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.