- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The simple fix to the College Football Playoffs
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:02 am
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:02 am
All 4 of the first round games sucked. All 4 of the team that got a bye lost. All teams who have been favored have won. All 4 teams remaining did not win their conference. There has only been 1 entertaining game thanks to Cam Skattebo being a freak. All in all, the playoffs have not been a great product despite how excited many (including myself) were to watch it unfold. The issue is that the seeding format is wrong.
The current format gives the top 4 conference champions an automatic top 4 seed and a Bye to advance to the quarterfinals, and the 5th conference champ gets in as well. My fix here is simple: the top 4 conference champions should only be guaranteed a top 8 seed, and I'm okay with still having the 5th conference champ get in. Here's what that would have looked like this year:
#1 Oregon - Bye
vs. winner of
#9 Tennessee @ #8 Arizona State
#4 Penn State - Bye
vs. winner of
#12 Clemson @ #5 Notre Dame
#2 Georgia - Bye
vs. winner of
#10 Indiana @ #7 Boise State
#3 Texas - Bye
vs. winner of
#11 SMU @ #6 Ohio State
In my view, this corrects a few things:
1. Georgia and Oregon actually get reward for earning the 1 and 2 seeds by not having to play a top 5-6 team in the quarterfinals.
2. The teams in the 3-6 seeds will have to play each other in the quarterfinals, rather than having situations like Penn State and Texas not having to play a single top 6 opponent to get into the semifinals.
3. Much more intriguing 1st round matchups. A playoff game on the blue turf? Tennessee @ Arizona State is much cooler than watching Tennessee get drubbed by Ohio State. Clemson's probably got a much better chance against ND than they did against Texas. Ohio State would murder SMU, but those uneven matchups are just the price you pay for having this many playoff spots.
4. Arizona State and Boise State get rewarded with an exciting home playoff game rather than a neutral site matchup with a team that's head and shoulders above them in talent.
I realize this was a long one, but I've had this in my head for a few weeks and truthfully just felt like typing it all out and sharing.
The current format gives the top 4 conference champions an automatic top 4 seed and a Bye to advance to the quarterfinals, and the 5th conference champ gets in as well. My fix here is simple: the top 4 conference champions should only be guaranteed a top 8 seed, and I'm okay with still having the 5th conference champ get in. Here's what that would have looked like this year:
#1 Oregon - Bye
vs. winner of
#9 Tennessee @ #8 Arizona State
#4 Penn State - Bye
vs. winner of
#12 Clemson @ #5 Notre Dame
#2 Georgia - Bye
vs. winner of
#10 Indiana @ #7 Boise State
#3 Texas - Bye
vs. winner of
#11 SMU @ #6 Ohio State
In my view, this corrects a few things:
1. Georgia and Oregon actually get reward for earning the 1 and 2 seeds by not having to play a top 5-6 team in the quarterfinals.
2. The teams in the 3-6 seeds will have to play each other in the quarterfinals, rather than having situations like Penn State and Texas not having to play a single top 6 opponent to get into the semifinals.
3. Much more intriguing 1st round matchups. A playoff game on the blue turf? Tennessee @ Arizona State is much cooler than watching Tennessee get drubbed by Ohio State. Clemson's probably got a much better chance against ND than they did against Texas. Ohio State would murder SMU, but those uneven matchups are just the price you pay for having this many playoff spots.
4. Arizona State and Boise State get rewarded with an exciting home playoff game rather than a neutral site matchup with a team that's head and shoulders above them in talent.
I realize this was a long one, but I've had this in my head for a few weeks and truthfully just felt like typing it all out and sharing.
32
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:06 am to iamandykeim
quote:
I realize this was a long one, but I've had this in my head for a few weeks and truthfully just felt like typing it all out and sharing
It's very rare for someone to put thought and effort into a thread, and make one that actually makes legit arguments. Congrats on accomplishing that.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:06 am to iamandykeim
Or just have 8 teams, as there were easily 4 teams in that were never going to win the NC.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:09 am to TIGERSby10
quote:hard to picture a world where ESPN (aka the CFP Committee) ever reduces the number of teams/games in the playoff
Or just have 8 teams
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:10 am to TIGERSby10
quote:
Or just have 8 teams, as there were easily 4 teams in that were never going to win the NC
OP is going to get downvotes out the arse, but that's because it's people like this who come up with some magic scenarios that have 0% chance of happening, don't even solve the issues, and wouldn't even work close to how he thinks.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:10 am to iamandykeim
Eliminate automatic byes and simply seed the teams as they are in the rankings. That's the entire point of having a seeding system. Also conference realignment needs to be adjusted to have more comparable schedules.
I would be in favor of having an 8 team playoff and eliminating the byes all together since we aren't really sure if having a bye is an advantage. But that will never happen because of money. There will always be flaws and arguments in the system, but I hope that they will adjust going forward.
I would be in favor of having an 8 team playoff and eliminating the byes all together since we aren't really sure if having a bye is an advantage. But that will never happen because of money. There will always be flaws and arguments in the system, but I hope that they will adjust going forward.
This post was edited on 1/3/25 at 11:14 am
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:10 am to iamandykeim
I'm not sure what the fix is.
Under BCS, championship would have been Oregon and Georgia. Both are out!
All Power 5 conf champs are out!
Under the 4 team format, the Conf champs would be in still.
I like the playoff format. I think 8 is the right number though, but it will never shrink down, probably only get bigger due to money. 9-12 all got smoked and the games weren't close at all.
Under BCS, championship would have been Oregon and Georgia. Both are out!
All Power 5 conf champs are out!
Under the 4 team format, the Conf champs would be in still.
I like the playoff format. I think 8 is the right number though, but it will never shrink down, probably only get bigger due to money. 9-12 all got smoked and the games weren't close at all.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:11 am to iamandykeim
Problem with ALL of that is it’s expanding to 16. Made for TV scam they don’t care about anything else.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:12 am to iamandykeim
quote:
hard to picture a world where ESPN (aka the CFP Committee) ever reduces the number of teams/games in the playoff
Correct. That will never happen. Nevermind the fact that some of the teams he thinks are in, but have no chance of winning (ASU, Boise, Clemson) are in because of winning their conference. So even in his 8, those teams are in and some of his actual contenders are left out.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:13 am to redfish99
quote:
Problem with ALL of that is it’s expanding to 16. Made for TV scam they don’t care about anything else
Poor us. We are getting scammed with the opportunity to watch more meaningful college football. Such a shame isn't it?
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:14 am to iamandykeim
That is probably where it goes. It wont be changed until after next year when the contract with ESPN runs out. Apparently parties have to agree to an any changes. I can guarantee the Big 12 and Group of 5 will not agree to change anything that would make anything harder for them.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:17 am to TIGERSby10
quote:
Or just have 8 teams, as there were easily 4 teams in that were never going to win the NC.
Fair point. But I wonder if those in favor of contraction would feel differently if Arizona State was playing for another week. Yes the sun devils are among the four you speak of as having no chance to win it, but their inclusion was a positive. I’m a sucker for the underdog
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:18 am to Hold That Tiger 10
Yeah, top eight period. Conference champs should just fall in line like everyone else. May help the ranking but that’s all. No byes. 1vs.8, 2vs.7, 3vs.6, 4vs.5. So simple.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:18 am to Dizz
quote:
I can guarantee the Big 12 and Group of 5 will not agree to change anything that would make anything harder for them
Well in 2026 they will not have the power to control that. The SEC and Big 10 will hold more weight in voting. So basically they can vote together and have control of whatever they wish.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:21 am to Dizz
quote:I think you're right on this, but to me, it would actually be in Boise State, Arizona State, and Clemson's interest to seed it this way. Clemson gets and easier 1st round matchup and ASU and Boise get a winnable home game. None of those 3 teams are legitimate championship contenders, so I would think they're all better off in the scenario where they have the best shot at winning at least 1 game.
I can guarantee the Big 12 and Group of 5 will not agree to change anything that would make anything harder for them.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:23 am to iamandykeim
As someone that has struggled to watch this beautiful sport crown a champion since the 70's it pains me to see today's game. The primary problem to me is expanding the playoff while consolidating the conferences.
At least try moving to 8 teams first.
Unfortunately that genie is out of the bottle now.
Whatever happens in the future, the best thing they could do is remove the committee from the equation.
At least try moving to 8 teams first.
Unfortunately that genie is out of the bottle now.
Whatever happens in the future, the best thing they could do is remove the committee from the equation.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:24 am to iamandykeim
You’ve got Texas and PSU too high and creating a possible 3rd meeting btn UT and UGA in the semis along with an Oregon/PSU rematch there as well. Your seeding is rewarding both of them for losing to the #1 & #2 teams.
I think they both would get in an 8 team bracket which is all we need.
Notre Dame should be seeded ahead of both of them due to having only one loss to their two. Records matter and one loss is better than two even if that one loss is a bad loss.
ASU was one targeting non-call away from being able to attempt a field goal to beat Texas. All Texas has shown us this year is they’re a Big 12 Team with a slightly better defense. Why should they be rewarded for not being able to win a rematch vs the only ranked team on their schedule?
At some point, we have to stop buying into the mystique of certain programs and look at what they’re actually producing on the field.
Going forward, the Committee needs to think through potential WF and SF matchup scenarios and not punish their #1 seed with a rematch of a conference foe they beat in the regular season right off the bat in the QFs.
I think they both would get in an 8 team bracket which is all we need.
Notre Dame should be seeded ahead of both of them due to having only one loss to their two. Records matter and one loss is better than two even if that one loss is a bad loss.
ASU was one targeting non-call away from being able to attempt a field goal to beat Texas. All Texas has shown us this year is they’re a Big 12 Team with a slightly better defense. Why should they be rewarded for not being able to win a rematch vs the only ranked team on their schedule?
At some point, we have to stop buying into the mystique of certain programs and look at what they’re actually producing on the field.
Going forward, the Committee needs to think through potential WF and SF matchup scenarios and not punish their #1 seed with a rematch of a conference foe they beat in the regular season right off the bat in the QFs.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:24 am to iamandykeim
Not a bad proposal. I also like the idea of moving the bowl games up and playing them before determining the playoff seeds. It's kind of a "pre-playoff" that will keep the bowl games relevant and help the committee compare teams across conferences. I think that would lead to better seeding and a more entertaining viewing product in December and January
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:25 am to iamandykeim
8 teams is the answer
Posted on 1/3/25 at 11:26 am to iamandykeim
Solid ideas. My only issue is that it’s completely possible people are overreacting to a one year scenario
Your idea might work for this year, but who knows how it will work out next year. A completely random team might be hot at the right time so anything can happen
I’m just saying, maybe we should give it some more time before changing everything again
Your idea might work for this year, but who knows how it will work out next year. A completely random team might be hot at the right time so anything can happen
I’m just saying, maybe we should give it some more time before changing everything again
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News