General reply to the 4/6/8/12/16 discussion.
In my view, 12 is the worst possible next step. It has nearly all the disadvantages of 16 without the balance.
Expansion in general dilutes the regular season, this is unavoidable. The current 4-team playoff still mostly maintains the old "every game matters" aspect that most of us love about CFB because one game really can quash a team's CFP hopes. Ohio State in the CFP era is a great example of this:
- 2014: A single OOC loss to VaTech nearly killed tOSU's CFP dreams.
- 2015: A single loss to MSU kept tOSU out of the CFP.
- 2016: A single loss to PSU nearly killed tOSU's CFP dreams.
- 2017: Two losses kept tOSU out of the CFP. They'd have likely been in with one loss.
- 2018: A single loss to PU kept tOSU out of the CFP.
- 2019: tOSU was undefeated until the CFP.
- 2020: tOSU was undefeated until the CFP.
In seven years of the 4-team CFP the Buckeyes have finished:
- Undefeated twice (2019, 2020) and made the CFP both times.
- 1-loss and B1G Champion twice (2014, 2018) made CFP once, missed once.
- 1-loss and non-Champion twice (2015, 2016) made CFP once, missed once.
- 2 losses and B1G Champion once (2017) missed CFP.
Ie, one game is still a REALLY big deal. Ohio State's four one-loss teams made the CFP 50% of the time.
By going to 12 teams, every P5 school will effectively be granted a mulligan. Lowest ranked 1-loss P5 school in final CFP rankings:
- 2020: #11 Indiana
- 2019: #4 Oklahoma
- 2018: #6 Ohio State
- 2017: #6 Wisconsin
- 2016: #4 Washington
- 2015: #7 Ohio State
- 2014: #6 TCU
All of those teams would easily have made it into a 12-team field.
Thus, the 12-team field will completely eliminate the "every game matters" aspect of the sport and replace it with an "every game matter after your first loss" concept.
Second, differentiation between seeds:
The proposal stratifies the 12 teams into three groups:
- The top-4: They get a bye and automatic bid to the quarter-finals.
- The 5-8: They get to host their first round game.
- The last four 9-12: They have to play a road game opener.
The problem, as I see it, is that there is very little difference within those groups. Regardless of whether you are #1 or #4 either way you get a bye then a very good opponent at a neutral site in the quarter-finals. Realistically, #4's opponent will not be significantly tougher than #1's opponent. Similarly, the difference between #5 and #8 and the difference between #9 and #12 is, IMHO, rather insignificant.
Why I think 8 would be better:
The "every game matters" aspect would be at least partially maintained for two reasons:
- Because there would be a HUMONGOUS difference between being #1 and being #4. This is likely a difference between going undefeated and going 12-1.
- Because there would only be two at-large spots so it would still be at least plausible that a 1-loss P5 non-Champion might be left out. It probably isn't likely but if Bama misses the SECCG due to a freak play (see Kick-6 vs Auburn) and tOSU misses the B1GCG due to a single loss (see 2015 to MSU or 2016 to PSU) then those two are likely to get the two at-large spots and everybody else needs to win the CG.
Second there would be significant differentiation between seeds. The #1 seed would get the G5 weaking and an easy home game while the #2 would get a MUCH stronger opponent. Most years there would be a rather significant increase in quality from #8 to #7 and from #7 to #6 and from #6 to #5 which means that there would be a significant advantage to being #1 rather than #2 or #2 rather than #3 or #3 rather than #4.
