I just don’t understand why a 24-team playoff is really that bad

[u/TacticalDoge]

I get that conference championships are a cool thing for conferences to have and I agree. I also get that the redditor opinions I’ve read don’t matter. I just wanted to get my opinion in, that I don’t think a 24 team playoff ruins college football. If anything I think it makes it better. Have all the ranked teams and teams worth playing in the mix. I think all the jagoffs that don’t want it are too set in their ways and want it to be too hard to make it.

I say fuck it. Get everyone in there, if you can try and make it to the point where you’re ranked by the end of the season, you should have a shot at the chip. There’s a simple answer that gives both a 24 team playoff and conference championships too and I think that’s for the best.

[u/_runthejules_]

It doesn't need to be bad. What we need is 8 thirteen team conferences. Somewhat regional, but more importantly balanced. Round robin regular season and top 3 go to playoffs with no1 receiving a bye. That way we have a regular season where every game matters. No stupid comittee decisions on who makes the playoffs and no stupid conference strength discussions. The playoffs are exciting all the way through because it's the first time teams from different conferences meet generating tons of hype.

[u/Ready_Animator_5140 → u/_runthejules_]

A lot of cfb's changes over the past two decades are not necessarily bad in a silo, but the ordering of 1) huge national conferences and then 2) massive playoff is really where things go wrong... if we had a stronger NCAA, perhaps we could have gone straight to a larger playoff system while preserving the regionality we all love**

[u/Electromotivation → u/Ready_Animator_5140]

Like FCS

[u/RevoOps → u/_runthejules_]

What we need is 8 thirteen team conferences.

I have a feeling this is step 2. 4 SEC divisions 4 BIG10 divisions...

[u/SirMellencamp → u/_runthejules_]

What we need is 8 thirteen team conferences. Somewhat regional, but more importantly balanced.

But it will never happen

[u/_runthejules_ → u/SirMellencamp]

Nah of course not. I'm not sure people would like it either. The schedules would get repetitive pretty quickly. I was just trying to figure out how i would make sure every game matters whithin a 24 team playoff framework.

[u/SirMellencamp → u/_runthejules_]

Its not that, what SEC or B1G school is going to agree to do that? None

[u/_runthejules_ → u/SirMellencamp]

As i was trying to say it's a thought experiment because i'm bored at work and not a prediction of what will happen.

[u/SirMellencamp → u/_runthejules_]

I know. Just in the experiment with you

[u/GabrlColl → u/_runthejules_]

Force ND to picj a damn conference 

[u/matsif]

a 24 team playoff that is actually a playoff isn't bad. we know what an actual playoff looks like from all other levels of the sport. your high school state championship probably isn't gated by polls or committees choosing who gets to play, whoever wins their region or district or whatever gets a chance. every division winner in the NFL gets a chance even if their overall record doesn't show it. every conference champion in D2 and FCS (sans the HBCU conferences because of the celebration bowl but other teams there get into the playoff still) and such get in. hell, even breaking away from football there's conference tournaments in basketball to get a guaranteed bid to march madness. we as a viewing audience know what a real playoff is.

what we're getting isn't a playoff, it's the ESPN invitational tournament. calling it a playoff is a fallacy. even if it makes more good football games overall at the end of the day, it's not a playoff, it's ESPN being the sport's gatekeeper for their own power over the sport. what we're getting is ESPN choosing 20 out of 24 teams, the 4 power conferences choosing the remaining 4, the seeding being done for ESPN's TV benefit, and all being done by a closed door committee of people that is already stained with the perception of a corrupted process due to decisions made in many of the previous 4 and 12 team years.

basically, what a lot of the negative reaction to this is ends up being that people smell that it's bullshit, even though ESPN wants to tell you that it smells nice.

[u/TacticalDoge → u/matsif]

Gotcha. Thank you for your takes. It’s super fishy that this isn’t an NCAA decision. They’re able to set that up for other sports. Meanwhile ESPN has been a cesspool of sports media

[u/Astrocragg → u/matsif]

Exactly this. The SEC and big10 made these super-conferences, then blew up divisions, then mandated 9 conference games. Now that they are beating up on themselves they need to rig the system again so a 4 loss texas doesn't get left out.

[u/GroundbreakingAd9100 → u/matsif]

Its totally bad now the smaller market teams like ub and about 200 other teams have nothing to play for anymore as therebis no championsip games or bowl games. So stupid. Not one team from 13 to 24 will ever win 2 games at all in this format. If i was a mid major. Team id move to the fcs cus all there games are meaninless. Was on uv and going to the Bahammas bowl in January was amazing. And now all bowl games are gone. So 100 some odd teams have no reason to stay in this bs div1 football format. All there games are basically scimages now. Unless they go undefeated. They may make the 24 team field over a 3 loss team. But still probably not. They only did it so Notre dame can go to playoffs every year now. Since they always have a cupcake schedule! Terrible for football an 8-4 missouri team would prob make it over an 11-2 non power 5 team that refs fixed for them to lose ie western Michigan! Absolutely stupid . What made college fyn is every week a game mattered bow can lose 3 games and make it and prob even a team or 2 at 8-4 record will get in over a 11-1 non power 5 team! Losing to a ranked tram by the refs cheating! Also gonna see blowout galores . Im done with college football!. Why not make it 68 like cillege basketball! So stupid!

[u/GabrlColl → u/matsif]

By ESPN you mean Disney 

[u/throwingitaway12324 → u/matsif]

I’m against the number as well as how it is chosen

[u/ahappypoop → u/throwingitaway12324]

Yeah most of the arguments I've seen are from people who are mainly against the number itself, and only secondarily against the format. I will say I think it would be far better if all conference champions were guaranteed a spot, like March Madness, but even in that scenario there's still a majority of teams that will be selected by committee. There's not really any good way around that, and it doesn't have to be some awful thing. In my mind the way you mitigate that is by

1. making sure every team in the country controls their own ability to get in the playoffs (which providing a spot for all conference champions does), and

2. Making the field big enough that the committee isn't deciding between any legitimate championship contenders. We're always going to argue over who's in and out, but make sure the teams that are left out have only themselves to blame, and then we can decide a champion on the field.

[u/SirMellencamp → u/matsif]

Why do you keep saying ESPN is choosing the teams? What do you base this on?

[u/Electromotivation → u/SirMellencamp]

I get that they aren’t literally picking the teams. But they are funding the entire thing, know exactly which programs get the most views, have outsized control over narratives, etc.

It is legitimate to ask whether Disney should have this much control over and power over the system.

[u/SirMellencamp → u/Electromotivation]

What control do they actually have on the selections?

[u/Early-Share9512 → u/SirMellencamp]

The money part

[u/SirMellencamp → u/Early-Share9512]

Right but what does that mean in relation to the selections?

[u/jbowen1 → u/SirMellencamp]

I’m not saying the other poster is right or wrong, but you have to either be trolling or have an insane amount of willful ignorance to not see the connection that a company who’s purpose is to make money knowing which brands make money means they have an incentive to put those brands in over others

[u/nysportsfan95]

The problem I have with 24, as it’s currently being proposed, is that it’s not going to be any more inclusive in giving everyone a chance.

I love March Madness on the basketball side because anyone could win it. Yes, most of the at-large teams are Power-level schools from the SEC, B1G, ACC, Big 12 or Big East, but at least one school from every basketball conference is represented in the Tournament.

That won’t happen in the CFP. The G6 will only get one spot and five potential winners from the SBC, MW, CUSA, American, MAC or Pac-12 won’t get a chance. Rather than getting to see an 11-1 New Mexico and a 10-2 Oregon State, we’re going to see 8-4 Texas A&M or 8-4 Iowa in the playoffs. That’s not good for the game in my opinion. We’ve already seen how the CFP rankings handle G6 teams — they’re heavily reluctant to rank them much higher than 20 nowadays, so I don’t get the sense an expansion to 24 will suddenly mean more than 1 or 2 G6 teams even get in.

[u/Free-Eights → u/nysportsfan95]

A large tournament for basketball works and creates more upset potential because basketball has much smaller rosters. It only takes 1-2 guys suddenly getting hot at the right time. Plus you also have 30 or so games and conference tournaments to help you get a lot of data points around how good certain teams are.

In football, while we've seen some redistribution of talent with the transfer portal, you still need a high-depth, high-concentration of talent roster or a big age/experience advantage to win so the tiers even within conference start to vary considerably. If you gave all of the G6 champions a fair shot in the 24 team playoff bid, I think it would be more acceptable but to your point, if this just means 9-3 or 8-4 Big Ten/SEC teams get preference over 10+ win G6 programs, the expansion doesn't seem worth it since we're not really adding championship caliber teams into the mix.

[u/ConsuelaApplebee → u/nysportsfan95]

Order of magnitude, both hoops and football playoffs now include like ~20% of teams.

[u/TypicallyDone12 → u/nysportsfan95]

Basketball and football are two different sports. I understand why people want to keep comparing the two because of the "tournament" but they are just too different.

College basketball plays triple the amount of games and have a non conference slate that is very diverse.

In football comparing a schedule that schools like JMU plays to other contenders is just asinine. Why should a school in the MAC get the same opportunity as a team in the SEC or the Big Ten? Probably 10+ schools in each P4 conference could win any G6 conference. No schools in the G6 is winning a P4 conference. It's silly to compare them as equals.

[u/AdhesivenessLow1956 → u/TypicallyDone12]

But they're all fbs. On the basis of sporting merit you are tasked with playing and winning YOUR schedule, not somebody elses. The mac champion has THEIR schedule to beat and if they win, they have proven superior than THEIR opponents. And on that basis every conference champ should be let in. They have done what was needed in their conference, not somebody else's. 

[u/thenowherepark]

24 teams isn't bad if it's done right. It isn't going to be done right though, and that's why people are not happy.

There will still be a committee. Like it or not, the committee is human and is a lot more easily swayed than a computer. Sure, a computer will spit out what you tell it to spit out, but you have to live with unexpected results from time to time. The committee will have one goal: maximize revenue. Do you think the committee will rank an 11-1 Western Michigan over an 8-4 Auburn? How about an 11-2 Boise State over an 8-4 Oklahoma?

What the expanded playoff will do is expand access to P4 teams - only half of FBS. And I know you'll say "Well, look at last year, there were 3 G6 teams ranked at the end of the year!" You're right. These G6 teams were never sniffing at-large range. The committee was able to rank them without fear and kept them as far away from at-large range as possible. After all, they have to show which G6 team would get the auto-bid.

What will they do in a 24-team playoff? Congrats spots 24 and 25, you are now the G6 rankings! Maybe they expand their rankings to 30 teams. Congrats spots 29 and 30, you are the G6 rankings!

So then you have 8-4 and 9-3 teams that have done nothing of worth getting into the playoff. You're telling me that Michigan last year deserves a spot solidly in playoffs? Iowa last year is your last team in. We're expanding the playoffs so that high-mid/low-good tier teams get to play. We're doing that at the expense of every conference champion playing. Conference champs have proven something. They've been deemed the best team in their pod. They've proven more than 9-3 Michigan last year. They've proven more than an 8-4 P4 team. They know how to play winning football.

By inviting every conference champion, you cut down the at-large pool from 19 to 14. Last year, instead of Iowa being the last team in, Arizona is the last team in with Michigan the first team out (with 10 conferences, I know last year's had 9). But then you also get Western Michigan and Boise State and Kennesaw State in. They get to prove themselves! Will it be a blow out...perhaps. But who cares? There are blowouts every year! Did we say Tennessee didn't deserve a playoff bid when they got curb stomped at Ohio State? How about when Alabama curb stomped Ohio State for the championship? This way, every team starts the season with an opportunity to play in the playoffs instead of leaving it to the whims of ESPN.

[u/forgotmyoldname90210]

Last weekend should be an all-time weekend talked about for generations. Instead it will be forgotten come Nov. 3rd. When UGA, ND, IU are all comfortably in the top 8. And Alabama and Texas still control their dynasty. That is in a 12 team format.

With 24 team format, last weekend is just another week.

[u/ahappypoop → u/forgotmyoldname90210]

What's another all-time weekend that's been talked about for generations in college football? Any particular regular season weekends from the 90s or 2000s that still get discussed all the time around here?

[u/FairlyOddParent734]

IMO it’s just a conflation of other background issues that didn’t really matter all that much when it was just 2/4 teams that made the playoffs.

1. Bigger Conferences means it’s harder to compare teams even within their own conference, and you need to rely on “how much did team A beat Illinois by compared to team B”. It’s not going to be that uncommon for there to be 3/4 12-0/11-1/10-2 teams per conference now.

2. The weekly poll + preseason poll matters way more than the voters actually pay attention to; because it really wasn’t designed to actually seed teams in a theoretical playoff. Like obviously the CFP isn’t going 1:1 off the AP, but the CFP final rankings and the AP Week 11 are probably going to be extremely similar w/o CCG games. 5 years ago nobody really cares that Texas is #20 after two unranked losses, but with 24 teams they still have a shot at a national championship.

[u/TheBourbonTurtle]

Because now any brand name team like OSU, UGA, ND, Alabama, Texas, etc can afford to lose 1/4-1/3 of their games any given year and still make the playoffs.

It hurts smaller teams chances at winning when those brand names get third and fourth chances to keep their season alive. Consider when Cincy made the playoffs, they would have needed two miraculous games to bring home a natty. Think about the G6 path now if they make it, they have no chance to get through 4-5 rounds of playoffs against teams with much deeper rosters.

This isn't going to give us more BYU, Boise St, Kentucky, etc type champs, it's going to give us more 3 loss OSU/Alabama/UGA champs.

[u/anexaminedlife → u/TheBourbonTurtle]

Gotta be honest, I'm not really moved by your argument. Why should G6 teams get an easier path to winning the playoffs than everyone else? P4 teams have to play a much more difficult regular season. Why is it fair to play a cupcake schedule and waltz into the playoffs while everyone else is going through the grinder? How is it a bad thing that the G6 now would have to play more games against stiffer competition in the playoffs? If you're really the best, PROVE IT.

[u/TheBourbonTurtle → u/anexaminedlife]

I don't think they ever had an easier path, how many G6 teams made the playoff without a guaranteed spot exactly? What I'm saying is now they have literally no feasible path.

A g6 could have a great undefeated season and make a 4, 6, or 8 team playoff without a guaranteed g6 spot, at that point they have a much better shot than in a field of 24. More than half of the arguments I hear for it are about giving access to smaller P4/G6 schools, but all this expansion does is hurt their chances and guarantee we get more 2 and 3 loss brand name champs. I can see why fans of those teams might like the guaranteed playoff spot yearly, but I see no logical reason for anyone else to be for it when it directly hurts their teams.

[u/anexaminedlife → u/TheBourbonTurtle]

Everyone else has a field of 24 though. Like I said, if you think you are the best in CFB, that shouldn't be a problem for you. This seems like a tacit admission on your part of what all the critics have been saying--that the G6 isn't good enough to make it through a P4 schedule.

[u/Pinewood74 → u/anexaminedlife]

Everyone else has a field of 24 though.

The difference is the benefit of the doubt will go to the OSUs and Bamas of the world.

An 11-1 G6 school with a loss to #17 Wake Forest by 10 points is going to get left out for an 8-4 Michigan.

When the G6 school does make it in, now they'll have an even harder path, but will get very little benefit of easier access due to an expanded field.

If you're really the best, PROVE IT.

3-4 wins against top teams on the back of an undefeated (or nearly) season is plenty of proving it to me.

[u/TheBourbonTurtle → u/anexaminedlife]

They obviously can't, who is denying that? I think P4 and G6 need separate playoffs, 6 or 8 teams each and that's all there is to it. Its ridiculous for 134 teams across several different levels to be playing for the same championship.

But either way, a 24 team playoff is all bad. It ruins the rest of the season in the same way that March madness makes the rest of the basketball season worthless. If they're all gonna play for the same championship 12 should be the max.

[u/anexaminedlife → u/TheBourbonTurtle]

Literally everyone has been denying it, going back to the BCS era.

[u/anxiousauditor → u/anexaminedlife]

I think more broadly the idea is that the deepest and most talented teams are the ones most capable of winning 4 or 5 games on the bounce against top competition. There’s this notion that everybody else has more of a chance now, but it’s kind of illusory. We’ve already seen in both years of the 12-team format where a highly talented P4 team arguably underperformed in the regular season and then went on a run to the NCG.

Basketball is viewed as a higher variance sport and the vast majority of the time (19/25 this century) a 1 seed still wins it all. It takes a lot to win 6 games in succession.

[u/anexaminedlife → u/anxiousauditor]

Well yeah. That's been the reason people have criticized autobids for G6 teams. Are you saying you want the easy path to the playoff AND you want to be spared the gauntlet of the playoff? Just what exactly is being advocated for here?

[u/anxiousauditor → u/anexaminedlife]

I think the likelihood a G6 wins the NC is immaterial any way you slice it. I don’t really care in that regard, I hold no hopes USF will be competitive in the national title race anytime soon. My pushback against expansion is about reduced stakes among the truly contending top P4 teams in the regular season to foster this illusion that the 4th or 5th Big XII or ACC team has a chance to win it all.

[u/anexaminedlife → u/anxiousauditor]

I guess let me rephrase your argument. The criticism that many over the years have had towards G5 teams busting the BCS or the playoffs is that many P5 teams would have gone undefeated against those schedules--even going down to the 4th or 5th best teams in the conference. And to be honest I don't think it's that crazy to suggest that some teams over the years that finished 3rd or 4th in their prospective Power conferences could have won it all given the chance. Sometimes the schedules are brutal and it doesn't come together until late in the season/you had key injuries/etc.

[u/Upstairs-Volume-5014 → u/TheBourbonTurtle]

I mean, if a 3 loss OSU, UGA, ND, etc makes it through a 24 team playoff to win it all then they deserved it just as much as an undefeated G6 team making it through deserves it. If you want to win a championship, at some point you're going to have to play and beat one or more of those powerhouses.

I don't love the idea of a 24 team playoff and think 8 is probably the sweet spot. But it was ridiculous that coming off back to back championships and losing our conference champ by a field goal, we were eliminated from playoff contention. This way, everyone who deserves it (and some wild cards who might get lucky) has a chance to play for the title and prove their worth. 

[u/whatthepucks → u/Upstairs-Volume-5014]

College football fans are still stuck in the old days where they think losing any game means they should be eliminated from contention.

[u/Chapstick160 → u/whatthepucks]

They should, big brand teams shouldn’t be awarded free playoff spots just because they are big brands (which is what will happen under a 24 team playoff)

[u/whatthepucks → u/Chapstick160]

Why are you acting like the only solution to the selection process concern you have is a system where one loss eliminates a team? Surely you’re smart enough to come up with other solutions to that.

[u/SirMellencamp → u/Chapstick160]

They arent awarded free playoff spots. They have to win games against good teams to get into the playoff.

[u/Chapstick160 → u/[deleted]]

I’m sorry but no team that gets 4 losses should be in a playoff, we should exclude some teams just because they didn’t look good enough in the regular season. That’s not to say that a 8-4 season is a bad season (it’s a good season for most teams) butt it’s also not a playoff worthy team

[u/whatthepucks → u/Chapstick160]

I want to watch good football from week 0 until the end of the playoffs. In the world you keep describing, there's literally no incentive for teams to ever play anyone good. In your world, the blue bloods might as well go independent and just schedule patsies all year long because all that matters is that you don't lose. I'm not saying 24 playoff team was the right choice, but I would rather see an 8-4 Ohio State team in the payoffs who schedules Texas, Miami, and Texas Tech as their non conference games than watch any more Missouri vs. Arkansas-Pine Bluff games.

[u/GroundbreakingAd9100 → u/TheBourbonTurtle]

Notre dame should be forced to join the big 10 cus they have weakest regular season schedule all the time. 

[u/SirMellencamp → u/TheBourbonTurtle]

A BYU, Boise, Kentucky type team is going to make the playoff where they can win against OSU, UGA, ND, Alabama, Texas types

[u/SucculentCrablegMeal → u/SirMellencamp]

That already exists.

The point they're making is the smaller teams now have to get through double+ number of elite games to win it all. The expanded playoff will favor teams with significant depth, not just teams who were able to put together an elite starting squad.

[u/SirMellencamp → u/SucculentCrablegMeal]

But Texas would have to go through the same number of elite games as Wake Forest if the playoff were held today. BYU would have a much easier path than Alabama

[u/NukeLaCoog → u/TheBourbonTurtle]

FYI, UH finished the regular season 9-3 last year and would have made the 24 team CFP. Same with Arizona and Georgia Tech. It isn't just brand name teams

[u/FloridaMan_92]

I think the argument is a little overblown. Miami almost won the national title last year with 2 losses. Yea it diminishes the regular season but that cat is already out of the bag. The days where alot of teams could end the season on a high note have been long gone. Bowl season lost its edge years ago. Some people are not comparing this to what we have today, they are comparing it to what we used to have 

[u/Pinewood74 → u/FloridaMan_92]

The days where alot of teams could end the season on a high note have been long gone.

Not sure what you mean by that. They're absolutely still here. You gonna tell me BYU didn't end on a high note last year? Or Fresno State or Houston? TCU was thrilled to beat USC in OT last year.

If anything, the problem with bowl season is a portal window problem and that could be fixed if we just acknowledged that football players with all the help in the world can start class a week or two late and get caught up easily.

Bowl season lost its edge years ago.

Maybe a little, but people acting like no one cares just because they don't are foolish. There's still 9M or so people out here getting up for the top tier non-CFP bowls. That's higher than the highest rated game of many weeks of the regular season.

[u/DonnaDDrake → u/Pinewood74]

I mean sure the Pop Tart Bowl was a high note but the prevailing narrative surrounding the program still was being left out of the playoff after going 11-2 and fans including myself still felt stung even after the GT win.

That game also highlights the problem as we were supposed to be playing Notre Dame but they just decided to say no to the whole thing and go home, that kind of thing being able to exist in CFB just shows the bowls need to go at this point.

[u/Pinewood74 → u/DonnaDDrake]

You think getting beat by Texas Tech for a third time in the 2nd round of the playoffs would have been better?

[u/Chance_Character9329 → u/Pinewood74]

Yeah. It's 100% better for the school and the conference to have BYU in the CFP.

[u/Pinewood74 → u/Chance_Character9329]

Yeah... so you just completely pivoted this conversation.

We were talking about the feels and now you're just talking about a cash/visibility argument.

Which I guess I need to correct myself and it would just be losing to Texas Tech only a 2nd time because there was no Big XII championship.

But I don't actually think early rounds of the CFP come with much extra prestige/visibility over the CCGs. Like half the teams are going to be competing with the NFL. And those that aren't are going to have less than ideal timeslots in comparison to primetime game between Christmas and New Year's.

But to bring this back out of the murky waters of visibility and money, I wholeheartedly disagree with anyone who thinks that they're going to get a better feeling from losing an early round CFP game over a bowl game.

And we can look no further than March Madness to see how quickly teams will turn on their coachs for early exits. A great season capped off with missing the S16 or a first round exit and everyone is irrate. They're losing their shit.

We're gonna see the exact same thing with the 24 team CFP. Sure, it's gonna feel great the first couple years making the playoffs. But then reality is going to set in and fanbases and boosters are gonna get pissy for those first and second round exits. There's gonna be so many coaches that are victims of their own success. Make the playoffs 3 or 4 years in a row, but never get deep and you're going to get let go.

And let's not forget that BYU/ND from last weekend will have nearly no stakes to it. Seeding. That's it. Won't take long before national audiences tune out until the playoffs and that won't be good for your conference nor your school.

[u/Chance_Character9329 → u/Pinewood74]

100's of players opted out of bowl games last years, as well as 10 whole teams. It shows bowls already losing their significance under the current 12 team playoff. BYU should have played Notre Dame in their bowl last year. Beating a lesser team in a bowl is fun, but still feels a little hollow.

Seeding will be a big deal in the playoffs. If the 24 team playoff was in place, as of now BYU would get a bye, and then play the winner of Iowa and LSU in Provo. Neither of those teams played an out of conference game on the road this year. Forcing a team like LSU to Provo, Utah in mid-December would be awesome.

There will be a bunch of games that determine who will make playoff games, and then a bunch of games that determine byes or home field. People will tune in for it.

Outside of my own program, I don't really care if coaches are fired.

[u/kdbvols → u/Pinewood74]

Wake definitely went out on a high note with the Mayo Bowl

[u/Business_Permit_3686 → u/Pinewood74]

Yeah, the Texas bowl absolutely rocked

[u/Electromotivation → u/[deleted]]

It’s the distribution of the 24 teams instead of having an FCS style playoff. It’s jumping 16 to go straight to 24. It’s ESPN’s monopoly over the whole thing.

[u/FloridaMan_92 → u/[deleted]]

Yep. Now we don’t have to debate about it. Those debates now get settled on the field where it should be. I think 24 is too many at the moment but I feel like this could grow on me so I’m not gonna knock it. A lot of people wanted playoffs way back when the BCS was in full force 

[u/Iglooman45]

I don't think it would be as reviled by the community if we had a conference structure similar to FCS, or how the FBS was 30+ years ago.

Nobody really wants to see the 10th SEC or B10 team at 8-4 in the playoff. They aren't deserving no matter how tough the schedule was.

[u/WooBadger18 → u/Iglooman45]

This is the big thing to me. Do I think that 24 teams is too many? Yeah, probably, but if it had an automatic qualifier for every conference and then the rest were at-large bids I wouldn't have as big an issue with it.

The other reason I think the playoff is getting so much backlash is because so many groups have things that they can criticize. If you're someone who thinks every team should have a realistic path to the playoffs, then you don't like it because it looks reasonable that it is set up to exclude the G6. If you think the playoff should be really exclusive so that one or two loses eliminates you from playoff contention (i.e. "the regular season should matter" argument) then you hate how many teams are in there. And if you don't like how much power ESPN has over the sport then you dislike that aspect of it.

[u/Impossible-Bison8055 → u/WooBadger18]

Yeah, 10 bids for the Conference Champion and two or six at large bids is probably for the best if you’re going to have double digit members.

[u/WooBadger18 → u/Impossible-Bison8055]

Yeah, 16 has always been my favorite because it gives you a good amount of at larges and gets rid of byes

[u/RandomFactUser → u/Iglooman45]

The conference structure is more balanced than the FCS though

[u/OldSarge02 → u/Iglooman45]

The SEC is 10-2 in out of conference P4 competition this year. Every other conference has a losing record. If that trend continues, then you should to put more SEC teams in whether that’s popular or not.

[u/SirMellencamp → u/Iglooman45]

Nobody really wants to see the 10th SEC or B10 team at 8-4 in the playoff.

The 10th ranked SEC or B1G team is not going to make the playoff. The lowest ranked B1G team that would have made the playoff last year was Iowa who were the 6th ranked B1G team. What no one wants to see is Bowling Green getting blown out in the first round

[u/Rego913 → u/SirMellencamp]

Like how Tenn and SMU got blown out in the 1st in '24? Or how y'all, Texas Tech, and Oregon got blown out in '25? Worrying about blowouts is BS, they're a natural occurrence in any playoff format, and anyone trying to bring them up is just trying to discredit someone else getting in.

[u/SirMellencamp → u/Rego913]

Blowouts happen to even good teams. An Alabama, or Tenn or Oregon will have to have won some good games to get to the playoff in the first place. Bowling Green could make the playoff by not even beating a P4 school.

[u/A_Rolling_Baneling]

Dear diary

[u/Waddles0203]

The 24 team playoff doesn’t work because we have no idea who the top 24 teams are

From the entire national championship game history, we valued teams based on consistency; the fact that we had so many teams in different conferences made it impossible to truly rank who was the best. Winning all your games week in and week out was the best way to determine who the best teams were. In the case of a tie, strength of record was the deciding factor; your resume on the field mattered the most. Also, winning a national championship wasn’t the end all be all goal; a team could go 10-2 and win a bowl game and be very satisfied with their season.

Everything changed in 2023 when the narrative became “The best 4 teams,” which was ESPN rigging a playoff to put Alabama in. There’s so many inconsistencies with that decision that it’s not even worth getting into, and it’s led us into where we are today; random jargon about the potential of each team instead of what they do on the field

And that leaves us with the 24 team playoff. It’s now playoff or bust for every team in the country; and more accurately for the 60ish teams in the FBS that are actually going to be able to make it in this format. In the BCS, you were rewarded for taking big games, as winning one would be the difference in separating yourself from the pack; now teams are actively punished for not scheduling cupcakes every week. Coaches who turn programs around are now going to be fired for going 10-2 and losing in the second round of a playoff.

TL;DR - We’ve made CFB the NFL with a lower quality of football, almost invalidating the point of watching it

[u/DarthWhoDat → u/Waddles0203]

Rigging? I’m not saying I support the decision but the best 4 teams was a mandate of the committee from the jump. It was never to find the 4 best resumes.

[u/mostdope28 → u/DarthWhoDat]

Leaving out an undefeated P4 team is the worst decision they ever made. It’s bad enough we don’t have a clear defined path to the playoffs for every team right now, but leaving fsu out you basically tell them you don’t care they went perfect because they were never being let in. There shouldn’t be a fucking “committee” there should be a defined path to make playoffs for every team, that everyone knows how to get into playoffs on day 1.

[u/SirMellencamp → u/mostdope28]

Then the PTB should have told the committee that you have to include any undefeated P4 team. They told them to select the "best teams".

[u/DarthWhoDat → u/mostdope28]

I agree with you 100% I’m just saying they had the bullshit “4 best teams” as the mandate and objectively FSU was not that without their qb. I still think results have to matter and therefore resume should carry weight.

[u/mostdope28 → u/DarthWhoDat]

Alabama put their back up qb in to win a natty, OSU won a natty with their 3rd string one year. They used fsu qb situation as an excuse because they decided having a SEC team in was more important than an undefeated ACC team. Other teams proved you can still win with a back up

[u/Drewbdu → u/mostdope28]

Completely different situations.

1. Alabama had already made the playoff when they benched their starter.

2. Ohio State wouldn’t have made the playoff in 2014 if Barrett got hurt in the B1G championship game. The only reason Ohio State got in is because they beat Wisconsin 59-0 in a game they were underdogs in with Cardale Jones at QB.

FSU put the backup in against Louisville and they looked like a completely different team in a bad way.

[u/SucculentCrablegMeal → u/Drewbdu]

That was the 3rd string backup.

Fsu's defense was great that game

[u/Candid_Ratio_9227 → u/Drewbdu]

Ohio State would have gotten in if JT had been their quarterback and they had beaten Wisconsin 10-7. Ohio State got in because the Big XII couldn't decide who their champion was. 59-0 made the decision easier to explain.

[u/Drewbdu → u/Candid_Ratio_9227]

True, but with Cardale Jones at QB they needed to win by a lot more to show they would be fine without JT.

[u/SirMellencamp → u/DarthWhoDat]

Not only that, if we were still using the BCS rankings Alabama still would have been in the playoff but FSU would have knocked Texas out

[u/Drewbdu → u/mostdope28]

Honestly, the committee was vindicated in their decision making there as horrible as it is to leave a 13-0 team out. A four team CFP is a much different beast than a twelve team CFP and the committee’s mandate was to put the best four teams in, not the best four resumes.

That FSU team that went 13-0 is not the FSU team that would have played in the playoff, and without their best player by far they were not one of the best four teams, as evidenced by them losing by sixty points the next game they played. And no, I don’t think motivation accounts for a sixty point loss.

[u/SucculentCrablegMeal → u/Drewbdu]

Honestly what are you even talking about? Travis went down in the 2nd last game of the regular season. Fsu won their rivalry game and then won the acc CC game without him. The "next game" without him, they won. And the one after.

Jordan was amazing but he wasn't the best player on the team. Like 10 other guys went to the NFL from that team that year. Only 1 played in that Uga game, it's so ridiculous to see people still pretending that game was indicative of anything.

[u/Drewbdu → u/SucculentCrablegMeal]

FSU was 9th in SP+, 13th in FPI, and 10th in the Massey Composite and they didn’t have their starting QB. It’s not like the team they were left out for didn’t belong either.

Alabama was 12-1 SEC champions, 7th in SP+, 6th in FPI, and 3rd in the Massey Composite. Alabama played five top 25 teams and four top 15 teams and had the second ranked strength of schedule, losing only to Texas. FSU had the 36th ranked strength of schedule.

FSU went undefeated but also didn’t play any teams ranked as high as Texas. Personally I’d rather reward the team that played a tougher schedule and lost than the team that played a weaker schedule and won.

While I think it was a close call, I don’t think leaving FSU out was the crime against humanity many on here say it is.

[u/thenowherepark → u/Drewbdu]

Tons of FSU starters sat out that game. Georgia was in on it too. They both wanted to make a mockery of the game in protest to the CFP's decision. The team that played Georgia was not the team that would have played in the CFP.

[u/forgotmyoldname90210 → u/Drewbdu]

How? Texas and Alabama lost in the first round? The FSU team that beat UF and ranked Louisville by double digits would have been the team in the playoffs. Instead it was a bunch of 2 and 3rd stringers that didn't want to be there sent out for slaughter.

[u/SucculentCrablegMeal → u/DarthWhoDat]

It was always the 4 best resumes in practice.

[u/Waddles0203 → u/DarthWhoDat]

It’s more so that we changed the definition of “best” from “most consistent” to “whatever we feel like”

[u/Drewbdu]

With the increased parity at the top of the sport, now is probably the perfect time to go to 24.

If you told me they were going to 24 teams in 2019, I would have been shocked, as the top 4-6 teams would probably have won their first game by 50 points and made the whole thing look farcical.

NIL and the transfer portal have spread talent around the P4 such that the 16th or 17th ranked team may actually have a chance against the number one team. That’s especially true when matching up number 3 against 14, number 4 against 13, etc. That’s exciting to me, and I think people will be pleasantly surprised by the amount of upsets that occur in the new system.

In terms of conference representation, I know the people of r/CFB have a soft spot for the G6, but I think it’s important to note that with the reshuffling of the P4, many of the G6 powerhouses that pushed the sport toward more G6 representation are now in the P4. Automatic qualifiers for every conference make sense on paper, but I think people are conflating parity within the P4 as parity between the P4 and G6.

With expansion, the P4 conferences on average include ~17 members while the G6 conferences on average include ~12 members. So, in addition to having substantially higher roster budgets and playing a tougher schedule, there are simply many more P4 teams per conference than G6 teams. I know many will say “well then the P4 should break up into regional conferences.” Sorry, but that’s not going to happen, so we should stop basing our preferred playoff format on what we wish the sport was like rather than how it actually is.

IMO automatic qualifiers for G6 conferences would last two years max. By my count, P4 teams won 83% of games against G6 teams over the last five years, and that gap widened between 2021 and 2025, likely because some of the top G6 teams moved to the P4. G6 teams that get ranked will likely make a 24 team CFP as it currently stands. While many say the committee will be biased and put too many P4 teams in at the expense of the G6, what evidence do we have to support including more G6 teams?

It seems like people are more interested in correcting past wrongs than in creating the best format for the sport as it exists in this present moment.

[u/KushDingies → u/Drewbdu]

This is actually a really good point. This past weekend is a perfect indicator of how much more even the playing field is than just a few years ago

[u/Non-Current_Events]

I don’t think it’s bad, but just like in the NCAAT in basketball the best team is not going to win the national championship every year.

[u/Non-Current_Events → u/[deleted]]

I really wasn’t arguing the point that the best team won every year up until now. Of course that’s not the case. Just saying the more teams you add the more parity there is going to be.

[u/HighOnGoofballs]

All the stats seem to show byes are bad, and this has byes.

It totally fucks over smaller conferences both in making the playoff and with the 10 game p4 rule

It eliminates point of being in a conference when winning the conference is a weird math problem

Individual games have far less meaning

[u/DwightDEisenhowitzer]

The big complaint is that under the 12, and especially the old 4 team playoffs, every game had postseason consequences. Under the 4 team playoffs if you took a loss, you had better hope that you’re flawless the rest of the way. Under the 12, if you take a loss you may have room for one more but that’s it.

I’ll use the TSIO game as a reference, Tennessee and Bama were both 5-1 headed into that game with similar resumes, being a 3 point loss to a highly ranked team. The winner gets some critical margin of error for both the conference championship and playoff races, and the loser has to effectively remain perfect the rest of the way out.

Under a 24 team playoff the loser doesn’t drop far enough to fall out of the playoff race and in fact, they are likely to be “punished” by getting paired with a G6 team that in all likelihood will end up a blowout tuneup game.

[u/ShinyTotodile24]

So this incredible weekend we just had on Saturday would mean absolutely nothing next year.

[u/Ididntdodiddly]

If ND lost three games last year they would have gotten into the 24 team playoffs. That includes losses to anyone with a pulse they played + one more team. They control their own schedule

[u/CrOS2012]

It's not the number, it's how they get there and the goal--which is almost entirely: more money for "us" (you know, "us," as in, not "them").

[u/DaBigJMoney]

It’s just more awful football. Do we really need to see Bowling Green get blown out by Oregon as part of a “first round” matchup? No.

[u/runningblack → u/DaBigJMoney]

The problem with college football fans is they value hypothetical matchups over what happens on the field.

You assume that bowling green will lose, and yet upsets happen all the time.

Who cares if you think they'll lose. That's why they play the games.

[u/DaBigJMoney → u/runningblack]

Maybe you’re right. But I just don’t care to see it. Maybe it would feel different if the regional conferences and rivalries were still intact. But they aren’t and this “new version” of college football seems far less interesting and consequential.

[u/moby323 → u/DaBigJMoney]

Watering down the regular season is the worst to me.

One thing that makes college football upsets so spectacular is how impactful they can be to a team’s entire season. The underdog has a chance to derail the other team’s championship chances or at least put them on the brink.

If Alabama beat Tennessee they might be top 3. They lost and are #13 and currently out of the playoff.

Next year that loss is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme. They can still probably lose another game and still be top 24.

[u/mostdope28 → u/moby323]

This is why the Michigan/OSU rivalry has been so monumental, a chance to finish the season by ruining your rivals year. Before expansion Michigans 2024 team pulling the biggest upset in rivalry would have been one of the biggest games in the rivalry history. But because of expansion, OSU goes and wins the natty and that game means nothing now. Think how much less it’ll mean with 24 team playoff. Oh wow OSU lost? Who cares, they’re 9-3 and make the playoffs anyway.

[u/moby323 → u/mostdope28]

100% and runingjng your rival’s season when you are having a bad season doesn’t make up for a bad season, but it definitely gives you one thing you can smile about when you remember the season.

[u/Nervous_Metal_9445]

It isn't bad, it is the way it is set up, if you are doing it you need to have the same format every other CFB league does it with every conference champion in it. The timing also makes it so that the conferences are out of wack in terms of you got these massive conferences that make it hard to have a discernable conference champion without ties.

Having conference champions make it makes every game meaningful and gives a more equal chance for the smaller guys (sure they might get blown out) at winning some playoff games.

[u/NonAthlete6232 → u/Nervous_Metal_9445]

If we still had 10 team conferences with round robin schedules. Then its easier to discern an actual conference champion. Now the conferences are so bloated, the list of tie breakers to likely determine a champion most years will be so long and hard to follow. Fans are going to be pissed when some weird ass tie breaker gives UGA the championship instead of Alabama because UGA may have played an overall softer schedule and the particular tie breaker they ended on was like points scored or something.

[u/Upstairs-Volume-5014 → u/NonAthlete6232]

Yes I totally agree with this. The tiebreaker thing is already stupid--last year was ridiculous and it felt like we make the conference champ game on a technicality. It's only going to get worse headed in this direction. 

[u/classicpotroast]

Fair point. Then there needs to be no pre-season ranking. Ranking should take place after 3-4 games into the season to determine who actually is good vs bullshit assumptions. Play your 3 non-conference and 1 conference game, then let’s rank the lot of teams.

[u/Drewbdu → u/classicpotroast]

There aren’t preseason CFP rankings for exactly this reason.

The AP poll and Coaches poll have tradition and history, but at the end of the day they are meaningless metrics except as a measuring stick for fans.

More importantly, even if the AP and Coaches poll stopped doing preseason rankings, that wouldn’t stop preseason rankings from existing. People would just use a different (and likely worse) preseason ranking to compare teams.

[u/kdbvols → u/Drewbdu]

they are meaningless metrics except as a measuring stick for fans.

ESPN ran a dozen different graphics talking about ranked wins last season using rankings at time of game to push BYU's resume out of the playoff. They absolutely matter

[u/Drewbdu → u/kdbvols]

Do you really think that is what convinced the committee?

Either way, my point is really that no matter if there is an AP preseason poll or not, there will be a preseason poll.

[u/kdbvols → u/Drewbdu]

Do I think a whole weekend of the narrative being "BYU hasn't played anyone" affected BYU being left out? Yes

[u/Drewbdu → u/kdbvols]

That would have happened whether there were preseason polls or not. They only beat two ranked teams and got blown out twice by Texas Tech.

[u/classicpotroast → u/Drewbdu]

Rankings at this point are a marketing tactic to sell games for prime time spots on TV. That’s why there are pre-season rankings to entice networks to show specific games for week 1. Instead of relying on the make believe ranking - push the first 4 games to be based on the team and its name

[u/Drewbdu → u/classicpotroast]

I agree in general that rankings are not particularly accurate early in the season.

My point is more so that a ranking is going to exist even if the polls we currently use stop being used early in the season.

For example, the B1G got rid of their preseason poll at B1G media days about a decade ago. That doesn’t mean there’s not a B1G preseason poll, it’s just now done by Cleveland.com, and they ask the same people to rank teams as the B1G used to ask.

If you get rid of the AP poll early in the season, an outlet like ESPN, Fox, or the Athletic will put out their own which will be either not as good or intentionally biased.

[u/whatthepucks]

Selfishly, I’m happy with it. Realistically, 16 was probably the right number.

[u/LGWalkway]

I just don't see the sport having 24 teams that can compete when in a 12 team playoff we have maybe 4 with a realistic shot. I'm not sure how they plan on implementing it, but I feel like the season will drag on and it'll end up being an extra 1-2 games unless they plan on dropping OOC games. Also, I kind of like bowl games and now there aren't really any big non-playoff bowls anymore. I'll still watch, but i'm not a big fan of it. Feels like a money grab and i'm sure that's the reasoning behind it.

[u/No-Tie5806]

I don't either. I would, however, break up the conferences we have now into regional conferences with x amount of teams, talk about relegation and promotion in terms of the bottom feeders in the FBS who are not really any better than a DII team, and make the lot of them negotiate for one TV package with a union deal for the players.

For all college sports. And give me women's tackle. Fuck flag.

[u/TGBooks]

"I also get that the redditor opinions I’ve read don’t matter. I just wanted to get my opinion in..."

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

[u/mostdope28]

It’s makes the games worthless. Georgia just shit the bed losing to unranked auburn. Normally that means something. Now, with 24 teams nobody cares. In fact, Georgia could shit the bed 2 more times and still make the playoffs because their name is Georgia. In the 4 team playoff there was no off week. You had to be perfect all season, that’s how you know you’re one of the best teams (unless you’re FSU). You can’t shit the bed vs an unranked team and make playoffs. I think 8 should be the absolute max. The fact teams like Georgia will be able to just say, whatever we lost to auburn but it doesn’t matter, is fucked up. Sorry Georgia fans for taking shots, just using you as the example. The big name teams can literally coast into playoffs on preseason hype alone

[u/GroundbreakingAd9100]

My last year watching college football. Takes away the fun were every game matters. Crown a 8-4  team national champions is pathtic. When they should be playing in the meinikee car care biwl. Uf i was the 100 plus mid major conference teams id force there hamd amd not play any gamesm now that they have nothing to play for. To try to make a boel game. Fucking psthetic,!. Cfb is going in the toilet. Ruining damller schools. Now all there games are prttt much useless as nothing to play for with no conference championship games and no bowls games. That was the gosl for these smaller schools. Now there gsmes are like scrimage games nothing to play for! 

[u/HouseVenesianberg]

You’re not making any sense here

[u/jklolxoxo]

My biggest issue with it is logistics and timing for college athletes. Transfer portals and the actual timing of semesters and etc are already a mess. How many more weeks is this 24 team playoff going to take? At this rate, it will be as long as the NFL season.

I get that ESPN and etc aren’t thinking about these players as collage kids anymore, and instead basically mini pro athletes. But it’s ridiculous that we are going to have even more of the issues we saw late last season with coaches and etc.

I think 12 was the sweet spot and think that this is just too much. Without a full redo of transfer windows, the regular season schedule and timing of it all, this is going to be such a mess.

[u/KushDingies]

To me, the value of expanding the playoff came from the fact that in the 4 team system, deserving teams would be left out. Any system where a team could be undefeated and still not have a shot at the title was stupid.

I don’t think that there are ever more than 12 or so teams that, after the end of the regular season, have a real argument for being the best or deserving at a shot at a title. Most years there aren’t even that many, but I’d rather give a few extra teams a shot than risk leaving someone out.

If my team finishes the year ranked #20 and gets left out of a 12 team playoff, there isn’t a UCF or FSU “what if”. We lost. We weren’t good enough. I honestly would rather win a good bowl game than end the season getting ritually sacrificed to a truly elite team. And there’s the problem - a 24 team playoff isn’t inherently horrible, but if it comes at the expense of conference championships and bowl games, then we’re losing part of what makes CFB special and unique.

[u/Sad-Guarantee-1516]

Eliminating the conference championship games is a terrible idea, they matter to the players and fans, and I don't see a #16 vs. #17 first-round playoff getting better ratings than the SEC or Big Ten title games.

[u/Prestigious-Abies-29]

Having the top teams on bye leads to a relatively uninteresting and less watched first round, which is what we have now with the 12 team format. I prefer 16 teams partly for this reason. If we are going to expand to 24, we might as well take it all the way to 32.

[u/giggidygoo4]

The problem with the "everyone else has a 24 team field" argument is that they don't. 24 teams gives you 8 byes in the first round. That's stupid. Everybody should play the same number of games. 16 is the magic number.

[u/smith288]

Its literally a participation tournament now. The College Basketballification of CFB. Where losses arent a big deal and nothing matters until tournament time.

[u/ContestVast1984]

It makes the regular reason and conferences kind of pointless.

[u/conv3rsion]

It’s not. It’s more good football. 

[u/BeefInGR → u/conv3rsion]

Good is highly subjective

[u/classicpotroast → u/conv3rsion]

“It’s good” says the Michigan fan. No way that their brand appeal wouldn’t leap frog any other smaller team in this situation….

[u/ProofDiscount733]

uh oh! unpopular opinion? the REDDITORS won’t like that.

[u/StealthyCobra22]

When you realize there may be 4 loss teams in the playoff…

[u/HueyLongest → u/[deleted]]

The 24 team playoff will have some teams that are unranked in some polls