12-Team Playoff On the Way; 14-Team to Follow

[Hilltop]

Im pretty sure the intent of a playoff system is to determine who is the best team where it matters most, on the field.

The best team does not always win... take Michigan vs Ohio State this year for a glaring example.  

The intent of the playoff is money... but beyond that it is to crown a champion through the process.  I'm guessing we will see many years in the future where the "best" team doesn't win it all. 

I love it all and thoroughly enjoyed the games this past weekend during a time of year where we typically don't have a lot of college football to watch.  I think it is great that teams like SMU, Arizona, Boise, etc...  are getting their shot.  Most years a team like that won't make it past the first round but it beats the heck out of watching teams like UCF claim a national title after beating an unmotivated Auburn in a meaningless bowl.        

 

[BigRedBuster]

I don't think my first and second paragraph are at odds - I'm acknowledging a playoff is the preferred format, we differ on how that format should work.

You talk about giving every champion a shot because they cannot control their conference or schedules, yet that idea ignores the fact that some leagues are much weaker than others. When you compare college football to basketball, you acknowledge that basketball has a much bigger field with more games, which means upsets are more likely and the stakes of a single game are different. Football has far fewer opportunities for programs to be tested, so a team that wins a weaker conference could coast through an easy schedule and still earn a guaranteed spot over a stronger at-large team that plays a brutal slate. You also say the hope for an upset justifies a flood of predictable blowouts, but if the goal is to determine a legitimate champion in a sport known for high injury risks and shorter seasons, those mismatches can create more frustration than excitement.

Also, the current format is giving those teams a shot, it's just assigning to weight to which teams are more qualified. I don't think my view is "old guard," it's just nuanced. It considers the structural differences between sports and the practical implications of guaranteeing playoff spots for every conference champion. I'm acknowledging the value of giving teams a shot while advocating for a system that balances opportunity with fairness and quality. I don't think any system is perfect but guaranteeing 90% of the playoffs seats to conference champions, when so many conferences are comparatively just bad and the skill gaps so disparate, isn't the right move IMO.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you…right now. 
 

But, the wild card is what’s going to happen to rosters in the 105 era. There probably is going to be a migration of talent to these other conferences making them much more competitive. 
 

Another factor in all of this is the coaching. There are only a handful of coaches that have experience prepping a team for a college championship run. As this moves forward, more programs are going to understand how to handle the team and coaching. A team like SMU that all of a sudden has to play in cold weather with this pressure is very different that what many have experienced. 
 

I also expect a big push from southern schools to not have to play in the cold…..which would be BS. But, I’m not going to be surprised if they are successful in their argument. 

 

[Savage Husker]

Did some due diligence on FCS Championships, which is a closer comparison -  IMO.
 

TIFWIW:

Last 30 seasons, seeds 1 and 2 won 19x. The lowest seed to win was 11. 4 other titles came from Seeds 6-10. 5-seed has won 4x

Since 2010 season, winners have come from the following seeds: 5 (once, (EWU - woohoo!)), 4 (once), 3 (once - NDSU), and then rest have been the 1 or 2 seed.

Since 2011, all but 1 title game featured at least the 1 or 2 seed, exception was the James Madison title (4), #2 EWU choked against Bo’s YSU in semis. Title games featuring a seed lower than #5 was a blowout. When two top-4 seeds faced each other, it was a competitive game - except last two seasons. 
 

Maybe NIL brings more parity and time will only tell, but if I were to guess, I’d say we won’t see much variance. 
 

Source: www.fearthefcs.com

 

[Enhance]

I don’t necessarily disagree with you…right now. 
 

But, the wild card is what’s going to happen to rosters in the 105 era. There probably is going to be a migration of talent to these other conferences making them much more competitive. 
 

Another factor in all of this is the coaching. There are only a handful of coaches that have experience prepping a team for a college championship run. As this moves forward, more programs are going to understand how to handle the team and coaching. A team like SMU that all of a sudden has to play in cold weather with this pressure is very different that what many have experienced. 
 

I also expect a big push from southern schools to not have to play in the cold…..which would be BS. But, I’m not going to be surprised if they are successful in their argument. 

I appreciate this view; personally, I'm not convinced the roster changes or evolving coaching strategies will dramatically change the competitive balance among conferences. College football has always seen talent migrate to the best opportunities and coaching evolution, but powerhouse programs generally remain strong while small/mid-tier programs struggle to the bridge the gap. That said, I can't discount it as I do think it's going to raise the floor for many programs.

As for cold weather, that feels more like a side note than a fundamental factor in determining playoff fairness or the merit of auto conference bids, but I agree with you that I'm sure the south will start making a fuss about it (if they haven't already).

Regardless, you raise some good points. I think these factors might add some wrinkles to the playoff picture, but I’m not sure they’ll be game-changers when it comes to whether all conference champions deserve an automatic spot. If anything, the usual disparities in scheduling and conference depth will likely still hold more sway in determining who really belongs in the playoff and IMO that's where the benefits of a nuanced approach really shine. I think CFB would need to undergo a considerable amount of further changes before we seriously considered automatically qualifying every D1 conference champion.

 

[Toe]

But, the wild card is what’s going to happen to rosters in the 105 era. There probably is going to be a migration of talent to these other conferences making them much more competitive. 

I keep seeing people posting things like this, and I'm scratching my head because it sure seems bass ackwards to me. The big schools are going to have more scholarship players, not fewer. Instead of taking 40 walk-on players who would've otherwise went to FCS schools, top power conference schools will take an extra 20 scholarship-worthy players who otherwise would've went to lower tier power conference schools. Those second tier teams will add enough would-be G5 scholarship players to make up for that loss plus fill their own extra 20 schollys. G5 gets even more drained - some might not give a full 105 schollys. And the former walk-on players get hosed - down to lower divisions they go.

The catch is that you'll have more scholarship-worthy guys riding the pine. That spells more transfer portal churn. Maybe some of that will spill over to lower tier schools, but I imagine most will still try to land a starting spot at a higher school.

 

[gossamorharpy]

I am pretty sure it is to make a crap load of money for the networks.

Also remember, the best team in the regular season, may not win the NC.  They may lose a bunch of players.  They winner will be the team who has depth and the healthiest team of the best 4 or 5 teams.

Of course it’s money driven.

i guess i dont understand your, and others’ similar thoughts, in the bold.  To me, you can use that excuse under any format.  

 

[gossamorharpy]

Did some due diligence on FCS Championships, which is a closer comparison -  IMO.
 

TIFWIW:

Last 30 seasons, seeds 1 and 2 won 19x. The lowest seed to win was 11. 4 other titles came from Seeds 6-10. 5-seed has won 4x

Since 2010 season, winners have come from the following seeds: 5 (once, (EWU - woohoo!)), 4 (once), 3 (once - NDSU), and then rest have been the 1 or 2 seed.

Since 2011, all but 1 title game featured at least the 1 or 2 seed, exception was the James Madison title (4), #2 EWU choked against Bo’s YSU in semis. Title games featuring a seed lower than #5 was a blowout. When two top-4 seeds faced each other, it was a competitive game - except last two seasons. 
 

Maybe NIL brings more parity and time will only tell, but if I were to guess, I’d say we won’t see much variance. 
 

Source: www.fearthefcs.com

I dunno man, a 1/3 of the teams winning the title that wouldn’t have even qualified in a 4 team setup is a pretty significant number.  

 

[JWHusker]

I dunno man, a 1/3 of the teams winning the title that wouldn’t have even qualified in a 4 team setup is a pretty significant number.  

It sounds like about 25 of the last 30 years has been won by seeds 1-5. I would argue that the difference between a 4 & 5 seed is negligible. 
 

Personally I welcome a playoff because it almost guarantees that the same 4 schools won’t be winning over and over. Case in point, Alabama didn’t even make it this year.

 

[Savage Husker]

It sounds like about 25 of the last 30 years has been won by seeds 1-5. I would argue that the difference between a 4 & 5 seed is negligible. 
 

Personally I welcome a playoff because it almost guarantees that the same 4 schools won’t be winning over and over. Case in point, Alabama didn’t even make it this year.

2-5 seed is usually a team(s) who lost in conference against 1-2 seed.

I dunno man, a 1/3 of the teams winning the title that wouldn’t have even qualified in a 4 team setup is a pretty significant number.  

To each their own. I put more weight on the last 10-15 years.

 

[The Dude]

12 seems like the right fit for college football while still retaining an appropriate value in the regular season. Any more than 12 and I think the equilibrium between post-season and regular season shifts too much in favor of post-season.

I'm trying to think of reasons the regular season should be as important as the playoffs.

In most any other sports league the entire point of the regular season is to position yourself in the inherently more important playoffs.

If anything they should scrap bowl games altogether, and hold a proper 24-team tournament.

They could even expand upon that if they trimmed down the regular season.  Not that I'm advocating that, but it would make more sense to me than the awkward clinging-to-out-dated-bowl-games-while-also-having-a-tournament thing that's currently happening.

 

[BigRedBuster]

'm trying to think of reasons the regular season should be as important as the playoffs.

In most any other sports league the entire point of the regular season is to position yourself in the inherently more important playoffs.

So much….THIS!!!!

 

[Enhance]

I'm trying to think of reasons the regular season should be as important as the playoffs.

In most any other sports league the entire point of the regular season is to position yourself in the inherently more important playoffs.

Well, just to be clear, I personally do not think they should be "as important" as one another, as I agree with your general view. Equilibrium doesn't inherently mean 50/50, I just think the sport should be careful about how it approaches the playoff/regular season structure so that they each maintain an appropriate value. Right now I think the regular season still feels important, but as you expand a playoff, the more you water down the season.

If anything they should scrap bowl games altogether, and hold a proper 24-team tournament.

They could even expand upon that if they trimmed down the regular season.  Not that I'm advocating that, but it would make more sense to me than the awkward clinging-to-out-dated-bowl-games-while-also-having-a-tournament thing that's currently happening.

I think a lot would have to change about the sport before they looked into a 24-team playoff and considered further degradation of the regular season and bowl system. Right now there are no scheduling standards and still too much parity across the entire network of programs. Not saying I'm inherently against it in the long run, but don't think it's feasible in this current era of football and that a lot would need to change.

 

[admo]

You guys, the 12 team Playoffs is good. Very good.

They just need to tweak the playoff seeding so that it is consistent going forward. Meaning, it is what it is.

And also meaning that it is a P4 playoff system with reward for CCG winners and losers (those who get there but didn't win the conference champ game). But also account for the best G5 teams.  And consider the SOS for the games played at the time they were played.  

For example, if the networks advertise all week about #12 BYU vs #20 Michigan in September, and we tune-in, but neither team ends up ranked at the end of the year, it definitely counts for something.  

Or else, stop pre-ranking them, along with USC, LSU, Notre Dame, Iowa etc, early in the year, and stop f#&%ing with our minds in the moment when they play 

Just crown the P4 winners the top 4 seeds and figure out the rest of the bracket.  

For what it's worth, the Big Xll champ and ACC champ earns their ticket as much as the B1G and SEC champ does. Period.  This is college football keeping things level headed.

As for G5 teams having historical years with 1 loss or undefeated seasons, you earn a seat at the table to play in the tournament.

2 final points 

If you have 3 losses, unless you win the conf champ game, you are disqualified from the playoffs. Point blank, no excuses. There are other teams who qualify and you just had a s#!tty season. 

Final point...

Give round 1 a name.

Call it NCAA College Football Winter Wild Card Weekend.  Whatever.  That way there is no let down, everyone knows there is home cooking advantage - up north in the cold possibly, or crazy down south..... 

I mean, even NCAA has slogans like "sweet 16".... "great eight".... "Final Four".

Sell it better 

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

You guys, the 12 team Playoffs is good. Very good.

They just need to tweak the playoff seeding so that it is consistent going forward. Meaning, it is what it is.

And also meaning that it is a P4 playoff system with reward for CCG winners and losers (those who get there but didn't win the conference champ game). But also account for the best G5 teams.  And consider the SOS for the games played at the time they were played.  

For example, if the networks advertise all week about #12 BYU vs #20 Michigan in September, and we tune-in, but neither team ends up ranked at the end of the year, it definitely counts for something.  

Or else, stop pre-ranking them, along with USC, LSU, Notre Dame, Iowa etc, early in the year, and stop f#&%ing with our minds in the moment when they play 

Just crown the P4 winners the top 4 seeds and figure out the rest of the bracket.  

For what it's worth, the Big Xll champ and ACC champ earns their ticket as much as the B1G and SEC champ does. Period.  This is college football keeping things level headed.

As for G5 teams having historical years with 1 loss or undefeated seasons, you earn a seat at the table to play in the tournament.

2 final points 

If you have 3 losses, unless you win the conf champ game, you are disqualified from the playoffs. Point blank, no excuses. There are other teams who qualify and you just had a s#!tty season. 

Final point...

Give round 1 a name.

Call it NCAA College Football Winter Wild Card Weekend.  Whatever.  That way there is no let down, everyone knows there is home cooking advantage - up north in the cold possibly, or crazy down south..... 

I mean, even NCAA has slogans like "sweet 16".... "great eight".... "Final Four".

Sell it better 

I completely agree with all your points.

For 2026, one concept I really like is the idea of a "Championship Weekend". Basically, if the playoff expands to 14 teams, the SEC and B1G would each automatically send 4 teams into the playoff. Their teams would be determined as follows:

The #1 and #2 teams in the conference standings play in a traditional conference championship game. Both teams automatically qualify to the playoff, but the winner gets a 1st round bye.

The #3 team plays the #6 team and the #4 team plays the #5 team. The winners go to the playoff, the losers do not. 

It certainly makes more teams engaged and gives teams like Nebraska a greater chance to qualify. 

 

[DrinkinwitTerrellFarley]

I completely agree with all your points.

For 2026, one concept I really like is the idea of a "Championship Weekend". Basically, if the playoff expands to 14 teams, the SEC and B1G would each automatically send 4 teams into the playoff. Their teams would be determined as follows:

The #1 and #2 teams in the conference standings play in a traditional conference championship game. Both teams automatically qualify to the playoff, but the winner gets a 1st round bye.

The #3 team plays the #6 team and the #4 team plays the #5 team. The winners go to the playoff, the losers do not. 

It certainly makes more teams engaged and gives teams like Nebraska a greater chance to qualify. 

I agree too and I believe the first two rounds, whether it becomes 14 or 16, should be played on campus of the better seed.  Campus games are a big advantage the college game has over the NFL.