CFP to 16 Teams: Outrage Is a Renewable Resource

[GetHooked]

19 hours ago, Bobby Burton said:

It's all about the Benjamins.

Who's been jamin?

[Junior]

15 hours ago, Alex Butler said:

Disagree. A team that plays good teams should have a chance to keep playing. Keeps fans and schools interested. I don’t care how many losses they have I’d rather see good football and teams grow into a championship team like the NFL. If we could live with the old model for as long as we did we can live with teams with 4+ losses. I’d prefer to expand to 24 just to get more teams a shot. 

I also support expanding the playoff to 24 teams, as it helps reduce the impact of significant strength-of-schedule disparities in college football that can exclude teams with legitimate championship potential—particularly in the SEC—simply because of who they play. College basketball provides a useful comparison: numerous teams have lost 25% or more of their regular-season games and still gone on to reach or win the NCAA championship. In fact, over the past 40 seasons, four teams have advanced to the championship game despite losing more than 30% of their regular-season games, which is roughly equivalent to a 9–3 or even 8–4 team in college football

 

[CHorn427]

12 hours ago, Alex Butler said:

Nope, don’t think that would be the case. I think you’d see the best football we’ve ever seen. You still have to win to get in and you’re making everything more like the NFL. The value is having the playoff structured in a way that eliminates conference championship games, which IMO punish teams that finish strong in conference, and replace them with play in games. Setting limits and numbers on who gets in would devalue regular season just like it is currently trending. 

False. We are already seeing bad football across the board due to teams knowing they have losses to give. 

[Alex Butler]

44 minutes ago, CHorn427 said:

False. We are already seeing bad football across the board due to teams knowing they have losses to give. 

Disagree, we’re seeing bad football because these guys play such varying levels of competition early in the season. 

[Alex Butler]

1 hour ago, Junior said:

I also support expanding the playoff to 24 teams, as it helps reduce the impact of significant strength-of-schedule disparities in college football that can exclude teams with legitimate championship potential—particularly in the SEC—simply because of who they play. College basketball provides a useful comparison: numerous teams have lost 25% or more of their regular-season games and still gone on to reach or win the NCAA championship. In fact, over the past 40 seasons, four teams have advanced to the championship game despite losing more than 30% of their regular-season games, which is roughly equivalent to a 9–3 or even 8–4 team in college football

 

Facts!!! Love it! Look last season alone neither OSU nor ND would’ve been in the BCS or the 4 team playoff. 

[CHorn427]

4 hours ago, Junior said:

I also support expanding the playoff to 24 teams, as it helps reduce the impact of significant strength-of-schedule disparities in college football that can exclude teams with legitimate championship potential—particularly in the SEC—simply because of who they play. College basketball provides a useful comparison: numerous teams have lost 25% or more of their regular-season games and still gone on to reach or win the NCAA championship. In fact, over the past 40 seasons, four teams have advanced to the championship game despite losing more than 30% of their regular-season games, which is roughly equivalent to a 9–3 or even 8–4 team in college football

 

College basketball is also useful for looking at what including everyone in the postseason does for the regular season.

Probably 75% of people who watch March Madness do not keep up with the regular season, because it is pointless. 
 

It’s mind numbing to think of basically the entire top 25 getting in. This strategy is “just let everyone except for the really crappy teams in”. 

[Junior]

5 hours ago, CHorn427 said:

College basketball is also useful for looking at what including everyone in the postseason does for the regular season.

Probably 75% of people who watch March Madness do not keep up with the regular season, because it is pointless. 
 

It’s mind numbing to think of basically the entire top 25 getting in. This strategy is “just let everyone except for the really crappy teams in”. 

I agree there is a point where playoff expansion can go too far, where we may differ is not on whether expansion is warranted, but on scale. Given the number of teams there are in Division 1 college football, disparities in schedule difficulty across teams/conferences, and the role of a selection committee, a 24-team playoff strikes a reasonable balance. More outcomes would be decided on the field, rather than in the committee room. Teams just outside the cutoff of a 24 team format would still object, but the risk of excluding a legitimate championship contender is lower than in the current 12-team format.

Regarding college basketball, its regular season may suffer from factors beyond just playoff size—most notably a 30-plus game regular season schedule that dilutes the importance of individual games. That dynamic doesn’t exist in a 12-game football season played once a week, where each result carries real consequence. Talent continuity also matters: college basketball’s one-and-done model has weakened team identity and overall quality of play, gradually eroding fan interest. College football, by contrast, retains most elite talent for multiple seasons and benefits from being the nation’s dominant sport, which sustains engagement throughout the regular season. Given football’s cultural prominence, there is less risk that a 24-team playoff would diminish regular season interest. In fact, it could increase engagement, as more fan bases would remain invested longer, with more teams realistically in contention for a playoff spot.

[CHorn427]

35 minutes ago, Junior said:

I agree there is a point where playoff expansion can go too far, where we may differ is not on whether expansion is warranted, but on scale. Given the number of teams there are in Division 1 college football, disparities in schedule difficulty across teams/conferences, and the role of a selection committee, a 24-team playoff strikes a reasonable balance. More outcomes would be decided on the field, rather than in the committee room. Teams just outside the cutoff of a 24 team format would still object, but the risk of excluding a legitimate championship contender is lower than in the current 12-team format.

Regarding college basketball, its regular season may suffer from factors beyond just playoff size—most notably a 30-plus game regular season schedule that dilutes the importance of individual games. That dynamic doesn’t exist in a 12-game football season played once a week, where each result carries real consequence. Talent continuity also matters: college basketball’s one-and-done model has weakened team identity and overall quality of play, gradually eroding fan interest. College football, by contrast, retains most elite talent for multiple seasons and benefits from being the nation’s dominant sport, which sustains engagement throughout the regular season. Given football’s cultural prominence, there is less risk that a 24-team playoff would diminish regular season interest. In fact, it could increase engagement, as more fan bases would remain invested longer, with more teams realistically in contention for a playoff spot.

Thinking of an 8-4 team in the playoffs disgusts me. It really does. I do not give one rat’s behind about the fans of 8-4 teams being engaged at the end of the season, even if those are Texas fans.

Teams that have separated themselves as more than mediocre are the ones that deserve a shot at the end of the season. 8-4 is mediocre. It just is

[Kevin C]

7 minutes ago, CHorn427 said:

Thinking of an 8-4 team in the playoffs disgusts me. It really does. I do not give one rat’s behind about the fans of 8-4 teams being engaged at the end of the season, even if those are Texas fans.

Teams that have separated themselves as more than mediocre are the ones that deserve a shot at the end of the season. 8-4 is mediocre. It just is

We have a current system that enabled James Madison and Tulane to make the playoffs but excluded ND and Texas (3 top 15 wins and top SOS among top 15 teams by far).   In a new world where Top 24 get in, this year that’s one total team with 8-4 record (Iowa).   They likely lose in the road and the play it on the field works as designed.   I’m fully on board with 24 team playoff so play on field determines final outcome.

 

[Lnghrn]

12 minutes ago, CHorn427 said:

Thinking of an 8-4 team in the playoffs disgusts me. It really does. I do not give one rat’s behind about the fans of 8-4 teams being engaged at the end of the season, even if those are Texas fans.

Teams that have separated themselves as more than mediocre are the ones that deserve a shot at the end of the season. 8-4 is mediocre. It just is

There will be a lot of mediocre football in the SEC with a 9 game SEC schedule where you play 4-5 ranked teams and some unranked teams that are still very tough outs.  Meanwhile teams like Tech and ND will coast into playoffs as overrated 1 and 2 loss teams.  

[Here for the Wins]

Too many teams, too few games, too many unbalanced schedules.  
 

This discussion has centered entirely around the number of teams.  The inequality of seedings is impactful.  Ole Miss and Oregon are getting gifts this year due to seeding.  Tech is the #4 because of their weak schedule.  Tech and Ole Miss were gifted their seeds and to a lesser degree Oregon.  OU was fortunate to get a spot yet gets a home game.  Miami played what 8 home games?  They never left home until October.  We played as many games away from home in October as they and Ole Miss did the entire season.

Also due to imbalanced schedules you have to address whether you want the best X number of teams or the x best seasons.  It’s a legitimate case that Texas and Notre Dame were top 6-ish teams at the end of the year.  They’re actually two teams that could impact things.

If you want to chase a system for playoff purposes, you have to limit the teams so you can balance the schedules.  Even within a divisional structure you’ll still have unbalanced schedules, but you have some defined structure.

[Burnt Orange Horn]

On 12/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, Bobby Burton said:

It's all about the Benjamins.

And better teams playing each other brings more eyeballs and Benjamin's for everybody.  I fully expect the Networks to lean on the NCAA to preclude next year any further major CFP Committee SNAFUS like were apparent this year.