]

I think one problem with the conference championships is that conferences have gotten too big to pick the champion without a conference playoff. Schedules don't allow teams to play enough games within the conference to figure out who the two best teams in the conference are on the field.

yeah, they took a problem of one division that might not be a strong as the other and turned it into a problem of everyone doesn't play everyone. At least with the divisions, the division winners earned their spot. We need to go back to divisions with these huge conferences.

 

[Jaxbuck]

This all gets solved in the next couple of years when they expand the field and probably make some kind of super league where you have an AFL/NFL merger type of set up and the top ~30 or so teams play each other every week for 9-12 weeks.

They will never reduce this thing. The problems come from trying to be "fair" to the Mountain West and like conferences. Just exclude them from the big boy table and let the them have their own CFP. See how many people tune in for that.

 

[Gizmo]

LOL