- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
CFP needs a “first four” round?
Posted on 12/2/25 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 12/2/25 at 3:15 pm
Like the NCAAT for basketball
In this case have 2 extra games next weekend on 12/13 after the conference championship games that (this year) would include, let’s say:
AAC Champ (Tulane/UNT)
Virginia (if ACC Champ) or JMU (if Duke wins ACC)
Miami
BYU
Winners play vs #5 and vs #6 in first round on 12/20
So technically 14 teams make the “12 team playoff”
In this case have 2 extra games next weekend on 12/13 after the conference championship games that (this year) would include, let’s say:
AAC Champ (Tulane/UNT)
Virginia (if ACC Champ) or JMU (if Duke wins ACC)
Miami
BYU
Winners play vs #5 and vs #6 in first round on 12/20
So technically 14 teams make the “12 team playoff”
10
Posted on 12/2/25 at 3:18 pm to JimTiger72
Or take this projected bracket & replace 12 & 11 with 2 play in games between
Tulane vs Miami & Virginia vs ND
Tulane vs Miami & Virginia vs ND
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 12/2/25 at 3:24 pm to JimTiger72
quote:
So technically 14 teams make the “12 team playoff”
So that teams 15-19 can complain about not getting in?
They keep selling expansion as if it removes any doubt that a true champion is named. In reality, all it does is cheapen the regular season and makes crowning a true champion more convoluted and random than the BCS ever was.
Posted on 12/2/25 at 3:26 pm to Broski
I don’t even care about the teams outside the top 8, but I do have a problem with teams outside the top 15 getting in over a Miami, Vandy, etc who might actually beat or be competitive with a #5 or #6 seed
Posted on 12/2/25 at 3:40 pm to JimTiger72
The SEC and B1G should make their CCG a play-in of, say number 4 and 5, in the conference.
Posted on 12/2/25 at 3:44 pm to JimTiger72
I just don't see how someone could look at the current format and think "Yea, we need even more crappy teams in the playoffs."
Posted on 12/2/25 at 3:44 pm to JimTiger72
I think if anything their should be one play-in game, G5 winner vs #12.
Posted on 12/2/25 at 3:45 pm to JimTiger72
The NCAA just needs to cut the cord and get the playoffs system set-up the way we are ultimately going right now, instead of waiting for decades to finally get there.
Reduces the number of FBS schools down from 134 to 128. Everyone plays an 8 game in conference season; and the committee uses the "eye test" to rank the teams from 1 - 128. Then have your 8 round playoff system and get a true championship.
Reduces the number of FBS schools down from 134 to 128. Everyone plays an 8 game in conference season; and the committee uses the "eye test" to rank the teams from 1 - 128. Then have your 8 round playoff system and get a true championship.
Posted on 12/2/25 at 3:46 pm to JimTiger72
quote:
I don’t even care about the teams outside the top 8, but I do have a problem with teams outside the top 15 getting in over a Miami, Vandy, etc who might actually beat or be competitive with a #5 or #6 seed
I think it could even get worse if Duke beats UVA. There could be 2 G5 teams in if their conference champs are ranked higher than Duke
Posted on 12/2/25 at 3:54 pm to BlueWaffleHouse
That’s the exact scenario that made me consider this option.
I’m fine with “5 conf champs” get in, but let’s not act like Tulane or JMU are even going to compete with a #5 or #6 team.
This option of letting them “play in” to the first round still gives them that chance but also keeps us from seeing 2 blowout games in the first round
I’m fine with “5 conf champs” get in, but let’s not act like Tulane or JMU are even going to compete with a #5 or #6 team.
This option of letting them “play in” to the first round still gives them that chance but also keeps us from seeing 2 blowout games in the first round
Posted on 12/2/25 at 3:57 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
I just don't see how someone could look at the current format and think "Yea, we need even more crappy teams in the playoffs."
The problem is that they are including crappy G5 and ACC conference champions.
Just get rid of the auto-bids. There’s nothing wrong with the 12 team format other than the auto-bid shite tier teams that don’t belong in a playoff.
ETA: wouldn’t Texas, Vanderbilt, or Miami vs Texas Tech be a much better game than Tulane or North Texas vs Texas Tech?
This post was edited on 12/2/25 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 12/2/25 at 4:16 pm to JimTiger72
The way I see it, we already have a "first eight" round, basically.
I do think the current setup is untenable. The two paths forward:
1. Expand to 16, give auto-bids to all 10 FBS conferences as well as six at-large bids. Yes, that means even more weeping and gnashing of teeth from the ones left out, because you'll have even more junk teams in the playoffs. In practice, it won't be very different from how things are now, because each year you'll have something like 6-8 undeserving teams that get trounced in round 1, and then round 2 will have the real contenders left over plus maybe one spoiler that survived the culling. But this way there can be absolutely no complaining about the inclusivity of the playoff, and you can draw a very firm line ending expansion right there.
For the record, I hate this option because it just lets more junk teams in, but at least you can say definitively that this is the final line for expansion since literally every team has a shot. Either win your conference, or be one of the six best teams that didn't. No, it's not going to be fair that the #4 SEC team or whatever gets left out for the C-USA champ, but truly neither one should be in to begin with. Which brings me to...
2. Just accept that the playing field isn't level and never will be. Scale back to top 8, cook up an objective formula that power rates teams, then add in one sanity check filter for things like head-to-head between closely rated teams and pick 8. No weight for conference titles.
This would obviously have a lot of teams bitching about access, but it would cut the bullshite that is round 1 from the current system and from my previous proposed fix and get straight to the action. The #9 team is never going to be "worthy," on resume, to win a title. So we can dispense with the bullshite and just take 8. Honestly, we could do 6, but 8 is better for the occasional 2007 style chaos season.
2.5. Alternatively, as above, but take the top 10, make the bottom 4 do a play-in round like you proposed in the OP, and go from there.
I do think the current setup is untenable. The two paths forward:
1. Expand to 16, give auto-bids to all 10 FBS conferences as well as six at-large bids. Yes, that means even more weeping and gnashing of teeth from the ones left out, because you'll have even more junk teams in the playoffs. In practice, it won't be very different from how things are now, because each year you'll have something like 6-8 undeserving teams that get trounced in round 1, and then round 2 will have the real contenders left over plus maybe one spoiler that survived the culling. But this way there can be absolutely no complaining about the inclusivity of the playoff, and you can draw a very firm line ending expansion right there.
For the record, I hate this option because it just lets more junk teams in, but at least you can say definitively that this is the final line for expansion since literally every team has a shot. Either win your conference, or be one of the six best teams that didn't. No, it's not going to be fair that the #4 SEC team or whatever gets left out for the C-USA champ, but truly neither one should be in to begin with. Which brings me to...
2. Just accept that the playing field isn't level and never will be. Scale back to top 8, cook up an objective formula that power rates teams, then add in one sanity check filter for things like head-to-head between closely rated teams and pick 8. No weight for conference titles.
This would obviously have a lot of teams bitching about access, but it would cut the bullshite that is round 1 from the current system and from my previous proposed fix and get straight to the action. The #9 team is never going to be "worthy," on resume, to win a title. So we can dispense with the bullshite and just take 8. Honestly, we could do 6, but 8 is better for the occasional 2007 style chaos season.
2.5. Alternatively, as above, but take the top 10, make the bottom 4 do a play-in round like you proposed in the OP, and go from there.
Posted on 12/2/25 at 4:18 pm to JimTiger72
Ummmm no
Posted on 12/2/25 at 4:50 pm to JimTiger72
Just go back to the BCS.
CFB was a lot more entertaining then.
CFB was a lot more entertaining then.
Posted on 12/2/25 at 5:00 pm to JimTiger72
Or just you know, use the Regular season 
like 100 years prior, or do those games, rankings not matter anymore?
like 100 years prior, or do those games, rankings not matter anymore?
Posted on 12/2/25 at 5:34 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
The SEC and B1G should make their CCG a play-in of, say number 4 and 5, in the conference.
B1G floated that idea and everyone shite on it
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News