Which is why I am not opposed to expanding the playoffs with the obvious problem that 3 loss teams will make the playoffs

If this years playoffs were 16 teams
Next two in are probably ND, tu,

ND if they played a garbage opponent ( Purdue ) instead of the Ags are likely in the 12 teams playoffs and likely ahead of A&M in the ranking
tu without the loss to OSU is also ahead of the Ags in the rankings

Personally I want more good OOC games and an expanded playoffs make the risk of playing the game worth the reward

The notion zero loss teams are more deserving isn't necessarily ttue…but there are zero meaningful metrics that are superior to winning an actual football game to become qualified for a playoff spot. So people, being lazy, overvalue zero loss teams because they can't rely on all the other measures…

agie95 said:

---

Larger playoff means more watered down playoff games.

Indiana - Oregon 56-22
Indiana - Bama 38-3
Oregon - TT 23-0
Miami - OSU 24-14
Oregon - JMU 51-34
Ole Miss - Tulane 41-10

Besides A&M / Miami game which I think both were missed seeded there were only 3 games within 10 points before the final.

Instead of expanding the playoff, lets not put in teams like JMU, Tulane, and TT. Yes TT. Change the criteria to get into the playoffs. Way too subjective today. Let teams know what they must do to get in. Take the politics and agendas out. If at least 2 of those teams are removed, tu and ND would have been in. The games would have been much more competitive.

---

They said the same thing when it was 4 teams. We've had ass kickings with 1 vs 2 as well.

sbag said:

---

They finished in the top 10 in the final AP poll (9) with FOUR LOSSES. That has never happened. But only because they're Bama. LoL

---

And Texas fans are pissed.

16 teams would be great. Get rid of the first round byes. First round games at lower seed and then the bowl games kick in.

This also encourages harder OOC schedules as a poster mentioned above.

25Lighters said:

---

16 teams would be great. Get rid of the first round byes. First round games at lower seed and then the bowl games kick in.

This also encourages harder OOC schedules as a poster mentioned above.

---

8. 8 is the number you're looking for...

Hot take: They ain't beating us next year.

Yes there were, but just by the nature of the number of teams, there weren't as many.

Alabama finished with a 10-2 regular season record and a 7-1 SEC record, which was tied with Georgia, Ole Miss, and Texas A&M for first, and their regular season losses were to 5-7 Florida State and 10-3 (6-2 SEC) Oklahoma. Alabama stunned Oklahoma 34-24 in the first round to become the first team to win a road playoff game in the 12-team CFP era before getting demolished 38-3 by Indiana in the quarterfinal. As a result, Alabama became the first-ever FBS team to finish 11-4.

I understand that Alabama won a road playoff game, but they lost 2 of their last 3 games to Georgia and Indiana by a combined score of 66-10. I think they should have been dropped to No. 11 or 12 in the final rankings.

They shouldn't have been in the playoff.

OldShadeOfBlue said:

---

agie95 said:

---

Larger playoff means more watered down playoff games.

Indiana - Oregon 56-22
Indiana - Bama 38-3
Oregon - TT 23-0
Miami - OSU 24-14
Oregon - JMU 51-34
Ole Miss - Tulane 41-10

Besides A&M / Miami game which I think both were missed seeded there were only 3 games within 10 points before the final.

Instead of expanding the playoff, let's not put in teams like JMU, Tulane, and TT. Yes TT. Change the criteria to get into the playoffs. Way too subjective today. Let teams know what they must do to get in. Take the politics and agendas out. If at least 2 of those teams are removed, tu and ND would have been in. The games would have been much more competitive.

---

They said the same thing when it was 4 teams. We've had ass kickings with 1 vs 2 as well.

---

. Because 1 vs 2 isn't always the two best teams
It's just the 2 teams that had the least amount of losses

Like notre dame in 2012

They went undefeated but everyone j we bama was going to whip them, and that there were others teams that would have whipped them as well

Expanding the playoff ensures that the actual best teams are in

Just look at Miami

It won't always be all competitive games, there will be blowouts, that's sports, but getting the best teams in makes the chances for having more blowouts go down

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

Alabama finished with a 10-2 regular season record and a 7-1 SEC record, which was tied with Georgia, Ole Miss, and Texas A&M for first regular season losses were to 5-7 Florida State and 10-3 (6-2 SEC) Oklahoma. Alabama stunned Oklahoma 34-24 in the first round to become the first team to win a road playoff game in the 12-team CFP era before getting demolished 38-3 by Indiana in the quarterfinal. As a result, Alabama became the first 11-win team to lose 4 games.

I understand that Alabama won a road playoff game, but they lost 2 of their last 3 games to Georgia and Indiana by a combined score of 66-10. I think they should have been dropped to No. 11 or 12 in the final rankings.

---

Yep

Seems like the voters don't really ding you for playoff losses

They should not have been any higher than 12.

Too Chains said:

---

Hot take: They ain't beating us next year.

---

I like you're enthusiasm

NyAggie said:

---

OldShadeOfBlue said:

---

agie95 said:

---

Larger playoff means more watered down playoff games.

Indiana - Oregon 56-22
Indiana - Bama 38-3
Oregon - TT 23-0
Miami - OSU 24-14
Oregon - JMU 51-34
Ole Miss - Tulane 41-10

Besides A&M / Miami game which I think both were missed seeded there were only 3 games within 10 points before the final.

Instead of expanding the playoff, let's not put in teams like JMU, Tulane, and TT. Yes TT. Change the criteria to get into the playoffs. Way too subjective today. Let teams know what they must do to get in. Take the politics and agendas out. If at least 2 of those teams are removed, tu and ND would have been in. The games would have been much more competitive.

---

They said the same thing when it was 4 teams. We've had ass kickings with 1 vs 2 as well.

---

. Because 1 vs 2 isn't always the two best teams
It's just the 2 teams that had the least amount of losses

Like notre dame in 2012

They went undefeated but everyone j we bama was going to whip them, and that there were others teams that would have whipped them as well

Expanding the playoff ensures that the actual best teams are in

Just look at Miami

It won't always be all competitive games, there will be blowouts, that's sports, but getting the best teams in makes the chances for having more blowouts go down

---

That's my point. Agreed

I don't think Bama should have been in the playoff, honestly. I think the threshold should be 3 losses, and I know they don't want to punish a team for losing a conference championship, but that was what they used as a data point in previous years' 4-team playoffs decision-making. So it's not like the precedent hadn't been set. I think ND in their spot would have had a better showing than Bama did against IU with their ability to run the ball.

lil_frog8 said:

---

I don't think Bama should have been in the playoff, honestly. I think the threshold should be 3 losses, and I know they don't want to punish a team for losing a conference championship, but that was what they used as a data point in previous years' 4-team playoffs decision-making. So it's not like the precedent hadn't been set. I think ND in their spot would have had a better showing than Bama did against IU with their ability to run the ball.

---

But the difference between the 4 team and 12 team is that you had to be near perfect to get into the 4 team so they needed that extra data point to separate teams

And there were still teams that lost their ccgs in the 4 team But made it in anyway: 2020 nd is one example

If teams know they will be out of the playoffs by losing their ccgs whereas otherwise they would have been in had they not even played in them, then teams will start opting out of those games or lobbying their conferences to get rid of them

TXAG 05 said:

---

One loss in the SEC champ game, and the other in the 2nd round of the playoffs, so not exactly a standard 4 loss team.

---

They didn't belong in the playoffs

The forward pass ruined football. Bring back leather helmets too.

greg.w.h said:

---

The notion zero loss teams are more deserving isn't necessarily ttue…but there are zero meaningful metrics that are superior to winning an actual football game to become qualified for a playoff spot. So people, being lazy, overvalue zero loss teams because they can't rely on all the other measures…

---

You seen Tech's schedule next year? Carroll HS could go undefeated with that schedule. At some point you should have to play someone to make the playoffs. We found out all we needed to know about Tech in the playoffs. They shouldn't get a free pass again. Play someone or go to a mid tier bowl. We play LSU, Bama, UT, OU, t.u. and other challenges like @USC. How do you compare that to Kansas, UH, KSU, etc.. Teams like Tech should have to prove they belong.

sbag said:

---

They finished in the top 10 in the final AP poll (9) with FOUR LOSSES. That has never happened. But only because they're Bama. LoL

---

Utah did it in 2022. Oh. And sips in 2018. Also Auburn in 2017.

Bama was trash this year and made the SEC look bad. I really hoped we would get them in the playoffs.

The horns claim the 1970 national championship despite losing their bowl game. College football has been goofy for a looooong time..The SEC and Big 10 need to finish expanding and then have the equivalent of NFC/AFC divisions and model the NFL playoff format. If you are not in the SEC or Big 10(looking at you Tech), you are just screwed and have nobody to blame but yourself for being too unattractive to be invited to a real conference.