Author
Topic: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond
(Read 6051 times)

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #14 on:** May 30, 2025, 12:16:41 PM »

1997 16-team playoff:
16 Arizona State @ 1 Michigan
9 Ohio State @ 8 Washington State
12 Georgia @ 5 UCLA
13 Auburn @ 4 Florida State
11 Penn State @ 6 Florida
14 Syracuse @ 3 Tennessee
10 Kansas State @ 7 North Carolina
15 LSU @ 2 Nebraska
.
You could have UM-OSU in the 2nd round
No split NC
Manning automatically loses to Florida in 2nd round
Great LSU running game vs shutdown UNL D
Final score of KSU @ UNC would be 3-2

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #15 on:** May 30, 2025, 12:32:01 PM »

FWIW:
I'm completely in agreement with the general feeling here against the expanded CFP. I was against expanding from two (BCS) to four (2014-2023 CFP). I KNEW they would expand from there but I hoped that they would stop at eight. I think eight would have been plenty. When they went to 12, I assumed that 16 was inevitable.

A long time ago @ELA mentioned playing backyard FB as a kid in Michigan and everyone running inside to watch a game because Ohio State was down late to Indiana (IIRC). That is one of the things that I always LOVED about CFB. Every game had a "playoff" level intensity to it because any random loss could quash your NC dreams.

We all remember tuning in to a game because a highly ranked team was on the ropes. We watched because if Texas lost to TxTech or if Bama lost to Vandy or if Ohio State lost to Indiana or if Michigan lost to Minnesota it was a BIG DEAL. Now, who cares.

When Ohio State lost to Michigan in 2024 it sucked but I also immediately thought "well, they have four games to make up for it" and THEY DID. That is great, but it also takes a lot of the intensity away from that Michigan game because a loss isn't THE END, it is just a loss in that game.

When I reviewed how the 16 team proposal would have worked out for the 2024 season I noticed something:

Ohio State went into The Game in 2024 at 10-1 and #2. With the loss they still made the CFP and even hosted a first round game. In a 16 team model with 3rd and 4th place games in the B1G and SEC Ohio State might have made the playoff even if they had lost to Michigan AND lost the 4th place game to IA/IL. The contenders for the last CFP at-large spot would have been 10-2 BYU, the losers of the SEC 3rd and 4th place games (both 9-4) and 10-3 Ohio State.

ELA · « **Reply #16 on:** May 30, 2025, 01:00:23 PM »

I think the ship has sailed on what the regular season was. So I'd keep it at 12, with the 4 best conference champs getting byes. I cared more about Championship Saturday as a whole than I have in YEARS.

Where I would change that, is that it doesn't also make you the top 4 seeds. I would reseed after each round.

So the quarters would instead have been...

#1 Oregon vs. #12 Arizona State
#2 Georgia vs. #11 Boise State
#3 Texas vs. #6 Ohio State
#4 Penn State vs. #5 Alabama

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #17 on:** May 30, 2025, 01:19:47 PM »

Quote from: ELA on May 30, 2025, 01:00:23 PM

I think the ship has sailed on what the regular season was.

Yeah, but I still miss it. Even with the four-team CFP in 2022 it was weird losing to Michigan and then going to the playoff to play for a NC. Also note that Ohio State was REALLY close to the NC that year.

Quote from: ELA on May 30, 2025, 01:00:23 PM

Where I would change that, is that it doesn't also make you the top 4 seeds. I would reseed after each round.

So the quarters would instead have been...

#1 Oregon vs. #12 Arizona State
#2 Georgia vs. #11 Boise State
#3 Texas vs. #6 Ohio State
#4 Penn State vs. #5 Alabama

I agree that reseeding after the first round was a change that should have been made but where did Bama and ASU come from? Maybe I'm missing something. I have it as:

#1 Oregon
#2 Georgia
#3 Texas (beat #12 ASU in first round)
#4 Penn State (beat #10 SMU in first round)
#5 Notre Dame (beat #8 IU in first round)
#6 Ohio State (beat #7 TN in first round)
#9 Boise
#16 Clemson

So the quarter-finals would be:

#1 Oregon vs #16 Clemson
#2 Georgia vs #9 Boise
#3 Texas vs #6 Ohio State
#4 Penn State vs #5 Notre Dame

I get that most people didn't expect Ohio State to be THAT good in the playoffs but everyone knew that they were better than (at least) Boise and Clemson and it was unfair to #1 seed Oregon that they had to play Ohio State rather than getting the easier game that they earned against Boise or Clemson.

ELA · « **Reply #18 on:** May 30, 2025, 02:12:15 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on May 30, 2025, 01:19:47 PM

Yeah, but I still miss it. Even with the four-team CFP in 2022 it was weird losing to Michigan and then going to the playoff to play for a NC. Also note that Ohio State was REALLY close to the NC that year. I agree that reseeding after the first round was a change that should have been made but where did Bama and ASU come from? Maybe I'm missing something. I have it as:
#1 Oregon
#2 Georgia
#3 Texas (beat #12 ASU in first round)
#4 Penn State (beat #10 SMU in first round)
#5 Notre Dame (beat #8 IU in first round)
#6 Ohio State (beat #7 TN in first round)
#9 Boise
#16 Clemson
So the quarter-finals would be:
#1 Oregon vs #16 Clemson
#2 Georgia vs #9 Boise
#3 Texas vs #6 Ohio State
#4 Penn State vs #5 Notre Dame

I get that most people didn't expect Ohio State to be THAT good in the playoffs but everyone knew that they were better than (at least) Boise and Clemson and it was unfair to #1 seed Oregon that they had to play Ohio State rather than getting the easier game that they earned against Boise or Clemson.

Alabama was a typo. Meant to say Notre Dame.

But Arizona State is correct. They got a bye. Clemson lost to Texas.

So

#1 Oregon vs. #12 Arizona State
#2 Georgia vs. #11 Boise State
#3 Texas vs. #6 Ohio State
#4 Penn State vs. #5 Notre Dame

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #19 on:** May 30, 2025, 03:09:53 PM »

Quote from: ELA on May 30, 2025, 02:12:15 PM

Alabama was a typo. Meant to say Notre Dame.

But Arizona State is correct. They got a bye. Clemson lost to Texas.

So

#1 Oregon vs. #12 Arizona State
#2 Georgia vs. #11 Boise State
#3 Texas vs. #6 Ohio State
#4 Penn State vs. #5 Notre Dame

Oh right. I had Texas' first two CFP opponents flipped in my head.

This would have been much more fair to Oregon and Georgia than forcing them to open up with tOSU and Notre Dame.

My best guess (using actual results for games that were actually played):
Quarter-Finals:

Oregon over ASU - a B1G vs B12 game that feels a lot like a Pac10 game.
Georgia over Boise
Ohio State over Texas (actually happened one round later)
Notre Dame over Penn State (actually happened one round later)

Semi-Finals:

Oregon over Notre Dame
Ohio State over Georgia

Championship:

Ohio State over Oregon (actually happened two rounds earlier)

ELA · « **Reply #20 on:** May 30, 2025, 03:26:48 PM »

I say you keep reseeding every round.

So you'd get Oregon-OSU and Georgia-Notre Dame

Then you'd wind up with the same NC

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #21 on:** May 30, 2025, 03:46:40 PM »

If they replaced CCGs with the 4th vs 5th nonsense, I'm done. I've often talked about the sliding scale of competition vs entertainment, and with that, it would be all the way over to the entertainment side.

Every expansion of a playoff lowers the % chance of the actual best team winning the championship. That's simple math. It doesn't matter if the actual best team is ranked 1st or 6th or whatever, the more rounds there are, the less often the best team wins it.

Just start the season with a quadruple-elimination bracket and fuck it all.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #22 on:** May 30, 2025, 03:48:58 PM »

Quote from: ELA on May 30, 2025, 03:26:48 PM

I say you keep reseeding every round.

So you'd get Oregon-OSU and Georgia-Notre Dame

Then you'd wind up with the same NC

I'm not altogether opposed to reseeding each round but I think you reach a point of diminishing returns.

Keeping the known results, reseeding the Quarter-Finals makes the following changes:

#1 Oregon gets ASU instead of tOSU. This is a HUGE difference that takes Oregon from an underdog to a HUGE favorite.
#2 Georgia gets Boise State instead of Notre Dame. This is a HUGE difference that takes UGA from a slight favorite (in a game they lost) to a HUGE favorite.
#3 Texas gets tOSU instead of ASU. This is a HUGE difference that takes Texas from a HUGE favorite in a game that they won to an underdog in a game that they lost.
#4 Penn State gets ND instead of Boise. This is a HUGE difference that takes PSU from a HUGE favorite in a game that they won to a likely underdog in a game that they lost.

In the semi-finals the differences are much less significant because all the remaining teams are pretty freaking good:

#1 Oregon gets tOSU instead of ND. This is actually bad for Oregon.
#2 Georgia gets ND instead of tOSU. This probably benefits UGA but they lost this game anyway.

ELA · « **Reply #23 on:** May 30, 2025, 04:10:06 PM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on May 30, 2025, 03:46:40 PM

If they replaced CCGs with the 4th vs 5th nonsense, I'm done. I've often talked about the sliding scale of competition vs entertainment, and with that, it would be all the way over to the entertainment side.

Every expansion of a playoff lowers the % chance of the actual best team winning the championship. That's simple math. It doesn't matter if the actual best team is ranked 1st or 6th or whatever, the more rounds there are, the less often the best team wins it.

Just start the season with a quadruple-elimination bracket and fuck it all.

I simulated out once where you just played a regular season against your division, and if necessary one crossover, so a 6 game regular season. Then went right into a double elimination bracket, with weighted seeding based on division strength. So even the bottom team in the Big Ten East or SEC West is still a top 50ish team. I actually loved it. Everyone plays 8 games, 96 teams play 9. But every game "matters". You open with conference games. Then the best teams play a couple of cupcakes in the middle. But even those 0-1 vs. 0-1 games, that are currently a shitty Tuesday night meaningless game, at least is for something now

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #24 on:** May 30, 2025, 06:07:21 PM »

Quote from: ELA on May 30, 2025, 04:10:06 PM

I simulated out once where you just played a regular season against your division, and if necessary one crossover, so a 6 game regular season. Then went right into a double elimination bracket, with weighted seeding based on division strength. So even the bottom team in the Big Ten East or SEC West is still a top 50ish team. I actually loved it. Everyone plays 8 games, 96 teams play 9. But every game "matters". You open with conference games. Then the best teams play a couple of cupcakes in the middle. But even those 0-1 vs. 0-1 games, that are currently a shitty Tuesday night meaningless game, at least is for something now

Honestly this would be better.

With double-elimination it isn't win or go home intense but a loss to a middling team REALLY hurts your chances because it leaves you with zero margin for error.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #25 on:** June 02, 2025, 10:46:54 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on May 30, 2025, 03:46:40 PM

If they replaced CCGs with the 4th vs 5th nonsense, I'm done. I've often talked about the sliding scale of competition vs entertainment, and with that, it would be all the way over to the entertainment side.

I actually kinda like this from a schedule-balancing perspective. On CCG weekend every team gets an opponent close to them in the standings. The final standings for the B1G for 2024 were:

9-0/12-0 Oregon
8-1/11-1 Penn State
8-1/11-1 Indiana
7-2/10-2 Ohio State
6-3/9-3 Illinois
6-3/8-4 Iowa
5-4/7-5 Michigan
5-4/7-5 Minnesota
4-5/6-6 USC
4-5/7-5 Rutgers
4-5/6-6 Washington
3-6/5-7 UCLA
3-6/6-6 Nebraska
3-6/5-7 Michigan State
3-6/5-7 Wisconsin
2-7/4-8 Northwestern
1-8/4-8 Maryland
0-9/1-11 Purdue

So the games are:

Ore/PSU, B1GCG
IU/tOSU: Played in regular season, tOSU won
IL/IA: Not played in regular season
M/MN: Played in regular season, M won
etc

Every team gets what should be a relatively evenly-matched game.

bayareabadger · « **Reply #26 on:** June 02, 2025, 11:07:48 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on May 30, 2025, 03:46:40 PM

If they replaced CCGs with the 4th vs 5th nonsense, I'm done. I've often talked about the sliding scale of competition vs entertainment, and with that, it would be all the way over to the entertainment side.

Every expansion of a playoff lowers the % chance of the actual best team winning the championship. That's simple math. It doesn't matter if the actual best team is ranked 1st or 6th or whatever, the more rounds there are, the less often the best team wins it.

Just start the season with a quadruple-elimination bracket and fuck it all.

This also feels confusing with that large bids.

if you qualify play-in, do you not qualify for the at-large spots? And if you qualify for both, doesn’t that mean the higher seed isn’t playing for a spot?

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #27 on:** June 02, 2025, 12:52:11 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on June 02, 2025, 10:46:54 AM

I actually kinda like this from a schedule-balancing perspective. On CCG weekend every team gets an opponent close to them in the standings. The final standings for the B1G for 2024 were:
9-0/12-0 Oregon
8-1/11-1 Penn State
8-1/11-1 Indiana
7-2/10-2 Ohio State
6-3/9-3 Illinois
6-3/8-4 Iowa
5-4/7-5 Michigan
5-4/7-5 Minnesota
4-5/6-6 USC
4-5/7-5 Rutgers
4-5/6-6 Washington
3-6/5-7 UCLA
3-6/6-6 Nebraska
3-6/5-7 Michigan State
3-6/5-7 Wisconsin
2-7/4-8 Northwestern
1-8/4-8 Maryland
0-9/1-11 Purdue

So the games are:
Ore/PSU, B1GCG
IU/tOSU: Played in regular season, tOSU won
IL/IA: Not played in regular season
M/MN: Played in regular season, M won
etc
Every team gets what should be a relatively evenly-matched game.

That's not the idea I was talking about.

With the proposed 4 automatic bids for the B1G, the top 3 are just in. They chill on CCG weekend. Same for the top 3 in the SEC.
Only the 4th and 5th teams would play in the "call it something else" CCG to play their way into the playoff as the 4th team from the B1G (or SEC).

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond

OrangeAfroMan

Re: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond

medinabuckeye1

Re: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond

ELA

Re: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond

medinabuckeye1

Re: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond

ELA

Re: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond

medinabuckeye1

Re: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond

ELA

Re: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond

OrangeAfroMan

Re: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond

medinabuckeye1

Re: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond

ELA

Re: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond

medinabuckeye1

Re: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond

medinabuckeye1

Re: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond

bayareabadger

Re: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond

OrangeAfroMan

Re: 16-team playoff talk for 2026 and beyond