12-Team College Football Playoff?

I love that people claim this is going to an objective process where we will “decide the champion on the field”. In reality, we will be giving the CFP committee more power than they’ve ever had. They will now be choosing six at large teams AND deciding the entire order for the bracket.

Dopey porst, as per your usual.

They currently PICK 4 teams, as none of them need to be conference champs. Now they would pick 6.

They seed all the teams in ANY playoff field.

Same job as they EVER had. Except now, there are a lot fewer whining debates over Team #5 and seeding. With 12 teams to seed, sure, the CFP might "miss" by a spot or two, but not in a way that cuts off a worthy team from being in the playoffs. The #5 ranked team plays the #12 ranked team and who gives a **** if that same #5 team was somehow seeded #7 and (gasp) needs to play the #10 team instead.

Nobody is going to lose any sanity because they had to play a team one or two spots higher in the first round, as long as they have a chance to win a championship.
 
Advertisement
U know; this is definitely a caveat I didn’t think about. U r absolutely right.

Oh, and on another, totally different note...Colin Cowherd exposed the real reason behind this; this is going to be a massive money grab. With that being said, it’s going to be real hard to continue to justify kids not getting paid.


Cowherd "exposed" that reason?

I thought that was a given. Is there ANYONE who didn't think that $$$ was the primary motivating reason? Oh, this whole thing is to help the G5 conferences? Yeeeeeahhhhh...no.
 
Dopey porst, as per your usual.

They currently PICK 4 teams, as none of them need to be conference champs. Now they would pick 6.

They seed all the teams in ANY playoff field.

Same job as they EVER had. Except now, there are a lot fewer whining debates over Team #5 and seeding. With 12 teams to seed, sure, the CFP might "miss" by a spot or two, but not in a way that cuts off a worthy team from being in the playoffs. The #5 ranked team plays the #12 ranked team and who gives a **** if that same #5 team was somehow seeded #7 and (gasp) needs to play the #10 team instead.

Nobody is going to lose any sanity because they had to play a team one or two spots higher in the first round, as long as they have a chance to win a championship.
It's Jagr....don't expect any less from that knobjob
 
Advertisement
Oh, no doubt about it bro.


Yeah. And for better or worse, this is just the latest in a looooong line of money grabs, starting from the point when colleges and conferences got control of their own games to be able to sign contracts and sell their "content".

The Supreme Court case led to the first round of conference expansion, which led to the BCS, which led to the second round of conference expansion, which led to the CFP, which led to the 12-team tournament of champions...

1623435271136.png
 
This is a correct statement but a 12 team playoff expands opportunity to other teams, which provides 5 star and high 4 star recruits more school choices to get a shot at winning a NC. Top south Florida talent will have less reason to go to other schools over Miami. This opens the door to changing who the top 5 teams are each year at a much quicker rate then we have seen in last 15 years.

OK; I see ur line of reason, but it’s flawed Brotha.

The top players r still going to go to the top schools. ****, u can expand the playoffs to 32 teams; that’s not going to change a **** thing that teams 1-4 (OSU, Bama, Clemson, OU) are going to steam roll teams 7-32.

Let’s put it like this; CBB has a field of 65. Hella G5 teams make the NCAA tourney AND make noise. The Zags r one of those teams. The Zags r just now getting 1 Top 10 player per class for the last 2 classes (and they were teammates)...but there’s a reason the top 50 players continually go to Duke, UK, KU, UNC, etc. So even w/ greater exposure to “play or compete” for a National Championship at these other schools, The Blue Bloods continually get the best of the best.

Collegiate sports is truly the have & have nots. We forced our way into the haves & lost our seat at the table. Expanding to 12 teams don’t mean chit, my guy, if teams 7-12 are nothing more than a rotational sacrificial lamb for the teams 1-4. That doesn’t change the needle. We gotta get to a point where we become at least team 5-6 to start moving recruiting to the upper echelon.
 
I'd actually argue that on a broad scale the regular season will INCREASE in value. Conference championships will now be more important than ever and you'll have 20+ teams having very meaningful regular season games all the way to the conclusion of the season.

You absolutely can make the case that teams 9-12 will drastically dilute the postseason. That said, I'm fine with ONE loss not killing OUR hopes when SEC teams currently almost get TWO losses as gimmes before we even BEGIN to preclude them from postseason talk.

Yeah; let me clarify b/c I actually agree w/ u... I was referring to strictly the 12 team format. Imo, it’ll give them an excuse to include a 3 loss SEC team by qualifying “quality losses.” I don’t wanna see that chit. I want to see the best 8 teams going at it, while giving some of these upper tiered G5 programs like Cincy, Boise St & opportunity to play for a National Championship vs NY6 bowl births. If u have 3 or more losses on ur schedule, u shouldn’t be rewarded if U’re not a P5 conference champion.
 
Last edited:
OK; I see ur line of reason, but it’s flawed Brotha.

The top players r still going to go to the top schools. ****, u can expand the playoffs to 32 teams; that’s not going to change a **** thing that teams 1-4 (OSU, Bama, Clemson, OU) are going to steam roll teams 7-32.

Let’s put it like this; CBB has a field of 65. Hella G5 teams make the NCAA tourney AND make noise. The Zags r one of those teams. The Zags r just now getting 1 Top 10 player per class for the last 2 classes (and they were teammates)...but there’s a reason the top 50 players continually go to Duke, UK, KU, UNC, etc. So even w/ greater exposure to “play or compete” for a National Championship at these other schools, The Blue Bloods continually get the best of the best.

Collegiate sports is truly the have & have nots. We forced our way into the haves & lost our seat at the table. Expanding to 12 teams don’t mean chit, my guy, if teams 7-12 are nothing more than a rotational sacrificial lamb for the teams 1-4. That doesn’t change the needle. We gotta get to a point where we become at least team 5-6 to start moving recruiting to the upper echelon.


You make some good points, but you also have some flaws in the comparisons.

To say that "top players are still going to the top schools" is an oversimplification. In nearly 50 years of "modern" AP/UPI/ESPN rankings, the University of Miami was the only NUMBER FIVE team to jump to #1 after the bowl season. So there has ALWAYS been a bias towards Top 4 teams, yet we have NEVER seen the recruiting dominated by 4 or 5 teams like we see it today. I can definitely see why kids like (and pick) Alabama and Clemson, but we cannot ignore the INSTITUTIONAL reasons which favor that. ****, it wasn't THAT long ago when top recruits factored in "immediate playing time" a lot more, and thus did not concentrate most of the 5-stars at 4-5 schools.

CBB has a field of 68. And the issue is not whether Gonzaga just got a Top 10 player, but whether all non-Duke/non-Kentucky/non-Kansas teams have a shot at Top 10 players. Even then, it is still an imperfect comparison, because "Top 10" players in basketball are usually one-and-done candidates, and only a few NCAA programs are BUILT to handle one-and-done kids every single year.

College football players need to stay for 3 years. And if a 5-star kid goes to Alabama and gets stuck behind another 5-star kid, and eventually transfers...well, when you combine THAT observation with the concept of going to a (slightly) lesser school and still having a shot to win...well then, that's a pretty potent combination of considerations for a recruit to choose a non-Alabama-type school.

You are entitled to your opinion on "expanding to 12 teams". I would just suggest..."let it play out". I have a very sneaking suspicion that "Portal" and a few other factors will lead to a loosening (not a complete destruction) of the recruiting dominance enjoyed by a few schools over the past decade.

Let's revisit this subject in 2030. 12-team playoffs will be here in 2025, and by 2030 we should have a 5-year cycle of recruiting to evaluate.
 
Advertisement
I haven’t been keeping up with the media, where does it say that it looks like it’s a done deal?

This guy might be full of it, but he thinks it's a fait accompli.


"A CFP working group, which included Sankey, decided on Thursday that a 12-team playoff should be implemented in the future. It’s not official yet, but it’s happening. A vote for expansion could happen as early as June 22. The College Football Playoff management committee will consider the working group’s suggestion next week in Chicago."
 

You make some good points, but you also have some flaws in the comparisons.

To say that "top players are still going to the top schools" is an oversimplification. In nearly 50 years of "modern" AP/UPI/ESPN rankings, the University of Miami was the only NUMBER FIVE team to jump to #1 after the bowl season. So there has ALWAYS been a bias towards Top 4 teams, yet we have NEVER seen the recruiting dominated by 4 or 5 teams like we see it today. I can definitely see why kids like (and pick) Alabama and Clemson, but we cannot ignore the INSTITUTIONAL reasons which favor that. ****, it wasn't THAT long ago when top recruits factored in "immediate playing time" a lot more, and thus did not concentrate most of the 5-stars at 4-5 schools.

CBB has a field of 68. And the issue is not whether Gonzaga just got a Top 10 player, but whether all non-Duke/non-Kentucky/non-Kansas teams have a shot at Top 10 players. Even then, it is still an imperfect comparison, because "Top 10" players in basketball are usually one-and-done candidates, and only a few NCAA programs are BUILT to handle one-and-done kids every single year.

College football players need to stay for 3 years. And if a 5-star kid goes to Alabama and gets stuck behind another 5-star kid, and eventually transfers...well, when you combine THAT observation with the concept of going to a (slightly) lesser school and still having a shot to win...well then, that's a pretty potent combination of considerations for a recruit to choose a non-Alabama-type school.

You are entitled to your opinion on "expanding to 12 teams". I would just suggest..."let it play out". I have a very sneaking suspicion that "Portal" and a few other factors will lead to a loosening (not a complete destruction) of the recruiting dominance enjoyed by a few schools over the past decade.

Let's revisit this subject in 2030. 12-team playoffs will be here in 2025, and by 2030 we should have a 5-year cycle of recruiting to evaluate.
This is the logical choice of what will happen. We won't be stuck where we have been stuck the last 10 years with the same teams. Things cycle in college football but right now they are cycling really slow. Alabama will slip at some point and other schools will step up. This will speed up that process.
 
Id like to see 6 or 8 (mainly 6) before 12 off the rip IMO. 12 just screams "recovering covid deficits" to me and is just more SEC ****sucking than actually thinking about these kids.

-5 p5 Champs (or dismantle the AAC and turn the other 4 into super 16s and disperse the lower tiered AAC teams into the at large bid)

-1 at large (or 2 in other scenario)

-1-5 seed based off of post CCG rank (or 4 on other scenario)

-*MAKE INDEPENDENT FOOTBALL SCHOOLS THAT ARE AFFILIATED WITH A CONFERENCE IN OTHER SPORTS OR JUST INDEPENDENT IN GENERAL (service academies ommited from this) JOIN SAID CONFERENCE OR GET LEFT THE FVCK OUT OF THE RANKINGS AND PLAYOFF ELIGIBILITY ENTIRELY*
-#1 & #2 1st week bye, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5 etc etc
-10 conference games, 2 OOC games, no more non D1A opponents for puzzy schools like Ohio state and Florida to pad stats and wins with the Jacksonville states of the world. This will put pressure on G5 to wanna fill up their 2 games with top 25 teams to test their worth for a spot, and at a minimum it keeps OOC rivalry games intact (and if they aren't, then the school is cowardly like the **** puddle in Gainesville)

Make teams in all 5 conferences earn it in the regular season, inside of their conference.

The current selection committee needs to be gutted and redone or abolished in its entirety because they're blatantly biased and are honestly no better than the BCS format anyways, to me. 12 teams with this committee means 5 SEC schools and then everyone else. Thats not a playoff, that's just an extended conference championship.
 
5 SEC schools and then everyone else.

You are probably right. I think the committee will ALWAYS pick Bama, UGA, TAMU, UF, and LSU as long as they don't lose more than 3 games in the regular season. One of the other SEC schools can sneak into that fifth spot if either UF or LSU slip up. Clemson, Ohio State, and Oklahoma are locks as long as they don't lose more than 2. Then Pac 10 champ gets the other guaranteed. G5s will get two because the committee wants people to think it is giving the little guy a chance. So that leaves just one slot for the best remaining team among the Pac12, Big10, Big12, and ACC.
 
Advertisement
You make some good points, but you also have some flaws in the comparisons.

To say that "top players are still going to the top schools" is an oversimplification. In nearly 50 years of "modern" AP/UPI/ESPN rankings, the University of Miami was the only NUMBER FIVE team to jump to #1 after the bowl season. So there has ALWAYS been a bias towards Top 4 teams, yet we have NEVER seen the recruiting dominated by 4 or 5 teams like we see it today. I can definitely see why kids like (and pick) Alabama and Clemson, but we cannot ignore the INSTITUTIONAL reasons which favor that. ****, it wasn't THAT long ago when top recruits factored in "immediate playing time" a lot more, and thus did not concentrate most of the 5-stars at 4-5 schools.

CBB has a field of 68. And the issue is not whether Gonzaga just got a Top 10 player, but whether all non-Duke/non-Kentucky/non-Kansas teams have a shot at Top 10 players. Even then, it is still an imperfect comparison, because "Top 10" players in basketball are usually one-and-done candidates, and only a few NCAA programs are BUILT to handle one-and-done kids every single year.

College football players need to stay for 3 years. And if a 5-star kid goes to Alabama and gets stuck behind another 5-star kid, and eventually transfers...well, when you combine THAT observation with the concept of going to a (slightly) lesser school and still having a shot to win...well then, that's a pretty potent combination of considerations for a recruit to choose a non-Alabama-type school.

You are entitled to your opinion on "expanding to 12 teams". I would just suggest..."let it play out". I have a very sneaking suspicion that "Portal" and a few other factors will lead to a loosening (not a complete destruction) of the recruiting dominance enjoyed by a few schools over the past decade.

Let's revisit this subject in 2030. 12-team playoffs will be here in 2025, and by 2030 we should have a 5-year cycle of recruiting to evaluate.

Bro; I hope to be alive in 2030. Lol
 
Advertisement
Dopey porst, as per your usual.

They currently PICK 4 teams, as none of them need to be conference champs. Now they would pick 6.

They seed all the teams in ANY playoff field.

Same job as they EVER had. Except now, there are a lot fewer whining debates over Team #5 and seeding. With 12 teams to seed, sure, the CFP might "miss" by a spot or two, but not in a way that cuts off a worthy team from being in the playoffs. The #5 ranked team plays the #12 ranked team and who gives a **** if that same #5 team was somehow seeded #7 and (gasp) needs to play the #10 team instead.

Nobody is going to lose any sanity because they had to play a team one or two spots higher in the first round, as long as they have a chance to win a championship.
They don’t pick four teams when the first three are obvious. The committee picked one team last year. Now, though, they will dictate the entire process. You think you’re an at large team? Good luck, because it’s in the hands of the committee. It wasn’t decided “on the field”.
 
If the 4 byes can only be conference champs, wonder how mad ND is at that since they can’t be a conference champ.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top