Quote:

---

There was no reason to have Tulane or JMU in the playoffs

---

"No reason" other than Federal antitrust laws.

What's the downside to having too many teams in the CFP?

I don't really get why people are so offended by the idea of an expanded playoff. The only argument I could see is that it makes regular season games less impactful.

Drum5343 said:

---

I don't really get why people are so offended by the idea of an expanded playoff. The only argument I could see is that it makes regular season games less impactful.

---

One of the definitions of being Conservative, is resistance to change. Some people unfortunately get anxiety about new ideas, no matter how beneficial they may be. They just find peace in old familiar ways.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

There was no reason to have Tulane or JMU in the playoffs

---

"No reason" other than Federal antitrust laws.

---

Could the Power 4 withdraw from The NCAA for football only?

TXAG 05 said:

---

njohn87 said:

---

I would rather have an exciting regular season and a small, often boring playoff than have a low-stakes regular season and a large playoff. If people disagree that's fine, but we seem to value college football for vastly different reasons.

---

This is my thought too. What always set college football aside from other sports is that the regular season was the main event, and if you had a good enough season, you got a fun bonus game. People are trying to make college football just like everything else and taking away what made it special.

---

I miss the BCS days, honestly. Playoff was fine at four teams, but the more you add the less the regular season matters.

Is the regular season just a qualifier for a postseason tournament, or is it supposed to mean more than that?

I prefer it to mean more. Ideally no one team should ever have to beat the same team twice in one season.

cavscout96 said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

cavscout96 said:

---

8

P4 champs and 4 at large; must be IN a conference to be eligible... cry more ND.

No byes


One less week of FB, but round 1 hasn't been great FB anyway the last two years.

---

Conference champions like the ACC champ this year? No thanks.

---

Over Tulane and JMU?

---

Yeah, especially considering that Tulane beat that ACC champ in their own building

ElephantRider said:

---

TXAG 05 said:

---

njohn87 said:

---

I would rather have an exciting regular season and a small, often boring playoff than have a low-stakes regular season and a large playoff. If people disagree that's fine, but we seem to value college football for vastly different reasons.

---

This is my thought too. What always set college football aside from other sports is that the regular season was the main event, and if you had a good enough season, you got a fun bonus game. People are trying to make college football just like everything else and taking away what made it special.

---

I miss the BCS days, honestly. Playoff was fine at four teams, but the more you add the less the regular season matters.

---

Under the current format, yes.

Get rid of the neutral site playoff games until the championship game, and play the playoff games at the higher seed that had the better regular season. Now it's not only a competitive advantage, but it also means millions and millions of economic impact for the home community.

Dorm 15 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

There was no reason to have Tulane or JMU in the playoffs

---

"No reason" other than Federal antitrust laws.

---

Could the Power 4 withdraw from The NCAA for football only?

---

Sure, but is there any desire for that from the "Power 4"?

SEC and Big 10 won't want to drag those other two along if (or when) that move happens.

Expansion rewards the undeserving.

What happened to JUST WIN BABY! Lose and go home!

Thanks for your response. If the Power 4 formed their own "League" I have a different suggestion for a Playoff format. First, no Conference Championship Games. Using that week the top 8 teams in each Conference would begin "The Playoffs". Year 1, the SEC would be matched with the Big 12. No. 1vs 8 and so on with the game being played at the higher seeds field. Same thing B1G vs ACC. The results leaves you with 16 teams. The 4 Conference Commissioners along with an overall Commissioner meet to seed the field. The remaining contests could be played anywhere. Year 2 , the SEC vs ACC.

Above all, get rid of the CCG's.

How about **** the Big 10? They still seem to think they are in control from a TV standpoint. I dont know where they get the idea that they can hold everybody up on a 16 team format until we all agree to an even larger expansion later. If everybody agrees on 16, just go to 16. Frankly id be happy divorcing the Big 10 altogether and just doing our own thing without them. They keep trying to dictate terms to everybody else. The Big 10 is like the conference equivalent of the sips.

Sparkie said:

---

aggiedad7 said:

---

JebediahOhio said:

---

AGREE. We should not be having ANY conversations about 3 loss teams getting in. We should even be iffy on 2 loss teams. The national champion should be whoever has proven themselves the MOST throughout the WHOLE season, not just whoever gets hot at the end. If you want to see that, watch any other sport.

---

What are you even talking about? 3 loss teams (outside of Bama losing the CCG) were excluded regardless of who they played or beat. With 16 teams ND, Vandy, and t.u. (3 top 14 wins) all get in and deserved it every bit as much as Bama. Bama was playing crap ball the last month. They certainly weren't hot.

---

spoken like a sip. tu got ***** slapped by Georgia. Lost to Florida, and had two overtime wins against terrible teams. If 16 teams mean teams like tu make the cfg, its a damn good argument to keep it at 12.

---

You're letting your anti-t.u. bias control you here.

There are plenty of good reasons to go to 16, even if 3-loss teams get in. First, you didn't refute the point of the comment you referenced: if Bama was good enough to get in, so were the other three teams in question. Bama lost to a terrible FSU team, so saying t.u. did this or that really isn't that much different.

Second, the 12-16 teams are going to have pretty difficult road tests the first round. Taking this year, AT Indiana, AT Georgia, AT Ohio State, AT tech (tech would have been better off at 5 playing a first round game in Lubbock), AT Oregon. How many of those teams lose in round 1? I say none. Over time, the 12-16s WILL eventually win some games but in those years, parity will be in play.

Besides, there is a very easy way to fix the 3-loss team issue: RESEED after every round like the NHL used to. That way, the t.u.'s of the world would have to play the supposedly best remaining team even if they do win.

JebediahOhio said:

---

Because they got hot at the end of the season. There are probably teams who weren't in the playoff who could have had a similar run, but it doesn't mean they should be in.

---

Very few teams in the country make it through A&M (away), Ohio State, Ole Miss, and have the ball with a chance to beat Indiana in the title game. It's amazing how quick we are to discredit things in this sport just because we don't like them.

I have no hate for Miami. I rooted for them in every game after they played us. I'm just saying you shouldn't be in the playoff if you have two losses to SMU and Louisville, no matter how great you can play at the tail end of the season.

Breaking from @PeteThamel: You may not agree with this detailed 24-team @bigten playoff proposal obtained by @espn and being circulated within the league. But it is well researched, taking into account more on-campus games, planning around NFL and keeping the season the same…

— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) February 13, 2026

Going to 24 really eliminates the need for a CCG because
The 1&2 team From each conference will usually be In The field of 24

I hate the CCG games as they currently are

cecil77 said:

---

Is the regular season just a qualifier for a postseason tournament, or is it supposed to mean more than that?

I prefer it to mean more. Ideally no one team should ever have to beat the same team twice in one season.

---

Better drop CCG than.

Personally I like 16 and no bye games. They're not helpful anyways.

cecil77 said:

---

Is the regular season just a qualifier for a postseason tournament, or is it supposed to mean more than that?

I prefer it to mean more. Ideally no one team should ever have to beat the same team twice in one season.

---

I agree with you. I'll put it a little differently. Expanded playoffs is nothing more than football socialism (stoled this from my 84 year old dad, who said this years ago when Texas high school football started allowing 2nd place teams in the playoffs).

AGDAD14 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Is the regular season just a qualifier for a postseason tournament, or is it supposed to mean more than that?

I prefer it to mean more. Ideally no one team should ever have to beat the same team twice in one season.

---

I agree with you. I'll put it a little differently. Expanded playoffs is nothing more than football socialism (stoled this from my 84 year old dad, who said this years ago when Texas high school football started allowing 2nd place teams in the playoffs).

---

LOL, "woke football".

So, to get away from "woke football" we just need to realign college football like the UIL pre letting more than the "District Winner" in? Will we realign every two years? That would be a fun experiment.

I prefer that we acknowledge that football is a poor tournament sport - you just can't play enough games.

Sure, works in the NFL where it's many fewer teams and all about $$$ (as is FBS as well). It works in FCS because, in general, nobody cares..

It's just not possible to "prove" who's best on the field, you can only determine who wins a particular game. It's futile. So it's just a tournament winner (not the "best") - or you do what worked for decades and make who's best (and who's champion) basically be an opinion. If it's argued about all the next year (or for the rest of time) - who cares? Oh yeah, I know who cares - everyone who gets all the money from more games being played.

Dorm 15 said:

---

Thanks for your response. If the Power 4 formed their own "League" I have a different suggestion for a Playoff format. First, no Conference Championship Games. Using that week the top 8 teams in each Conference would begin "The Playoffs". Year 1, the SEC would be matched with the Big 12. No. 1vs 8 and so on with the game being played at the higher seeds field. Same thing B1G vs ACC. The results leaves you with 16 teams. The 4 Conference Commissioners along with an overall Commissioner meet to seed the field. The remaining contests could be played anywhere. Year 2 , the SEC vs ACC.

---

I agree cecil but as you said, money matters. I know it will never happen but what about my suggestion?

cecil77 said:

---

I prefer that we acknowledge that football is a poor tournament sport - you just can't play enough games.

Sure, works in the NFL where it's many fewer teams and all about $$$ (as is FBS as well). It works in FCS because, in general, nobody cares..

It's just not possible to "prove" who's best on the field, you can only determine who wins a particular game. It's futile. So it's just a tournament winner (not the "best") - or you do what worked for decades and make who's best (and who's champion) basically be an opinion. If it's argued about all the next year (or for the rest of time) - who cares? Oh yeah, I know who cares - everyone who gets all the money from more games being played.

---

With 32 teams a largely balanced division schedule 14 of 32 played 13 games all single elimination.

One could argue 130ish teams sending 10-15% of all teams to a playoff is not an unreasonable tournament. But it's worth noting there is zero attempt to balance schedules and they have become less balanced with expansion especially in the Big Ten and SEC which discarded division competition resulting in a sole participant in the conference championship game from each division which is how the original CCG was supposed to work with originally 6-team divisions.

The argument on size of the playoff supported by reforms to shamateurism. That extends freedom of movement and two kinds of compensation to athletes based on a combination of state law changes and NCAA settlement of anti-trust violations similar to what administrators and coaches enjoy…so arguing the changes harmed the sport ignore the difference in fan engagement and Indiana winning an NC from out of the blue.

I personally think best 16 or 15+1 guaranteed Go5 team is a sensible model. The Big Ten benefits from more of its media partners showing playoff games since they have tried to emulate the NFL and NBA media partner models and frankly the only reason to expand is to safeguard the two strongest conferences from economic competition, but the fans watching always more football is the only limiting factor.

I think 96 teams in 8 twelve team conferences. One warm up game that isn't a factor. Each conference plays 11 game round robin in their conference. Eight conference champs play it off. Would need statistically based tie breakers for conf champs. Not poll, no computer.

Both of the plans above are not bad but would require balancing schedules or new conferences.

Do 96 teams and the playoffs will start October 26th.

Just play a 5 game season, then let everybody in the plsyoffs. Have a 10 week playoff.
Ha

Dorm 15 said:

---

Both of the plans above are not bad but would require balancing schedules or new conferences.

---

Why? That implies that ephemeral notion that there is some notion of "best". Nope, there's only who wins. If one 12 team conference had the "best" 12 teams in the nation on year... so what? The winner of that conference is still the best of those 12.

aggiebones said:

---

Just play a 5 game season, then let everybody in the plsyoffs. Have a 10 week playoff.
Ha

---

I like your thinking, but it should only be 135 teams. That way we can still have 9 months of debate on how to fix the system for the 1 team that was left out.

saw em off said:

---

One day, it'll be like high school where only the last place team of the conference will be left out.

---

I remember when the 5A district Temple HS was in was terrible. Harker Heights was like 2-9 and made it in.

A White House committee is suddenly taking an interest in the College Football Playoff and believes the postseason should expand to 24 teams.

This week here in Dallas, expansion discussions are expected to reignite.

“There is a coalescing around 24.”https://t.co/vuVQPXLsnb

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) April 21, 2026

At 24 if you don't make it in then you've had a pretty crappy season

Of don't mind 24 because I think there are teams that take way losses but the improve during the season and can make a run

It vs also means that unless we just suck we're going to be In The playoffs most years

I'll take that