CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on May 28, 2025, 08:23:41 PM
-
Do any of you have thoughts on the 16-team proposals out there?
5 conf champs + 11 at-large
4 SEC, 4 B1G
3 ACC, 3 XII
1 G5
1 at-large/ND
.
4 SEC, 4 B1G
2 ACC, 2 XII
1 G5
3 at-large
.
some of these have the top 2 seeds getting byes, or 4 getting byes
.
I don't like any of them. I understand the first one, but I gotta go with Lane Kiffin here. Why not just have the top 16 play?
No byes. Your advantage for being the top seed is playing the 16th seed.
.
I am happy that they did away with the rankings AND seedings going into this season. That was always odd to me.
-
4 for the SEC is a little odd, considering that they are slowly turning into a glorified CUSA in the NIL era.
-
Wow, it only took you 2 years to reach our level of arrogance. Impressive.
Now imagine B1G teams winning 7 straight NCs, with 4 different schools. :57:
That last part is the biggie. Are there even 4 programs capable of winning a NC in the B1G?!? You have the same big 2, only now with a lot more dwarves. And don't say Oregon, as they seem allergic to life at the top.
-
Penn State and USC maybe. They have the resources. Just need coaches.
-
Wow, it only took you 2 years to reach our level of arrogance. Impressive.
Now imagine B1G teams winning 7 straight NCs, with 4 different schools. :57:
That last part is the biggie. Are there even 4 programs capable of winning a NC in the B1G?!? You have the same big 2, only now with a lot more dwarves. And don't say Oregon, as they seem allergic to life at the top.
How much milage do you think that you can continue to get out of the pre NIL run?
-
Five and 11 is fine. The SEC doesn’t really have much need to be a little piss babies, but they really seem to want to.
There is also entirely too much over reaction for what ended up being an out and out weird year for that conference.
-
my thoughts are that the whole thing is broken
2 conferences running the show and the rest scrambling for crumbs
-
Chrome crashed and I lost a long post so I'm redoing it. Here is the article it is from (https://awfulannouncing.com/fox/big-loser-college-football-playoff-expansion.html).
Allegedly the model being pushed by Petitti and that the committee is leaning towards is:
- 4 SEC
- 4 B1G
- 2 ACC
- 2 B12
- 1 G5
- 3 At-Large
- 16 Total
But it isn't a straight 1v16 . . .8v9 bracket because apparently that would be way too simple. Instead it is:
First round (basically a play-in):
- #13 vs #16 (at #13?)
- #14 vs #15 (at #14?)
Second round (#1 and #2 get a bye and I think it is more-or-less presumed that #1 and #2 will generally be the SEC and B1G Champions but this isn't a lock):
- #14/15 at #3
- #13/16 at #4
- #12 at #5
- #11 at #6
- #10 at #7
- #9 at #8
Quarter-Finals (traditional bowls):
- #1 vs 8/9
- #2 vs 7/10
- #3/14/15 vs 6/11
- #4/13/16 vs #5/12
Semi-Finals:
- #1/8/9 vs 4/13/16/5/12
- #2/7/10 vs 3/14/15/6/11
Then there is the caveat that apparently Petitti wants the B1G #3 through #6 to face each other on CCG weekend to determine the 3rd and 4th spots. I assume that the SEC would do the same thing.
So applying that to last year here is what you have going into CCG weekend:
- 12-0 Oregon is playing #3 Penn State in the B1GCG but both teams are guaranteed a spot. The winner gets a bye.
- 11-1 Texas is playing #5 Georgia in the SECCG. Texas is guaranteed a spot either way. With a win they get a bye.
- 11-1 Penn State is playing #1 Oregon in the B1GCG for a bye.
- 11-1 Notre Dame is done and will go to the playoff. In theory they could get a bye if Texas and PSU both lose but as a practical matter probably not because UGA would jump them by beating Texas (in practice this is exactly what happened last year. UGA jumped them for beating Texas while CCG losers Texas and PSU stayed ahead of them so ND actually dropped a spot).
- 10-2 UGA is playing #2 Texas in the SECCG likely for a bye.
- 10-2 tOSU is playing (hosting?) either IL or IA for the B1G's 3rd CFP spot.
- 10-2 Tennessee is playing either Bama, LSU, USCe, aTm, Ole Miss, or Mizzou for the SEC's 3rd CFP spot*.
- 11-1 SMU is playing #17 Clemson in the ACCCG. Both teams get CFP bids and neither has a shot at a bye. The loser of this game *MIGHT* drop toe the play-in round.
- 11-1 Indiana is playing (hosting?) either IL or IA for the B1G's 4th CFP spot.
- 11-1 Boise St is playing #20 UNLV with the G5 spot on the line.
- 9-3 Bama*
- 10-2 Miami is done.
- 9-3 Ole Miss*
- 9-3 USCe
- 10-2 ASU is playing #16 ISU in the B12CG. Both teams have a guaranteed spot in the CFP but the loser is likely relegated to the play-in round.
- 10-2 ISU is playing #15 ASU in the B12CG. See above for ASU, same applies.
- 9-3 Clemson is playing #8 SMU in the ACCCG. Both teams get CFP bids and neither has a shot at a bye but with a loss Clemson *MIGHT* be relegated to the play-in round.
*SEC
This is a convoluted mess because there is a logjam of six teams at 5-3 all tied for 4th place.
Texas was #1 at 7-1. Georgia and Tennessee were tied for 2nd at 6-2 and the Bulldogs beat the Volunteers so UGSA goes to the SECCG against Texas. 4th-9th are:
- 5-3 Bama
- 5-3 LSU
- 5-3 USCe
- 5-3 aTm
- 5-3 Ole Miss
- 5-3 Mizzou
For purposes of simplicity I'm going to solve this based on CFP rankings so:
- #4 is #11 Bama
- #5 is #13 Ole Miss
- #6 is #14 USCe
Thus the SEC games on CCG weekend are:
- UGA vs Texas, SECCG
- Tennessee vs USCe (at TN?)
- Bama vs Ole Miss (at Bama?)
Then based on results that actually happened for the games that actually happened and higher ranked team winning for the games that didn't, the CFP final rankings/seedings would be:
- 13-0 Oregon
- 11-2 Georgia
- 11-2 Texas
- 11-2 Penn State
- 11-1 Notre Dame
- 11-2 Ohio State (beat IA/IL in assumed game)
- 11-2 Tennessee (beat USCe in assumed game)
- 12-1 Indiana (beat IA/IL in assumed game)
- 12-1 Boise St
- 11-2 SMU
- 10-3 Bama (beat Ole Miss in assumed game)
- 11-2 ASU
- 10-2 Miami
- 10-3 Clemson
- ? ? ?
- 10-3 ISU
The #15 spot goes to an at-large team (the other at-large teams are Miami and Notre Dame). This could be:
- 9-4 Ole Miss loser to Bama in SEC 4th place game was #14 at 9-3
- 9-4 USCe loser to Tennessee in SEC 3rd place game was #15 at 9-3
- 10-2 BYU was #17.
I *THINK* this would go to BYU so thus the CFP is:
Play-in Round:
- #16 10-3 ISU at #13 10-2 Miami
- #15 10-2 BYU at #14 10-3 Clemson
Second round:
- Clemson/BYU at #3 11-2 Texas
- Miami/ISU at #4 11-2 Penn State
- #12 11-2 ASU at #5 11-1 Notre Dame
- #11 10-3 Bama at #6 11-2 Ohio State
- #10 11-2 SMU at #7 11-2 Tennessee
- #9 12-1 Boise at #8 12-1 Indiana
Quarter-Finals:
- #1 13-0 Oregon vs Boise/Indiana
- #2 11-2 Georgia vs Tennessee/SMU
- Texas/Clemson/BYU vs tOSU/Bama (tOSU/Texas actually happened)
- PSU/Miami/ISU vs Notre Dame/ASU (PSU/Notre Dame actually happened)
Semi-Finals:
- Oregon/Boise/IU vs PSU/Miami/ISU/ND/ASU
- Georgia/Tennessee/SMU vs Texas/Clemson/BYU/tOSU/Bama
-
All the play-in crap is so fucking stupid. So are all the convoluted nonsense medina posted (thanks for the effort though).
Play a normal goddamn season.
Rank the top 25 teams (you know, like the AP still does).
The top 16 make the playoff in a normal-ass bracket of 1 v 16, 8 v 9,...
Every single thing beyond that is an effort to make more $$$ off of more eyeballs and clicks.
Fuck it all.
-
I really can't even form an opinion on this stuff anymore. Everything they do, is dumber than the last thing they did. I can't control it or affect it in any way, so there's no point in wasting any brainpower on it.
As always I'll root for my team to win football games. I can't expend the mental energy to care about anything more than that.
-
All the play-in crap is so fucking stupid. So are all the convoluted nonsense medina posted (thanks for the effort though).
Play a normal goddamn season.
Rank the top 25 teams (you know, like the AP still does).
The top 16 make the playoff in a normal-ass bracket of 1 v 16, 8 v 9,...
Every single thing beyond that is an effort to make more $$$ off of more eyeballs and clicks.
Fuck it all.
Or...
- Play a normal goddamn season.
- Play the bowl games.
- Polls vote for who deserves the MNC.
- Whoever gets the most votes, is the national champion.
This isn't hard. We did it just fine for decades.
-
my thoughts are that the whole thing is broken
2 conferences running the show and the rest scrambling for crumbs
I really can't even form an opinion on this stuff anymore. Everything they do, is dumber than the last thing they did. I can't control it or affect it in any way, so there's no point in wasting any brainpower on it.
As always I'll root for my team to win football games. I can't expend the mental energy to care about anything more than that.
yup
-
Top 16 Bracket for 2024:
1 Oregon
16 Clemson @
8 Indiana
9 Boise @
5 Notre Dame
12 Arizona St @
4 Penn St
13 Miami @
6 Ohio St
11 Alabama @
3 Texas
14 Ole Miss @
7 Tennessee
10 SMU @
2 Georgia
15 S.Carolina @
-
I really can't even form an opinion on this stuff anymore. Everything they do, is dumber than the last thing they did. I can't control it or affect it in any way, so there's no point in wasting any brainpower on it.
As always I'll root for my team to win football games. I can't expend the mental energy to care about anything more than that.
And it will just get worse and worse every year. Even this week College Basketball won't stop talking about expanding (https://www.google.com/search?q=college+basketball+tournament+expansion) to 72 or 76.
Now we get Matt Rhule joking about expanding the playoff to 40 teams. It isn't just TV pushing the expansion - the coaches want it to. A 40 team playoff means their low effort 8-4 teams can make the playoff, which buys them more time on the job. It's what Chris Holtmann did at Ohio State, keeping his job too long because his mediocre Buckeyes could manage 10 or 11 tournament seedings.
https://twitter.com/Saturday_Glory/status/1925325670311174621
-
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
-
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 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 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.
-
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
-
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.
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.
-
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
-
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)
-
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
-
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 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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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).
-
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?
In the situation I specified above, you'd wind up with the at-large spot(s) being competed for by the 4th or 5th teams of the B1G and SEC who just lost vs the 6th teams from those conferences.
Not great options to choose from, basically.
-
In the situation I specified above, you'd wind up with the at-large spot(s) being competed for by the 4th or 5th teams of the B1G and SEC who just lost vs the 6th teams from those conferences.
Not great options to choose from, basically.
Yeah. It’s basically like the choice is fourth place who lost vs 6th vs field. Which maybe helps the field and the SEC is back throwing public fit.
One thing I do snarkily wonder is when the SEC will stop caring about standings. Every year, I learn that I need to pay much less attention to a team’s raw record. And with divisions, there was some flow and structure to schedules, even if they weren’t totally fair at points. But if it’s all just one big table of standings, and the schedules can be uneven, which I’m told is a terrible problem for selection, why am I letting such a thing affect the selection of the SEC title 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).
I read that to be a tournament-like thing of:
- 1 vs 2, CCG (probably for a bye)
- 3 vs 6 for an auto-bid
- 4 vs 5 for an auto-bid
Then, to answer @bayareabadger (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1571) 's question, at-large is for teams that do NOT get an auto-bid so the 3/6 and 4/5 winners get auto-bids while the losers would still be eligible for an at-large.
-
At this point the SEC and B1G should just break away and form 4 conferences with 11 teams each. 10 game Round-Robin, champions of each division play a CCG. CCG winners get byes, and 4 (or whatever many) at-large teams play.
B1G East
Penn State
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Maryland
Michigan State
Miami
Georgia Tech
North Carolina
Virginia
B1G West
USC
UCLA
Washington
Oregon
Nebraska
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois
Michigan
SEC East
Florida
Clemson
Florida State
Georgia
Tennessee
Kentucky
Virginia Tech
West Virginia
USCe
NC State
Vandy
SEC West
OU
Texas
LSU
Arkansas
Alabama
Auburn
Missouri
Texas A&M
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Kansas
-
Yeah. It’s basically like the choice is fourth place who lost vs 6th vs field. Which maybe helps the field and the SEC is back throwing public fit.
One thing I do snarkily wonder is when the SEC will stop caring about standings. Every year, I learn that I need to pay much less attention to a team’s raw record. And with divisions, there was some flow and structure to schedules, even if they weren’t totally fair at points. But if it’s all just one big table of standings, and the schedules can be uneven, which I’m told is a terrible problem for selection, why am I letting such a thing affect the selection of the SEC title game?
I have been banging the drum that uneven schedules are a problem for quite a while.
Back when the B1G had 14 teams in two divisions the schedules couldn't be all-that uneven. Six of your games were against the other teams IN your division and that was uniform for the whole division. Only the other three varied. In theory you could have one team from the B1G-W (say Wisconsin) play the best three teams from the B1G-E while another team from the B1G-W (say Minnesota) played the worst three teams from the B1G-E. In that case it was possible that Wisconsin could beat Minnesota, go 6-0 in the division, and still miss the B1GCG to a Minnesota team that went 4-2 in the division with a loss to Wisconsin.
The thing is that back then it was a theoretical possibility but not very realistic. Now, with 18 teams and no divisions, schedule strength can be wildly different. For 2024:
In the B1G:
@Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) LOVES to point out that Ohio State was the "fourth place team" in the league but if you want to know why, look at schedules. Ohio State had a MUCH tougher schedule than any of the teams that finished ahead of them. Here are the records against the top-4:
- 1-0 Oregon: A home win by 1 point.
- 2-1 Ohio State: Split road games with a 1 point loss and a win, won a home game
- 1-2 Michigan: beat tOSU on the road, lost to IU and Ore.
- 0-season every other B1G team including 8-1 IU (lost at tOSU) and 8-1 PSU (lost at home to tOSU)
Similarly, in the SEC you had a situation where Mizzou had a better conference record than Florida but that was a product of Mizzou missing and UF playing almost all the best teams. Florida was clearly a better team but finished with a worse record because of schedule.
In the current 18-team B1G with nine league games you are only playing half of the teams in the league so obviously the SoS can and does vary wildly.
-
At this point the SEC and B1G should just break away and form 4 conferences with 11 teams each. 10 game Round-Robin, champions of each division play a CCG. CCG winners get byes, and 4 (or whatever many) at-large teams play.
Amen
-
I'm coming to the realization that the powers that be have zero interest in a straight-up, clean bracket. They want byes and play-in games and whatever else to extend the overall event in order to be relevant for longer and make more money.
This whole thing is officially NOT about finding the best team as champion. We're so far from that, it's stupid.
-
the powers that b are interested in only one little thang
$$$$$$$$$$$$$ :sign0151:>:D:29:
-
(https://i.imgur.com/uKwvCQO.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/29baRql.png)
-
Eh, it's about money and nothing else.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6400445/2025/06/04/big-ten-sec-college-football-playoff-format/
Apparently the debate at this point between the B1G and SEC is over 8 vs 9 games for the SEC and the relationship of that to auto-bids.
-
All the hand-wringing over the SEC 8-game conference schedule...
Just make it a rule.
Duh.
FFS
Whining when someone doesn't do more when they have no motive to do more is stupid.
-
motives are $$$ and pride
obviously, the SEC has plenty of each
-
All the hand-wringing over the SEC 8-game conference schedule.
Just make it a rule.
Duh.
FFS
Whining when someone doesn't do more when they have no motive to do more is stupid.
As I understand it, the B1G's argument should be near and dear to you as it is an argument that you have made repeatedly:
They are saying that the 9th league game increases the number of losses (mathematical) and consequently they want AQ's because the committee, as you frequently point out, tends to rank by #of losses.
-
The 9-game conference schedule made sense when we had 10-school conferences.
That's in the distant past.
Who has been holding a gun to the B1G's head to continue playing 9-game conference schedules?!?
-
We have no need for a committee anymore.
16-team playoff? Okay.
The AP ranks the top 25 teams each week.
1-16 in their final poll make the playoff.
1-8 host first-round games.
Top 6 bowls host next 2 rounds (Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Peach)
NCG at site of 1 of the 6 bowls.
Done.
-
We have no need for a committee anymore.
16-team playoff? Okay.
The AP ranks the top 25 teams each week. 1-16 in their final poll make the playoff.
Done.
We actually can't do that because the AP objected to ot back when they were included in the BCS formula.
I actually think that the committee has done a better job than the AP traditionally did of evaluating SoS and what they typically refer to as "game control" rather than simply ranking by # and timingvof losses.
-
the writers do a better job than the committee at ranking the top 16?
-
The writers did a better job than the coaches. The writers are a larger group of people and are spread out across the country.
And this isn't super important, as a potential 16-ranked team getting 'screwed' is nonsensical, as they've failed to show they're definitely in the top 15 teams.
Please don't twist my words into "the media's rankings are infallible.' I'm saying the media's rankings are good enough for this task and the committee is completely unnecessary.
-
what if the top 4 seeds get byes? or top 6
as we've discussed some seeds have an easier path
I don't trust the writers
-
Their path is easier by playing lower-ranked teams.
There's no need for byes.
16 teams.
8 games.
Then 4. Then 2.
There's no need for byes!
-
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6400445/2025/06/04/big-ten-sec-college-football-playoff-format/
Apparently the debate at this point between the B1G and SEC is over 8 vs 9 games for the SEC and the relationship of that to auto-bids.
All the hand-wringing over the SEC 8-game conference schedule...
Just make it a rule.
Duh.
FFS
Whining when someone doesn't do more when they have no motive to do more is stupid.
I don't think it's whining, and I don't think it's a "gun to the head" situation.
The B1G has 9-game conference schedules because tune up games against patsies in late November won't make as much money or get as much fan interest as conference games.
The SEC has 8-game conference schedules because tune up games against patsies in late November keep them from adding another mark in the loss column, which is a CFP advantage.
Both are self-interested, for different reasons. The B1G wants to make sure their teams won't be penalized in the CFP for taking on that extra risky game, whereas the SEC wants as many advantages to get their teams in the CFP and doesn't want to cede the advantage they have from not playing the extra risky game.
-
Their path is easier by playing lower-ranked teams.
There's no need for byes.
16 teams.
8 games.
Then 4. Then 2.
There's no need for byes!
This I agree with absolutely. Playing #16 (because you are the best) is your advantage. If you sneak in by the skin of your teeth you get stuck playing #1.
-
I don't think it's whining, and I don't think it's a "gun to the head" situation.
The B1G has 9-game conference schedules because tune up games against patsies in late November won't make as much money or get as much fan interest as conference games.
Hey, if you can't sell out your stadium, that's on you.
The SEC has 8-game conference schedules because tune up games against patsies in late November keep them from adding another mark in the loss column, which is a CFP advantage.
This pre-dates the CFP, lol. The late-Nov cupcake thing is only since a 12th game was added some years back. The SEC won 7 straight NCs (4 different schools), so 8-game conf schedules is solely a "it ain't broke so wtf would we fix it" thing.
Both are self-interested, for different reasons. The B1G wants to make sure their teams won't be penalized in the CFP for takTing on that extra risky game, whereas the SEC wants as many advantages to get t sheir teams in the CFP and doesn't want to cede the advantage they have from not playing the extra risky game.
For at least 15 years, the B1G has been WHINING about the SEC playing 8 conf games when no one is forcing them to play 9. It's childish.
-
My rule would be to play at least ten games against P4 level opponents. Done.
If you don't, you get a negative mark in any final polling. And I also think the committee is better than the AP. They basically are the same thing except the committee is much smaller of course and the folks sit down and communicate their feelings about it. The AP of course is 50+ "writers", some of whom probably don't much care, sending in votes with no discussion (that we know about).
Nothing will be near what many of us would like in terms of a ranking.
I once read the Coaches get some grad assistant to make the rankings, and send it in, perhaps after a cursory view. Why would a coach spend much time on who is #22?
-
My rule would be to play at least ten games against P4 level opponents. Done.
The reason I kinda like the committee is that I think it is more nuanced than that. Georgia could play their eight SEC games and then add OOC games against the worst team in the B1G and the worst team in the ACC and viola, that is 10 games against P4 opponents. Conversely they could schedule to play at Clemson and vs Ohio State. Those schedules both include 10 games against P4 opponents but one is obviously a lot more difficult than the other.
Similarly, last year Oregon played Boise State. Boise is NOT P4 but lets be fair to the Ducks, Boise State was a MUCH tougher opponent than a lot of potential P4 opponents.
I think the committee has done a reasonably good job. I think they've moved past the old standard which was generally number of losses and when they happened where a weak schedule with a loss in September would get you ranked ahead of a tough schedule and a loss in November. The committee also seems to do at least a decent job of considering not exactly "MoV" but "level of dominance" and those two are distinct and very different.
-
F the Ducks.
That is all.
-
For at least 15 years, the B1G has been WHINING about the SEC playing 8 conf games when no one is forcing them to play 9. It's childish.
Do you not care whether the SEC plays 8 or 9 games or are you explicitly against it?
The reason I'd like to see us move to 9 conf. games is so we could lock in the three agreed-upon perma-rivals and rotate everyone else home and away every four years, and finally pretend we're all in the same conference again.
-
My longstanding belief was/is that eight games is fine.
-
i like 9 games because for Texas at least, the 9th game will replace something like UTEP or New Mexico State, with a more competitive game against a better opponent.
Some schools might ditch OOC game against P5 opponents but that's not what Texas will do.
-
I wouldn't have really cared ALL that much about 8 vs 9 conference games before, with traditional conference sizes.
I've long held the opinion that P4 teams shouldn't schedule FCS. And IMHO I'm in agreement with CD that all teams should schedule a minimum of 10 power conference games.
That said, as we move to these superconferences, you have to make a change. With 18 teams, you start missing teams often enough that it's like you're barely in the same conference. ESPECIALLY if you're at the same time trying to preserve any traditional rivalries, because that then reduces the number of games you have to rotate the rest of the opponents.
So with 18-team conferences, if I were scheduling czar, I'd say:
- 9 game conference schedule
- 1 additional required power conference OOC game (can be more, but not less)
- No FCS allowed
-
So with 18-team conferences, if I were scheduling czar, I'd say:
two 9-team divisions
play the other 8 teams in your division each season
9 game conference schedule
No FCS allowed
-
Do you not care whether the SEC plays 8 or 9 games or are you explicitly against it?
The reason I'd like to see us move to 9 conf. games is so we could lock in the three agreed-upon perma-rivals and rotate everyone else home and away every four years, and finally pretend we're all in the same conference again.
I think it's weird so many complain about a thing that isn't against any rules.
If it was a genuine issue, then everyone could come together and make a 9-game conference rule. The entirety of college football outside the SEC could pressure the SEC.
As is, it's just a bunch of fans whining. If the SEC is utterly dominant, given the status quo, it would be monumentally stupid to change it just to quell some whining.
The B1G could EASILY have gone to an 8-game conf schedule the moment Penn State joined 30+ years ago (no longer everyone playing everyone else).
But no. They whine and bitch about another conference NOT breaking any rules. Just find it odd...insisting the SEC change instead of the B1G changing (and in their eyes, making life easier for themselves).
Shrug.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/jsq0ng0.jpeg)
-
i like 9 games because for Texas at least, the 9th game will replace something like UTEP or New Mexico State, with a more competitive game against a better opponent.
Some schools might ditch OOC game against P5 opponents but that's not what Texas will do.
It’s probably fine for Texas, but unless people become more fine with worse records (possible?), it just ratchets up bitching and moaning. Not many fans actually can say “well at least we lost to someone good instead of beating someone bad.”
I also don’t mind a few body bag games, but I’m in the minority there.
-
A bazillion teams are making it into the CFP now, it's fine.
I enjoy the game itself, played on the field, in between the white lines. And that game is more fun to watch, when it's not just another bodybag.
-
I also don’t mind a few body bag games, but I’m in the minority there.
I don't think most people understand these games actually helped the college regular season be so special.
We are headed to an NFL-lite model, which is horrifically asinine. Why watch college football with the same structure and non-elite teams making the postseason when the NFL does it with better players?????
For the love of an extra dollar, the powers that be in college football are insistent that it becomes McDowell's to the NFL's McDonalds (Coming to America reference). No one wants a Big Mick over a Big Mac. FFS
Same with adding mediocre teams to your conference. The B1G adding Rutgers gets a lot of jokes, but it's more eyeballs watching Michigan and OSU get another win each year.
This past year, the SEC learned that adding only bluebloods with no other fodder has consequences (I know, sample size of 1, and I agree).
The SEC should add an NC State and OK State or Virginia or whatever with those bluebloods.
Fans like big games, sure. Fans like entertainment over competition often times.
But when we get a run of 2 and 3-loss national champions, much interest will wane. Whether it's a tiny-bit inflated or not, an 11-1 team is going to garner more interest than the same team at 9-3. It may even be an example of perception becoming the reality (which I hate, in general), but it's true.