Just copy the FCS system. 24 teams...every conference champion gets an automatic bid. 1-8 gets a first round bye. 9-24 play each other in the first round. FCS tries to keep the first round matchups somewhat regionalized due to travel costs, but that shouldn't be an issue in FBS. And bring the BCS system back to rank the teams and get away from the biases of a playoff committee.
Without an autobid, the G5 will always be at a disadvantage-they can’t control their weaker conference schedules, even if they’re a good team. Giving them an automatic spot creates something meaningful to play for and keeps fans invested. If they’re not deserving, it’s essentially a bye for the higher seed anyway. But if they are, it gives them a shot to prove it on the biggest stage. Removing that chance hurts the sport by sidelining a huge part of college football.
I think we need a more transparent committee. What the committee tends to value should be publicly stated and we should have a computer system to rank teams. In a sport as subjective as CFB having a final human element is (imho) necessary, but if they go against the objective rankings they should be forced to fully and clearly explain why they did so. This is a sidenote, but SOS (or SOR) should absolutely matter a helluva lot if we want the CFP to feature the BEST (not most deserving) teams. Different teams have different levels of skill, and it takes different levels of skill to play against them. Beating a team that is hard to beat clearly indicates more skill than beating a team that is easy to beat, and losing by 3 points to a team that usually wins by 20 shows more skill than beating a team by 2 when they usually lose by 14.
BSU beat 2 ranked teams in UNLV and WSU. And also outplayed Oregon. They only barely lost to Oregon by a field goal as time expired because odd two lucky kick returns for TD. Ashton Jeanty is the best player in college football. That’s more than several teams ahead of them in ranking and ridiculous that people don’t give respect
What we need is a playoff system comparable to other college sports. The FCS even has a fair system. Have a 16 team playoff (4 more teams than the current won't kill anyone). All 9 conference winners get in and 7 at large teams (same amount of at large teams as now), rank them however you want. It will be a compromise, G5 gets all their conference champions in, Power 4 gets their champs in and more than likely multiple at large teams and will also more than likely hold the power in how teams are ranked. 1-16 seeded teams play it out and we have a true national champion. Every team going into the year knows what they need to do, win their conference and you are guaranteed to get in. Don't win it and there is no guarantee. With all conference champs and 7 at large teams there is no room to talk about the best teams getting snubbed. Everyone had their chance, just go win the games.
@@kevinbond8966 16 is more fair to the independent teams. If the PAC 12 ends up not finding their 8th team then there's 3 independent teams that would have a semi realistic chance of making it if they have have a good season so if you get rid of the byes then it's more fair
@@Z64sports The only independent teams that matter is ND. Expanding the playoff so you can fit more g5 teams in is where you lose reasonable college football fans.
I thought it was stupid for them to get rid of the computer rankings when they started the 4 team playoff. I'm not saying keep the BCS formula, because I think there could be a better one
There is no set of metrics that can effectively connect 134 teams with 12 data points each. This problem is compounded by super conferences being clusters of F that fail to connect their teams. There is no functional reason to have 16-18 team conferences or 134 teams at the same level, only financial.
Break each power 4 conference in half and create divisions that can be rotated yearly. The big ten has 18 teams so that's two divisions of 9 teams. The teams in the division would play each other once, plus play one team from the other division. That's 9 games. They can still have their tune up games or rivalry games with 3 games remaining available. Get rid of the conference championship games and reward the division winners automatic bids. That's 8 guaranteed spots for the power 4. Expand the playoffs to 24 and play the first 16 the same weekend as conference championships. The group or 5 will have 3 guaranteed spots in the tournament if they finish the season ranked. If they finish ranked inside the top 24 they are almost guaranteed to make the 24 team playoff anyways. If the playoffs were set up like this right now, there would be 4 group of five teams in the playoffs. The college football committee would select who gets a first round bye. First round byes are reserved for division champions. They would also select all the remaining teams to make the field and their matchups. They could do a huge segment on TV just like college basketball. If they eliminated the conference championships and added 24 teams, it would make the season at most 17 games. I see no issue with this considering the NCAA will be paying players starting in 2026.
If Boise State ends up going 11-1 they would have technically won their division in the way I have it set up. They could still get a bye in the 24 team playoff. Play the first round in the same stadiums the conference championships would have been held. Reward the bye teams with a home playoff game in the second round. The remaining games would all be natural fields just like the first round.
The conferences that receive automatic bids all have what I call final four rights. All of these conferences have made the traditional 4 team playoff. The PAC 12 would still have final four rights once they have at least 8 teams in the conference. They can gain a second automatic bid when they reach 16 teams. This will encourage more expansion and growth throughout the final four rights conferences. I wouldn't have more than 20 per conference. The group of five can earn final four rights if a team from their conference reaches the final four. That will grant the conference a automatic bid or two automatic bids if they have 16 or more teams. That would encourage more teams to transfer to a new conference with final four rights. It would control and help direct realignment
I could totally get behind a group of 5 playoff if there was a reward other than a championship. If they'd allow relegation, it would make the bad teams play harder, and create a better product because the better team/programs will always float to the top.
FSU didn’t get screwed as bad as Auburn did in 2004. Undefeated SEC champ didn’t play in championship game. WTF? Also, the team that got in championship game over Auburn got slaughtered. Not an Auburn fan, btw.
So if a two loss team is second best in their conference and they beat an undefeated team in the conference championship game, you gonna send the loser to the playoff?
Make it 16 teams. Force the independents to join a conference: Uconn to the AAC, Notre Dame to the ACC and UMass to CUSA The 10 conference champions qualify and there is room for the remainder 6 best teams regardless if they won or not their conference. I can guarantee you, you will end up with 2, 3 or even 4 teams of each P4 conference inn that playoff.
So your solution is to make it 16 (which to me is primarily to make it more fair to independents) but then get rid of the independents? That makes no sense
@@Z64sports There are only 3 independent teams, why don't they join a conference? That leaves us with 10 conference champions and 6 spots for the top teams that did not win their conference. What part doesn't make sense? Right now; the playoff is giving 1 spot to a G5 team just because Boise State is ranked. What if Boise was not not ranked. It would only be P4 teams. other than Notre Dame, Uconn or Umass don't have a chance to make it if they stay independent. At least if they join a conference; they could win it and be in the playoff.
I want chaos. Looking forward to seeing if a team loses the conference championship game and gets leapfroged by other team or teams that didn't make the CCG.
In the NFL every player on all teams is a professional. Every team has a salary cap to go acquire top talent. So it’s fair to take the top teams from each conference. In college there’s a huge talent disparity. The SEC is far stronger than Conference USA. The Big10 is far greater than the Mountain West. Until we turn College Football into the NFL JV league it’s not going to be fair. The more ridiculous these NIL deals get, the even greater the disparity we’re going to see.
The fact that Indiana is ranked 5 behind 2 teams with worse records than them in the same conference as them blows my mind. There's always been brand bias, but now because 12 teams make the playoff, they aren't even hiding it anymore.
So if Colorado State wins out then beats Boise State in the Mountain West Championship game they should automatically get into the CFP? Texas beat them 52-0 in week 1.
@arubial1229 it's really not. Winning a conference is an objective metric. Polls are flawed because it's all perception. If you have a good team with generational talent, why should you be punished because the voters didn't watch a single game you played until mid-November?
@@arubial1229 why is it your team's fault that the rest of the conference isn't PERCEIVED as good? We don't have a promotion/relegation system so many teams are stuck in "weak" conferences despite being consistently good. If Boise State/Army wins the national championship this year, they still wont get a bid to the P4 next year. Teams should be rewarded based on what they do, not what their opponents do.
The answer is absolutely not. And if your answer is anything BUT “absolutely not”, then you don’t understand the nuances of college football scheduling, period.
No they shouldn't. There should be no conference based bids. Top 4 teams get a by regardless of conference. No auto bids. I say we take 1 game off everyone's schedule and have play in games between people towards the back of the pack. For example this year say IU loses to OSU. Let IU play Tennessee to see who gets in
Just copy the FCS system. 24 teams...every conference champion gets an automatic bid. 1-8 gets a first round bye. 9-24 play each other in the first round. FCS tries to keep the first round matchups somewhat regionalized due to travel costs, but that shouldn't be an issue in FBS. And bring the BCS system back to rank the teams and get away from the biases of a playoff committee.
Without an autobid, the G5 will always be at a disadvantage-they can’t control their weaker conference schedules, even if they’re a good team. Giving them an automatic spot creates something meaningful to play for and keeps fans invested. If they’re not deserving, it’s essentially a bye for the higher seed anyway. But if they are, it gives them a shot to prove it on the biggest stage. Removing that chance hurts the sport by sidelining a huge part of college football.
I think we need a more transparent committee. What the committee tends to value should be publicly stated and we should have a computer system to rank teams. In a sport as subjective as CFB having a final human element is (imho) necessary, but if they go against the objective rankings they should be forced to fully and clearly explain why they did so.
This is a sidenote, but SOS (or SOR) should absolutely matter a helluva lot if we want the CFP to feature the BEST (not most deserving) teams. Different teams have different levels of skill, and it takes different levels of skill to play against them. Beating a team that is hard to beat clearly indicates more skill than beating a team that is easy to beat, and losing by 3 points to a team that usually wins by 20 shows more skill than beating a team by 2 when they usually lose by 14.
BSU beat 2 ranked teams in UNLV and WSU. And also outplayed Oregon. They only barely lost to Oregon by a field goal as time expired because odd two lucky kick returns for TD. Ashton Jeanty is the best player in college football. That’s more than several teams ahead of them in ranking and ridiculous that people don’t give respect
W O R D We want it ALL! Quietly... imagine their faces.
What we need is a playoff system comparable to other college sports. The FCS even has a fair system. Have a 16 team playoff (4 more teams than the current won't kill anyone). All 9 conference winners get in and 7 at large teams (same amount of at large teams as now), rank them however you want. It will be a compromise, G5 gets all their conference champions in, Power 4 gets their champs in and more than likely multiple at large teams and will also more than likely hold the power in how teams are ranked. 1-16 seeded teams play it out and we have a true national champion. Every team going into the year knows what they need to do, win their conference and you are guaranteed to get in. Don't win it and there is no guarantee. With all conference champs and 7 at large teams there is no room to talk about the best teams getting snubbed. Everyone had their chance, just go win the games.
A 12 team playoff isn't enough for you?? Smdh
@@kevinbond8966 16 is more fair to the independent teams. If the PAC 12 ends up not finding their 8th team then there's 3 independent teams that would have a semi realistic chance of making it if they have have a good season so if you get rid of the byes then it's more fair
@@Z64sports The only independent teams that matter is ND. Expanding the playoff so you can fit more g5 teams in is where you lose reasonable college football fans.
I thought it was stupid for them to get rid of the computer rankings when they started the 4 team playoff. I'm not saying keep the BCS formula, because I think there could be a better one
There is no set of metrics that can effectively connect 134 teams with 12 data points each. This problem is compounded by super conferences being clusters of F that fail to connect their teams. There is no functional reason to have 16-18 team conferences or 134 teams at the same level, only financial.
Break each power 4 conference in half and create divisions that can be rotated yearly. The big ten has 18 teams so that's two divisions of 9 teams. The teams in the division would play each other once, plus play one team from the other division. That's 9 games. They can still have their tune up games or rivalry games with 3 games remaining available. Get rid of the conference championship games and reward the division winners automatic bids. That's 8 guaranteed spots for the power 4. Expand the playoffs to 24 and play the first 16 the same weekend as conference championships. The group or 5 will have 3 guaranteed spots in the tournament if they finish the season ranked. If they finish ranked inside the top 24 they are almost guaranteed to make the 24 team playoff anyways. If the playoffs were set up like this right now, there would be 4 group of five teams in the playoffs. The college football committee would select who gets a first round bye. First round byes are reserved for division champions. They would also select all the remaining teams to make the field and their matchups. They could do a huge segment on TV just like college basketball. If they eliminated the conference championships and added 24 teams, it would make the season at most 17 games. I see no issue with this considering the NCAA will be paying players starting in 2026.
If Boise State ends up going 11-1 they would have technically won their division in the way I have it set up. They could still get a bye in the 24 team playoff. Play the first round in the same stadiums the conference championships would have been held. Reward the bye teams with a home playoff game in the second round. The remaining games would all be natural fields just like the first round.
The conferences that receive automatic bids all have what I call final four rights. All of these conferences have made the traditional 4 team playoff. The PAC 12 would still have final four rights once they have at least 8 teams in the conference. They can gain a second automatic bid when they reach 16 teams. This will encourage more expansion and growth throughout the final four rights conferences. I wouldn't have more than 20 per conference. The group of five can earn final four rights if a team from their conference reaches the final four. That will grant the conference a automatic bid or two automatic bids if they have 16 or more teams. That would encourage more teams to transfer to a new conference with final four rights. It would control and help direct realignment
I could totally get behind a group of 5 playoff if there was a reward other than a championship. If they'd allow relegation, it would make the bad teams play harder, and create a better product because the better team/programs will always float to the top.
Do not turn college football into soccer please
The D.U.B getting a shoutout. Go Irish!
No 2 loss non conference champion deserves a damn thing.
If that's the case then every team will schedule soft fixtures
@JimmyWashingtonII then they will be seeded accordingly IF they win their conference
Noles fans can’t talk about football
FSU didn’t get screwed as bad as Auburn did in 2004. Undefeated SEC champ didn’t play in championship game. WTF? Also, the team that got in championship game over Auburn got slaughtered. Not an Auburn fan, btw.
So if a two loss team is second best in their conference and they beat an undefeated team in the conference championship game, you gonna send the loser to the playoff?
Make it 16 teams.
Force the independents to join a conference:
Uconn to the AAC, Notre Dame to the ACC and UMass to CUSA
The 10 conference champions qualify and there is room for the remainder 6 best teams regardless if they won or not their conference.
I can guarantee you, you will end up with 2, 3 or even 4 teams of each P4 conference inn that playoff.
So your solution is to make it 16 (which to me is primarily to make it more fair to independents) but then get rid of the independents? That makes no sense
@@Z64sports There are only 3 independent teams, why don't they join a conference?
That leaves us with 10 conference champions and 6 spots for the top teams that did not win their conference.
What part doesn't make sense?
Right now; the playoff is giving 1 spot to a G5 team just because Boise State is ranked. What if Boise was not not ranked. It would only be P4 teams.
other than Notre Dame, Uconn or Umass don't have a chance to make it if they stay independent. At least if they join a conference; they could win it and be in the playoff.
I want chaos. Looking forward to seeing if a team loses the conference championship game and gets leapfroged by other team or teams that didn't make the CCG.
16 teams and if you win your conference you should get at least that 16th seed
Boise state and Army should both make it this year if both teams win out.
I’m ok with 1 G5 school but Notre dame should play in a conference.
Boise state played a close game to the #1 team and Notre Dame lost to .500 NIU.
So, based on this scenario, Notre Dame would just join the MAC and keep their TV deal money and be an auto bid every year.
In the NFL every player on all teams is a professional. Every team has a salary cap to go acquire top talent. So it’s fair to take the top teams from each conference.
In college there’s a huge talent disparity. The SEC is far stronger than Conference USA. The Big10 is far greater than the Mountain West.
Until we turn College Football into the NFL JV league it’s not going to be fair. The more ridiculous these NIL deals get, the even greater the disparity we’re going to see.
No
The fact that Indiana is ranked 5 behind 2 teams with worse records than them in the same conference as them blows my mind. There's always been brand bias, but now because 12 teams make the playoff, they aren't even hiding it anymore.
Keep the automatic bid, but get rid of the automatic seeding.
Soooooo a larger bcs?
lol
YES
So if Colorado State wins out then beats Boise State in the Mountain West Championship game they should automatically get into the CFP? Texas beat them 52-0 in week 1.
The G5 should get 5 automatic bids. It's Impossible to compare schedule strength when teams only play 3-4 OOC games.
Asinine argument
@arubial1229 it's really not. Winning a conference is an objective metric. Polls are flawed because it's all perception. If you have a good team with generational talent, why should you be punished because the voters didn't watch a single game you played until mid-November?
@@newyorknole2225 winning a pathetic conference means nothing
@@arubial1229 why is it your team's fault that the rest of the conference isn't PERCEIVED as good? We don't have a promotion/relegation system so many teams are stuck in "weak" conferences despite being consistently good. If Boise State/Army wins the national championship this year, they still wont get a bid to the P4 next year. Teams should be rewarded based on what they do, not what their opponents do.
@ you have to join a real conference. Strengh of schedule isn’t some made up metric, it’s real.
The answer is absolutely not. And if your answer is anything BUT “absolutely not”, then you don’t understand the nuances of college football scheduling, period.
This DEI along with NIL will destroy college football.
It ain't going to matter if Trump doesn't get in there pretty soon because we're not going to have a world to play football in. 😢😢😢
Y'all are sooooo wrong. Your bias is astounding.
No they shouldn't. There should be no conference based bids. Top 4 teams get a by regardless of conference. No auto bids. I say we take 1 game off everyone's schedule and have play in games between people towards the back of the pack. For example this year say IU loses to OSU. Let IU play Tennessee to see who gets in
1aa playoff format copied to 1a.
No