Last night, watching that instant classic, got me thinking....What is you guys opinion on the 12 team format. Too many teams? Too little teams? Just right?
OT: What are your thoughts on the College Football Playoff?
- Thread starter Matt Dossett
- Start date
Ain't watching that garbage
If they ever fix college football would consider it. I can't be the only person who finds it incredibly boring watching the teams with the biggest pockets winning every year.
If they ever fix college football would consider it. I can't be the only person who finds it incredibly boring watching the teams with the biggest pockets winning every year.
Something is not right when every single higher seeded 1st round bye team loses their following quarter final games.
The first round home field advantage reminded me of the 1st & 2nd round advantage that women's basketball teams got during the NCAA Tournament. Unless you want to watch blow out after blow out might as well skip the first round matchups. Made for a lot of early boredom. For me those dull blowouts somewhat tainted the rest of the playoffs.
The first round home field advantage reminded me of the 1st & 2nd round advantage that women's basketball teams got during the NCAA Tournament. Unless you want to watch blow out after blow out might as well skip the first round matchups. Made for a lot of early boredom. For me those dull blowouts somewhat tainted the rest of the playoffs.
I have no interest in it, maybe I'll regain some interest once MT completes a long climb out of the hole its leaders dug over the years. Very plainly college football post-season play has no relevance to this fan as I have no divided loyalty. F utk, F vandy, F memphis state, F the $ec and F the rest.
I have enjoyed it. There's been some great games (Texas/ASU, ND/Penn State, UGA/ND). They got the seeding wrong - I get what they were doing, but no way should Boise/ASU gotten a bye. I watch the same way I watch the NFL - interested only in the competition and hoping for a close game. I've been pulling for Notre Dame - those guys seem like good guys.
Personally, I'd go to 16. The bowls are useless and I've watched virtually none of them, I don't know why we keep them. And if anyone wants to elect me college football king of college football, i'd split the P2 from everyone else, have the G5 and leftovers of the P-whatever play it's own league with its own playoffs - but have promotion-relegation between the two. Fat chance, I know, but it's still a good idea.
Personally, I'd go to 16. The bowls are useless and I've watched virtually none of them, I don't know why we keep them. And if anyone wants to elect me college football king of college football, i'd split the P2 from everyone else, have the G5 and leftovers of the P-whatever play it's own league with its own playoffs - but have promotion-relegation between the two. Fat chance, I know, but it's still a good idea.
I agree. What fun is college football when there are only a handful of teams every year that have a chance to win it all. I have no interest. I follow MT and that's it. Years ago I would watch the "big" games but I have become jaded over the unfair corruption in the sport and no longer care.
I've watched all the CFP games but not a single bowl except WVU. And I got pissed and turned it off part way through. The OSU/Texas game thst just finished was great.
The seeding is off, and will be fixed. I don't support a G5 split (I still think some sort of split will happen, but I don't support it). In an ideal world every FBS champ should make it, but that'll never happen.
But in '26 almost all the bowls get restructured. I say keep the CFP at 12. P4 champs all get in, plus a G5(6). Then give in a bit to the P2 to prevent a split. 2 more SEC, 2 more B1G, 1 more B12, one more ACC, then ND or at-large. So 3+3+2+2+1+1.
Then eliminate some bowls, but make others an NIT of football for those that didn't make the CFP. Guarantee the other G5(6) champs a spot and say 7 others. That allows 24 teams to play post-season. That's plenty. Maybe still keep Hawaii/Bahamas and a few others. But this 84/134 teams (63%) making the post-season is ridiculous.
The seeding is off, and will be fixed. I don't support a G5 split (I still think some sort of split will happen, but I don't support it). In an ideal world every FBS champ should make it, but that'll never happen.
But in '26 almost all the bowls get restructured. I say keep the CFP at 12. P4 champs all get in, plus a G5(6). Then give in a bit to the P2 to prevent a split. 2 more SEC, 2 more B1G, 1 more B12, one more ACC, then ND or at-large. So 3+3+2+2+1+1.
Then eliminate some bowls, but make others an NIT of football for those that didn't make the CFP. Guarantee the other G5(6) champs a spot and say 7 others. That allows 24 teams to play post-season. That's plenty. Maybe still keep Hawaii/Bahamas and a few others. But this 84/134 teams (63%) making the post-season is ridiculous.
I like this idea as well.
As much as the bowls have been devalued, we need to come up with something for the 80+ programs that have virtually no shot at a playoff to play for. It used to be a bowl, but they're almost embarrassing at this point. For fan interest and keeping the players at least engaged - A football "NIT" would probably work better than the Dr.Scholl's Toe Corn Bowl or whatever.
And what if you could provide some sort of NIL related bonus for the team that won it - like an MVP bonus or something for the team or a trip somewhere for the program or something like that.
I agree with the idea something has not been quite right on this variation of the college football playoff. It's seemed a bit off despite two quality semifinal games.
Causes: (1) For me, maybe its because of MT's poor football season this past year. (2) Perhaps I've become more jaded/sour about NIL and what transfer portals have become: think that process needs adjustment and that is entirely another discussion. (3) The playoff season is creeping deeper and deeper into January well beyond New Years and College Basketball comes into focus. (4) FCS and lower NCAA divisions seem to do a more credible job of actually crowning a champion in football, which I'm not so sure this CFP format really does even though Ohio State and Notre Dame have earned the right to be there. (5) Secondary and tertiary level bowls seem more obscure than before even though they are televised...fan engagement? news stories? matchups? think it's a mix of all that.
Solution: A 16-team playoff that guarantees all conference champions a place. The remaining at-large CFP teams should be selected on metrics similar to old BCS model. To me, conference championships should be valued at a premium. Strength of schedule should matter significantly as well. The ticket should be knowing the need to win your conference convincingly, which will determine that team's seeding. Additionally, they will also have to be some contingency consideration on the Army/Navy game, should Army/Navy finish undefeated or with 1 loss, on how that formulates. Had Army completed an undefeated slate prior to Navy, it would have been a harder call as an at large. But, winning the conference would have likely locked-in the #12 spot this year as an automatic qualified under these playoff formats.
Causes: (1) For me, maybe its because of MT's poor football season this past year. (2) Perhaps I've become more jaded/sour about NIL and what transfer portals have become: think that process needs adjustment and that is entirely another discussion. (3) The playoff season is creeping deeper and deeper into January well beyond New Years and College Basketball comes into focus. (4) FCS and lower NCAA divisions seem to do a more credible job of actually crowning a champion in football, which I'm not so sure this CFP format really does even though Ohio State and Notre Dame have earned the right to be there. (5) Secondary and tertiary level bowls seem more obscure than before even though they are televised...fan engagement? news stories? matchups? think it's a mix of all that.
Solution: A 16-team playoff that guarantees all conference champions a place. The remaining at-large CFP teams should be selected on metrics similar to old BCS model. To me, conference championships should be valued at a premium. Strength of schedule should matter significantly as well. The ticket should be knowing the need to win your conference convincingly, which will determine that team's seeding. Additionally, they will also have to be some contingency consideration on the Army/Navy game, should Army/Navy finish undefeated or with 1 loss, on how that formulates. Had Army completed an undefeated slate prior to Navy, it would have been a harder call as an at large. But, winning the conference would have likely locked-in the #12 spot this year as an automatic qualified under these playoff formats.
I see what you are saying, but does the country want to watch a team like JSU get slaughtered first round?
It's all about generating revenues and ratings. Folks at ABC/ESPN networks et.al may not.
Based on principles of fairness, think all FBS conferences should have a chance to compete. Have never liked the concept where 50+ teams in 1-A/FBS are basically "disqualified" from a National Championship by defacto opinion of pre-season polls, media talking heads, and sports magazines. Are FBS football teams really FBS? Or should the majority of G5 teams be relegated out to a new division or reconstituted FCS and compete there for championships? I don't know. Championships, matchups, exposure, facilities, and gameday experience all contribute relevancy and value to the university in ways beyond the gridiron, court, track, or diamond. For instance, people give $$$ to the university based upon affinity and perception which is helped along by performance in athletics--namely football.
That question "does the country want to watch a team like JSU get slaughtered first round" morphs into a second thought--should the JSU's, Marshall's, Akron's, and Middle Tennessee's ever have been admitted to FBS football decades ago if the end-game was to create super conferences much like a professional sport? The other corollary question is have MT and similar instutions de-volved into something where there is no viable marketplace in the product? Akron was the first team I remember making a move from 1-AA to 1-A. They were in the OVC like we were. In 1985, MT played a pivotal game in Akron's Rubber Bowl Stadium and Blue Raiders won 17-0 enroute to our last undefeated regular season at 11-0. Hard to believe this fall will marks 40 years since that game was played--remember I was in Tullahoma listening to that game. Since, neither Akron or MT has yielded consistently stellar football results. Sure, MT has OVC titles (last outright was 1992), a couple of FBS co-championships in 2001 and 2006, and a 10-3 season capped on a New Orelans Bowl win against USM. There were a few 1-AA playoff quarterfinal appearances along the way between 1989-1994, but didn't advance. What if we counted various "bowl eligibility" seasons defining 7-6 or 8-5 as a superlative? It would be a stretch to call it an acceptable season, at its best.
Conference championships along with academic performance metrics (e.g. graduations, grade point averages) are about the only bellwether measurement one can rely upon to measure the state of a football or any athletic program. With NIL and the portal, the face and focus of athletics have changed and am not thinking it was for the better. Those type of thoughts should be on the mind of every AD, university president, and conference commissioner as to how to make teams/leagues more competitive and compelling to engage students, fans, and casual viewers so these universities can be on par with a credible product.
Similar threads
