I think 24 is too many. 16 will work.

But I think 12 is good

I understand the instinct to prefer 12 or 16 teams anything is better than the old 2 - 4 team setups. But the real question is: how do you treat the Power 4 championship games in a 12- or 16-team model?

Do those games count as part of the playoff or not?

Do they advantage teams or punish them?

That's the core issue I'm trying to solve.

In my proposal, the Power 4 championship games become the opening round of the playoff. That is the 13th game for those teams, and they're playing for seeding:

• Seeds 1 - 4 go to the conference champions
• Seeds 5 - 8 go to the runners-up

All eight advance to the Sweet 16. They earn that path because they survived a full Power-4 schedule and a conference championship game -- the toughest road in college football.

The other 16 teams also play their 13th game as a Wild Card round. Seeds 9 - 16 host. Winners advance to the Sweet 16.

From there:

• Game 14: Sweet 16
• Game 15: Elite Eight
• Game 16: Final Four
• Game 17: National Championship

This is not dramatically different from the current 12-team model. Today's national champion will play 16 or 17 games depending on seeding and whether they appeared in a conference title game.

Under my model, the champion plays 17 games, a difference of only one game while the competitive field expands from 12 to 24 teams, doubling the number of programs with a real postseason opportunity. Anything can happen in college football. Doesn't mean the high Seeds will ever win it all, but you can bet there will be some upsets. In my opinion, that's good for the sport.

Moreover, a 24 team playoff matters for several reasons:

• Revenue potential essentially doubles.
• Player motivation increases being in the playoff dramatically reduces opt-outs.
• Meaningful postseason football expands, while bowl games regain relevance as playoff venues.
• Conference championships regain value instead of becoming strategic disadvantages for teams that actually qualify for them.

A 12- or 16-team playoff is fine in isolation, but it doesn't address the structural issue:
Power 4 title games can punish the participants while helping teams that avoid them.

A 24-team model that integrates those championship games fixes the incentive problem, balances the bracket, and keeps the workload of the athlete essentially the same as what already exists today.

I'm not arguing for 24 teams just for size I'm arguing to fix the logic of the postseason.

If you have a preferred way to incorporate the Power 4 championships into a 12- or 16-team format without creating those incentive problems, I'd be genuinely interested to hear it.

FCS is currently 24 teams, they make it work. Top 8 have a bye the 1st week.

Doesn't this format make the CCG's ridiculously low stakes of the top 2 in each conference gets bus anyway? Ie why would you even do CCG's in this format?

clominac said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

You have to give all the conferences an auto bid.

It's not good for college football for all the good teams to be in the same conference. Incentivize talent to spread out. Make the cupcake games pre season. Play 8 conference games for seeding and then start the playoffs.

---

No, you actually don't have to hand out auto-bids like Halloween candy.

The Power 4 are the ones driving the revenue, the TV deals, and the schedules that actually matter. They're making the rules whether we like it or not.

In my model, the Power 4 champs and runners-up get the eight byes because they survived a full 13-game grind against Power-4 competition. They earned it.

The other 16 spots go to the remaining ranked teams. If a non Power 4 team is legit, they'll rank in the Top 24 and get their shot in the wild card round. Nothing stops them. But nobody (beside the Power 4 Conferences) get a free golden tickets just because their conference exists.

Oh, and if Notre Dame wants a first-round bye, they can join a Power 4 conference like everyone else.
Otherwise, they can play in the wild card round and they will have their shot. If they rank high enough, they can even host one. Seems fair to me.

If you want in, earn it on the field same standard for everybody.

---

We need to be honest and admit there's a Power 2, not 4.

jsc8116 said:

---

FCS is currently 24 teams, they make it work. Top 8 have a bye the 1st week.

---

Different animal. They don't have conference revenue differences to worry about.

Really important you understand that your solution this season would result in Duke and BYU getting a top 8 bye week and I (think?) the right to host a playoff game.

Last season, SMU, ASU and Iowa State would have all earned a top 8 bye week and right to hose a playoff game.

So yeah… your solution ain't great.

Gnome Sayin said:

---

Playoff proposal threads. Autoban. Right to jail

---

Alternatively…

ATM9000 said:

---

Really important you understand that your solution this season would result in Duke and BYU getting a top 8 bye week and I (think?) the right to host a playoff game.

Last season, SMU, ASU and Iowa State would have all earned a top 8 bye week and right to hose a playoff game.

So yeah… your solution ain't great.

---

You're correct that under my format, teams like Duke or BYU this season would land in the 7 - 8 range and receive byes. But it's important to understand why that happens and why it's not a flaw in the system.

Those seeds don't mean they're top-eight national teams. It simply reflects the fact that they finished as the runner-up in their Power 4 conference (ACC and Big 12), and in this model, the Power 4 championship games function as the first round playoff seeding. Champions get Seeds 14, runners-up get Seeds 58.
That's intentional.

Power 4 conferences determine their own qualification standards, divisions, and tiebreakers. These are their two best teams according to their own rules not mine.

And those 7/8 seeds aren't getting some huge advantage anyway. Their "reward" is a spot in the Sweet 16, where they'll almost certainly draw a SEC or Big Ten team that missed its championship game but won its Wild Card matchup.

In other words: They're probably staring down a buzzsaw in Game 14. And honestly? That's exactly what should happen.

Let the SEC or Big Ten prove their superiority on the field. If the ACC or Big 12 runner-up gets run out of the stadium, the debate ends right there. If they don't, maybe those teams deserve a little more respect than they've been getting.

Either way, it's settled on the field, not by a committee or message-board hypotheticals.

At the end of the day, 24 teams get seeded, they play each other, and the scoreboard sorts out the pretenders from the contenders. The weak get exposed quickly, and the strong advance.

That's the whole point of expanding the playoff let football decide football.

clominac said:

---

What do you have against it?

---

It doesn't align with the academic calendar, too many games and weeks of brackets...

Johnny Boyziel 2 said:

---

I think we won't stop seeing posts like this until there is a 134 team playoff.

---

Nah. 8 teams is just right.

Get average from AP poll, Coaches poll, and Commitee.

Quarters and Semis on campus.

Championship game neutral site (rotate between Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, Peach, Orange)

Bowl games for everyone else outside the top 8.

Hell let's just play an 8 game season and then seed them 1-136 and get after it. No more *****in and cryin, errbody makes the post season.

The only solution that gets all the best teams into the playoffs is to completely eliminate conferences. Schedules are completely randomized every year. G5 and P4 stay separate from each.

This will never happen. College football has too much revenue on the line to do what's actually best for the sport.

It would work if it was one loss and you're done. How awesome: every week only undefeated teams get to play. Week two you'd be down from 134 teams to 69 teams. Well it would have to be 128 teams so the math worked. Season over in 7 weeks! But st least there would be no arguments anymore.

No to byes

No to F'N polls.

No to F'N committees.


You guys are all "let's fix it by doing more stuff that screwed it up in the first place"

clominac said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Really important you understand that your solution this season would result in Duke and BYU getting a top 8 bye week and I (think?) the right to host a playoff game.

Last season, SMU, ASU and Iowa State would have all earned a top 8 bye week and right to hose a playoff game.

So yeah… your solution ain't great.

---

You're correct that under my format, teams like Duke or BYU this season would land in the 7 - 8 range and receive byes. But it's important to understand why that happens and why it's not a flaw in the system.

Those seeds don't mean they're top-eight national teams. It simply reflects the fact that they finished as the runner-up in their Power 4 conference (ACC and Big 12), and in this model, the Power 4 championship games function as the first round playoff seeding. Champions get Seeds 14, runners-up get Seeds 58.
That's intentional.

Power 4 conferences determine their own qualification standards, divisions, and tiebreakers. These are their two best teams according to their own rules not mine.

And those 7/8 seeds aren't getting some huge advantage anyway. Their "reward" is a spot in the Sweet 16, where they'll almost certainly draw a SEC or Big Ten team that missed its championship game but won its Wild Card matchup.

In other words: They're probably staring down a buzzsaw in Game 14. And honestly? That's exactly what should happen.

Let the SEC or Big Ten prove their superiority on the field. If the ACC or Big 12 runner-up gets run out of the stadium, the debate ends right there. If they don't, maybe those teams deserve a little more respect than they've been getting.

Either way, it's settled on the field, not by a committee or message-board hypotheticals.

At the end of the day, 24 teams get seeded, they play each other, and the scoreboard sorts out the pretenders from the contenders. The weak get exposed quickly, and the strong advance.

That's the whole point of expanding the playoff let football decide football.

---

Oh I understand it. It's just silly.

If I took this season alone as an example. Let's assume the Power 4 10 games clause holds for all of the top 8 teams.

Duke has 7 wins, the Aggies have 11 walking in to the Conference Championship week (as was the case this season). Instead of winning, Duke gets boat raced by Virginia and ends up at 8. Meanwhile, the Aggies that week had to beat somebody like Michigan for their 12th win of the season at Kyle Field.

So at this point, Duke has 60% of the number of wins the Ags do. But… they HOST us in Durham because they 'earned it'?

If you think the system is broken meltdown is bad on Texags now, you have no idea how bad it would be in this scenario.

All your system does is create way more randomness and opens the door to more rubbish teams and games in the playoff.

clominac said:

---

Howdy Ags,
Here's a playoff structure I've been thinking about one that respects strength of schedule, doesn't penalize teams for playing in elite conferences, and still opens the door for everyone with a legitimate claim.


The Core Format:

• Top 24 teams get into the playoff
• Rankings based on a composite average of the AP and Coaches Polls (50/50 weighting)
• The Top 8 seeds are made up of the winners and runners-up from the Power 4 conference championship games (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC) but only if they played at least 10 Power 4 opponents out of their 12 regular season games
• These 8 teams earn first-round byes
• Seeds 9 - 24 play a wildcard round at campus sites
• The 8 winners from the wildcard round then face the 8 bye teams in a seeded Sweet 16

Game Count Fairness:

• Regular season = 12 games
• Wildcard teams play Game 13 in Round 1
• Power 4 finalists play Game 13 in their Conference Championship
• When the Sweet 16 begins, everyone has played 13 games clean and fair.

Draft Playoff Timeline
Here's how it could line up with the current college football calendar:

Week Event
Week 14 (early Dec) Power 4 Conference Championship Games + Wildcard Round (Seeds 924)
Week 15 (mid-Dec) Sweet 16 Bye teams join bracket
Week 16 (late Dec) Elite 8 / Quarterfinals
Week 17 (early Jan) Semifinals (neutral site)
Week 18 (mid-Jan) National Championship

Key Points:

• First-round and Sweet 16 games are on-campus.
• Neutral sites kick in for quarter finals, semis and finals (Rose, Sugar, Orange, etc.)

Merits of This Format:

• Respects tough schedules: Power 4 Teams playing 10+ Power opponents and reaching their title game earn a rest and are not pushed for playing in their Conference Championship game
• Wildcards fight their way in: G5 teams, independents, and strong third-place teams still have a path
• Conference title games matter again: Win or even reach the final and it means something
• Keeps regular season meaningful: Still only 12 games before playoffs
• No fake parity: Doesn't treat 13 - 0 Liberty the same as 10 - 2 Alabama

Curious to hear what others think. Feels like something close to this is inevitable may as well make it make sense.

---

I posed something similar on another thread without having read this. Only things I would change would be the bowls would be used for neutral site non-conference games at the BEGINNING of the season, I would reduce the season down to 11 regular season games to accommodate the expanded P4 24-team playoff, and lastly, I would have a 6-team or 8-team playoff for the G6 leagues. These things would combat players opting out, and the TV inventory would be filled, replacing the bowl games.

ATM9000 said:

---

Oh I understand it. It's just silly.

If I took this season alone as an example. Let's assume the Power 4 10 games clause holds for all of the top 8 teams.

Duke has 7 wins, the Aggies have 11 walking in to the Conference Championship week (as was the case this season). Instead of winning, Duke gets boat raced by Virginia and ends up at 8. Meanwhile, the Aggies that week had to beat somebody like Michigan for their 12th win of the season at Kyle Field.

So at this point, Duke has 60% of the number of wins the Ags do. But… they HOST us in Durham because they 'earned it'?

If you think the system is broken meltdown is bad on Texags now, you have no idea how bad it would be in this scenario.

All your system does is create way more randomness and opens the door to more rubbish teams and games in the playoff.

---

Understand the comment but the scenario you described (like Duke hosting) is easy to resolve: simply have bowls host the Sweet 16 games.

Here's how the system would work and how the bracket would look this season using the final CFP rankings. Sometimes an example explains the concept better than theory.


CFP Seeds 1 8 (Power 4 Champions + Runners-Up)

As discussed, this year the following teams would get byes into the Sweet 16 because they played in their respective Power 4 Championship Games Game 13, the first round of the playoff.

1. Indiana (Big Ten Champion)
2. Georgia (SEC Champion)
3. Texas Tech (Big 12 Champion)
4. Duke (ACC Champion)
5. Ohio State (Big Ten Runner-Up)
6. Alabama (SEC Runner-Up)
7. BYU (Big 12 Runner-Up)
8. Virginia (ACC Runner-Up)

NONE of these teams host games.
ALL Sweet 16 games are bowl-hosted.
So Duke never hosts anybody.


CFP Seeds 9 24 (Wild Card Field)

9 Oregon
10 Ole Miss
11 Texas A&M
12 Oklahoma
13 Miami
14 Notre Dame
15 Texas
16 Vanderbilt
17 Utah
18 USC
19 Arizona
20 Michigan
21 Tulane
22 Houston
23 Georgia Tech
24 Iowa

Game 13 Wild Card Round (Hosted by Higher Seed)

24 Iowa at 9 Oregon
23 Georgia Tech at 10 Ole Miss
22 Houston at 11 Texas A&M
21 Tulane at 12 Oklahoma
20 Michigan at 13 Miami
19 Arizona at 14 Notre Dame
18 USC at 15 Texas
17 Utah at 16 Vanderbilt

The 8 winners advance to the bowl-hosted Sweet 16.
Note: Five SEC schools would host Wild Card games.

Game 14: Sweet 16 (All Neutral-Site Bowls)

1. Indiana vs winner of Utah/Vanderbilt
2. Georgia vs winner of USC/Texas
3. Texas Tech vs winner of Arizona/Notre Dame
4. Duke vs winner of Michigan/Miami
5. Ohio State vs winner of Tulane/Oklahoma
6. Alabama vs winner of Houston/Texas A&M
7. BYU vs winner of Georgia Tech/Ole Miss
8. Virginia vs winner of Iowa/Oregon

THIS is why the model works the Sweet 16 becomes the best weekend in college football every year.

All bowl-hosted:
Game 15: Elite Eight
Game 16: Final Four
Game 17: National Championship

Everyone entering the Sweet 16 has played 13 games fair, balanced, and consistent.

CFP Conference Breakdown under this concept (Real 2025 Data)

SEC 7
Big Ten 6
Big 12 5
ACC 4
AAC 1
Independent 1

This is a true national postseason not eight teams from two leagues.

gA_CMAB_FA said:

---

Johnny Boyziel 2 said:

---

I think we won't stop seeing posts like this until there is a 134 team playoff.

---

Nah. 8 teams is just right.

Get average from AP poll, Coaches poll, and Commitee.

Quarters and Semis on campus.

Championship game neutral site (rotate between Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, Peach, Orange)

Bowl games for everyone else outside the top 8.

---

We play in the SEC.

If we lost two games in the regular season like Vanderbilt did this year do you honestly think A&M would have made the 12 Team playoff this year? I don't.

We went 11 - 1 and still landed at #7

Fact of Life -- it is extremely difficult to go undefeated in the SEC, and two losses can jeopardize your season in a small playoff format.

That's exactly why a 24-team CFP makes dramatically more sense for SEC teams than an 8- or 12-team bracket.

Under the 24-team model, A&M would make the playoff easily with 2 and even 3 losses.

Under a 24-team CFP, how many teams with 05 losses would have made the playoff this season?

0-loss teams (1)

• Indiana (130) Big Ten Champion

1-loss teams (6)

• Georgia (121) SEC Champion
• Texas Tech (121) Big 12 Champion
• Ohio State (121) Big Ten Runner-Up
• Oregon (111)
• Ole Miss (111)
• Texas A&M (111)

2-loss teams (7)

• BYU (112) Big 12 Runner-Up
• Oklahoma (102)
• Miami (102)
• Notre Dame (102)
• Vanderbilt (102)
• Utah (102)
• Tulane (112)

3-loss teams (8)

• Alabama (103) SEC Runner-Up
• Virginia (103) ACC Runner-Up
• Texas (93)
• USC (93)
• Arizona (93)
• Michigan (93)
• Houston (93)
• Georgia Tech (93)

4-loss teams (1)

• Iowa (84)

5-loss teams (1 Conference Champion)

• Duke (85) ACC Champion

Look at those numbers:

• 14 teams have 10+ wins
• 9 teams with 3 losses make the field as they should, given their schedules
• The lone 5-loss team is a conference champion, which is exactly why the championship games must matter

This is exactly why a 24-team format is superior:

• It protects SEC teams who play the toughest schedules this may be Texas A&M next year!
• It rewards teams for playing and beating good opponents
• It allows elite but battle-tested programs to survive a loss or two
• It keeps conference championships meaningful
• And it creates a playoff that reflects the real world of modern college football

An 8- or 12-team field simply cannot do that.

Ok. But then you are back in a place of why fart around with conference championships? There's very little skin in the game to put much effort in to them if you end the season top 8. Even if you want to argue the seedlings in the top 8 are a huge deal and the conference championships matter a lot, people are still going to declare it probably more broken than now when 7-win Duke effectively can lose twice and not be eliminated from contention while a boat load of 11 win teams have to go take care of business and get win 12 to be in the same spot.

Again… just added randomness to the process and more crap teams in the playoff.

NO! 12 is already too many!

No, if we would have lost 2 sec games this year I think we should have been on the bubble.

Sgt. Schultz said:

---

I posed something similar on another thread without having read this. Only things I would change would be the bowls would be used for neutral site non-conference games at the BEGINNING of the season, I would reduce the season down to 11 regular season games to accommodate the expanded P4 24-team playoff, and lastly, I would have a 6-team or 8-team playoff for the G6 leagues. These things would combat players opting out, and the TV inventory would be filled, replacing the bowl games.

---

I could get behind an 11-game regular season if it helps pave the way for a 24-team CFP. How would you handle scheduling in that setup? Would you eliminate the single Power 4 non-conference game and stick with 9 SEC games and two cupcakes, or keep a meaningful crossover game on the schedule? Genuinely curious how you'd frame it.

8, 12, 24...doesn't matter. It all blows up whenever ND is on the bubble.

Tired of these rookies reciting talking points who know nothing about college ball..

ATM9000 said:

---

Ok. But then you are back in a place of why fart around with conference championships? There's very little skin in the game to put much effort in to them if you end the season top 8. Even if you want to argue the seedlings in the top 8 are a huge deal and the conference championships matter a lot, people are still going to declare it probably more broken than now when 7-win Duke effectively can lose twice and not be eliminated from contention while a boat load of 11 win teams have to go take care of business and get win 12 to be in the same spot.

Again… just added randomness to the process and more crap teams in the playoff.

---

1. "Why fart around with conference championships?"

Because conference championships are the only objective way to guarantee meaningful postseason entry without relying on human bias, preseason branding, or TV-driven narratives.

This isn't controversial it's standard practice:

• NFL: Division winners get playoff advantages even with weaker records.
• NCAA Basketball: Every conference champion goes to the NCAA Tournament, regardless of record.
• MLB: Division winners get home-field advantages over better-record Wild Cards.

Why? Because tournaments reward winning your league, not winning beauty contests.

You may prefer a pure ranking invitational. But that's not a playoff that's a committee-selected showcase. My format restores the value of winning your conference, which is exactly how real playoff systems operate.

2. "There's very little skin in the game if you end the season top 8."

This is factually incorrect.

Under this model, the only way to finish in the top 8 seeding is to make your conference championship game. You must win enough in your league to finish top two, and then you must play a 13th game against elite competition. The "skin in the game" is enormous:

• You risk injuries.
• You risk your seeding.
• You risk running into a buzzsaw opponent.

Unlike the current CFP, where teams can literally sit at home during Championship Weekend and move up in the rankings without playing, every Power 4 contender must earn their way into the top eight on the field.

That's more skin in the game not less.

3. "People will complain that 7-win Duke can lose twice and still not be eliminated."

Only because Duke won its conference. You're treating conference championships as meaningless, but that's a philosophical stance, not a structural flaw. Again, every professional playoff system rewards league winners regardless of record. If Duke is "bad"? Great they'll get exposed immediately by a Wild Card winner in the Sweet 16. That's not randomness. That's accountability.

And unlike basketball or baseball, where weak champs sometimes make deep runs, football is far less forgiving. If Duke doesn't belong, the scoreboard settles it in one weekend.

4. "A bunch of 11-win teams have to play an extra game."

Correct because they did not win their conference. This is exactly how tournament brackets function everywhere else:

• NFL Wild Cards often have better records than division winners but must play on the road.
• NCAA basketball at-large teams often have better rsums than auto-bids but must play tougher seeds.

You're arguing against the entire concept of structured competition not against my format. If your position is that only record should matter and conference results should not, then your issue isn't with the model. It's with the existence of conferences.

5. "This adds randomness and crap teams."

Nothing added here is random. The field includes:

• All Power 4 champs and runners-up (objectively earned)
• All ranked teams 924 (objective ranking-based)
• No losing teams
• No sub-.500 teams
• No unranked at-large filler

Compared to March Madness, MLB, NFL, NHL? This playoff is actually cleaner and more selective.

The weakest team in the entire field is Duke a conference champion. If someone wants to argue conference champions shouldn't be rewarded, then say that outright. But that's not how playoffs are designed anywhere in sports. And again: Duke wouldn't host anybody, and they'd likely get bounced immediately. The format corrects itself.

Bottom line -- your objections aren't actually problems with the model they're philosophical disagreements about whether:

• conference championships should matter,
• tournaments should reward champions, and
• structure should override subjective ranking debates.

If someone believes conference titles shouldn't mean anything and only "the 24 best teams by rsum" should get in, that's a different playoff concept entirely it's not a flaw in this one.

My format uses the same foundational principles that govern every major playoff in sports: win your league, and you earn an advantage; fall short, and earn your way through the bracket. That's not randomness. That's competition.

NormanEH said:

---

4 was plenty

Diluting the pool is for money

Stop falling for it

---

Ive not yet seen a season where more than 5 teams have a legitimate claim to be settle on the field.

I don't like saying it, but this year a MNC would probably be sufficient: Indiana v Georgia. Tceh, A&M, & Ole Miss would all have legitimate gripes about being left out, but beyond that everyone else has lost to a finalist or has multiple losses.

aggiehawg said:

---

Tired of these rookies reciting talking points who know nothing about college ball..

---

Its almost like there's a concerted effort afoot to astroturf a windfall for Disney's ESPN… but they'd never use gorilla marketing! Never!

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Tired of these rookies reciting talking points who know nothing about college ball..

---

Its almost like there's a concerted effort afoot to astroturf a windfall for Disney's ESPN… but they'd never use gorilla marketing! Never!

---

Yeah. Dumb new posters are not unique to the Zoo.

clominac said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Ok. But then you are back in a place of why fart around with conference championships? There's very little skin in the game to put much effort in to them if you end the season top 8. Even if you want to argue the seedlings in the top 8 are a huge deal and the conference championships matter a lot, people are still going to declare it probably more broken than now when 7-win Duke effectively can lose twice and not be eliminated from contention while a boat load of 11 win teams have to go take care of business and get win 12 to be in the same spot.

Again… just added randomness to the process and more crap teams in the playoff.

---

1. "Why fart around with conference championships?"

Because conference championships are the only objective way to guarantee meaningful postseason entry without relying on human bias, preseason branding, or TV-driven narratives.

This isn't controversial it's standard practice:

• NFL: Division winners get playoff advantages even with weaker records.
• NCAA Basketball: Every conference champion goes to the NCAA Tournament, regardless of record.
• MLB: Division winners get home-field advantages over better-record Wild Cards.

Why? Because tournaments reward winning your league, not winning beauty contests.

You may prefer a pure ranking invitational. But that's not a playoff that's a committee-selected showcase. My format restores the value of winning your conference, which is exactly how real playoff systems operate.

2. "There's very little skin in the game if you end the season top 8."

This is factually incorrect.

Under this model, the only way to finish in the top 8 seeding is to make your conference championship game. You must win enough in your league to finish top two, and then you must play a 13th game against elite competition. The "skin in the game" is enormous:

• You risk injuries.
• You risk your seeding.
• You risk running into a buzzsaw opponent.

Unlike the current CFP, where teams can literally sit at home during Championship Weekend and move up in the rankings without playing, every Power 4 contender must earn their way into the top eight on the field.

That's more skin in the game not less.

3. "People will complain that 7-win Duke can lose twice and still not be eliminated."

Only because Duke won its conference. You're treating conference championships as meaningless, but that's a philosophical stance, not a structural flaw. Again, every professional playoff system rewards league winners regardless of record. If Duke is "bad"? Great they'll get exposed immediately by a Wild Card winner in the Sweet 16. That's not randomness. That's accountability.

And unlike basketball or baseball, where weak champs sometimes make deep runs, football is far less forgiving. If Duke doesn't belong, the scoreboard settles it in one weekend.

4. "A bunch of 11-win teams have to play an extra game."

Correct because they did not win their conference. This is exactly how tournament brackets function everywhere else:

• NFL Wild Cards often have better records than division winners but must play on the road.
• NCAA basketball at-large teams often have better rsums than auto-bids but must play tougher seeds.

You're arguing against the entire concept of structured competition not against my format. If your position is that only record should matter and conference results should not, then your issue isn't with the model. It's with the existence of conferences.

5. "This adds randomness and crap teams."

Nothing added here is random. The field includes:

• All Power 4 champs and runners-up (objectively earned)
• All ranked teams 924 (objective ranking-based)
• No losing teams
• No sub-.500 teams
• No unranked at-large filler

Compared to March Madness, MLB, NFL, NHL? This playoff is actually cleaner and more selective.

The weakest team in the entire field is Duke a conference champion. If someone wants to argue conference champions shouldn't be rewarded, then say that outright. But that's not how playoffs are designed anywhere in sports. And again: Duke wouldn't host anybody, and they'd likely get bounced immediately. The format corrects itself.

Bottom line -- your objections aren't actually problems with the model they're philosophical disagreements about whether:

• conference championships should matter,
• tournaments should reward champions, and
• structure should override subjective ranking debates.

If someone believes conference titles shouldn't mean anything and only "the 24 best teams by rsum" should get in, that's a different playoff concept entirely it's not a flaw in this one.

My format uses the same foundational principles that govern every major playoff in sports: win your league, and you earn an advantage; fall short, and earn your way through the bracket. That's not randomness. That's competition.

---

so much to say but I'll leave it with this: your entire base premise is a 50/50 average of the AP and Coach's Poll. Those are an average of a bunch of people's SUBJECTIVE opinions on how good teams are. They are no more or less objective than the committee and still drip of preseason bias. So most of your field continues to be seeded and selected subjectively

My objection has nothing to do with tournaments 'rewarding champions'. Quite the contrary. In fact if you read what I've written, my biggest objection is that the loser in a conference championships matter still gets auto-bid in to the top 8 seeds. That's just nonsense.

Initial 1-12 seeds chosen half by data/computers and half by committee for eye test made up of actual qualified unbiased people (ie remove the university ADs or Presidents).

Play in round of 8 teams which are made up of a separate seeding system of seeds 13 through 20. Again, 4 by data and 4 by humans. 13 v 20, 14 v 19 etc..at the 4 highest paying non premium bowl games (makes bowls happy , eliminates opt outs). Eliminate the G5 requirement.

Now you've got your16 team playoff. 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15 etc, at home campuses (no byes, basically everyone in the 12 got byes anyway). Round 2 also at home campuses. Huge for local economies , great reward for those schools. Semis and final rotate between 3 premium bowl games.


So this year the play in games woulda been

Tulane (20) vs Texas (13)
Virginia (19) vs Vandy (14)
Michigan (18) vs Utah (15)
Arizona (17) vs USC (16)

This likely leaves a 16 team cfp bracket of

USC at Indiana
Utah at Ohio St
Vandy at Georgia
Texas at Texas Tech
BYU at Oregon
Notre Dame at Ol Miss
Miami at Texas A&M
Alabama at OU

24 is the right number. OP is correct. People who think we should go back to 8 or 4 should be forced to watch the pinstripe bowl on a loop for a year.