forums

CFP moving to 24 teams

SCarolina Ibis said:
Imagine being ranked 25th in a 24 team playoff.
Click to expand...
Auburn every year:

kLdS82xuNReXWLNSZH.gif
 
DMoney said:
Not 24. They are trying to balance too many considerations. ESPN doesn’t even want 24.
Click to expand...
Man you are tripping. This will make college football exciting. Stop being the old man in the room who hates change…lol

Now it is completely fair for everyone involved. Now you will have a bunch of important games in October/November as teams try to make the final playoff spots.

Also the more games you win the faster you clinch a playoff birth. So winning will still be important.
 
Hated this initially, but I’m actually coming around to it

There’s still major incentive to be a top 8 seed as you get a bye and tune up game at home basically

I like the fact that there will be more cross-conference games

Biggest negative is just the number of games and lack of quality depth if half these teams are injury riddled by the end of the playoff. Then it’s just a war of attrition
 
Calinative said:
Imo If I were CFB Commish and we had to do 24 team playoff:

MOST IMPORTANT - A Completely reset Conference Realignment. First of all Football (and maybe Mens Basketball) and the rest of NCAA sports should be entirely separate as to the realignment process, which All non Football/Basketball sports should HEAVILY go back towards regionality. One big issue with a 24 team playoff is that it weakens the regular season which is the most important thing in CFB. In order to strengthen the regular season back, you have to have games that mean something to the fans. There needs to be 2 conferences with regionalized divisions totaling 64-72 teams.

- Strict 5 for 5 eligibility
- 1 Transfer without sitting a year in first 4 years. You gain a 2nd transfer opportunity entering 5th year (whether or not technically a grad student). Any additional transfer means you have to sit a year.
- Max contract length 2 years, with clear, standardized, legally binding fees to break the contract - for both sides - that lean toward protecting the player. Expected pay to the player for each active year, the money must be placed in escrow upon the players first practice for the new season (so doesn't require unexpected to reach incentives).

- Season start moves fully to week 0.
- 12 regular season games. Must play minimum 10 "P4" teams in order to be eligible for CFP, with exception of G5 at-large if they qualify. No "non-P4" games allowed after week 4. Each team must have 2 byes.
- 5 weeks of playoffs. Eliminate Conference Champ games, the conf champ is determined by best win% and tie breakers.
- Eliminate end of season bowl games. If the bowl sponsors still want to be involved, they can "sponsor" one of the early season non-conference P4 game.
- Create a Separate G5 12-16 team playoff. However, any team in the G5 can choose to participate in the CFP if they can get an at-large spot (stricter standards than just top 24. Should maybe be undefeated and/or require top 16 ranking at end of regular season for the G5 team to qualify for CFP).
- 2 CFP Conferences - SEC and B1G or whatever new names they choose. Each conference gets 4 Playoff Byes = 8 total CFP Byes.
- First round of playoffs is 16 At-large teams in the "Play-in" game. Each conference gets 8, but lowest ranked could be replaced by a G5 representative if they qualify and choose to enter. Each Conference is responsible for making their schedule and choosing how many divisions they have and how they award the Auto-Byes and play-in seeding. Easiest is obviously 4 divisions per conference, but the priority is protecting regionalization and rivalries not each division having the same amount of programs. For instance the New B1G is much more naturally a 3 division conference, whereas the SEC can be a 4 division conference easily. Ideally though you want the conferences to have the same amount of programs each or at least +/-2.

For Example this is what a 70 team CFP League could look like: And obviously you could drop whichever you think are the weakest teams and those become G5 teams....
View attachment 376328
Click to expand...
This really could be a great post…even has a graphic…just no way I am reading it…sorry OP…great job though
 
Anyone *****ing and moaning about “we at least we will get better non conference matchups and teams wont be worried about scheduling tougher opponents” need to stfu, it is SOFT. Yes of course scheduling a tougher OOC automatically makes it where you have a lower % of winning, but IF you win that matchup your odds shoot up. Teams need to quit the bull**** scheduling for fear of losing. That’s all it is, no team wants to be punished for losing a game. Well then don’t lose? Thats part of the regular season. You didn’t see teams scared to schedule tougher opponents when it was 2 or 4 teams that had a chance to win it all.

Don’t hit me with “well only 12/138 Teams can make the playoffs and that’s the lowest % in sports” I don’t care. Let’s be real it’s actually 11/64 & 1/74, a P4 school has essentially a 1/5 to 1/6 chance to make playoffs.

The G6 doesn’t count and idc what anyone says, the CFP committee doesn’t care about them lmao even in the 24 team playoffs it doesn’t help G6 at all. So now 23 at large bids for basically the P4.

The shine of the regular is becoming dimmer by the day, the stakes aren’t nearly as high. It just can’t regain the same shine when the post season stakes are almost minimal outside of you being a borderline top 25 school playing another borderline top 25 school.

16 would’ve been the absolute max for me, p4 conf champions gets a top 4 seed and both teams to make their conference championship from P4 Conferences get automatic bids + the highest G6 conference championship winner + 7 at large bids
 
They have cheapened the season and the playoffs all to get as many sec and big 10 teams in the “playoffs”
 
cookies said:
Will absolutely be a lot of 3-loss teams in the playoffs. Multiple 4-loss teams? Doubtful.


View attachment 376326

There wouldn’t have been conference championship games last year to change the rankings if there were 24 teams, however 4-loss Iowa wouldn’t have gotten in over 11-1 north Texas, 9-2 (soon to be) 10-2 Navy, or 11-1 JMU.


View attachment 376327
Click to expand...
The one thing to take into consideration in comparing last years records, to those going forward, is this is the first year of the SEC with 9 conference games.

If you add in that all P4 teams must play a P4 OOC game, there will potentially be an additional 2 “tougher” games for a few SEC programs and 1 additional “tougher” game for Big 10 programs like Indiana, who haven't played a P4 OOC since 2024.

If we look at 2007, where a 2 loss team won the NC, there would have been ten 3 loss and one 4 loss team, in a 24 team playoff.*

Arguably with the 9 conference games and 1 obligatory P4 game, schedules forward could be more difficult than those 2007 teams played. LSU had 2 losses while playing 1 P4 OOC, 8 SEC games and 3 cream puffs.

Almost all of the ten 3 loss teams played 3 crème puff games.

So three or four 4 loss teams and 8-10 three loss teams is possible under this scenario.

*Rankings pre CCG, with Hawaii & Boise State being G5 rep’s.
 
Odysseus said:
Welp this is officially turning into the NBA with guys resting and load management going to be going on all over. Gonna have a ton of meaningless games now. Going to have 8-4 and 7-5 teams being rewarded. Plus Imagine having 5 weeks of playoff games, way too dam long
Click to expand...
This will definitely happen..11-1 or undefeated team resting dudes at end of season and tanking a game with some sus spread and questionable officiating sprinkled in....I'm ready for it 😂
 
This was pretty much inevitable. Too much money there for the taking.
Not really a fan of it but I will still watch.


The only thing I am curious about is how will they determine Conference Champions and seedlings without conference Championships?

Are they going to make your non conference strength of schedule the tie breakers?
There still could be strange years in which multiple teams end up with the same records at the top because those teams just happen to avoid playing each other that season.
 
Another strange residual side effect to all of this is that mediocre coaches will now have more job security.
Go 8-4 three straight years in the SEC at a top program in years past and you were on the hot seat.

Now it more than likely means your job is safe with three consecutive playoff births.
 
Colombie said:
Another strange residual side effect to all of this is that mediocre coaches will now have more job security.
Go 8-4 three straight years in the SEC at a top program in years past and you were on the hot seat.

Now it more than likely means your job is safe with three consecutive playoff births.
Click to expand...
it's not a side effect but an implicit feature of this proposed plan being pushed by the university presidents.

more frequent playoff trips means fans will be content, school presidents won't have to front costly regime changes with ADs/coaches
 
9oh4Cane said:
Hated this initially, but I’m actually coming around to it

There’s still major incentive to be a top 8 seed as you get a bye and tune up game at home basically

I like the fact that there will be more cross-conference games

Biggest negative is just the number of games and lack of quality depth if half these teams are injury riddled by the end of the playoff. Then it’s just a war of attrition
Click to expand...
For the value of the top seeds and the tune-up game it matters a lot whether they are going to rank teams properly or if they are going to put Cinderella and BIg 12 teams ranked higher than the teams with NFL roster talent.

So like if Oregon gets the 1 seed don't reward them with a rematch against a loaded Ohio State team instead of a game against a Boise State or BIg 12 team.
 
Im all for expanding slightly, maybe to 16. No one beyond that is capable of winning a Natty, so you are just inviting more carnage en route to the title game. 12 is perfect, maybe 16. But 24 is extreme
 
BoludoCane21 said:
Colombie said:
Another strange residual side effect to all of this is that mediocre coaches will now have more job security.
Go 8-4 three straight years in the SEC at a top program in years past and you were on the hot seat.

Now it more than likely means your job is safe with three consecutive playoff births.
Click to expand...
it's not a side effect but an implicit feature of this proposed plan being pushed by the university presidents.

more frequent playoff trips means fans will be content, school presidents won't have to front costly regime changes with ADs/coaches
Click to expand...
Exactly. In the end that’s what it’s all about, and why they could care less that nobody wants this expansion. It’s all about getting ROI for the ridiculous money these college presidents and athletic departments are throwing around.

“Hey, we made the playoff!”
 
Back
Top