IMO, expanding to a six team playoffs is the natural next step for selecting the FBS champion. College football needs the extra money/excitement caused by expanding the playoffs while minimizing changes to the current scheduling structure.

If a six team playoffs were agreed upon, the biggest debate would be how to select the participants. The top 10 based on the CFP committee’s final ranking:

*=conference champion
^=subsequent national champion

2014: Ala*, Ore*, FSU*, OSU*^, Bay*, TCU, MsSt, MSU, OM and AZ. The A5 champions were all within the top 6 finishers. Guaranteeing A5 champs the playoffs would not create controversy. If there is one at-large selection for the highest ranked remaining team, TCU would get the spot.

2015: Clem*, Ala*^, MSU*, OU*, Iowa, Stan*, OSU, ND, FSU and UNC. Once again the A5 champions were all amongst the the top 6 finishers. Guaranteeing A5 champs the playoffs would not create controversy. Iowa would get the at-large spot.

2016: Ala*, Clem*^, OSU, UW*, PSU*, MI, OU*, WI, USC and CO. Ohio State, ranked #3, would get the at-large spot. Inter-A5 controversy would exist because Oklahoma finished seventh (note that this was the last year that the B12 did not hold a CCG), jumping over the Wolverines. Regardless, the B10 already would have both PSU and OSU in the playoffs.

2017: Clem*, OU*, UGA*, Ala^, OSU*, WI, Aub, USC*, PSU and Mia. Alabama, ranked #4, would get the at-large spot. Inter-A5 controversy would again arise because USC (#8 ranked PAC champ) would be selected over #6 Wisconsin.

2018: Ala*, Clem*^, ND, OU*, UGA, OSU*, MI, UCF*, UW* and UF. Undefeated Notre Dame would get the at-large spot. #5 Georgia would have the biggest beef...as they would be bypassed by #9 Washington (as well as #6 Ohio State). Interestingly, undefeated #8 UCF would still be out of playoff in both selection scenarios. The fact that the top G5 champ is now above an A5 champ, is a case for further playoff expansion.

2019: LSU*^, OSU*, Clem*, OU*, UGA, Ore*, Bay, WI, UF and PSU. The A5 champs are all within the top 6 finishers. Georgia gets the the at-large selection. No dispute about the selection criteria.

2020 (COVID schedules): Ala*^, Clem*, OSU*, ND, TAMU, OU*, UF, Cin*, UGA and ISU (#25 Ore*). Notre Dame would get the at-large selection. This would have the biggest controversy as #5 Texas A&M would be bumped-out of the playoffs by #25 Oregon. USC likely would have been in the top 10 ranking had they won the PAC CCG.

Seems like the A5 conferences could agree to a guarantee for their champions in a 6 game playoffs. This would add more interest to their divisional races and CCGs. The SEC/B10 will probably require that the A5 CCG winner finish in the top 15 of the CFP rankings to be eligible...mitigating the controversy of a potentially undeserving (2020 4-2 Ducks) A5 champ stealing a bid from a worthy (2020 8-1 Aggies) contender.

I have a hard time believing that any system that includes a bye week for some teams will be very popular. To me, who gets the second seed vs. who gets the third seed will be a bigger controversy than who gets left out at number 7.

I believe six with P-5 locked in with one wildcard. That allows access to ND or the G-5. win-win.

(05-10-2021 12:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  IMO, expanding to a six team playoffs is the natural next step for selecting the FBS champion. College football needs the extra money/excitement caused by expanding the playoffs while minimizing changes to the current scheduling structure.

If a six team playoffs were agreed upon, the biggest debate would be how to select the participants. The top 10 based on the CFP committee’s final ranking:

*=conference champion
^=subsequent national champion

2014: Ala*, Ore*, FSU*, OSU*^, Bay*, TCU, MsSt, MSU, OM and AZ. The A5 champions were all within the top 6 finishers. Guaranteeing A5 champs the playoffs would not create controversy. If there is one at-large selection for the highest ranked remaining team, TCU would get the spot.

2015: Clem*, Ala*^, MSU*, OU*, Iowa, Stan*, OSU, ND, FSU and UNC. Once again the A5 champions were all amongst the the top 6 finishers. Guaranteeing A5 champs the playoffs would not create controversy. Iowa would get the at-large spot.

2016: Ala*, Clem*^, OSU, UW*, PSU*, MI, OU*, WI, USC and CO. Ohio State, ranked #3, would get the at-large spot. Inter-A5 controversy would exist because Oklahoma finished seventh (note that this was the last year that the B12 did not hold a CCG), jumping over the Wolverines. Regardless, the B10 already would have both PSU and OSU in the playoffs.

2017: Clem*, OU*, UGA*, Ala^, OSU*, WI, Aub, USC*, PSU and Mia. Alabama, ranked #4, would get the at-large spot. Inter-A5 controversy would again arise because USC (#8 ranked PAC champ) would be selected over #6 Wisconsin.

2018: Ala*, Clem*^, ND, OU*, UGA, OSU*, MI, UCF*, UW* and UF. Undefeated Notre Dame would get the at-large spot. #5 Georgia would have the biggest beef...as they would be bypassed by #9 Washington (as well as #6 Ohio State). Interestingly, undefeated #8 UCF would still be out of playoff in both selection scenarios. The fact that the top G5 champ is now above an A5 champ, is a case for further playoff expansion.

2019: LSU*^, OSU*, Clem*, OU*, UGA, Ore*, Bay, WI, UF and PSU. The A5 champs are all within the top 6 finishers. Georgia gets the the at-large selection. No dispute about the selection criteria.

2020 (COVID schedules): Ala*^, Clem*, OSU*, ND, TAMU, OU*, UF, Cin*, UGA and ISU (#25 Ore*). Notre Dame would get the at-large selection. This would have the biggest controversy as #5 Texas A&M would be bumped-out of the playoffs by #25 Oregon. USC likely would have been in the top 10 ranking had they won the PAC CCG.

Seems like the A5 conferences could agree to a guarantee for their champions in a 6 game playoffs. This would add more interest to their divisional races and CCGs. The SEC/B10 will probably require that the A5 CCG winner finish in the top 15 of the CFP rankings to be eligible...mitigating the controversy of a potentially undeserving (2020 4-2 Ducks) A5 champ stealing a bid from a worthy (2020 8-1 Aggies) contender.

Eight teams (P5, top rated G5, next two highest ranked) seems like the logical next step.

1) No Byes
2) All the P5 Conferences guaranteed a spot
3) Playoff path for G5
4) Chance for SEC/B1G/ND to get second bid/not have to join a conference
2)

Next logical step is 5 teams total.

Top 3 teams get a bye. #4 and #5 play each other the week after the CCG at a CFP approved site.

I'm completely perplexed by any support for a 6-team playoff, which is why it seems to be only popular in message boards while the powers that be are looking at 8 to 12 teams. I understand the notion of a 6-team playoff as a pure hypothetical competitively exercise, but it doesn't really solve what bothers most fans about the college football playoff system along with the practical considerations of revenue maximization for the conferences.

I think it's instructive that the powers that be seem to be (correctly, for once) focused on creating a system that they're not going to have a change yet again in a few years. To me, that says that the next playoff system needs a minimum of 8 teams. A 6-team playoff just seems to kick the can down the road. Plus, it doesn't even get to take full advantage of adding another week to the playoff system in the way that an 8-team playoff would (which would create a first round of 4 elimination games).

(05-10-2021 12:33 PM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  I have a hard time believing that any system that includes a bye week for some teams will be very popular. To me, who gets the second seed vs. who gets the third seed will be a bigger controversy than who gets left out at number 7.

A bye week makes sense for a sport were injuries, and getting healthy, are major issues. The NFL has made it work. The bye week actually gives cover to university presidents who are concerned about the health of their student athletes.

Completely agree that there will be controversy about the #2 versus #3 seed. That will add more attention to the playoffs.

6 isn’t going to happen. ND and the G5 will not support it.

I’m convinced the only 2 options for expansion are 8 or 12. 16 is too big and would probably mean autobids for all of the G5. 6 is too small to provide any real improvement or significant revenue increase.

(05-10-2021 01:01 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 12:33 PM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  I have a hard time believing that any system that includes a bye week for some teams will be very popular. To me, who gets the second seed vs. who gets the third seed will be a bigger controversy than who gets left out at number 7.

A bye week makes sense for a sport were injuries, and getting healthy, are major issues. The NFL has made it work. The bye week actually gives cover to university presidents who are concerned about the health of their student athletes.

Completely agree that there will be controversy about the #2 versus #3 seed. That will add more attention to the playoffs.

That takes us right back to where we were before expanding to four teams, controversy wise. Why should #2 get a bye and #3 not? Nobody can really tell the difference between those two (or between #1 and #2 for that matter).

Moving to six teams creates more problems than solutions. Whenever the CFP expands, whether that is within the next year, five years or tens years, it will be towards eight teams. Whether that is for automatic bids, a straight-eight or a hybrid (5-1-2), I would lean towards the 5-1-2 model. Then we can all complain and argue about the 8th, 9th and 10th ranked teams, rather than the 4th, 5th and 6th place teams we do today.

(05-10-2021 01:13 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  6 isn’t going to happen. ND and the G5 will not support it.

I’m convinced the only 2 options for expansion are 8 or 12. 16 is too big and would probably mean autobids for all of the G5. 6 is too small to provide any real improvement or significant revenue increase.

16 would be perfect. Makes room for all conference champions and at large bids. Or do it like 1-AA. They've had an expanded playoff for decades and it works perfectly fine for them. Not sure why FBS football thinks they are the only sport in the world that can't have a playoff system that is fair for all schools.

(05-10-2021 01:38 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 01:13 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  6 isn’t going to happen. ND and the G5 will not support it.

I’m convinced the only 2 options for expansion are 8 or 12. 16 is too big and would probably mean autobids for all of the G5. 6 is too small to provide any real improvement or significant revenue increase.

16 would be perfect. Makes room for all conference champions and at large bids. Or do it like 1-AA. They've had an expanded playoff for decades and it works perfectly fine for them. Not sure why FBS football thinks they are the only sport in the world that can't have a playoff system that is fair for all schools.

Because "fair" doesn't pay the bills, and "fair" isn't possible in a division with such huge disparity in resources as exists in the FBS. Split FBS into two more subdivisions and fair might be possible. Not before.

The two biggest drivers for expansion are increased participation that would need to be supported by the most (and ideally all) of the committee (that includes every FBS commissioner plus Notre Dame) and increased revenues.

The former is exceedingly unlikely to do much for the "increased participation" perspective if you go to this plan. It would put a definitive cap on participation by any league to 2 teams (the SEC would probably not like that), would limit Notre Dame to a single seat vs. one of 4 possible seats, and would effectively do nothing to help any of the G5 schools. As others have said, I think 6 is DOA.

From a revenue perspective, 16 will not pay anything close, on a per game basis, to 8 or 12. At 16, there would be a round with 8 games, necessitating several that would be played at the same time, which would limit the potential viewership and thus cannibalize the prospective revenues. An 8 team playoff means 7 games that would command money. A 12 team playoff means 11 games, with only 4 on any given weekend, all of which can be played at times that there's no other FBS competition for viewers. That's why I feel pretty sure that 12 is the leader in the clubhouse by a significant margin.

USFFan

Thanks for starting this thread, I had the thought of doing the same. Here is a compromise format: Give 5 spots to the Top 5 (ensuring none of the current "Top 4" are disadvantaged by the expansion) and then give the 6th spot to the next champion (A5 or G5) IF they finish in the Top 8.

In 2016, this replaces #6 10-2 Michigan with #7 10-2 Oklahoma (as said, a Big 12 Championship would likely have been determinative anyway).

In 2017, this replaces #6 12-1 Wisconsin with #8 11-2 USC. I suppose that is a harder sell, given the Badgers lost only a single game by 6 points.

Compared to the P5+1 format: In 2018, #5 11-2 Georgia gets another crack at it, while #9 10-3 Washington does not. And, notably, in 2020 the #25 Oregon Ducks would be bumped in favor of the 1-loss Aggies.

The compromise format does not discriminate against G5 teams (officially), but realistically getting into the Top 8 requires multiple years of NY6 busting. The only two P5 champs that are bumped are middling Pac-12 Champs. This is in-line with what proponents of "Straight" playoff formats would like to exclude. The "Top 8" flexibility for another champ elevates the importance of every CCG, without the "danger" of a 7-5 Pitt team or a 6-6 UCLA team making the playoff.

One additional modification may be to keep the current "Top 4" (can't expand the format while excluding teams who would get in under the current format) and allow BOTH the 5th and 6th spot to be taken by Top 8 champs. The only difference here is that in 2018 and 2020 this would bump a #5 SEC runner-up for a #8 AAC team; that hindsight fact may get G5 buy-in and at the same time influence the committee to "massage" the rankings a bit more.

EDIT: To compare P5+1 with Top4+2, Top4+2 would drop #9 Washington (in 2018) and #25 Oregon (in 2020) for #8 UCF and #8 Cincinnati. That'll be a format with FBS-wide support.

(05-10-2021 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm completely perplexed by any support for a 6-team playoff, which is why it seems to be only popular in message boards while the powers that be are looking at 8 to 12 teams. I understand the notion of a 6-team playoff as a pure hypothetical competitively exercise, but it doesn't really solve what bothers most fans about the college football playoff system along with the practical considerations of revenue maximization for the conferences.

I think it's instructive that the powers that be seem to be (correctly, for once) focused on creating a system that they're not going to have a change yet again in a few years. To me, that says that the next playoff system needs a minimum of 8 teams. A 6-team playoff just seems to kick the can down the road. Plus, it doesn't even get to take full advantage of adding another week to the playoff system in the way that an 8-team playoff would (which would create a first round of 4 elimination games).

Agree on all counts. 6-teams 'could' be a stop-gap before the current bowl contracts expire, especially if all parties desire a quick-n-easy revenue boost. But it is, in multiple-ways, a half-measure, as you pointed out.

Myself, I have doubts a "full" playoff (8+ teams) can be implemented until the current contracts expire in 2026.

Anything less than 8 is a waste of time.

I think it should be P5 champs but they have to meet a restrictive criteria, ex: 8-4 PAC team doesn't qualify for playoffs just because they won.

Anything that forces ND into a conference is another good step.

(05-11-2021 10:02 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Anything less than 8 is a waste of time.

8 is likely preferred, but 6 participants is still an improvement over 4.

Expanding too rapidly could create pushback. Contracts have been signed with bowls. There is litigation and regulatory worries (e.g., NIL and Supreme Court rulings) that may alter the landscape and take a few years to understand. Health issues to athletes create concerns. Leaders may rightly choose an incremental approach to expanding the playoffs.

(05-11-2021 10:02 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Anything less than 8 is a waste of time.

The number would have to be 9-10 teams in order to penalize the G5 champs for not playing any good teams all season.

Play-in game(s) would be on a Monday for example and then the winners would have to turn around in 3 or 4 days to play the top seeds. This will be a fair penalty for G5. If they can win both games in 3-4 days then there can be no complaints about their worthiness.

(05-10-2021 12:43 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 12:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  IMO, expanding to a six team playoffs is the natural next step for selecting the FBS champion. College football needs the extra money/excitement caused by expanding the playoffs while minimizing changes to the current scheduling structure.

If a six team playoffs were agreed upon, the biggest debate would be how to select the participants. The top 10 based on the CFP committee’s final ranking:

*=conference champion
^=subsequent national champion

2014: Ala*, Ore*, FSU*, OSU*^, Bay*, TCU, MsSt, MSU, OM and AZ. The A5 champions were all within the top 6 finishers. Guaranteeing A5 champs the playoffs would not create controversy. If there is one at-large selection for the highest ranked remaining team, TCU would get the spot.

2015: Clem*, Ala*^, MSU*, OU*, Iowa, Stan*, OSU, ND, FSU and UNC. Once again the A5 champions were all amongst the the top 6 finishers. Guaranteeing A5 champs the playoffs would not create controversy. Iowa would get the at-large spot.

2016: Ala*, Clem*^, OSU, UW*, PSU*, MI, OU*, WI, USC and CO. Ohio State, ranked #3, would get the at-large spot. Inter-A5 controversy would exist because Oklahoma finished seventh (note that this was the last year that the B12 did not hold a CCG), jumping over the Wolverines. Regardless, the B10 already would have both PSU and OSU in the playoffs.

2017: Clem*, OU*, UGA*, Ala^, OSU*, WI, Aub, USC*, PSU and Mia. Alabama, ranked #4, would get the at-large spot. Inter-A5 controversy would again arise because USC (#8 ranked PAC champ) would be selected over #6 Wisconsin.

2018: Ala*, Clem*^, ND, OU*, UGA, OSU*, MI, UCF*, UW* and UF. Undefeated Notre Dame would get the at-large spot. #5 Georgia would have the biggest beef...as they would be bypassed by #9 Washington (as well as #6 Ohio State). Interestingly, undefeated #8 UCF would still be out of playoff in both selection scenarios. The fact that the top G5 champ is now above an A5 champ, is a case for further playoff expansion.

2019: LSU*^, OSU*, Clem*, OU*, UGA, Ore*, Bay, WI, UF and PSU. The A5 champs are all within the top 6 finishers. Georgia gets the the at-large selection. No dispute about the selection criteria.

2020 (COVID schedules): Ala*^, Clem*, OSU*, ND, TAMU, OU*, UF, Cin*, UGA and ISU (#25 Ore*). Notre Dame would get the at-large selection. This would have the biggest controversy as #5 Texas A&M would be bumped-out of the playoffs by #25 Oregon. USC likely would have been in the top 10 ranking had they won the PAC CCG.

Seems like the A5 conferences could agree to a guarantee for their champions in a 6 game playoffs. This would add more interest to their divisional races and CCGs. The SEC/B10 will probably require that the A5 CCG winner finish in the top 15 of the CFP rankings to be eligible...mitigating the controversy of a potentially undeserving (2020 4-2 Ducks) A5 champ stealing a bid from a worthy (2020 8-1 Aggies) contender.

Eight teams (P5, top rated G5, next two highest ranked) seems like the logical next step.

1) No Byes
2) All the P5 Conferences guaranteed a spot
3) Playoff path for G5
4) Chance for SEC/B1G/ND to get second bid/not have to join a conference
2)

1) need byes to ensure scheduling fairness, otherwise basically screws over SEC for playing actual good teams
2) fine as long as they fit criteria, no 8-4 champs
3) maybe, but they would need to have play-in games
4) have to force ND into a conference they can't play this game anymore