This year the basketball sweet 16 included 7 SEC, 4 B1G, 4 Big 12 and 1 ACC teams. This is a great model for college football. Expand to 16 and invite the best 16 teams from these 4 conferences in similar numbers to these. The elite 8 is 4 1 seeds, 3 2 seeds and a 3. The other conferences could have a similar tourney and use the bowl games.

Seeding was horrible. Fix that and ai think it may work.

Why stop there? Just make it a 64 team playoff just like basketball.

Just do it like FCS.

Gnome Sayin said:

---

No thanks. Go back to 4

---

AMEN!

Additional Football games are so much more grueling than basketball games, and it takes up a whole extra month on the calendar. It's not fair to ask these teams to just keep playing more and more games so the playoff can make money. And just to say a team had a 'chance' to win the playoff? The 13-16 seed will never ever ever win four straight games. It needs to be 8 at most, I'd prefer going back to four.

I don't think more games is the answer because it adds the potential of injury and fatigue which isn't controllable and consistent. This outweighs the benefit of more teams which is a tactic to mitigate the percent error of incorrect seeding. If you are able to get the seeding right, you have a winning formula with less teams. How do you do that? That's the $1M question. The people that were making those decision I suggest were consistently getting it wrong. Perhaps you broaden the pole to a significantly larger sample size (popular vote) to establish the seeding? Leave it up to the population vote at large? The contra to that is have a smaller committee that is heavily vetted and truly objective college football savants? I think this is the best answer. But the population vote leaves less room for criticism of subjectivity and bias.

More games are coming. It's inevitable. Too many bowls that nobody gives a **** about anymore due to not being playoff games. They will want to stay profitable.

Going from 12 to 16 does not add any time it just removes the byes. All 4 teams with byes were 0-1 and the 9-12 seeds also were 0-1 last year. The 12 picked last year weren't the best 12 and were not well seeded.

Captain Winky said:

---

Why stop there? Just make it a 64 team playoff just like basketball.

---

And 64 isn't enough. They already added more teams, and are talking about adding more.

Perfect. We don't belong to it anyway.

16 teams, seed based on merit not conference

Typical year
4 to 6 sec teams
4 big 10
2 to 3 acc
2 big 12
2 to 4 Other conferences remaining

The "next up" playoff tweak could be a 16 team playoff, with potentially, more home games / byes. Eventually, it'll be model after the NFL. More teams, more games equals more television and also more money. That's the name of the game now. Dont understand the fans of only four teams- y'all understand, that aTm will be continually absent from Playoff Football.

It's going to Goto 16 imo very soon

No byes , first round on home campuses

All conference title games goes to home stadiums

Gnome Sayin said:

---

No thanks. Go back to 4

---

No thanks. Go back to no playoff and let the press crown the champion.

LincolnBorglum79 said:

---

Going from 12 to 16 does not add any time it just removes the byes. All 4 teams with byes were 0-1 and the 9-12 seeds also were 0-1 last year. The 12 picked last year weren't the best 12 and were not well seeded.

---

Eliminate the ccg and and it is the same number of games I would cap a conference at 4 teams because that might slow down conference expansion which I think is bad for collegiate athletics
And of course force ND to join a conference

Whether we like it or not, after this year the playoffs will be 16 teams with auto bids from the SEC and the B10. It's terrible for college football and the future of the sport. There are maybe 4 teams at most every year that can win a ring. Throwing more games in is just hurting the sport.

It's not going back to 4 ever. What if last was the top 4 seeds. All of them lost their first game. 16 or 24 with byes are the best numbers. 16 is plenty but we need the best 16 not a bunch of cinderellas. If you must include Boise and SMU then Go ahead and go to 24 with 8 byes. That's where FCS is I think. The 4 that were left out of the 16 last year were probably Alabama; Ole Miss; Miami and maybe South Carolina. All 4 could have won their first game based on who else was there.

The problem is the selection committee and solution is forcing their hand. Best 16 is fine. Not going back to the 12 with byes for conference champions when two conferences produce most of the field.

There is no objective way to produce enough FBS reliable data that effectively sorts the best X number of teams. No…the BCS with coaches with conflicts or sports gurus with non-transparent power indexes was not superior.

So what's wrong with guaranteeing 4-4-2-2-1-1 (with conditions) plus 2 at large? Notice the Group of Five, ACC, and Big 12 bids all avoid anti-trust suits which this group of knuckleheads has lost the last 5-7 of in a row…

Captain Winky said:

---

Why stop there? Just make it a 64 team playoff just like basketball.

---

That would be awesome. The regular season could be as meaningless as in college basketball and the NBA.

LincolnBorglum79 said:

---

It's not going back to 4 ever. What if last was the top 4 seeds. All of them lost their first game. 16 or 24 with byes are the best numbers. 16 is plenty but we need the best 16 not a bunch of cinderellas. If you must include Boise and SMU then Go ahead and go to 24 with 8 byes. That's where FCS is I think. The 4 that were left out of the 16 last year were probably Alabama; Ole Miss; Miami and maybe South Carolina. All 4 could have won their first game based on who else was there.

---

You don't want cinderellas but if you go to 16 you will have at least 10 cinderellas no matter what. All you are doing is adding more teams that don't belong.

Go to 16, but don't let it drag out. Let the top 4 seeds play on Saturday, and the next 4 seeds play on Sunday Then you have the 8 winning teams play on Monday, the 4 winners from those games play on Tuesday, and the championship game on Wednesday. That way, the top 4 seeds get a day off in the middle of the games as incentive.

Playoff Fix
1. Reduce to 8 teams with seeding determined after selection

2. Automatic bids for the Power 4 conference winners, but they can be seeded anywhere

3. No bye weeks or home field advantage

4. Play the quarterfinals, semifinals, and championship game at neutral sites

5. Start the playoffs on New Years Eve or New Years' Day to avoid conflict with December Saturday NFL games

6. 9-game conference schedule and one nonconference Power 4 opponent for 10 games against Power 4 opponents

The Marksman said:

---

I loved the CFP this year and think it was pretty good as is. Seeding needs a change, that's all.

---

Agreed, need to fix that.

It's going to expand to 14 or 16 in 2026 and I'm fine with that

The Marksman said:

---

I loved the CFP this year and think it was pretty good as is. Seeding needs a change, that's all.

---

You loved a bunch of boring games that were over in the 1st half?

TXAG 05 said:

---

The Marksman said:

---

I loved the CFP this year and think it was pretty good as is. Seeding needs a change, that's all.

---

You loved a bunch of boring games that were over in the 1st half?

---

As opposed to not having the game at all? Yes.

Some years the games will be boring and in some years you'll have some upsets. Teams will at least get a chance in 8, 12, or 16 formats, and allows teams in that are playing well at the end of the year like we were in 2012.

Gnome Sayin said:

---

No thanks. Go back to 4

---

No thanks. Go back to BCS

LincolnBorglum79 said:

---

This year the basketball sweet 16 included 7 SEC, 4 B1G, 4 Big 12 and 1 ACC teams. This is a great model for college football. Expand to 16 and invite the best 16 teams from these 4 conferences in similar numbers to these. The elite 8 is 4 1 seeds, 3 2 seeds and a 3. The other conferences could have a similar tourney and use the bowl games.

---

I don't watch basketball for a reason and I have no desire for football to start looking more like basketball. I understand that I am likely in the minority here, but with more post-season games this year, I probably watched less post-season football than I ever have before. Cut out the cream puff auto bids, reduce the number of games so that every team isn't on their second -string QB and third string WR by the natty game, and maybe think about just defining hard limits for entry rather than X number of teams.

Maybe something like all undefeated teams, all 1-loss teams with a weak (P4) SOS, and all two loss teams with a hard SOS (could make the requirement formulaic so a team like Florida or Oklahoma could get in last year if they lost three with those schedules). Just fill in the bracket with whoever qualifies, and let the rest of the bracket be byes as needed. That would make last years teams Oregon, Georgia, tu, Penn State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Tennessee, Indiana, and Boise State, with the last two possibly out based on how you define SOS. That seems like more than enough to me, without letting in stupid teams like SMU or Clemson or Arizona State.

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Gnome Sayin said:

---

No thanks. Go back to 4

---

No thanks. Go back to BCS

---

You mean only two teams? I'd be on board for that as well.

Gnome Sayin said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Gnome Sayin said:

---

No thanks. Go back to 4

---

No thanks. Go back to BCS

---

You mean only two teams? I'd be on board for that as well.

---

yes, the two best teams chosen by a computer without bias.

16 is fine. Watch final 4 or championship game if you don't like the earlier rounds…