24-team playoff nearly a reality

[AustinsTruth]

So it is now pretty much impossible for teams in the (alleged) P4 conferences that play maybe one ranked team a year to not make it. There is quite literally 0 reason to schedule any good games. Play nobody, get rewarded by being fresh for the playoffs. Rewards bad conferences over good conferences. 

Maybe we can stop pretending the Big 12 and ACC are "power" conferences. I'd say the Big 12 this year is closer to the Pac 12 or the American than they are to the SEC.

[yoyocc]

This is going to be detrimental to the sport. Conferences won't have champions, they'll become nothing but associations. Non-conference games will likely die for good because SOS will not be honored by the committee. And finally, we'll replace a meaningful CCG with a snooze fest of a game between team #9 and #24.

[Lnghrn]

Not sure why everyone is bitching.  If strength of schedule is not a factor and all the committee looks at is losses then 24 team setup is much better than current setup.  It’s a joke that schools like Tx tech and byu, who would both finish in the bottom of the sec could both get in under the current format.  Then there are the non-p4 schools that get in.  ND, who has a roster to be in playoffs, only plays one legit top team all year so they are pretty much assured to get in.  Indiana’s schedule isn’t much worse than ND.  Both Ohio State and and USC are home games for Indiana.  

[GoHorns1]

Like it. Allows the Blue Bloods regular season non conference games. The conference games care weight as to seeding getting an extra home game in CFPs. Season starts a week early and ends earlier.

[hookemrj13]

Regular season ticket prices better freakin plummet to make up for this BS

[yoyocc]

15 minutes ago, Lnghrn said:

Not sure why everyone is bitching.  If strength of schedule is not a factor and all the committee looks at is losses then 24 team setup is much better than current setup.  It’s a joke that schools like Tx tech and byu, who would both finish in the bottom of the sec could both get in under the current format.  Then there are the non-p4 schools that get in.  ND, who has a roster to be in playoffs, only plays one legit top team all year so they are pretty much assured to get in.  Indiana’s schedule isn’t much worse than ND.  Both Ohio State and and USC are home games for Indiana.  

Why would those teams willingly play a tougher schedule under the new format? Every team is only acting in their best interests and will determine they are better off playing weaker schedules because it guarantees them a spot.

[Titleist8412]

With 24 Teams, I’d rather a BCS-like system (using the combination of polls, SOS, statistics and maybe an AI component) be used to select the teams and rankings, rather than the committee. 
 

I feel like it would better protect against the Texas Tech’s and BYU’s getting ranked too highly or the Lesser 2 of the Big 4 getting too many teams in. 

[Lnghrn]

12 minutes ago, yoyocc said:

Why would those teams willingly play a tougher schedule under the new format? Every team is only acting in their best interests and will determine they are better off playing weaker schedules because it guarantees them a spot.

Better chance they do under 24 team format than current format.   What format do you suggest to get teams to play a tougher schedule?   

[lakewaybevo]

Horrible idea; there is no way that 24 different teams are qualified enough to be the national champion.

[Dallas Horns Fan]

Spoiler

Unpopular opinion, but I love it.  Playing for home field advantage will be a great incentive to stay in the top 8 or top 12.  Out of conference matchups with powerhouses will be in vogue and welcomed - makes for a lot of great early season games.  And regular season ticket prices might come down some - those first 8 home games are going to be the premium tickets going forward.   All the other sports that have added playoff rounds (extra wildcards) are flourishing b/c it keeps more fan bases engaged.  I don't disagree with the critics, but I for one think its a great idea and we will look back at the bowl seasons as a relic of the past.

 

[yoyocc]

Just now, Lnghrn said:

Better chance they do under 24 team format than current format.   What format do you suggest to get teams to play a tougher schedule?   

4 teams, winners of the conference make it in. Any extra games can be played via inner-conference playoff.

Free article

[Alex Butler]

1 hour ago, CJ Vogel said:

A 24-team College Football Playoff is close according to a report from Pete Thamel.

And the new CFP landscape would be in place for the 2027 season.

Hell yes! Let’s do it this year! 

[Alex Butler]

12 minutes ago, lakewaybevo said:

Horrible idea; there is no way that 24 different teams are qualified enough to be the national champion.

You could say the same with basketball but yet March madness is the premier tourney in sports. 

[Lnghrn]

1 hour ago, yoyocc said:

4 teams, winners of the conference make it in. Any extra games can be played via inner-conference playoff.

Free article

Yes that would help with scheduling of better non-conference games, but do you really want a playoff with the big, sec, ACC and big 12 champs?   I think you generate a lot more interesting non-conf games with a wider playoff format. There is no perfect system at the end of the day.   Personally I think a 16 team format would be best, but not a fan of a non-p4 school getting as they have no chance of winning it all.  I agree with the poster who suggested we move to a selection criteria where SOS is factored in.  

[TexasLonghorns]

Texas expectations:

4-team playoff: Make the playoffs.

12-team playoff: Year 6, just make the playoffs?

24-team playoff: Just make the playoffs?

At Texas, the expectation should be the Final Four.

[NoDakHornsFan]

Won’t be a popular take and I get why people don’t like it. That being said I’ve been around FCS football for a while. They’ve had 24 teams no conference title games as long as I’ve been close to NDSU. FBS is different level of football don’t get me wrong. I think 24 teams will actually result in better non conference games as one or 2 losses doesn’t kill you. Just my two cents.

[ArmyHorn]

Every sport goes through this over time and fans all have the same issue, concern, and complaint with expanding the post season field. Yet, every single time history has proven the opposite. The latest example was the expansion of how many teams get into a much more difficult and exclusive championship tournament...The World Cup. In fact it blew those concerns out the water. It was more watched, attended, and just as, or even more exciting. Made way more money for cities, teams, and the sport itself. 

Maybe I'm wrong but don't think so. I truly believe it will be great. Yes, just like all change. It will have sone farts doing it's journey, but us fans, conferences, etc will eat this up like always. Someone will always miss out, be left out. If I understand correctly the verbiage will include the requirement of teams including a power 4 non-conference  opponent in the schedule. Preserving the viewing enjoyment of high level, ranked vs ranked early season match-ups like we had between Texas vs Ohio State. It will be different. Change always is. The conference game will be missed to a point. Conference champions will be crowned based on their respective conference records. The money will surpass what was made in those conference championship games. More specifically for universities that host playoff games. Cities will see a much more greater return in investment from those playoff games than what was divided up amongst conference members and lets be honest. I highly doubt that money made it out very far within most universities or stakeholders that made any significant difference. 

Again, most wanted expansion. Well we are getting it. Be carefull what you wish for. Lol! Not many of us saw a 24 team playoff when we all demanded it. Lol. But inclusion has proven to be great over exclusion according to history.