CFP projected to expand to 12 teams by 2024
- Thread starter TDLaww2020
- Start date
1. UGA
2. mich
3. TCU
4. USC
5 ohiost vs 12 washington
6 bama vs 11 utah
7 tenn vs 10 kansas st
8 penn st vs 9 clemson
more meaningful college football is always good. but I don't see any difference between this and the current system in terms of results.
who knows. maybe once a decade a seed lower than 4 will make the final & play for a championship
2. mich
3. TCU
4. USC
5 ohiost vs 12 washington
6 bama vs 11 utah
7 tenn vs 10 kansas st
8 penn st vs 9 clemson
more meaningful college football is always good. but I don't see any difference between this and the current system in terms of results.
who knows. maybe once a decade a seed lower than 4 will make the final & play for a championship
I think, just looking at 5-12, that
OSU
Bama
Tenn (if they have their QB)
Clemson
Could all make the final four.
But I don't see anyone, in this field, beating UGA.
I’d rather have 8 teams.. Power5 champions and the 3 best at large teams..
Expanded playoff could bring more parity though, since more teams will make the playoffs rather than the same handful of teams every year.
It'll ruin college football.
One thing that used to make college football unique was that every single game counted. Now, teams like Georgia last year, know that they can afford to lose games late in the season (such as last year's SEC Championship) and still have a shot at the national title. Expanding the playoff to 12 teams will only further compound this problem. We'll eventually see teams sit starters in the final game of the season if they've already locked themselves in the playoff.
IMO the only teams that absolutely deserve a shot at the title are those that finish the season undefeated. Most years, the BCS system worked fine because there's rarely more than 1 or 2 undefeated teams at the end. The #3 team can piss and moan all they want, but more likely than not they've lost at least one game.
The 4-team playoff that we currently have, I think, is really the best of both worlds. It's limited enough so that, in most years, the regular season games still have meaning, while also allowing all deserving teams to play for the title on those rare years where 3 teams finish the season undefeated (e.g., the 2004 Auburn Tigers, who went undefeated, but had to watch USC and OU play for the title).
Expanding the playoff to 12 teams will open the window for 2- or even 3-loss teams to potentially win the title. I hate that.
One thing that used to make college football unique was that every single game counted. Now, teams like Georgia last year, know that they can afford to lose games late in the season (such as last year's SEC Championship) and still have a shot at the national title. Expanding the playoff to 12 teams will only further compound this problem. We'll eventually see teams sit starters in the final game of the season if they've already locked themselves in the playoff.
IMO the only teams that absolutely deserve a shot at the title are those that finish the season undefeated. Most years, the BCS system worked fine because there's rarely more than 1 or 2 undefeated teams at the end. The #3 team can piss and moan all they want, but more likely than not they've lost at least one game.
The 4-team playoff that we currently have, I think, is really the best of both worlds. It's limited enough so that, in most years, the regular season games still have meaning, while also allowing all deserving teams to play for the title on those rare years where 3 teams finish the season undefeated (e.g., the 2004 Auburn Tigers, who went undefeated, but had to watch USC and OU play for the title).
Expanding the playoff to 12 teams will open the window for 2- or even 3-loss teams to potentially win the title. I hate that.
We wont be part of it but I sure hope at least round 1 would be on campus sites. The neutral site games are very stale and lack atmosphere. Asking fans to travel 3 weeks in a row is a big ask as well.
It would be nice if they completely revamped the ranking structure and voting to go along with this 12-team playoff, so there's deserving teams that have made the most noise entering said playoff.
I agree with most of this. However in the new system, only conference champs get the top four seeds, so Georgia could sit players if they want, but they’d lose their bye and have to play an extra game anyway.
Yes - the winner of UCF/Tulane would get the 12th spot. Winner of Clemson/UNC will get a spot, but not top 4.
A couple other interesting things: apparently in the second and third rounds, the higher seeded team can pick the venue for their game from the bowls available.
Since you have to be a conference winner, I guess independent ND will never get a bye? Sounds good.
PS: I like the expansion. Bowls are now perceived as meaninglessness exhibition games that the best players often skip. It will also make the CCGs more relevant.
Last edited:
The college football postseason is already perceived as meaningless outside of the playoff. It is now standard practice for star players to opt out of bowl games, even the Rose Bowl. This will be far better to make games meaningful late in the season. If the 12 team playoff existed the conference championships would mean far more. LSU, Purdue, Utah and K-State could all play their way into the playoff. As it stands, sure you are playing for your conference title, but Georgia, Michigan and probably TCU are all locks to get into the playoff win or lose while their opponents have no chance. November would be far more exciting with a 12 team playoff as well since so many more games would have meaning on who would get in. Even a game like Penn State-Michigan State would be important since if Penn State would have tripped up they would be out.
Yep this has a ton of upside with very little downside. College football is going to be far more entertaining going forward especially in November as teams fight for those spots.
as it stands only one teams from each conf will be eligible to get a bye
Big Ten (USC-UCLA- Michigan-OSU-PennSt ..)
SEC (Ala-LSU -Georgia-Florida -Tennessee)
Big 12 ?????????? (KSU -Ok St - TCU )
PAC 12 ??????? (Utah - Wash - Oregon )
ACC (Clemson-FSU)
going to have a lot of inflated records in the big12 and pac 12 as it stands
Big Ten (USC-UCLA- Michigan-OSU-PennSt ..)
SEC (Ala-LSU -Georgia-Florida -Tennessee)
Big 12 ?????????? (KSU -Ok St - TCU )
PAC 12 ??????? (Utah - Wash - Oregon )
ACC (Clemson-FSU)
going to have a lot of inflated records in the big12 and pac 12 as it stands
I'd like to see 80 teams total, 4 conferances (20 teams) with 2 devisions (10 teams)
then
4 conferance champ games between the 2 division, thus producing 4 conferance champs for a 4 team playoff.
of course I suffer from systematic severe logic, with the desire to solve things on the gridiron...and not sports writers mouths or sec favoritisum...
what the hell is a bi team?
then
4 conferance champ games between the 2 division, thus producing 4 conferance champs for a 4 team playoff.
of course I suffer from systematic severe logic, with the desire to solve things on the gridiron...and not sports writers mouths or sec favoritisum...
what the hell is a bi team?
I don't understand this logic. Currently, the only games that matter are the ones involving a team that has a chance to make the playoff. The rest of the games are meaningless. In the BCS days, the only games that mattered were ones involving teams that still had a chance to finish #1 or #2.
Now, more games will matter because more teams have a chance to make the playoffs. And more playoff games equals more games that matter, rather than meaningless bowl games that many players opt out of.
Not a chance. This is actually going to make it that much better. It should really go to 16 teams.
Kind of like teams do in the NFL once they know they are in the playoffs.
Disagree with you that..We need less 3 loss teams in the playoffs not more..
No, we need less meaningless bowl games between 3 loss teams with nothing to play for, with roster missing their best players.
