Sources: SEC, Big Ten building momentum to further expand College Football Playoff to 14 or 16 teams

[Katatonic]

The only odd thing I see here is the SEC going to 9 conference games. Most of the talking heads with inside knowledge felt that the SEC would never go to 9 and if the SEC and Big Ten wanted an arrangement to play each other during the regular season, the Big Ten would most likely drop back to 8 conference games to make it happen. If you stay at 9 and add an SEC opponent, I don't see anyone schedule one of your two remaining games with another power conference so that further isolates the ACC and Big 12.

The scuttlebutt is that the SEC will go to 9 conference games even with a tie up with the B1G for OOC games.

Having 4 auto bids (1) allows for enough blue bloods to get access to the POs and (2) returns the focus on doing well in conference (having an OOC loss or even 2 would no longer knock a team out, hence allowing for the B1G-SEC tie-up).

The thinking is that the league champ and runner-up will get 2 of the auto bids with the remaining 2 up for grabs in play-in games (3 vs 6; 4 vs 5).

All these moves would maximize revenue by increasing the no of good match-ups which will make the broadcasters happy, and further the financial gap with all the others.

 

[LandoComando]

If you are going to have a 24 team playoff, the regular season means virtually nothing. Might as well shorten the regular season and then have the playoffs. I think the 12 team playoffs is just about right because you will always get the approximately 8 teams who have some shot at winning. Of course, the byes, seedings, and times between the games need to be adjusted. In any instance, however, the conference championships mean nothing and should be eliminated.

The regular season means a ton...its to qualify and for seeding. Higher seed has home field advantage. More games matter with an expanded playoff and 2025 showed that. It simply allows top teams to lose a game or two which should have always been allowed. College football, illogically, was the only sport where perfection was deemed important.

And, yes , CCGs have always meant nothing once their was a playoff. Kill them.

 

[LandoComando]

I feel the same way.

People argue that more games matter as you expand the field but that's not really true. It just changes which games matter. With a smaller field, games like Ohio State vs. Oregon matter. With 24 teams, the top 10 games don't matter but Syracuse vs. Miami does.

Ohio State-Oregon still matters...seeding matters once they fix it. Home field matters. A 24 team playoffs mean MAC conference games matter for the first time ever.

 

[psu00]

There’s good and bad to any decision here. If they want to go to 16 by removing byes I’d be ok with that as it pretty much keeps the same number of rounds as this year (you just don’t have 4 teams sitting out week 1). Going bigger than that is too much and not feasible logistically.

If you’re going to 16 then there need to be other changes IMO-

1. No byes or special privileges for conference champions. Seed properly with no favoritism to any team that happened to win an ACC, SEC, or other championship.
2. No reserved spots for G5. If a G5 team is in the top 16 then they’re in. If not, like everyone else, they’re out.
3. Consider dropping conference championship games.
4. Keep round 1 and possibly round 2 as home games on campus. Fans can not be expected to drop everything and arrange travel to Phoenix, then Pasadena back to back with less than 1 week notice. Too expensive, too far. 1st 2 rounds on campus helps with that. Then plug in the final 4 to Jan 1 bowl games.

 

[OzLion]

There’s good and bad to any decision here. If they want to go to 16 by removing byes I’d be ok with that as it pretty much keeps the same number of rounds as this year (you just don’t have 4 teams sitting out week 1). Going bigger than that is too much and not feasible logistically.

If you’re going to 16 then there need to be other changes IMO-

1. No byes or special privileges for conference champions. Seed properly with no favoritism to any team that happened to win an ACC, SEC, or other championship.
2. No reserved spots for G5. If a G5 team is in the top 16 then they’re in. If not, like everyone else, they’re out.
3. Consider dropping conference championship games.
4. Keep round 1 and possibly round 2 as home games on campus. Fans can not be expected to drop everything and arrange travel to Phoenix, then Pasadena back to back with less than 1 week notice. Too expensive, too far. 1st 2 rounds on campus helps with that. Then plug in the final 4 to Jan 1 bowl games.

#1 ties in to #3 -- If the conferences want to keep the conference championship games (for bragging rights and $$$) they will want some reward to be attached to them. If not a bye, then a seeding advantage.

#2 I'd like some reserved spot for the best G5 team ( even if it's just seed #16 or whatever, it either gives a deserving but underrated team a chance or it at worse case rewards the #1 seed). This year the point was moot, as it ended up the best G5 team, Boise State, was ranked pretty high and qualified for a #3 seed anyway, as you point out. The complaints this year were about SMU (an ACC team) and Indiana (a B1G team) - two at-large selections - being perceived as weak.

#3 You are hitting on the bigger problem this past season - uneven schedules in each conference. This is why a conference championship was needed, but it didn't help altogether. What I think they need to to is schedule 8 conference games and then have a 9th conference game which pairs teams based on conference rank (#1 vs #4, #2 vs #3, #5 vs #8, #6 vs #7, #9 vs #12 etc.) to even out the scheduling.

#4 I agree with you, I thought the first round with the home playoff games was the best part, and think having the first two rounds on campus makes allot of sense: as you point out it avoids travel fatigue by fans (who can't really plan two bowl trips in the same season) and creates more excitement. This is especially true if they expand to 14 or 16 teams.

Nice post overall.

 

[psu00]

#1 ties in to #3 -- If the conferences want to keep the conference championship games (for bragging rights and $$$) they will want some reward to be attached to them. If not a bye, then a seeding advantage.

#2 I'd like some reserved spot for the best G5 team ( even if it's just seed #16 or whatever, it either gives a deserving but underrated team a chance or it at worse case rewards the #1 seed). This year the point was moot, as it ended up the best G5 team, Boise State, was ranked pretty high and qualified for a #3 seed anyway, as you point out. The complaints this year were about SMU (an ACC team) and Indiana (a B1G team) - two at-large selections - being perceived as weak.

#3 You are hitting on the bigger problem this past season - uneven schedules in each conference. This is why a conference championship was needed, but it didn't help altogether. What I think they need to to is schedule 8 conference games and then have a 9th conference game which pairs teams based on conference rank (#1 vs #4, #2 vs #3, #5 vs #8, #6 vs #7, #9 vs #12 etc.) to even out the scheduling.

#4 I agree with you, I thought the first round with the home playoff games was the best part, and think having the first two rounds on campus makes allot of sense: as you point out it avoids travel fatigue by fans (who can't really plan two bowl trips in the same season) and creates more excitement. This is especially true if they expand to 14 or 16 teams.

Nice post overall.

I understand conferences want their champ to have some advantage, but I’d still say no. There’s no way Boise should have been a #3 seed with a bye last year. IMO- just seed teams based on merit. If that means the ACC champ is seeded 16, or 3 Big Ten teams are seeded higher than the Big 12 champ, so be it.

Honestly, I do get the appeal of a G5 March madness type Cinderella team but football is different than basketball. The chances of them doing anything major is close to zero and, in the rare case where 1 is very good like Boise years ago, they’d be in the top 16 anyway. I might be persuaded to give up #16 to G5 but I’m on the fence with that.

You’re right that the uneven schedules are a big problem. Honestly, I don’t see an easy fix for that. That’s where the committee is going to have to earn their money (and take the inevitable bitching).

There’s no real way to equalize schedules especially between conferences. ACC and Big 12 don’t come close to matching the Big and SEC. Even the Big Ten is weak outside of OSU, PSU, Oregon, and Michigan. Depending on luck of the draw, Oregon could have a really tough schedule while Michigan has a cakewalk with a 1 game season to end the year.

 

[PurposePitch]

Neither solution is good. You want a MAC team in there or the 2nd tier B10/SEC team. Neither have any shot.

The reality is there are about 6 teams maybe, maybe 8 teams in any given year with any kind of realistic shot. This year it was OSU, ND, Texas, PSU, Georgia, Oregon maybe Tenn. It will be like that every year. 12 is too many and 4 is just a little too few.

I like having more teams because I like college football but the high seeds especially in a 16 team format (#s 9-16) have absolutely no shot whatsoever. When you introduce the home game first round process it becomes even more of a joke. Like the MAC winner ranked #16 has any shot vs #1 at their place. That also goes for B10 #5 or whatever ranked #16 playing #1 on the road.

Exactly. Well, except you're wrong and upsets happen all the time.

I don't give a rip if someone SAYS or THINKS only X amount of teams have a shot. Show it on the field. The limit to that being what's feasible, given the amount of time they have to play the games. NIU had "no shot" of beating ND during the regular season last year ... but they did.

And the thing is, most of these matchups by "chosen" teams who are supposedly the bestest end up being crap, too, so it's not like we're inserting some lack of quality that didn't exist in other formats

As I have been, and will be, I'm a "prove on the field" guy. I don't care if you think your team or your conference are special. I'm also a fairness guy. If you're in the same "level," you should have an equal chance of making the "postseason."

 

[LandoComando]

Let's not forget--the ACC is or was considering having the CCG as #2 vs #3 so their top seed doesn't have to play an extra game. CCGs will die sooner than later--that money can be made up

 

[ryoder1]

Exactly. Well, except you're wrong and upsets happen all the time.

I don't give a rip if someone SAYS or THINKS only X amount of teams have a shot. Show it on the field. The limit to that being what's feasible, given the amount of time they have to play the games. NIU had "no shot" of beating ND during the regular season last year ... but they did.

And the thing is, most of these matchups by "chosen" teams who are supposedly the bestest end up being crap, too, so it's not like we're inserting some lack of quality that didn't exist in other formats

As I have been, and will be, I'm a "prove on the field" guy. I don't care if you think your team or your conference are special. I'm also a fairness guy. If you're in the same "level," you should have an equal chance of making the "postseason."

You can expand to 16, I don't mind. Just telling you the low seeds have no shot of ever winning it all. Cream rises to the top.

Why stop at 16? If you think upsets happen and will happen in this playoff then maximize as many teams as possible to "prove it on the field" and expand to 48 teams. Cut off the last 5 games of the season and start the first round Nov 1. Maybe the 5th place Big West team will beat OSU in Columbus in the first round. After all, upsets happen all the time.

 

[wilbury]

Worth noting that tOSU and ND were seeded 8 and 7 respectively. Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 all lost in their first playoff game. The semifinals were 5, 6, 7 & 8.

It is conceivable that restricting the playoff to 8 teams, especially if you are going to give auto-bids to lesser conferences, runs a big chance of leaving out very good teams.

I like 8 teams if the NCAA is real about who are contenders and who are pretenders. 16 if you want to continue to give auto-bids to teams that are in weak divisions. I didn't like the bye weeks even though PSU benefitted.

Fair but you'd set it up differently if it was 8 teams. Boise and ASU would not have had automatic byes and been artificially ranked ahead of those teams.

 

[wilbury]

Much ado about nothing, folks

This year, if there were 14 teams in, the SEC and Big Ten both would have had 4.

If they go to 14, the Big Ten and SEC (usually) will get the two byes.

The biggest problem with this year's system was that the byes for the 3rd and 4th best conference champs screwed with the seeding. Boise at 9 and ASU at 12 got byes.

This will be the change in 2025. And I hope it stays there. If they let bracket creep continue every two years, it will dillute the regular season considerably. This year, ratings were up in November as dozens of teams had playoff hopes...

Maybe but with the proposed set up, there aren't going to be many games between the Big Ten/SEC and the ACC or Big 12. So you can end up having a highly ranked ACC team like Clemson or SMU that could even go undefeated without really playing anyone. They could end up competing for one of the byes.

 

[PurposePitch]

You can expand to 16, I don't mind. Just telling you the low seeds have no shot of ever winning it all. Cream rises to the top.

Why stop at 16? If you think upsets happen and will happen in this playoff then maximize as many teams as possible to "prove it on the field" and expand to 48 teams. Cut off the last 5 games of the season and start the first round Nov 1. Maybe the 5th place Big West team will beat OSU in Columbus in the first round. After all, upsets happen all the time.

Again, it doesn't matter if someone thinks something has "no shot" of happening. It's sports. The "impossible" happens all the time, and it doesn't matter what some schmoe fan or even an "expert" thinks is possible. And it wouldn't matter if it didn't happen ... the system should be set up to give it the chance of happening.

You stop at 16 because it's practical. It gives you the most teams with the least impact on the current structure of season length/games played, etc.

Again, prove it on the field. That's why my perfect world involves mandatory conference setups wherein each conference member needs to play every other conference member during the regular season, and each conference winner gets a playoff bid. Thus, the ridiculous megaconferences go bye-bye. And, as luck would have it, that'd work out to about 13 conferences and, with 16 playoff spots, that leaves 3 "at large" bids, so the "experts" who think we care who they think is the bestest team could have their say in 3 other teams making the playoffs. Thus, you combine "prove it on the field" with practicality, once again. No need to fly off the handle by suggesting things like cutting 5 regular season games. Just be reasonable.

 

[ryoder1]

Again, it doesn't matter if someone thinks something has "no shot" of happening. It's sports. The "impossible" happens all the time, and it doesn't matter what some schmoe fan or even an "expert" thinks is possible. And it wouldn't matter if it didn't happen ... the system should be set up to give it the chance of happening.

You stop at 16 because it's practical. It gives you the most teams with the least impact on the current structure of season length/games played, etc.

Again, prove it on the field. That's why my perfect world involves mandatory conference setups wherein each conference member needs to play every other conference member during the regular season, and each conference winner gets a playoff bid. Thus, the ridiculous megaconferences go bye-bye. And, as luck would have it, that'd work out to about 13 conferences and, with 16 playoff spots, that leaves 3 "at large" bids, so the "experts" who think we care who they think is the bestest team could have their say in 3 other teams making the playoffs. Thus, you combine "prove it on the field" with practicality, once again. No need to fly off the handle by suggesting things like cutting 5 regular season games. Just be reasonable.

Sure let's be reasonable and propose no mega conferences and we will go back 30 years to a bunch of regional conferences. 13 conferences and they all get in? Let's let the Ivy winner in, the winner of the Big Sky and the other useless conferences that play JV level football. What? That is never happening nor should it.

 

[PurposePitch]

Sure let's be reasonable and propose no mega conferences and we will go back 30 years to a bunch of regional conferences. 13 conferences and they all get in? Let's let the Ivy winner in, the winner of the Big Sky and the other useless conferences that play JV level football. What? That is never happening nor should it.

Well, first of all ... you didn't provide a counter argument. That's telling. Second, you're aware the Ivy and Big Sky aren't FBS level, right? So they wouldn't be relevant. They're already excluded because they're actually on a different level. Imagine that. Teams group themselves according to level, and they all compete, on equal footing, for the same prize. Who woulda thunk it? Instead, we let professionalism and the short-term chase for TV dollars drive the game ... and the same folks who champion that line of thinking then cry when kids are compensated, because THAT'S what turns the sport from amateurism to professionalism. Tragically stupid.

 

[PSUSignore]

Sure let's be reasonable and propose no mega conferences and we will go back 30 years to a bunch of regional conferences. 13 conferences and they all get in? Let's let the Ivy winner in, the winner of the Big Sky and the other useless conferences that play JV level football. What? That is never happening nor should it.

Imagine if the people running the basketball tournament were this closed-minded. It always amuses me that in basketball giving the little programs a shot at an upset is embraced, but in football everyone turns their nose up at programs they view as inferior.

 

[LandoComando]

Sure let's be reasonable and propose no mega conferences and we will go back 30 years to a bunch of regional conferences. 13 conferences and they all get in? Let's let the Ivy winner in, the winner of the Big Sky and the other useless conferences that play JV level football. What? That is never happening nor should it.

See FCS...and it should why else are the in the league. It will happen or FBS splits apart.

 

[lazydave841]

It always amuses me that in basketball giving the little programs a shot at an upset is embraced, but in football everyone turns their nose up at programs they view as inferior.

It's all a matter of who you are a fan of. Indiana and Boise fans love the current setup; neither were ever getting into the BCS top 2 or the original CFP top 4 without tweaks and or help. And even going back to when Cincinnati did get the 4 seed, a vocal majority were mad because they got soundly beat.

It's like the people who fuss about Arizona State and SMU getting in over Bama/Ole Miss/South Carolina yet continue to champion letting all the conference winners in. Make it make sense.

At the end of the day, a split is eventually coming. It will really be a matter of who the networks want included with the SEC and Big 10.

 

[LandoComando]

It's like the people who fuss about Arizona State and SMU getting in over Bama/Ole Miss/South Carolina yet continue to champion letting all the conference winners in. Make it make sense.

I didn't have any issue with ASU (as they won their conference) but Ole Miss/Bama/South Carolina were better options than SMU. ASU just shouldn't have had a bye--same with Boise.

I want all conference winners for a total of 24--you can't do all conference winners with 12 14 or 16....maybe 20.

 

[Nbergbuck]

I didn't have any issue with ASU (as they won their conference) but Ole Miss/Bama/South Carolina were better options than SMU. ASU just shouldn't have had a bye--same with Boise.

I want all conference winners for a total of 24--you can't do all conference winners with 12 14 or 16....maybe 20.

Do you want the playoffs to be largely decided by attrition due to injury? One of the reasons OSU won was because they made it through the 4 playoff games without a season ending injury (that I recall). They were lucky. The playoffs should be 8 teams, no byes and 3 wins to be NC. Let's try at least pretend these are college students.

 

[lazydave841]

I want all conference winners for a total of 24--you can't do all conference winners with 12 14 or 16....maybe 20.

I think I would rather see a split than add in the Sun Belt and the MAC. I don't even care for the cupcake games. If they want to add a preseason game, I'm all for hosting Kent State. I don't see the need for them on the regular schedule.

 

[ryoder1]

Well, first of all ... you didn't provide a counter argument. That's telling. Second, you're aware the Ivy and Big Sky aren't FBS level, right? So they wouldn't be relevant. They're already excluded because they're actually on a different level. Imagine that. Teams group themselves according to level, and they all compete, on equal footing, for the same prize. Who woulda thunk it? Instead, we let professionalism and the short-term chase for TV dollars drive the game ... and the same folks who champion that line of thinking then cry when kids are compensated, because THAT'S what turns the sport from amateurism to professionalism. Tragically stupid.

Your proposal is irrelevant. You mentioned 13 conferences so what conferences are getting auto bids besides the Power 4? These are second rate teams playing second rate schedules.

Pick the top 16 teams if you insist on having 16. No auto bids for conference champs.

 

[ryoder1]

Imagine if the people running the basketball tournament were this closed-minded. It always amuses me that in basketball giving the little programs a shot at an upset is embraced, but in football everyone turns their nose up at programs they view as inferior.

With 64 teams you can include everyone and their brother. But at the end of the day, chalk rules. I think Nova in '85 was a 7 seed maybe and that is the lowest seed to win it all.

Also basketball lends it itself to upsets more than football. Less players, 3pt shot.

 

[LandoComando]

Do you want the playoffs to be largely decided by attrition due to injury? One of the reasons OSU won was because they made it through the 4 playoff games without a season ending injury (that I recall). They were lucky. The playoffs should be 8 teams, no byes and 3 wins to be NC. Let's try at least pretend these are college students.

Avoiding injuries has always been a part of it. There's no luck. They earned it.
FBS can easily play as many games as FCS. And going to 24 doesn't add a game unless a 9 seed or lower makes the final.

 

[LandoComando]

I think I would rather see a split than add in the Sun Belt and the MAC. I don't even care for the cupcake games. If they want to add a preseason game, I'm all for hosting Kent State. I don't see the need for them on the regular schedule.

I'm all for a split but if that doesn't happen I want 24. A split can be 2 playoffs of 12-16.

 

[LandoComando]

With 64 teams you can include everyone and their brother. But at the end of the day, chalk rules. I think Nova in '85 was a 7 seed maybe and that is the lowest seed to win it all.

Also basketball lends it itself to upsets more than football. Less players, 3pt shot.

It's about the opportunity to prove yourself not about winning a title. They at least are given a chance unlike now when they never play a meaningful game.

 

[PurposePitch]

Your proposal is irrelevant. You mentioned 13 conferences so what conferences are getting auto bids besides the Power 4? These are second rate teams playing second rate schedules.

Pick the top 16 teams if you insist on having 16. No auto bids for conference champs.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Every time I clearly put forth some thought, you come back with something that doesn't follow from what I've said (cut out 5 games, bring FCS teams into this, etc.).

I'm not sure where you're lost this time. The mention of 13 conferences comes from my "perfect world" scenario. It's not going to happen, but it should. Whether this is my perfect world scenario, or a more realistic tweak to the current situation, 16 teams is a good number for the playoffs.

But in my perfect world scenario, you'd restructure the 130+ teams (likely cut it down to exactly 130) in the FBS into 13 conferences of 10 teams. Every team plays every other team in their conference (and they can have 3 non-conference games), and the team with the best overall conference record moves on to the playoffs. It's settled on the field. Now, for practical purposes, with 13 conference winners and 16 spots, that leaves 3 spots to fill. That's where the schmoes who love beauty pageants, rather than athletic competitions, can step in and judge who is the prettiest among the non-conference winners, and fill those 3 spots. And that's where those non-conference games can come in to play, to help the Russian judges to determine who looked the bestest doing their triple axle. Pretty straightforward.

In the likely real world scenario where they expand to 16 teams, I don't want 4 slots dedicated to each of the Big 10 and SEC. At the very least, they should leave as many spots open for ... whomever ... so that the "lesser" conference teams can sneak in more often. And I couldn't give a rat's fart if you don't think teams from "lesser" conferences will ever pull off an upset.

 

[PSUSignore]

With 64 teams you can include everyone and their brother. But at the end of the day, chalk rules. I think Nova in '85 was a 7 seed maybe and that is the lowest seed to win it all.

Also basketball lends it itself to upsets more than football. Less players, 3pt shot.

So what? Upsets happen in football too, every year. Just because the deck may be stacked against the G5 conference champs doesn't mean they don't deserve a shot. If your hand picked top teams are so much better then you have nothing to worry about, they will win anyway. You should prefer that model as those teams would have an easier path to a championship, since they are so superior and it's so easy for them to beat all of those G5 teams.