Quote:In slight defense of this format, it's what the FCS has been doing all along, so it's nothing strange.

Well, the FCS is strange tho -- albeit they're not void of criticism outside of that. They have a lot of teams (like FBS), and there's a night & day difference between the top few & solidly ranked ones below... and a huge night & day difference between some with just votes to be ranked there or could end up having votes to be ranked VS a large chunk of FCS. The FBS suffers from that, but regardless, regardless (for better or worse) FCS has it, criticism about a 24-team construct in FBS should be had if they let too many didn't-earn-anything [P4] teams in, let even 1 or 2 did-earn something & officially importantly so [G6] teams out, while still being equivalent of the Top 35 (like all legit teams voted for in the Coach's poll, with votes for Top 25).

I made association with the Coach's poll there, for the reason it's a little more variant -- as more votes will go to how Good they think they right now VS how much they're officially ranked by more standard measurements of how good they've been thru the season.

So putting All conferences in mind, IMO, one should get an auto-bid if they're the Sole winner of their conference + ranked in Top 24 *or* at least 9 wins in the season (if they have no conf championship game, more the reason that 9W be minimum; and if having conf championship game, there'd always be a Sole winner, and to hit that minimum by record would be an 8-4 team in the regular season then beating at least a league-wise competitive team to then be 9-4).

That may sound a little too "generous" to G6 conference champs, even requiring them to be Sole conference champs of their conference + very solidly above .500... but they at least Earned something official & very important by proper NCAA view, unlike the #22 ranked P4 team who wouldn't/didn't qualify to even play in the conference champ game of the conference they're in. And it wouldn't take away anyone in the Top 20's position in terms of getting into said playoffs anyway. Instead of going by rankings-only/that's-it where of one of them was already a G6 conference champ in #21-#24 anyway... you'd just have it where you'd typically have a couple G6 Conference Champs with notably good records replacing 2-3 of the rest of them. And it's still be about the same level of 'upset' if a #24 ranked P4 team beat a good #9 ranked team in the 1st round of said playoff (with Top 8 having first week of it as a bye) -- than if 9-4 G6 Conference Champ beat said #9 ranked team in the 1st round of playoffs if they're thought of as being in the Top 35 instead. And definitely The same, if not the G6 conf-champ seen as tougher, if they were 11-2 but ranked #27 or something.

Having the 'official' College Football Playoff Rankings having 'the next 10' below their Top 25 (like ya see those who got votes but not Top 25) in an entry below the Top 25 listings near end of the regular season -- due to requiring a Conference Champ to be at least within *that*, I'd be OK with that.

So, will a Top 25 (24, really) program generally be in this playoff or not? If so, as silly as I find it that all conferences don't have automatic bids, maybe I can live with that.

The entire being of the NCAA is to conduct national championships. That's it. If you don't have equal access to the national championship tournament (i.e. conference champion auto bid), then the championship is not pure in the eyes of the public.

What amazes me is the same people in the B1G, $EC, et al., who don't want to have equal access in the CFP for all 10 FBS leagues, love having that same equal access in EVERY other NCAA sport across 32 leagues.

The hypocrisy is comical!

(10-15-2026 03:22 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  I also just devalued the regular season. What made college football unique 20 years ago was every regular season game mattered. I remember a year or two where OSU had their season ruined by a very bad Purdue Spoilermalers. It made every week of college football must watch even if you didn't care about either team. Now just go 8-4 and play 10 P4 games and you're in. It's going to devalue the regular season like March Madness has made college basketball regular season irrelevant to anyone who isn't a die hard.

Counter to this argument is that the games only mattered if you were still undefeated. Lose a game and your season is over.

The truth, as usual, is somewhere in the middle.

I was somewhat in favor of the move from 4 to 12, but in hindsight 4 was perfectly fine. Ridiculous where we’re heading to now.

Someone on Twitter had a good point that G5 conferences would’ve often received 2+ CFP bids since 2013, even if you exclude future P4 teams like Houston or UCF. I won’t be surprised if/when those frequent Top 25 teams from the top of the G5 are underrated to keep them out or force them to play first round road games.

Quote:If so, as silly as I find it that all conferences don't have automatic bids, maybe I can live with that.

By fair rules, and recognizing conferences as true conferences -- it still wouldn't have to be an Always auto-bid. But a Sole conference winner, if existing, and is of X level, would get an auto-bid. Which, almost all the time, all P4 conferences' sole winners when there is one would get called in anyway. But for the G6, it's a Good thing to Avoid a G6 team who's their Sole conference winner ranked #25-35 with a solid good record -- to not get in this Massive playoff.

Another route could make it so that'd make that less common -- like only X amount of teams in from the same conference, which may heed a team or two every year but they can just put the 100% Reasonable auto-bid with reasonable stipulations, to get in. But IMO, unnecessary, although I like the idea of only-so-many-teams from the same conference [unless filling in the Top 12 or something]. Anyway, with that concept aside tho, letting in the Top 20 teams every year, should be enough. Just because every #21-24 teams May not go, is nothing to have issues about anyway. It's not like anyone would get in that Zero voters, for say AP & Coach, would think would be ranked at the bottom of their own Top 25 rankings (hence within a Top 35).

(10-17-2026 02:29 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I was somewhat in favor of the move from 4 to 12, but in hindsight 4 was perfectly fine. Ridiculous where we’re heading to now.

Someone on Twitter had a good point that G5 conferences would’ve often received 2+ CFP bids since 2013, even if you exclude future P4 teams like Houston or UCF. I won’t be surprised if/when those frequent Top 25 teams from the top of the G5 are underrated to keep them out or force them to play first round road games.

Its the CCGs which have become outdated which has driven the expansion to 24 IMO.

In the old system the CCG would give you an automatic birth to Orange, Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Peach, Sugar. In a 12 team playoff it didn't do that any longer further it lead to the possibility of being upset prior to the playoff.

The B1G, SEC, ACC, XII having 1 AQ each to the playoff is not as big of a deal as them having it in a 12 team model. I think moving to 24 also eliminates a ND carve out they had before where if they were ranked in the Top 12 they would be in the playoff regardless if their are autobids ranked lower. Its much easier to dismiss a #23 or #24 ranked team from the playoff compared to one ranked #11 and #12.

(10-17-2026 08:20 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  So, will a Top 25 (24, really) program generally be in this playoff or not? If so, as silly as I find it that all conferences don't have automatic bids, maybe I can live with that.

Regular season had the main purpose of answering who was best with the final decision made in the championship game.

The question however traditionally left unanswered is how good is that undefeated G6 team? There have been cases in past years with some of those old TCU and Boise State teams whether they were legitimately the best team in the country.

With a 24 team playoff anyone who goes undefeated is going to make it in there, regardless if there are two undefeated G6 teams which was still a problem to an extent in a 12 team format.

If the playoff was to ever move to 32 teams then I can see where it makes sense to include all the AQ champs. If the G6 could consolidated down to a G4 that could also make some real sense at some point.

Not having already consolidated into 16-18 team conferneces could end up being the mistake. The MAC could have absorbed CUSA and the PAC reverse merged with MWC.

AC
MAC
PAC
SBC

By not doing this it has opened the door for more FCS to move up, IMO. Now in the case of Sac and NDSU they still may have bought their way in but some of the others who were able to get in for free would not have been allowed.

There is no scenario where the P4 is going to see conference champs from G leagues as equal to their conference champs. It's really not even worth talking about because it's not gonna happen. In what world do you see them putting a 10-2 MAC Champ in over a 9-3 Alabama whose losses came to ranked UGA, Tennessee and and eventual ranked Auburn when the MAC Champ didn't play a single ranked team? They're not doing this to include more G league teams and they've already closed the loophole that allowed JMU in last year. With the new rules, Duke would've gotten that spot. That should really tell you all you need to know about the reality of this.

(10-15-2026 04:28 PM)ChippewaPride Wrote:  

(10-15-2026 03:42 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-15-2026 02:02 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Still only one G6. And you need to play ten power teams in a season to be an at-large, so there goes any chance of a second G6.

None of this is official so could be wrong, but I believe the proposed stipulation is 10 P4 games *OR* conference games.

The MAC just announced that they will be going to nine conference games in 2028. Would this force them to make a huge adjustment and go to 10 conference games for 2027? Would that even be possible?

There is no requirement for the G6 to play a certain amount of conference games.

This rule is mainly about trying to prevent P4 schools inflating records with a bunch of early season cupcakes. The SEC doesn't want ACC schools skating by making the playoffs on easy scheduling.

I don't think G6 will be treated any differently as they have been in the CFP era (but not as favorably as they were in the late BCS era with computer support).

Quote:Not having already consolidated into 16-18 team conferneces could end up being the mistake. The MAC could have absorbed CUSA and the PAC reverse merged with MWC.

My thoughts: As fans I see that as a good thing in regards to a playoff. But otherwise, I don't -- but I DO see the CUSA being dissolved and some/much (but not all) of their teams joining the MAC in hind sight now being a good thing, having less FCS-to-FBS folks moving in. North Dakota State is a Legit FBS team out of the box though as a good G6, them being the 'Ohio State' of FCS. And Illinois State, if ending up joining the MAC and ensuring investment in their athletic programs would be a good/solid entry -- but other than that really, almost all FCS-to-FBS is not good.

And also, there's no way the P12 would take in all of the Mountain West teams (same as Oregon St & Wash St just joining MW). It'd be good from a fan POV, but wouldn't want be happened by P12 then or now. :)

But with an unnecessarily large 24 team playoff, sole conference champs should be set as auto-bids, under reasonable conditions -- that they'd have some votes for an AP/Coaches-AFCA poll, so they're not illegitimate as far as rankings -- ie #25-35. Having a 6th team from the same P4 conference get into said playoffs over a Sole G6 Conference Champ whose ranked a notch below, should be avoided.

Having a Sole conference champ who has X amount of wins (not counting more than 1 FCS opponent), and is in the Top 35, would be Very reasonable and should be desired IMO to bring in to not a 16 but a 24 team playoff. That doesn't mean all conference champs in, but being a Sole conference champ with a good enough record (X) and on the level to get legit votes for the Top 25 -- should be in said 24 team playoff. IMO, a typical year would be all 4 P4 Conference champs in, 3 G6 conference champs in, and once in a great while a 2nd team from the same G6 conference who didn't win but was still ranked above #24.

Heeding it being on-average, say, 3.5 G6 teams in, and making it average about 2.25 instead sounds like being picky at first. But it's basically ensuring many years consistently that there'll be a G6 conference champ (and sometimes two) with a legit gripe talked about after regular season.

But at the same time, I think it's very popular among many with say & power in FBS football that wants/desires the concept of G6 to be as far back as possible and in another division instead. Hence, not even a Conditional conference-champion rule for auto-bids to even a Very large playoff. :)

Here's a breakdown since 2018 (skipping 2020) of rankings for non-power conference teams, from the 2 non-official polls as they show all votes (5 or more), and an asterisk meaning [sole] winner of their Conf. And of their records, before the bowls (laid out by an AI upon request), and how many G6s champs I'd count going into 24 team playoff rules I'd like.

2018 (3)
AP: #7 UCF [AAC]* (12-0), #19 Fresno State [MW]* (11-2), #22 Army [IND] (9-2), #23 Boise State [MW] (10-3), #27 Utah State [MW] (10-2), #29 Cincinnati [AAC] (10-2), #31 Appalachian State [SBelt]* (10-2)
AFCA: #7 UCF [AAC]* (12-0), #21 Fresno State [MW]* (11-2), #23 Utah State [MW] (10-2), #24 Boise State [MW] (10-3), #25 Army [IND] (9-2), #28 Cincinnati [AAC] (10-2), #30 Appalachian State [SBelt]* (10-2)
OFFICIAL RANK/POLL: #8 UCF [AAC]*, #21 Fresno State [MW]*, #25 Boise State [MW]

2019 (4)
AP: #15 Memphis [AAC]* (12-1), #18 Boise State [MW]* (12-1), #20 Appalachian State [SBelt]* (12-1), #21 Navy [AAC] (9-2), #23 Cincinnati [AAC] (10-3), #24 Air Force [MW] (10-2), #26 SMU [AAC] (10-2), #29 Florida Atlantic [CUSA]* (10-3), #31 UCF [AAC] (9-3)
AFCA: #15 Memphis [AAC]* (12-1), #18 Boise State [MW]* (12-1), #20 Appalachian State [SBelt]* (12-1), #21 Navy [AAC] (9-2), #22 Cincinnati [AAC] (10-3), #24 Air Force [MW] (10-2), #27 SMU [AAC] (10-2), #30 Florida Atlantic [CUSA]* (10-3), #31 UCF [AAC] (9-3), #32 Louisiana [SBelt] (10-3), #33 San Diego State [MW] (9-3)
OFFICIAL RANK/POLL: #17 Memphis [AAC]*, #19 Boise State [MW]*, #20 Appalachian State [SBelt]*, #21 Cincinnati [AAC], #23 Navy [AAC]


2021 (4)
AP: #4 Cincinnati [AAC]* (13-0), #12 BYU [IND] (10-2), #16 Louisiana [SBelt]* (12-1), #21 Houston [AAC] (11-2), #24 UTSA [CUSA]* (12-1), #26 Utah State [MW]* (10-3), #28 San Diego State [MW] (11-2), #31 Louisiana Tech [CUSA] (7-5), #32 Appalachian State [SBelt] (10-3), #33 Army [IND] (8-3)
AFCA: #4 Cincinnati [AAC]* (13-0), #14 BYU [IND] (10-2), #17 Louisiana [SBelt]* (12-1), #21 Houston [AAC] (11-2), #25 UTSA [CUSA]* (12-1), #27 Utah State [MW]* (10-3), #28 San Diego State [MW] (11-2), #30 Air Force [MW] (9-3), #32 Fresno State [MW]
OFFICIAL RANK/POLL: #4 Cincinnati [AAC]* (13-0), #13 BYU [IND] (10-2), #20 Houston [AAC] (11-2), #23 Louisiana [SBelt]* (12-1), #24 San Diego State [MW] (11-2)

2022 (4)
AP: #14 Tulane [AAC]* (11-2), #22 UTSA [CUSA]* (11-2), #23 Troy [SBelt]* (11-2), #27 UCF [AAC] (9-4), #28 Cincinnati [AAC] (9-3), #30 Fresno State [MW]* (9-4), #32 South Alabama [SBelt] (10-2), #34 Boise State [MW] (9-4)
AFCA: #17 Tulane [AAC]* (11-2), #22 UTSA [CUSA]* (11-2), #24 Troy [SBelt]* (11-2), #28 UCF [AAC] (9-4), #29 Fresno State [MW]* (9-4), #31 Air Force [MW] (9-3), #32 South Alabama [SBelt] (10-2), #34 Cincinnati [AAC] (9-3), #37 Coastal Carolina [SBelt] (9-3)
OFFICIAL RANK/POLL: #16 Tulane [AAC]* (11-2), #24 Troy [SBelt]* (11-2), and #25 UTSA [CUSA]* (11-2)

2023 (4)
AP: #17 SMU [AAC]* (11-2), #18 Liberty [CUSA]* (13-0), #23 Tulane [AAC] (11-2), #24 James Madison [SBelt]* (11-1), #27 Troy [SBelt] (11-2), #30 Miami (Ohio) [MAC]* (11-2)
AFCA: #19 SMU [AAC]* (11-2), #20 Liberty [CUSA]* (13-0), #24 Tulane [AAC] (11-2), #25 James Madison [SBelt]* (11-1), #27 Troy [SBelt] (11-2), #31 Miami (Ohio) [MAC]* (11-2), #32 Toledo [MAC] (11-2), and #33 Boise State [MW] (8-5)
OFFICIAL RANK/POLL: #23 Liberty [CUSA]* (13-0), #24 SMU [AAC]* (11-2)

2024 (3-4)
AP: #8 Boise State [MW]* (12-1), #19 Army [AAC]* (11-1), #24 UNLV [MW] (10-3), #25 Memphis [AAC] (10-2), #29 Marshall [SBelt]* (10-3)
AFCA: #8 Boise State [MW]* (12-1), #18 Army [AAC]* (11-1), #23 Memphis [AAC] (10-2), #24 UNLV [MW] (10-3), #29 Marshall [SBelt]* (10-3), #31 Ohio [MAC]* (10-3)
OFFICIAL RANK/POLL: #9 Boise State [MW]* (12-1), #22 Army [AAC]* (11-1), #24 UNLV [MW] (10-3), #25 Memphis [AAC] (10-2)

2025 (3)
AP: #17 Tulane [AAC]* (11-2), #19 James Madison [SBelt]* (12-1), #22 Navy [AAC] (9-2), #23 North Texas [AAC] (11-2), #26 Houston [AAC] (9-3), #31 Boise State [MW]* (9-4), #32 UNLV [MW] (10-3), #33 South Florida [AAC] (9-3)
AFCA: #18 Tulane [AAC]* (11-2), #19 James Madison [SBelt]* (12-1), #25 Navy [AAC] (9-2), #27 North Texas [AAC] (11-2), #33 Boise State [MW]* (9-4)
OFFICIAL RANK/POLL: #20 Tulane [AAC]* (11-2), #24 James Madison [SBelt]* (12-1), #25 North Texas [AAC] (11-2)

(10-18-2026 02:48 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  In what world do you see them putting a 10-2 MAC Champ in over a 9-3 Alabama whose losses came to ranked UGA, Tennessee and and eventual ranked Auburn when the MAC Champ didn't play a single ranked team?

A just and verdant world?

If a conference champion -- whether from our league or another one -- is the worst in the field, put them up against the highest-seeded possible. This isn't rocket science.

(10-17-2026 02:29 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I was somewhat in favor of the move from 4 to 12, but in hindsight 4 was perfectly fine. Ridiculous where we’re heading to now.

I like 12, a good number that at least mixed things up to some degree.

4 out of 138 felt too restrictive.