12 Team College Football Playoff On The Way

[DanTheHorn 4901]

21 minutes ago, hook me said:

I know in the initial reports it was said the top 4 ranked conference champions but I haven't seen that same language since it became official. Is that still the case or did they change it to just read the top 4 ranked teams get the bye week. I'm all for ND getting screwed by this, but I'm sure they'll be in the B1G before they're back to being ranked in the top 4.

My point was not that Notre Dame was being screwed it was more about they finally were negotiated with in there proper place based on the decision they have made to be an independent. They finally paid for the ramification of their own decision.

[Vertigo 20267]

4 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

We'll def see a 12 seed upsetting a 5 seed in our lifetime.. if it can happen with a one seed vs a 16 seed in bball.. it can happen in the CFP

The only real downside to this is that you may see a bunch of repeat matchups from the B1G or SEC in the first round based purely on seeding and rankings. I would think the committee would keep that in mind for final positioning to encourage more interesting cross conference matchups.  

Edited December 1, 2022 by Vertigo

[David Dennison 18659]

38 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

10 win seasons should be enough to get you there in most cases, which is kind of the unofficial bar for blue blood programs anyway. 

Good point. 

[Horn of Gabriel 1590]

3 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

I disagree, we need less subjectivity and more objective, hard, data to distinguish the deserving teams.  That is one thing the BCS did well and combined with a playoff, would create an awesome format where everything is decided on the field.  

Fuck this line of thinking and fuck the BCS.  The data you're talking about doesn't exist.  This isn't MLB where everyone plays everyone.  The data points in college football are too limited.  Any model you build around those limited datapoints is rife with expansive fuckery, which is why we had 7 different computer models all disagreeing with each other in the BCS days.  Those data models and the inputs they weigh are built by humans who are...BIASED.  You can't tell me that the subjectivity inherent in those models is any different than the subjectivity in a committee because it's not.  It's just dressed up fancier with the veneer of "data" to make people think it's less subjective.  It ain't.

[Dbeasy 14969]

One downside - say goodbye to inter conference regular season matchups between top programs. Alabama vs Texas, etc. Schools will slowly pare those games back to easier wins. 

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

1 minute ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Fuck this line of thinking and fuck the BCS.  The data you're talking about doesn't exist.  This isn't MLB where everyone plays everyone.  The data points in college football are too limited.  Any model you build around those limited datapoints is rife with expansive fuckery, which is why we had 7 different computer models all disagreeing with each other in the BCS days.  Those data models and the inputs they weigh are built by humans who are...BIASED.  You can't tell me that the subjectivity inherent in those models is any different than the subjectivity in a committee because it's not.  It's just dressed up fancier with the veneer of "data" to make people think it's less subjective.  It ain't.

I’ll take bias over how algorithmically to rank teams over bias based on the uniform, though. 
 

Yes, the subjectivity of the computers is different because it is applied blindly and that of the committee isn’t. If you’re going to have “at large” openings, someone’s subjectivity is going to be weighing the factors. The team’s name or how many fans they’ll bring doesn’t escape the committee no matter what they say. 

[Huckleberry 32703]

3 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

I’ll take bias over how algorithmically to rank teams over bias based on the uniform, though. 
 

Yes, the subjectivity of the computers is different because it is applied blindly and that of the committee isn’t. If you’re going to have “at large” openings, someone’s subjectivity is going to be weighing the factors. The team’s name or how many fans they’ll bring doesn’t escape the committee no matter what they say. 

This and the algorithms were known and set before the season started. Committees can make things up as they go along and adjust their logic to fit the season results. The biases are miles apart. In the computer systems they're things like deciding whether margins over a certain threshold should be scaled and making that decision before the season. In the committee room they're things like how many tickets that specific team will sell once they know who that team is. 

[Pam Cummings 9582]

4 hours ago, Herpa Derpa said:

It's fucking asinine. 

The "we want the regular season to matter" take from the crowd that is against playoff expansion is such a stupid argument. All it takes is 3 seconds of thought to realize that keeping more teams playoff viable for longer makes the regular season matter MORE. Under the current system, for 99% of teams, if they lose one game, they are eliminated from playoff contention. Which means the rest of their regular season is irrelevant.

Edited December 1, 2022 by Pam Cummings

[Constant 6722]

35 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

One downside - say goodbye to inter conference regular season matchups between top programs. Alabama vs Texas, etc. Schools will slowly pare those games back to easier wins. 

I see where you’re coming from, but I’m not convinced it will totally die. Perhaps at first, but I think it could help in that muddled 8-12 range to have a signature non-con win. 

[4th&Five 41461]

43 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

One downside - say goodbye to inter conference regular season matchups between top programs. Alabama vs Texas, etc. Schools will slowly pare those games back to easier wins. 

Probably true...without that loss we're top 12 right now.

[Huckleberry 32703]

6 minutes ago, Constant said:

I see where you’re coming from, but I’m not convinced it will totally die. Perhaps at first, but I think it could help in that muddled 8-12 range to have a signature non-con win. 

This is correct. If Texas had lost one fewer game (let's say Texas Tech) they'd be in the 12 team discussion with a 9-3 record. Texas is already #10 in the ranking composite even with the 4 losses. 

[Huckleberry 32703]

Just now, 4th&Five said:

Probably true...without that loss we're top 12 right now.

Disagree. Take away the Tech loss and we are okay with one of the three losses being Alabama. Take away the Alabama loss and then the 9-3 isn't good enough to be in the discussion if it's replaced with a middling win. 

[Valmy77 13094]

54 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

One downside - say goodbye to inter conference regular season matchups between top programs. Alabama vs Texas, etc. Schools will slowly pare those games back to easier wins. 

Huh? It seems to me the motivations for doing that were stronger in the old system. This means you can lose to another top team and still make it in.

[Constant 6722]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Disagree. Take away the Tech loss and we are okay with one of the three losses being Alabama. Take away the Alabama loss and then the 9-3 isn't good enough to be in the discussion if it's replaced with a middling win. 

Yeah, AD’s may slow play it a little to see how things are reacted to and shake out, but there will always be value in premier non-con games, imo. 

[Huckleberry 32703]

2 minutes ago, Constant said:

Yeah, AD’s may slow play it a little to see how things are reacted to and shake out, but there will always be value in premier non-con games, imo. 

Yep and the more I think about it the more I think Texas could make a 12 team playoff in a season like this one without the Tech loss. 

Without that the losses are two Top 10 teams and oh yeah also that game where the refs called 14 penalties to 0 against the opponent. That would get a LOT of airplay. 

[USNALonghorn 5024]

15 hours ago, bschoolprof said:

 

Lmao at Ohio St. vs Tulane as playoff game

[Valmy77 13094]

3 minutes ago, USNALonghorn said:

Lmao at Ohio St. vs Tulane as playoff game

Tulane beat the team that finished ahead of us in the Big 12 and is in the playoff at #10. Just saying.

Besides with G5 getting one spot there is going to be some non-helmet team in there. A little bone to throw to the #5 team.

[LonghornSean 3942]

2 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I know logically the advantages of a bye outweigh this, but holy hell the prospect of a playoff game at DKR may have me irrationally rooting for a 5-8 seed should the opportunity arise.

This is why many think the quarterfinal games will eventually shift to being on campus, and I agree that they definitely should. Those top 4 teams are missing out on a huge opportunity to host playoff games at home.

And for fans, traveling to 2, 3, or even 4 consecutive neutral site games (CCG, QF, SF, NCG) is not feasible or desirable for most.

[USNALonghorn 5024]

1 minute ago, Valmy77 said:

Tulane beat the team that finished ahead of us in the Big 12 and is in the playoff at #10. Just saying.

Besides with G5 getting one spot there is going to be some non-helmet team in there. A little bone to throw to the #5 team.

I don't disagree. My laughter is equally aimed at us for getting beat out of the (hypothetical) 12 team playoff by them.

[Constant 6722]

27 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yep and the more I think about it the more I think Texas could make a 12 team playoff in a season like this one without the Tech loss. 

Without that the losses are two Top 10 teams and oh yeah also that game where the refs called 14 penalties to 0 against the opponent. That would get a LOT of airplay. 

Yeah, thats not crazy. Most years a win against OU would be much more valuable as well. Doesn’t mean shit this year, but historically speaking, thats another top 10 win. 

[nnm 36101]

2 hours ago, Vertigo said:

10 win seasons should be enough to get you there in most cases, which is kind of the unofficial bar for blue blood programs anyway. 

List of State of Texas major football teams’ 10+ win seasons:

UT: 20 (10 since 2000)

TCU: 15 (12 since 2000, not including 2022)

UH:  9 (5 since 2000)

aggy: 9 (1 since 2000)

BU:  6 (3 since 2000)

SMU: 6 (1 since 2000)

TTU: 5 (1 since 2000) 

Rice: 3 (2 since 2000) (included because they were respectable back in the older SWC days). 

[Trojan Man 429]

2 hours ago, DanTheHorn said:

My point was not that Notre Dame was being screwed it was more about they finally were negotiated with in there proper place based on the decision they have made to be an independent. They finally paid for the ramification of their own decision.

Notre Dame isn't paying for anything.  Their AD helped craft the 12 team format because for some stupid ass reason the rest of college football thinks Notre Dame should get as much say in these things as entire conferences.  They made a calculated choice to accept not being eligible for a top 4 bye seed because they don't play CCGs, unlike all the teams that will get bye seeds.  Basically Notre Dame (and any other independents, though in practice just Notre Dame because no other independents are ever making the CFP) is just shifting their bye week from round 1 to CCG weekend.  You could even argue it's an advantage for Notre Dame because most times they make the CFP they'll be playing their 13th game at home as a 5-8 seed instead of at a neutral site like a CCG.

[Dbeasy 14969]

I think the Texas vs Alabama or OSU or Georgia games won’t get scheduled, but Yexas would play Ole Miss, Oregon, etc. they would drop down to play teams in the second tier. 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Dbeasy

[hornbri 1375]

2 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

One downside - say goodbye to inter conference regular season matchups between top programs. Alabama vs Texas, etc. Schools will slowly pare those games back to easier wins. 

That’s what everyone thought with the 4 team playoff but while we saw it at first, those games made a comeback when teams realized a early season loss did not eliminate you from a 4 team playoff. Now that it is a 12 team playoff it hurts even less.

[wood 11161]

7 hours ago, LTtxfan said:

Minimum of 6 Bowls staying per this chart ??

They should use the bowls for all the games. Then 11 bowls would be guaranteed a great, meaningful matchup and good to great ratings. The remaining bowls would have better matchups than before, too, because the top 11 bowls would only take 12 teams instead of 22.

[4th&Five 41461]

17 minutes ago, wood said:

They should use the bowls for all the games. Then 11 bowls would be guaranteed a great, meaningful matchup and good to great ratings. The remaining bowls would have better matchups than before, too, because the top 11 bowls would only take 12 teams instead of 22.

There’s a finite number of people that can afford to travel for these things. 

[bullet 1596]

5 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

One downside - say goodbye to inter conference regular season matchups between top programs. Alabama vs Texas, etc. Schools will slowly pare those games back to easier wins. 

Don't think so.  They can now more afford a loss in those games.  They aren't elimination games.

[bullet 1596]

On 9/3/2022 at 11:11 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

No it won’t. See college basketball.

From a Buckeye perspective, the OSU-Michigan game is the biggest game on the schedule. It’s “The Game.” The big rivalry game at the end of the season. The team’s goals are: beat Michigan, win the Big Ten East, win the Big Ten, win a national championship. In that order. Last year the Buckeyes lost to Michigan. They didn’t win the conference, they didn’t compete for a national championship.

In a 12-team playoff, they would still have gotten in. The Game wouldn’t have been as important. The conference championship wouldn’t have been as important. It just meant they would’ve been a 6 seed instead of a 3 seed. The expanded playoff will definitely weaken the regular season.

In college basketball, 20% of all teams and 50% of power conference teams get in.  Not only that, but everybody gets a mulligan with the conference tournament.   In football it will be 9% of all teams and 15% of power conference teams.  No conference tournament.  Totally different.

[tonedeaf 56]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

There’s a finite number of people that can afford to travel for these things. 

Count me in. 🤘🤘🤘

[bullet 1596]

8 hours ago, WBT said:

I see it as not giving certain teams mulligans because of their history, brand, etc.

Yes, all undefeated teams should get a chance.  Even in the new format, that won't be guaranteed for 2 or more undefeated G5 teams, will it?

No, but with Utah, TCU, Cincinnati, UCF, UH and BYU in the P5, its not going to happen very often.

Excluding the Covid year, during the BCS and playoff era, there were never 2 unbeaten G5 teams (excluding the 6 who will be P5 in 2023) in the same year.  In fact, there have only been 8.  Boise 4 times, Marshall, Hawaii, Tulane and Western Michigan.  And WMU the only one since 2009.

[bullet 1596]

8 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I'm sure someone else has done the research, but I'd imagine that historically the odds of being an at-large team under this new format would be astronomically higher in the SEC than Big 12.

You have an astronomically better chance if you are Auburn or Tennessee than if you are Kansas or Baylor.  Doesn't have anything to do with the conference.

8 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I'm sure someone else has done the research, but I'd imagine that historically the odds of being an at-large team under this new format would be astronomically higher in the SEC than Big 12.

But yes, the Big 10 would get the most at large bids, with the SEC right behind.  The rest far behind.

[bullet 1596]

7 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

You can't expect fan bases to travel to multiple playoff venues in large numbers.  This guarantees sellouts in early round games.

And with byes, half the teams in the NYD bowls will certainly sell out their allotment.

[bullet 1596]

6 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

This and the algorithms were known and set before the season started. Committees can make things up as they go along and adjust their logic to fit the season results. The biases are miles apart. In the computer systems they're things like deciding whether margins over a certain threshold should be scaled and making that decision before the season. In the committee room they're things like how many tickets that specific team will sell once they know who that team is. 

The committee will use one set of reasoning one week and the exact opposite the next week.  Its really been a disappointment and a very bad system.

Especially when Tom Osborne and Barry Alvarez were on the committee.

[Laga4 1270]

22 minutes ago, bullet said:

Especially when Tom Osborne and Barry Alvarez were on the committee.

I'll raise you Condi Rice and Barry Switzer.

[El Squared 1793]

11 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

The Committee is fine for seeding. It works well enough in all the other college sports.

Seeding is one thing, setting teams that qualify is another, as many teams as possible need to earn their way into the playoffs without political/financial interests. 

[El Squared 1793]

8 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

You can't expect fan bases to travel to multiple playoff venues in large numbers.  This guarantees sellouts in early round games.

That ok but not where the dollars are, it’s tv in case you didn’t know that existed. Money talks, bullshit walks. Universal truth.

[Sbbruin 21737]

4 hours ago, El Squared said:

That ok but not where the dollars are, it’s tv in case you didn’t know that existed. Money talks, bullshit walks. Universal truth.

Wait! Tv is where the dollars are?

[JBJ 3649]

11 hours ago, El Squared said:

That ok but not where the dollars are, it’s tv in case you didn’t know that existed. Money talks, bullshit walks. Universal truth.

As much as media money is always talked about, "gameday" money is more than triple than what media brings in.  The games will be played wherever there's more people and more money spent going to the game.

Edited December 2, 2022 by JBJ

[hook me 2080]

13 hours ago, bullet said:

The committee will use one set of reasoning one week and the exact opposite the next week.  Its really been a disappointment and a very bad system.

Especially when Tom Osborne and Barry Alvarez were on the committee.

Is it too naive to hope that a new selection process will be in the works soon? I think the selection committee has value, but when you have current & former ADs & coaches deciding who's playing in the playoffs there's no way to escape criticism. That said, you can't go solely off of something like the SP+ because it has UT ranked 7th at 8-4 & 11-1 USC at 11th while 10-2 Bama & Tenn are 4th & 5th. The algorithms have their place, but at some point you have to go with the teams that actually got it done on the field. A combination of the Selection Committee & algorithms (SP+ or whatever), weight their rankings however seems best & crap out your playoff bracket. Protect yourself against accusations of biases towards/against a team/conference while allowing room for the human element that some of the algorithms may miss as well as a group of people to bitch at when a fans favorite team inevitably finishes 13th and they watch the 12th seed get blown out in a game their team totally would have won.

[JBJ 3649]

20 hours ago, Constant said:

Yeah, AD’s may slow play it a little to see how things are reacted to and shake out, but there will always be value in premier non-con games, imo. 

I don't think the calculus is changing much.

If you lose non-con now, you basically need to run the table.  If you lose non-con with 12, you can likely afford another loss.  All things considered an additional loss (2nd currently, 3rd in the future) is still really likely to eliminate you.

It's really the same choice as having a CCG or not, but the CCG brings in more money.

I think more teams worry about the 6-win threshold than the playoff anyway.  It might not matter for the truly marquee TX-Bama type games, but the biggest step to better non-con in general would be replacing the 6-win threshold with 4 conference wins or something similar.

Edited December 2, 2022 by JBJ

[Trojan Man 429]

35 minutes ago, hook me said:

Is it too naive to hope that a new selection process will be in the works soon? I think the selection committee has value, but when you have current & former ADs & coaches deciding who's playing in the playoffs there's no way to escape criticism. That said, you can't go solely off of something like the SP+ because it has UT ranked 7th at 8-4 & 11-1 USC at 11th while 10-2 Bama & Tenn are 4th & 5th. The algorithms have their place, but at some point you have to go with the teams that actually got it done on the field. A combination of the Selection Committee & algorithms (SP+ or whatever), weight their rankings however seems best & crap out your playoff bracket. Protect yourself against accusations of biases towards/against a team/conference while allowing room for the human element that some of the algorithms may miss as well as a group of people to bitch at when a fans favorite team inevitably finishes 13th and they watch the 12th seed get blown out in a game their team totally would have won.

I don't think there is a problem keeping the committee after the CFP expands.  Inviting an analytics nerd like Bill Connelly to serve on the committee would help represent that viewpoint and explain advanced metrics to the olds on the committee without going full retard and giving the 7th seed to an 8-4 team because computer said so.  Having 6 automatic bids determined by conference champions and gating the top 4 seeds behind conference championships will eliminate most of the bullshit affiliated with the committee.  Those parameters mean they won't be allowed to give bye weeks to B1G/SEC runnerups because of the mythical eyeball test, they can't pull whatever justification necessary out of their ass to screw over an undefeated midmajor in favor of a blueblood that's on the bubble and if anyone that gets left out whines about it the rest of us can tell them guilt-free "Win your conference next time."

I don't think there will be much controversy over who gets in and who doesn't.  #13 will never have as good of a case as #3 did during the BCS most years or #5 does right now some years.  The biggest controversy will come from seeding due to first round on campus, particularly the 7-10 seeds.  The teams that should be the 5, 6, 11 and 12 seeds will be obvious most years, but I can see a lot of campaigning over seeding from the 7-10 schools.  There will be a lot of whining the first time a 10-2 B1G team is seeded 8th while a 10-2 SEC team is seeded 9th, but maybe enough people outside the 9-10 seed fanbases will enjoy the result to smooth over the controversy.  I know I'd have fun watching Florida play at Penn State in late December.

[Make em eat Taco Bell 1549]

On 12/1/2022 at 6:34 AM, slorch said:

What about UGa getting a semifinal in Atlanta?

that's not their home field, but yes, they should be moved out west in a perfect world.  CFB is talking about putting a playoff game @ Bama or @ Georgia or other very tough venues.  

[Guest]

Lolz. That’s like saying Texas playing at AlamoDome would be neutral.

Actually,I agree with Valmy that 1st round games would be reasonable at home or a nearby pro stadium.  Semi’s and Finals shouldn’t be advantageous unless it was just totally random- New Orleans/ Dallas/ Phoenix/LA could all easily be in regular rotation.

[Make em eat Taco Bell 1549]

54 minutes ago, slorch said:

Lolz. That’s like saying Texas playing at AlamoDome would be neutral.

Actually,I agree with Valmy that 1st round games would be reasonable at home or a nearby pro stadium.  Semi’s and Finals shouldn’t be advantageous unless it was just totally random- New Orleans/ Dallas/ Phoenix/LA could all easily be in regular rotation.

playing at DKRMS would not be neutral, going to NRG, JerryWorld or Alamodome is neutral.  Georgia playing in Athens is not the same as the GA dome, obviously there's an advantage at the GAdome and I'd be for moving them to PHX or the SoFi - but clearly true home games are just too big an advantage in CFB.   Also dislike first round byes, would rather just expand to 16 teams, although 8 is optimum and efficient. 

[Guest]

Lolz.  No those aren’t  neutral for the purposes of playoffs.

If Texas plays Oregon at any of those 3 sites, it would have a decided fan advantage.  Phoenix would be neutral.

[LTtxfan 48979]

Siap... Gotta a question on 4 teams that get Bye's

Just realized if this new 12 team playoff was currently set up that all 5 of the P5 Championship game winners likely get automatic bids and might even get a bye week seeded in the 1-4 slots.

So let's say all of the following win this weekend -- Lsu, K-state, N.Carolina, Utah, and Purdue.   All 5 get into CFP Playoffs.

Question:   Would None of the current Top 5 CFP teams (Ga, MI, tcu, usc, osu) get a bye in CFP Playoffs??

 

Here's info I found on this:  

 "The expanded 12-team bracket will feature the six highest ranked conference champions as automatic qualifiers along with the next six highest ranked teams.  The four highest ranked conference champions will be seeded 1-4 with first round byes.  The next four highest ranked teams (Nos. 5-8) will host the first round match-ups. "

Thanks... 😋 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by LTtxfan
messed up

[Trojan Man 429]

I don't understand why anyone outside of bowl committees and boomers refusing to adapt to the times would support keeping neutral sites and bowl games so heavily involved with an expanded playoff.  Rotate the title game between the Rose and Sugar.  They're clearly a cut above all other bowls and they are the preferred bowl games of the two conferences that control CFB now.  Play every other playoff game at the homefield of the higher seed.  The schools and their towns keep the gameday revenue instead of giving it away to bowl games and other cities.  On campus games are a lot more fun than neutral site games, both for TV audiences and attendees.  There are plenty of stadiums I want to personally see USC play in some day.  Not a single one of them is a boring neutral site NFL stadium.  I'm a lot more likely to attend a playoff game at LSU than a playoff game vs LSU in the Fiesta Bowl.  All on campus playoff games would be sellouts since you're not asking every fanbase in the playoff to criss-cross all over the country to see their team at a time of year when traveling and lodging is more expensive than usual.  You keep the regular season important and prevent anyone from resting starters because you're still playing for seeding, even if you have already locked up a bid.

We've already discarded all the history and tradition and prestige associated with bowl games.  They're a relic of a bygone era.  Might as well go balls deep and take this last step of moving all playoff games on campus except the title game instead of a half measure where we try to fight against the current and keep bowls relevant when they are clearly fading away.  To me this is the silver lining of money calling all the shots now in CFB.  Playing in bowls instead of on campus gives away too much money, and one day the decision makers will realize it.

[LTtxfan 48979]

Too much money and politics to be able to leave out the main bowl games.  At least it's only the six larger bowls that remain in the new 12 team CFP playoffs format.

[hook me 2080]

2 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

I don't think there is a problem keeping the committee after the CFP expands.  Inviting an analytics nerd like Bill Connelly to serve on the committee would help represent that viewpoint and explain advanced metrics to the olds on the committee without going full retard and giving the 7th seed to an 8-4 team because computer said so.  Having 6 automatic bids determined by conference champions and gating the top 4 seeds behind conference championships will eliminate most of the bullshit affiliated with the committee.  Those parameters mean they won't be allowed to give bye weeks to B1G/SEC runnerups because of the mythical eyeball test, they can't pull whatever justification necessary out of their ass to screw over an undefeated midmajor in favor of a blueblood that's on the bubble and if anyone that gets left out whines about it the rest of us can tell them guilt-free "Win your conference next time."

I don't think there will be much controversy over who gets in and who doesn't.  #13 will never have as good of a case as #3 did during the BCS most years or #5 does right now some years.  The biggest controversy will come from seeding due to first round on campus, particularly the 7-10 seeds.  The teams that should be the 5, 6, 11 and 12 seeds will be obvious most years, but I can see a lot of campaigning over seeding from the 7-10 schools.  There will be a lot of whining the first time a 10-2 B1G team is seeded 8th while a 10-2 SEC team is seeded 9th, but maybe enough people outside the 9-10 seed fanbases will enjoy the result to smooth over the controversy.  I know I'd have fun watching Florida play at Penn State in late December.

Having a stat nerd or 2 isn't going to balance the committee like it ought to. The expansion of the playoffs was inevitable & a decade from now will happen again. There's already too much money involved to trust that people representing universities & conferences with vested interests will have completely unbiased opinions. If Michigan loses this weekend what are the odds that they're still included in the playoffs considering their AD & 2 other committee members have B1G history? The SEC, Big 12, & PAC 12 have 1 each meaning the B1G has as much voting power as 3 of the other P5 conferences combined. I realize the committee turns over & any given year will look different, but that's also part of the problem. One year the B1G has a lot of voting power &, even if they're doing their dead-level best to be unbiased, an SEC school gets left out for a B1G school and feels robbed. The next year the committee turns over & the SEC has more sway, what's going to happen? At the very least what's the entire country going to assume is going to happen?

Adding more members just makes it less likely that any consensus is going to form & more likely that it'll end up closer to what we experience in politics now where "I'll agree with you on team A if you'll back me up on team B & we need to torpedo team C in order to prop ours up". What would your feelings be if there were a Stanford & Cal representative &  USC is deserving to be in but 2 ADs with an ax to grind screw them at the end. With the expanded format it could be the difference between getting a bye or hosting a home game or having to travel to a hostile environment. That's too much power for people with vested interests in the result to trust completely. Bring some algorithms into the fray & help protect against those biases.

Either that or take only the conference champions, have a Champions League like draw to determine the bracket, & find the best neutral site option for each matchup with the championship alternating between the pro stadiums in LA, AZ, TX, GA, & IL. 

[Trojan Man 429]

1 hour ago, hook me said:

Having a stat nerd or 2 isn't going to balance the committee like it ought to. The expansion of the playoffs was inevitable & a decade from now will happen again. There's already too much money involved to trust that people representing universities & conferences with vested interests will have completely unbiased opinions. If Michigan loses this weekend what are the odds that they're still included in the playoffs considering their AD & 2 other committee members have B1G history? The SEC, Big 12, & PAC 12 have 1 each meaning the B1G has as much voting power as 3 of the other P5 conferences combined. I realize the committee turns over & any given year will look different, but that's also part of the problem. One year the B1G has a lot of voting power &, even if they're doing their dead-level best to be unbiased, an SEC school gets left out for a B1G school and feels robbed. The next year the committee turns over & the SEC has more sway, what's going to happen? At the very least what's the entire country going to assume is going to happen?

Adding more members just makes it less likely that any consensus is going to form & more likely that it'll end up closer to what we experience in politics now where "I'll agree with you on team A if you'll back me up on team B & we need to torpedo team C in order to prop ours up". What would your feelings be if there were a Stanford & Cal representative &  USC is deserving to be in but 2 ADs with an ax to grind screw them at the end. With the expanded format it could be the difference between getting a bye or hosting a home game or having to travel to a hostile environment. That's too much power for people with vested interests in the result to trust completely. Bring some algorithms into the fray & help protect against those biases.

Either that or take only the conference champions, have a Champions League like draw to determine the bracket, & find the best neutral site option for each matchup with the championship alternating between the pro stadiums in LA, AZ, TX, GA, & IL. 

I'm really not concerned about these worst case scenarios.  The champions of the B1G and SEC will always be a top 4 seed and get a bye.  It's the ACC, Big 12, Pac and G5 champs that will be jockeying for the last 2 bye seeds.  Even then most years I think it will be clear who should get those last bye seeds.  TCU or Clemson goes undefeated and they'll get a top 4 seed, for example.  Any ratfucking behavior from representatives of butthurt smaller conferences would be the catalyst that pushes the B1G and SEC to tell them to fuck off while they turn into a pseudo-AFC/NFC that only plays each other.

As for at large bids the B1G and SEC will easily each get a couple of those every year.  I expect they'll combine for 4-5 at large bids between themselves while the rest of the sport is fighting over 1 or 2 at large bids.  If USC isn't good enough to be one of the 3 or 4 best teams in the B1G I can't complain about getting left out the way I still bitch and moan about getting left out so Oklahoma could gift wrap more championships to the SEC in 2003 and 2008.  Likewise if USC is the lowest ranked B1G team to make it I can't get upset about playing a road game in the first round because a better regular season performance would have directly translated into a better seed.  Ultimately an expanded playoff means this all gets settled on the field, not by a boardroom committee or computer rankings or poll voters deciding who gets to play for a title and who gets sent to the Consolation Bowl.  You could not tell teams on the outside looking in but with the same record as teams in the BCS title game or the 4 team CFP "Tough shit get better next time" in good conscience.  I won't have any problem at all giving that message to #13 after the playoff expands to 12 teams, even if it's USC.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Trojan Man