- 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
re: College Football Playoff With New Seed Format
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:46 am to covtgr
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:46 am to covtgr
quote:
Interesting idea. Think I like it.
I don't care about the bowl games at all and would have no problem getting rid of them altogether, but if people are deadset on having an Alamo Bowl, Citrus Bowl, etc., just repackage them as a neutral site kickoff game where both teams would have a reason to play with the whole season still ahead of them.
And for everyone crying about the playoff being too big or the regular season not meaning anything anymore, all of that ended in 2011 when Bama got a rematch in the national title game vs a team they lost to in the regular season.
All of this playoff talk started due to Bama getting that rematch and SEC fatigue nationally at the time.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 9:54 am
1
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:57 am to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
I mean why leave out this part?
Because, obviously 4 teams wasn't enough last season if the two teams in the championship were ranked 5th and 6th.
What is the goal of the College Football Playoff? Is it to determine the best team? Or, the team that had the best season? I realize that may sound like it's the same thing, but it's not.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:59 am to John Casey
quote:
I don't care about the bowl games at all and would have no problem getting rid of them altogether, but if people are deadset on having an Alamo Bowl, Citrus Bowl, etc., just repackage them as a neutral site kickoff game where both teams would have a reason to play with the whole season still ahead of them.
This is the best idea regarding keeping the bowl season relevant that I've ever heard. We already have a handful of big inter-conference games the first weekend of the season, this would just add to that. It would be an interesting way to kick off the season for sure.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:06 am to Epic Cajun
quote:
Because, obviously 4 teams wasn't enough last season if the two teams in the championship were ranked 5th and 6th.
Outside of last year, that has never been the case. I'm not arguing that six didn't work last year, hence why I said 6 max. I preferred four.
quote:
What is the goal of the College Football Playoff? Is it to determine the best team? Or, the team that had the best season? I realize that may sound like it's the same thing, but it's not.
I prefer the format that doesn't reward teams for losing int he regular season. It was one of the things I loved best about college over the pros. The regular season mattered more. 9-8 teams in the NFL can make it to the playoffs and be good enough to win championships, letting 3-4 loss teams in the college playoffs is dumb because they aren't going to be good enough teams to win the championship. Hell last year proved that their were one loss teams that didn't deserve to be there.
Had it been a four team playoff last year, yes, we see that the best team would have been left out. But they would have deservedly been left out because they lost twice in the regular season and their used to be repercussions for losing in the regular season. And I would have been fine with that.
It's a personal preference. Arguing/debating over who the first team out in a four or six team playoff is a legit discussion, but college football doesn't have enough parody to make a 12 or 16 team playoff legit, it's just cake first round games, especially with the new seeding (which is a better way of seeding imo).
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:20 am to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
It's a personal preference. Arguing/debating over who the first team out in a four or six team playoff is a legit discussion, but college football doesn't have enough parody to make a 12 or 16 team playoff legit, it's just cake first round games, especially with the new seeding (which is a better way of seeding imo).
12 team, no auto-bids, and using the new seeding would be my preference. I like 12, because it's essentially just an 8 team playoff, but there is a play-in to determine seeds 5-8, which helps to eliminate arguments over who belongs in the "8" team playoff.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:21 am to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
I prefer the format that doesn't reward teams for losing int he regular season
I prefer a format where teams aren't rewarded for going undefeated with a super soft schedule and where the best teams are decided via play on the field and not by some arbitrary polls.
quote:
The regular season mattered more
In the past, maybe the regular season meant more for 2 or 3 schools, but now there are so many more meaningful games at the end of regular season.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:34 am to John Casey
quote:
I prefer a format where teams aren't rewarded for going undefeated with a super soft schedule and where the best teams are decided via play on the field and not by some arbitrary polls.
And how many times did that happen? Once? And TCU won it's first round game that showed they were legit. Now you get way more of that but even with one loss teams that don't deserve to be there. Last year certainly proved that true with Indiana and Boise St. You're getting more of what you don't want in the current format.
quote:
but now there are so many more meaningful games at the end of regular season.
Yay, we won the opportunity to lose in the first round.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:46 am to angryslugs
So… Texas and PSU lose their conference championship games and get rewarded for it?
Ohio State wasn’t even the second best team in their conference last year and should’ve been left out of a 4 or 8 team playoff due to that stinker of a home loss to a very bad Michigan team.
quote:
Had it been a four team playoff last year, yes, we see that the best team would have been left out.
Ohio State wasn’t even the second best team in their conference last year and should’ve been left out of a 4 or 8 team playoff due to that stinker of a home loss to a very bad Michigan team.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 11:50 am
Posted on 5/22/25 at 11:48 am to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
And how many times did that happen?
A lot?
Instead of debating the SOS of various teams with similar records to determine the most deserving teams, they now have to play it out on the field in a playoff.
quote:
Yay, we won the opportunity to lose in the first round
Maybe I'm in the minority but I only care about the relevancy of my team's games.
Expanded playoff allows for more high stakes games for my team year in and year out, which is better, IMO.
And going back a 2 team or 4 team model would kill college football in the NIL/opt-out era.
As soon as a school would be eliminated, players would be opting out and entering the transfer portal like crazy. Nobody is going to be giving their all for a chance to play in the Pop Tarts bowl.
The only way to keep players interested and games relevant throughout the season is with the expanded playoff.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 12:01 pm to John Casey
quote:
A lot?
Umm, no it didn't
Care to name them? Hell I'll even do the work for you. Here's the page you can see every playoff game/team record going in and teams left out. I'll wait for your examples of teams that went undefeated and got in because of super soft schedules.
LINK
But don't look at the one year of the 12 team playoffs if you don't want to see crappy teams that don't deserve to be there, The ol 11-2 SMU playoff teams
Posted on 5/22/25 at 12:05 pm to angryslugs
Clemson makes it to the final four with that format
This twelve team playoff is so lame, but atleast it’s marginally better with the straight seeding
This twelve team playoff is so lame, but atleast it’s marginally better with the straight seeding
Posted on 5/22/25 at 12:15 pm to purplengold1
Conference champs should get a bye. Last year was broken, so I get the fix, but I still think Texas shouldn’t get a bye.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 12:29 pm to BZ504
They are never going to decrease the number of teams that get in. They want as many playoff games as possible. Follow the money.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 12:30 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Oregon really got ratfricked.
Yeah it was 34-0 in the 2nd quarter
Posted on 5/22/25 at 12:37 pm to Gountiss
quote:
If this model was in place last year, why would UGA and Texas even play starters in the SEC championship?
Let me say it again. Get rid of Conference Championship Games.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 12:49 pm to purplengold1
quote:
This is much better.
Is it 6 teams with Top 2 getting a bye?
Posted on 5/22/25 at 1:11 pm to iwyLSUiwy
My comment about undefeated teams with soft schedules was taken literally, when I was using as an example to make a point about schedule disparities and how not all schedules (undefeated, 1 loss, 2 loss, etc) are created equal.
With conference expansion/consolidation, undefeated teams with soft schedules is much more likely now than in the past. Conferences are just too big and schedule disparities too likely to select playoff teams based on the historical model of 1 loss or no loss teams (see Indiana and SMU in the 2024 season).
Rather than debating SOS and Conference Strength when debating teams with similar records for a spot in a playoff, having them play head to head in a playoff is better.
In an absolutely perfect world, we would just just have conference-only regular season schedules and then just have the conference champions play in a playoff, but we don't live in a perfect world.
With conference expansion/consolidation, undefeated teams with soft schedules is much more likely now than in the past. Conferences are just too big and schedule disparities too likely to select playoff teams based on the historical model of 1 loss or no loss teams (see Indiana and SMU in the 2024 season).
Rather than debating SOS and Conference Strength when debating teams with similar records for a spot in a playoff, having them play head to head in a playoff is better.
In an absolutely perfect world, we would just just have conference-only regular season schedules and then just have the conference champions play in a playoff, but we don't live in a perfect world.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 1:17 pm to John Casey
quote:This would kill a lot of non-conference rivalries.
12 games with 10 Conference games and 2 OOC games (1 Power 4 and 1 Cupcake).
Florida vs FSU / Miami
Clemson vs South Carolina
Georgia vs Georgia Tech
Louisville vs Kentucky
Oklahoma vs Oklahoma State
Oregon vs Oregon State
Washington vs Washington State
Pitt vs West Virginia
Posted on 5/22/25 at 1:22 pm to John Casey
quote:Except when you expand the playoff too far, now a collossal upset isn’t nearly the big deal it otherwise would have been.
Expanded playoff allows for more high stakes games for my team year in and year out, which is better, IMO.
Oh, a 6-6 Oklahoma upsets Bama and gives them a 3rd loss late in the season. No biggie, they just drop from a 10 seed to a 13 seed. Still in the playoffs and they weren’t getting a home game either way.
Thats the biggest reason college regular season was way more exciting than the NFL. Every game was crucial for your postseason aspirations and one big upset could shake up the entire championship hunt.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 1:23 pm to Tiger Prawn
quote:
This would kill a lot of non-conference rivalries.
Most of those are already dead....
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News