tOfficial Twelve Team Playoff thread

Joined
Aug 17, 2020
Posts
5,123
Reaction score
9,192
Bookie:
$ 4,501.00
Location
Mississippi
I like it. Especially since my team has no chance in ever loving hell of ever making a 4 team playoff, but several times in the past few decades they would be in.

Ditto for most of you non Bama, Clemson, tOSU, UGA fans. You guys all gotta be for this, right?
 
Last edited:
I detest the idea of giving anyone a bye week, but what the hell.
 
I detest the idea of giving anyone a bye week, but what the hell.

Yes. Bye weeks are such a powerful thing in college football but this is better than nothing I suppose. Much more likely there are some upsets playing more games to break up the top heaviness of CFB
 
I like it. Especially since my team has no chance in ever loving hell of ever making a 4 team playoff, but several times in the past few decades they would be in.

Ditto for most of you non Bama, Clemson, tOSU, UGA fans. You guys all gotta be for this, right?
I think it's stupid. Diluting the regular season in order to give 2/3 loss teams, especially in the G5, a chance to.....get eventually destroyed by better opponents. It would make sense if a team outside the top 5 or 6 had a legitimate shot at a national title but we all know they absolutely don't. At best, one team has a shot at taking out one of the top 4 or so before the final games and just giving someone else an easier path to the title game. The difference between even the top 2 teams most years and the rest is now massive. Most 4 team playoffs now days result in at least one blowout, if not two, in both semifinals. 12 is just too many teams.
 
I like it. Especially since my team has no chance in ever loving hell of ever making a 4 team playoff, but several times in the past few decades they would be in.

Ditto for most of you non Bama, Clemson, tOSU, UGA fans. You guys all gotta be for this, right?
There are those that believe ANY P5 team has the same chance as the others. And some even think G5s have the same chance.

I'm on record as saying I think G5s should have their own playoff. The reason they probably won't is because the P5s really don't want them to go that way and will keep throwing just enough money at them to prevent it. @Wizardhawk seems to understand this as well as anyone. And this article from Dennis Dodd is pretty good...especially the revenue distribution portion. The other topics are Two Loss Teams, Will Realignment Slow?, Cinderella and Job Security.

CFP expansion and the Future

Besides the obvious increase in revenue, it looks like this is what drove the presidents to step in.

"Consolidation. Never in the history of the game have the game's best brands and programs been concentrated in such small spaces (two conferences at the top of the game). The SEC and Big Ten were not only monopolizing the money, viewers and talent, they were monopolizing the game.

Ultimately, that wasn't good. Finally, the presidents decided all of it wasn't good enough.

Those 11 CFP presidents acted decisively Friday by voting unanimously to expand the four-team bracket to 12 teams beginning in 2026 at the latest. They did what the commissioners failed to do: agree.

"What motivated the presidents, me as well, is that we need to have an opportunity for more participation for our nation's national championship tournament," said CFP Board of Managers chairman Mark Keenum, president of Mississippi State. "Having only four teams, we felt like that's not fair to our student-athletes."



Revenue distribution

This is the next-biggest task for conference commissioners and university presidents to tackle, several sources told CBS Sports. It must be determined what fair compensation looks like for the conferences, a task last undertaken when CFP started in 2014.

Basically, whatever kind of weight the SEC and Big Ten throw around the room will be a huge factor. In expansion, those conferences are trading money for access. They'll get their money, but the remaining eight conferences get a better shot at the playoff. That will be a first.

That access -- tripling the field -- keeps the feds away from collusion or antitrust accusations from the smaller conferences. Those lesser leagues now have more access than ever. That in itself smothers any talk of a monopoly.

In 2021, the Power Five conferences each got $74 million annually from the CFP for, well, being Power Five conferences. The Group of Five split $95 million, about 20% of the total annual net distribution. Back when the CFP was formed, that percentage was basically agreed upon as a number that would keep the Group of Five from suing. With access going from four to 12, that reinforces the unlikely prospect of any legal action.
 
How is that going to happen with the networks driving 4+million viewer games ???
I'm still going to watch. You're still going to watch. But you can't tell me that some of the magic in these games won't be lost when they aren't elimination games; especially later in the season. When the top 4 teams in the b10 and SEC are in the playoffs, their regular season matchups just don't matter.

I was really hoping what they'd have done instead (since these super conferences are forming) is make the conference championship games part of the playoffs. Make getting to the CCG matter. But they didn't do that because of the G5 and ND; and because the B10 and SEC probably want all the money from 3-4 teams making it regularly. Make 4 conferences, that's an 8 team playoff when the CCG is the first leg. 4 winners face off in two bowl games like the current model. Regular season is preserved by making getting to the CCG important, rather than irrelevant.
 
There are those that believe ANY P5 team has the same chance as the others. And some even think G5s have the same chance.

I'm on record as saying I think G5s should have their own playoff. The reason they probably won't is because the P5s really don't want them to go that way and will keep throwing just enough money at them to prevent it. @Wizardhawk seems to understand this as well as anyone. And this article from Dennis Dodd is pretty good...especially the revenue distribution portion. The other topics are Two Loss Teams, Will Realignment Slow?, Cinderella and Job Security.

CFP expansion and the Future

Besides the obvious increase in revenue, it looks like this is what drove the presidents to step in.

"Consolidation. Never in the history of the game have the game's best brands and programs been concentrated in such small spaces (two conferences at the top of the game). The SEC and Big Ten were not only monopolizing the money, viewers and talent, they were monopolizing the game.

Ultimately, that wasn't good. Finally, the presidents decided all of it wasn't good enough.

Those 11 CFP presidents acted decisively Friday by voting unanimously to expand the four-team bracket to 12 teams beginning in 2026 at the latest. They did what the commissioners failed to do: agree.

"What motivated the presidents, me as well, is that we need to have an opportunity for more participation for our nation's national championship tournament," said CFP Board of Managers chairman Mark Keenum, president of Mississippi State. "Having only four teams, we felt like that's not fair to our student-athletes."



Revenue distribution

This is the next-biggest task for conference commissioners and university presidents to tackle, several sources told CBS Sports. It must be determined what fair compensation looks like for the conferences, a task last undertaken when CFP started in 2014.

Basically, whatever kind of weight the SEC and Big Ten throw around the room will be a huge factor. In expansion, those conferences are trading money for access. They'll get their money, but the remaining eight conferences get a better shot at the playoff. That will be a first.

That access -- tripling the field -- keeps the feds away from collusion or antitrust accusations from the smaller conferences. Those lesser leagues now have more access than ever. That in itself smothers any talk of a monopoly.

In 2021, the Power Five conferences each got $74 million annually from the CFP for, well, being Power Five conferences. The Group of Five split $95 million, about 20% of the total annual net distribution. Back when the CFP was formed, that percentage was basically agreed upon as a number that would keep the Group of Five from suing. With access going from four to 12, that reinforces the unlikely prospect of any legal action.
Some of that was interesting like the anti-trust stuff as I hadn’t heard that before.

I think this is a first step in the G5 eventually getting their own playoff. It’s not going to pay dividends like the G5 would want and I don’t see them performing well in the playoff so it will start to make sense to them.
 
I think it's stupid. Diluting the regular season in order to give 2/3 loss teams, especially in the G5, a chance to.....get eventually destroyed by better opponents. It would make sense if a team outside the top 5 or 6 had a legitimate shot at a national title but we all know they absolutely don't. At best, one team has a shot at taking out one of the top 4 or so before the final games and just giving someone else an easier path to the title game. The difference between even the top 2 teams most years and the rest is now massive. Most 4 team playoffs now days result in at least one blowout, if not two, in both semifinals. 12 is just too many teams.
Here's the other side of that argument from Dodd's article.

"God bless former Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, who predicted long ago that, with 12 teams, there would still be 30-35 teams in competition for playoff berths at the beginning of each November as opposed to one-third that number or less.

That boosts interest. That unites a country. It was time for college football to come together."


"Diluting the regular season" has always been the battle cry for not expanding. IMO playing cupcakes has already diluted it.

Here's the comment on that.

"In expansion, there will regularly be two-loss -- even three-loss -- teams in the playoff field. At that point, it might become a situation of who is hot at the end of the season, not who is necessarily the best all year. What does that sound like? You guessed it, March Madness."
 
Some of that was interesting like the anti-trust stuff as I hadn’t heard that before.

I think this is a first step in the G5 eventually getting their own playoff. It’s not going to pay dividends like the G5 would want and I don’t see them performing well in the playoff so it will start to make sense to them.
I agree. I can't see the networks paying the same amount of money to broadcast a G5 playoff as what the CFP is willing to pay them to stay in the fold. From what I understand, the lower tire P5 schools are the ones that are willing to keep the ante up to G5s to keep them in. Again, @Wizardhawk has explained this better than I can.

I still think CFB overall would be better with a G5 playoff. While this 12 team proposal provides a slot every year for a G5 team, there will be very, very few years (if any) that more than one G5 team gets in. So, one team out of approximately 65 gets in as compared to 8 if they had their own playoff.
 
I agree. I can't see the networks paying the same amount of money to broadcast a G5 playoff as what the CFP is willing to pay them to stay in the fold. From what I understand, the lower tire P5 schools are the ones that are willing to keep the ante up to G5s to keep them in. Again, @Wizardhawk has explained this better than I can.

I still think CFB overall would be better with a G5 playoff. While this 12 team proposal provides a slot every year for a G5 team, there will be very, very few years (if any) that more than one G5 team gets in. So, one team out of approximately 65 gets in as compared to 8 if they had their own playoff.
The G5 will see the light and it will happen.

Before it is over it looks like both the PAC and ACC will fold. It will probably be 2036 before the ACC goes but everything seems to be in motion.
 
Here's the other side of that argument from Dodd's article.

"God bless former Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, who predicted long ago that, with 12 teams, there would still be 30-35 teams in competition for playoff berths at the beginning of each November as opposed to one-third that number or less.

That boosts interest. That unites a country. It was time for college football to come together."


"Diluting the regular season" has always been the battle cry for not expanding. IMO playing cupcakes has already diluted it.

Here's the comment on that.

"In expansion, there will regularly be two-loss -- even three-loss -- teams in the playoff field. At that point, it might become a situation of who is hot at the end of the season, not who is necessarily the best all year. What does that sound like? You guessed it, March Madness."
I don't agree with this argument at all. Sure, teams in the 15-20 range will be competing for those final playoff spots. We've essentially moved the interest from the big games to the pointless games. Alabama Georgia at the end of the season will be rather irrelevant as both jockey for what playoff spot they get; both would be in. Teams in the top 5 will pretty much enter November with almost no shot at losing a playoff spot. That's dumb. And the consolation prize is that we get to care about BYU trying to get the 12th spot in?

So I'll say again, we're diluting the big games against the best teams in favor for trying to figure out what 3 loss team gets blown out in the playoff they shouldn't be in. And I think it will play out this way. Unlike bowl games trying to match similar opponents, we're going to see a TON of blowouts when this is said and done from the best teams blowing out teams who have no business being there. Sure, we'll see upsets but we also know it will be almost impossible for a team, like Cinci last year, to basically need 3 upsets in a row to win anything.

This isn't like college basketball where the talent is equal enough that any team could win the whole thing. And that's where this argument loses me. This is a pointless addition to the sport that dilutes the regular season. And for smaller teams, sure it will absolutely peak their interest to try and get into that top 12. But I think it will be pretty uninteresting to watch most of them get blown out by the true best teams that year.
 
Last edited:
I generally don't care about the money aspect of college football, but I am pretty intrigued about how the money is going to work with the new playoffs. I haven't looked into and maybe its already been figured out, but with the new set up and the higher seeds having home field advantage in the first round. Theoretically, it could be a lot more financially beneficial for the schools to be seeded 5-8 and have the extra home game.
 
I wonder what 4down20 thinks about this.
 
I prefer 8, but 12 is fine. A bye week for the top teams is interesting and can actually work against a team sometimes (rest vs. rust).

It will keep fans interested longer because we won't be talking about how a team is eliminated from the playoffs because they lost 1 game.

There is a reason professional sports teams keep looking for ways to expand their playoffs and it's not because it "dilutes their regular season" or because people won't watch.

Additionally, many of us complain about teams scheduling a bunch of "cupcakes" for OOC games. Well, perhaps we'll see teams more willing to test themselves OOC if they know that losing that 1 game won't eliminate them.
 
Unlike bowl games trying to match similar opponents, we're going to see a TON of blowouts when this is said and done from the best teams blowing out teams who have no business being there.
We saw "a TON of blowouts" this past week didn't we? Here's just a few:

Tennessee 59 Ball State 10
Wake Forest 44 VMI 10
Minnesota 30 NMSU 0
Arizona State 48 NAU 3

There were many more. We also had some damn good games.
 
We saw "a TON of blowouts" this past week didn't we? Here's just a few:

Tennessee 59 Ball State 10
Wake Forest 44 VMI 10
Minnesota 30 NMSU 0
Arizona State 48 NAU 3

There were many more. We also had some damn good games.
Sure, and no one watched those games.....we're building them into our playoff for some reason
 
Back
Top