Rumblings of App in 12 Team Playoff

[AppInDC]

It's so strange to see people on a board for Appalachian State, whose most famous game of all time involved beating a Big Ten team while still at the FCS level, claiming that G5 teams will just get bullied while playing the bigger teams and therefore lower conference teams shouldn't even have the opportunity.

[Rick83]

It's so strange to see people on a board for Appalachian State, whose most famous game of all time involved beating a Big Ten team while still at the FCS level, claiming that G5 teams will just get bullied while playing the bigger teams and therefore lower conference teams shouldn't even have the opportunity.

And our very own Sun Belt conference has 4 Power 5 wins this very season (so far), 2 of which were over top 10 powerhouse teams. The conferences are wanting to make college football more exciting and let the dollars follow. This new playoff format should do that. Also, as I've said repeatedly, the 4 and 5 stars might spread themselves around more and not get concentrated in the top 5 or 6 schools and have more parity across the board. It's a smart move in my opinion. People are tiring of the same few schools winning the NC year after year...at some point people would lose interest and stop watching.

[AppStFan1]

It's so strange to see people on a board for Appalachian State, whose most famous game of all time involved beating a Big Ten team while still at the FCS level, claiming that G5 teams will just get bullied while playing the bigger teams and therefore lower conference teams shouldn't even have the opportunity.

We beat teams early in the season that have been proven to not be elite teams at the end. Michigan lost 3 games and watch A&M lose 3-4 games this year. There is a big difference in playing a preseason top 10-15 team and playing a team who is top 5 in late November. The overrated teams are weeded out by then.

I never claimed that all G5s would get bullied but most G5 champions would for sure. There is usually 1-2 G5 teams who are worthy of being considered in the top 12 but that's it. There are not 5 who belong in a 12 or even 16 team playoff.

It is hard to argue for a G5 team to be in the playoff when they don't have any wins over top 25 teams and have multiple G5 losses. A title contender at a G5 should dominate their league and not lose to really bad teams unless they have 3-4 wins over top 25 or top 40 caliber teams to show they just had one bad night.

Just look at the last 4 years. These are the only G5s who would have belonged in a 12 team playoff. There was never anything close to 5. If we had the 12 team playoff format the previous years then the deserving G5 teams would have gotten in.

2021- #4 Cincinnati. Now Louisiana was good and ranked #16 but they lost to an unranked Texas team by 20 and did not have a win over a ranked team or a P5 at all. There is no argument for anyone but Cincinnati.

2020- #8 Cincinnati. They are the only one. Coastal Carolina was ranked #12 before the bowls but then finished #14 after losing to Liberty. People thought they belonged but then got exposed as a real good team but not quite top 12. In fact had Big Ten and Pac-12 played full seasons I don't think CCU ends up 14. They likely end up #20. 2020 was just not a normal season. BYU and Liberty were good but not quite top 12 worthy.

2019- Memphis finished #17. They had 3 wins over a ranked team but lost by 14 to #10 Penn State and did lose to an unranked Temple. Memphis would have deserved going to the playoff for sure. We were close but I would have understood them leaving us out of the top 12. We were 13-1 with a loss to a bad Georgia Southern team and no ranked wins. Key wins were over a 7-6 UNC team and 4-8 SC team.

2018- UCF finished 12-1 and ranked #11. They would have gotten in and deserved it but nobody else had a resume close to being worthy. Their only loss was to #11 LSU by 8 points.

[AppStFan1]

It's so strange to see people on a board for Appalachian State, whose most famous game of all time involved beating a Big Ten team while still at the FCS level, claiming that G5 teams will just get bullied while playing the bigger teams and therefore lower conference teams shouldn't even have the opportunity.

And our very own Sun Belt conference has 4 Power 5 wins this very season (so far), 2 of which were over top 10 powerhouse teams. The conferences are wanting to make college football more exciting and let the dollars follow. This new playoff format should do that. Also, as I've said repeatedly, the 4 and 5 stars might spread themselves around more and not get concentrated in the top 5 or 6 schools and have more parity across the board. It's a smart move in my opinion. People are tiring of the same few schools winning the NC year after year...at some point people would lose interest and stop watching.

Let's see where these teams end up. Marshall got beat by Bowling Green and we struggled with Troy. It is too early so we will see how those preseason teams shake out. UNC vs Notre Dame is going to be interesting because ND is clearly not that good but if they handle UNC easily then we know UNC is not.

[MrCraig]

You are lumping in basketball the same as football so I get why you disagree. To me, basketball is different because it only takes 1-2 good players to make that impact and basketball can be as much about luck or the ball bouncing your way on a rebound as it is skill as long as the mid-major has some talent that can physically match up.

We would have to expand to 20 teams so all 10 leagues could have a bid plus an at-large for each. Maybe a 10-3 or 9-4 G5 could pull one upset but they don't deserve the chance or else you are telling me the season does not matter. I like a playoff but I want the regular season to matter as well. If you expand and guarantee too much you are telling me it does not. The current system has really made it almost impossible for us but the 12 team format gives us a clear direct path with a real chance now and I'm happy with it.

How does saying every FBS conference champion gets an automatic bid mean that the regular season doesn't matter. You still have to beat everyone in your division AND win your conference championship to get in.

It completely diminishes non-conference games. If you play a FCS, 2 G5s, and a P5 and you lose all of them but your league is so weak that you win the conference anyway do you think that team deserves a shot? I don't see why having the 12 best teams possible should not be the goal. If that is not the goal then you are incentivizing a team to change leagues so they can win. Right now Vanderbilt has no shot at the national title so let's put them in the MAC because they would have a much better chance to win the league in that case.

That’s exactly what should happen. Vanderbilt has no business in the SEC, and putting them in a lower conference would probably make them more competitive and their fans would care about football more. Again, this is how EVERY. OTHER. COLLEGE. SPORT. does it, and no one complains about “unworthy” teams making the NCAA softball tournament or whatever.

Vanderbilt is not going anywhere. There is no buyout to leave the SEC for a reason.

I don't think just because the other sports do it does not mean football should. Softball and those other sports don't have the gap in talent that football does in D1. Just go look at Northern Illinois, Akron, Kent State, etc how they look physically and how they run. Because of size and speed these SEC teams and Ohio State, OU, etc types will just line up and bully most of these G5 teams. There are some who can hang for sure but they will rise up and prove they belong in this format.

I was going to skip the logistics and playing so many games but don't they have to move the start of them up to even have 12 games so the playoffs begin right after conference title games to have room to play all this? I think 16 games is already a little too much to ask colleges to play but if we get up to 20 or 24 teams then it will end up being 17-18 games. Also, we can't allow the playoffs to go any later or else we are asking seniors to bypass all-star games and training for the combine. I would love to see them go back down to 11 games with the expanded playoffs. That would make scheduling easier.

I disagree that other sports have less of a talent gap than football. Which means we disagree on a fundamental level, and we will most likely never see eye-to-eye on this. I'll just restate my point that, until every team in every conference has a fair shot at making the playoff from the beginning of the season, I will not be happy with the playoff format. College football doesn't care about everyone having a shot at a championship, they only care about the maximum amount of money they can make. This is why over 60% of FBS football teams have a 0% chance to win a championship before the season even starts.

[ArmantiWaterSafety]

If powerhouse "P5's" had to play a schedule of powerhouse "G5's," would they go undefeated? My opinion is no, preseason ranking or postseason ranking. The expansion will help to dilute the top talent to other schools too.

[AppStFan1]

How does saying every FBS conference champion gets an automatic bid mean that the regular season doesn't matter. You still have to beat everyone in your division AND win your conference championship to get in.

It completely diminishes non-conference games. If you play a FCS, 2 G5s, and a P5 and you lose all of them but your league is so weak that you win the conference anyway do you think that team deserves a shot? I don't see why having the 12 best teams possible should not be the goal. If that is not the goal then you are incentivizing a team to change leagues so they can win. Right now Vanderbilt has no shot at the national title so let's put them in the MAC because they would have a much better chance to win the league in that case.

That’s exactly what should happen. Vanderbilt has no business in the SEC, and putting them in a lower conference would probably make them more competitive and their fans would care about football more. Again, this is how EVERY. OTHER. COLLEGE. SPORT. does it, and no one complains about “unworthy” teams making the NCAA softball tournament or whatever.

Vanderbilt is not going anywhere. There is no buyout to leave the SEC for a reason.

I don't think just because the other sports do it does not mean football should. Softball and those other sports don't have the gap in talent that football does in D1. Just go look at Northern Illinois, Akron, Kent State, etc how they look physically and how they run. Because of size and speed these SEC teams and Ohio State, OU, etc types will just line up and bully most of these G5 teams. There are some who can hang for sure but they will rise up and prove they belong in this format.

I was going to skip the logistics and playing so many games but don't they have to move the start of them up to even have 12 games so the playoffs begin right after conference title games to have room to play all this? I think 16 games is already a little too much to ask colleges to play but if we get up to 20 or 24 teams then it will end up being 17-18 games. Also, we can't allow the playoffs to go any later or else we are asking seniors to bypass all-star games and training for the combine. I would love to see them go back down to 11 games with the expanded playoffs. That would make scheduling easier.

I disagree that other sports have less of a talent gap than football. Which means we disagree on a fundamental level, and we will most likely never see eye-to-eye on this. I'll just restate my point that, until every team in every conference has a fair shot at making the playoff from the beginning of the season, I will not be happy with the playoff format. College football doesn't care about everyone having a shot at a championship, they only care about the maximum amount of money they can make. This is why over 60% of FBS football teams have a 0% chance to win a championship before the season even starts.

You see a lot more random schools in other sports that compete at a high level in playoffs. Look at college baseball for example. How many schools play baseball but don't play football? This sport is also way more grueling than all those other sports are. You are asking kids to play more and more games and that is just not good for injuries. Look at how many injuries we have already?

A few questions for you. Why do you think every team does not have a fair shot with the new 12 team format? There is a clear path for every team. Play well enough during the season by winning a lot of games and become ranked high enough to get in. With 4 teams we all don't have a fair shot but I feel like there is a fair chance now. If your schedule is really weak then you need to win by 20+ per game and win 11-12 games to show you are way better than everyone else in your league. I feel like 12 is not too watered down but 20+ teams would be watered down.

On logistics. How would you schedule the playoffs? When would they start and end? What would you do with the bowl games?

There are a lot of things that can be considered here. Should we drop from 42 bowl games (84 teams go to a bowl) down to say 30-35 bowl games? Would we have each playoff game be a bowl game? Would we drop back to 11 regular season games? Should there be a win minimum to get in so every league has a fair shot but you need 9 regular season wins plus win the title game to get in playoffs?

Here is something to ponder and would love to see many opinions on this. Should NCAA set new minimum requirements and enforce them so we know all teams belong at the highest level? Teams could move up and down if they grow to be worthy or have major issues and their program drops off? What if the NCAA and FBS presidents all agreed to say 18,000 average attendance, must give minimum of 82 scholarships every year, a certain stadium size of say 20,000+ seats, a minimum budget, and minimum enrollment to be FBS? This would ensure that every team has reasonable enough support, money, and resources so you know the teams at the highest level are actually able to compete. We have 131 teams in FBS now and probably only 85-95 that really belong at the highest level based on resources and ability to compete.

[MrCraig]

It completely diminishes non-conference games. If you play a FCS, 2 G5s, and a P5 and you lose all of them but your league is so weak that you win the conference anyway do you think that team deserves a shot? I don't see why having the 12 best teams possible should not be the goal. If that is not the goal then you are incentivizing a team to change leagues so they can win. Right now Vanderbilt has no shot at the national title so let's put them in the MAC because they would have a much better chance to win the league in that case.

That’s exactly what should happen. Vanderbilt has no business in the SEC, and putting them in a lower conference would probably make them more competitive and their fans would care about football more. Again, this is how EVERY. OTHER. COLLEGE. SPORT. does it, and no one complains about “unworthy” teams making the NCAA softball tournament or whatever.

Vanderbilt is not going anywhere. There is no buyout to leave the SEC for a reason.

I don't think just because the other sports do it does not mean football should. Softball and those other sports don't have the gap in talent that football does in D1. Just go look at Northern Illinois, Akron, Kent State, etc how they look physically and how they run. Because of size and speed these SEC teams and Ohio State, OU, etc types will just line up and bully most of these G5 teams. There are some who can hang for sure but they will rise up and prove they belong in this format.

I was going to skip the logistics and playing so many games but don't they have to move the start of them up to even have 12 games so the playoffs begin right after conference title games to have room to play all this? I think 16 games is already a little too much to ask colleges to play but if we get up to 20 or 24 teams then it will end up being 17-18 games. Also, we can't allow the playoffs to go any later or else we are asking seniors to bypass all-star games and training for the combine. I would love to see them go back down to 11 games with the expanded playoffs. That would make scheduling easier.

I disagree that other sports have less of a talent gap than football. Which means we disagree on a fundamental level, and we will most likely never see eye-to-eye on this. I'll just restate my point that, until every team in every conference has a fair shot at making the playoff from the beginning of the season, I will not be happy with the playoff format. College football doesn't care about everyone having a shot at a championship, they only care about the maximum amount of money they can make. This is why over 60% of FBS football teams have a 0% chance to win a championship before the season even starts.

You see a lot more random schools in other sports that compete at a high level in playoffs. Look at college baseball for example. How many schools play baseball but don't play football? This sport is also way more grueling than all those other sports are. You are asking kids to play more and more games and that is just not good for injuries. Look at how many injuries we have already?

A few questions for you. Why do you think every team does not have a fair shot with the new 12 team format? There is a clear path for every team. Play well enough during the season by winning a lot of games and become ranked high enough to get in. With 4 teams we all don't have a fair shot but I feel like there is a fair chance now. If your schedule is really weak then you need to win by 20+ per game and win 11-12 games to show you are way better than everyone else in your league. I feel like 12 is not too watered down but 20+ teams would be watered down.

On logistics. How would you schedule the playoffs? When would they start and end? What would you do with the bowl games?

There are a lot of things that can be considered here. Should we drop from 42 bowl games (84 teams go to a bowl) down to say 30-35 bowl games? Would we have each playoff game be a bowl game? Would we drop back to 11 regular season games? Should there be a win minimum to get in so every league has a fair shot but you need 9 regular season wins plus win the title game to get in playoffs?

Here is something to ponder and would love to see many opinions on this. Should NCAA set new minimum requirements and enforce them so we know all teams belong at the highest level? Teams could move up and down if they grow to be worthy or have major issues and their program drops off? What if the NCAA and FBS presidents all agreed to say 18,000 average attendance, must give minimum of 82 scholarships every year, a certain stadium size of say 20,000+ seats, a minimum budget, and minimum enrollment to be FBS? This would ensure that every team has reasonable enough support, money, and resources so you know the teams at the highest level are actually able to compete. We have 131 teams in FBS now and probably only 85-95 that really belong at the highest level based on resources and ability to compete.

The 12 team playoff is still unfair and excludes the majority of teams because they will only accept the "highest ranked" G5 team. The rankings are subjective and based on coaches' and writers' opinions of teams instead of actual on-the-field results. So, you could have 2 G5 teams that are say, 11-1. Both are conference champions, but one played a "stronger" schedule based on... opinion? How is that fair? Again, with 12 spots, you could give all 10 FBS conference champions a spot and still have 2 at-large bids for the 2 best non-conference champions. Everyone has a chance. You win your conference- you're in. If you aren't good enough, you'll get beat by a better opponent.

[spacemonkey]

I am sure I have said it before on here...I want the expanded playoff to settle 5 - 12 as much as deciding the national champ. A g5 champ vs a Pac or AAC or ACC champ will be a lot of fun for me. It also, in my opinion, will prove we deserve to be there as much as those conferences. The first round of playoffs (12 team top 4 getting byes) will be great football.

[AppStFan1]

That’s exactly what should happen. Vanderbilt has no business in the SEC, and putting them in a lower conference would probably make them more competitive and their fans would care about football more. Again, this is how EVERY. OTHER. COLLEGE. SPORT. does it, and no one complains about “unworthy” teams making the NCAA softball tournament or whatever.

Vanderbilt is not going anywhere. There is no buyout to leave the SEC for a reason.

I don't think just because the other sports do it does not mean football should. Softball and those other sports don't have the gap in talent that football does in D1. Just go look at Northern Illinois, Akron, Kent State, etc how they look physically and how they run. Because of size and speed these SEC teams and Ohio State, OU, etc types will just line up and bully most of these G5 teams. There are some who can hang for sure but they will rise up and prove they belong in this format.

I was going to skip the logistics and playing so many games but don't they have to move the start of them up to even have 12 games so the playoffs begin right after conference title games to have room to play all this? I think 16 games is already a little too much to ask colleges to play but if we get up to 20 or 24 teams then it will end up being 17-18 games. Also, we can't allow the playoffs to go any later or else we are asking seniors to bypass all-star games and training for the combine. I would love to see them go back down to 11 games with the expanded playoffs. That would make scheduling easier.

I disagree that other sports have less of a talent gap than football. Which means we disagree on a fundamental level, and we will most likely never see eye-to-eye on this. I'll just restate my point that, until every team in every conference has a fair shot at making the playoff from the beginning of the season, I will not be happy with the playoff format. College football doesn't care about everyone having a shot at a championship, they only care about the maximum amount of money they can make. This is why over 60% of FBS football teams have a 0% chance to win a championship before the season even starts.

You see a lot more random schools in other sports that compete at a high level in playoffs. Look at college baseball for example. How many schools play baseball but don't play football? This sport is also way more grueling than all those other sports are. You are asking kids to play more and more games and that is just not good for injuries. Look at how many injuries we have already?

A few questions for you. Why do you think every team does not have a fair shot with the new 12 team format? There is a clear path for every team. Play well enough during the season by winning a lot of games and become ranked high enough to get in. With 4 teams we all don't have a fair shot but I feel like there is a fair chance now. If your schedule is really weak then you need to win by 20+ per game and win 11-12 games to show you are way better than everyone else in your league. I feel like 12 is not too watered down but 20+ teams would be watered down.

On logistics. How would you schedule the playoffs? When would they start and end? What would you do with the bowl games?

There are a lot of things that can be considered here. Should we drop from 42 bowl games (84 teams go to a bowl) down to say 30-35 bowl games? Would we have each playoff game be a bowl game? Would we drop back to 11 regular season games? Should there be a win minimum to get in so every league has a fair shot but you need 9 regular season wins plus win the title game to get in playoffs?

Here is something to ponder and would love to see many opinions on this. Should NCAA set new minimum requirements and enforce them so we know all teams belong at the highest level? Teams could move up and down if they grow to be worthy or have major issues and their program drops off? What if the NCAA and FBS presidents all agreed to say 18,000 average attendance, must give minimum of 82 scholarships every year, a certain stadium size of say 20,000+ seats, a minimum budget, and minimum enrollment to be FBS? This would ensure that every team has reasonable enough support, money, and resources so you know the teams at the highest level are actually able to compete. We have 131 teams in FBS now and probably only 85-95 that really belong at the highest level based on resources and ability to compete.

The 12 team playoff is still unfair and excludes the majority of teams because they will only accept the "highest ranked" G5 team. The rankings are subjective and based on coaches' and writers' opinions of teams instead of actual on-the-field results. So, you could have 2 G5 teams that are say, 11-1. Both are conference champions, but one played a "stronger" schedule based on... opinion? How is that fair? Again, with 12 spots, you could give all 10 FBS conference champions a spot and still have 2 at-large bids for the 2 best non-conference champions. Everyone has a chance. You win your conference- you're in. If you aren't good enough, you'll get beat by a better opponent.

The AP and Coaches polls are not used for the CFP. They have made that clear and their rankings are vastly different from the media and coaches. Remember last year when media had UTSA in the top 20 and they were still not ranked in the CFP? Why? Because UTSA had a weak resume with no wins over anyone who had 8 wins or more. It was mostly against teams with losing records.

You are viewing the G5 and P5 as equals but I don't. You are saying that a 9-4 MAC Champ with no quality wins is more worthy than a third team from SEC who is 10-2. Big Ten, SEC, ACC fans would be complaining how the format with 10 auto-bids is screwing over P5 teams who would kill a G5 team who did not beat anyone with a winning record. It is one thing to beat 1 or 2 P5 teams but imagine playing them every week. The grind we have brought up defending why we struggled with Troy is exactly what UNC and A&M are dealing with every single week from here on out.

I also think you are assuming they are going to cap this with just 1 G5 and I don't think that is the case. If there is a 12-1, 11-2, or 13-0 G5 team with a good resume they will be ranked high by the CFP. CFP is rewarding teams who played a solid schedule and did not just beat a bunch of 5 win or less teams every week. I think some years we will only have 1 G5 but I also think we will see 2-3 get in some years as well.

[AppStFan1]

I am sure I have said it before on here...I want the expanded playoff to settle 5 - 12 as much as deciding the national champ. A g5 champ vs a Pac or AAC or ACC champ will be a lot of fun for me. It also, in my opinion, will prove we deserve to be there as much as those conferences. The first round of playoffs (12 team top 4 getting byes) will be great football.

I want it to tell us who 5-12 is as well. The Sun Belt is proving to be close but overall MAC and CUSA are very weak compared to P5s. People point to G5 beating P5 but there are a good bit of cases where G5 teams are losing to FCS teams as well. Leaving out the 2nd or 3rd best team in the SEC or Big Ten to take a G5 who is 9-4 just does not feel like we are guaranteed to accomplish that.

[Yosef84]

Anyone remember Satterfield saying he left because he felt he accomplished everything possible here? With this new playoff format, getting and keeping good coaches will be easier since there is no longer that ceiling.

I remember him saying that, but he left for the money.

I have no personal connection or information from Satterfield, but it's pretty standard speech to talk about the accomplishments achieved as you depart. I don't know why anyone should take exception to this as he DID accomplish most of the attainable objectives available at the time. Specifically, I don't think there was a "because" in the statement in the sense it is being attributed by some. He left for the money and to have a shot at a bigger mountain to climb. This is what the vast majority of coaches do and I just don't see a problem with it.

[MrCraig]

Vanderbilt is not going anywhere. There is no buyout to leave the SEC for a reason.

I don't think just because the other sports do it does not mean football should. Softball and those other sports don't have the gap in talent that football does in D1. Just go look at Northern Illinois, Akron, Kent State, etc how they look physically and how they run. Because of size and speed these SEC teams and Ohio State, OU, etc types will just line up and bully most of these G5 teams. There are some who can hang for sure but they will rise up and prove they belong in this format.

I was going to skip the logistics and playing so many games but don't they have to move the start of them up to even have 12 games so the playoffs begin right after conference title games to have room to play all this? I think 16 games is already a little too much to ask colleges to play but if we get up to 20 or 24 teams then it will end up being 17-18 games. Also, we can't allow the playoffs to go any later or else we are asking seniors to bypass all-star games and training for the combine. I would love to see them go back down to 11 games with the expanded playoffs. That would make scheduling easier.

I disagree that other sports have less of a talent gap than football. Which means we disagree on a fundamental level, and we will most likely never see eye-to-eye on this. I'll just restate my point that, until every team in every conference has a fair shot at making the playoff from the beginning of the season, I will not be happy with the playoff format. College football doesn't care about everyone having a shot at a championship, they only care about the maximum amount of money they can make. This is why over 60% of FBS football teams have a 0% chance to win a championship before the season even starts.

You see a lot more random schools in other sports that compete at a high level in playoffs. Look at college baseball for example. How many schools play baseball but don't play football? This sport is also way more grueling than all those other sports are. You are asking kids to play more and more games and that is just not good for injuries. Look at how many injuries we have already?

A few questions for you. Why do you think every team does not have a fair shot with the new 12 team format? There is a clear path for every team. Play well enough during the season by winning a lot of games and become ranked high enough to get in. With 4 teams we all don't have a fair shot but I feel like there is a fair chance now. If your schedule is really weak then you need to win by 20+ per game and win 11-12 games to show you are way better than everyone else in your league. I feel like 12 is not too watered down but 20+ teams would be watered down.

On logistics. How would you schedule the playoffs? When would they start and end? What would you do with the bowl games?

There are a lot of things that can be considered here. Should we drop from 42 bowl games (84 teams go to a bowl) down to say 30-35 bowl games? Would we have each playoff game be a bowl game? Would we drop back to 11 regular season games? Should there be a win minimum to get in so every league has a fair shot but you need 9 regular season wins plus win the title game to get in playoffs?

Here is something to ponder and would love to see many opinions on this. Should NCAA set new minimum requirements and enforce them so we know all teams belong at the highest level? Teams could move up and down if they grow to be worthy or have major issues and their program drops off? What if the NCAA and FBS presidents all agreed to say 18,000 average attendance, must give minimum of 82 scholarships every year, a certain stadium size of say 20,000+ seats, a minimum budget, and minimum enrollment to be FBS? This would ensure that every team has reasonable enough support, money, and resources so you know the teams at the highest level are actually able to compete. We have 131 teams in FBS now and probably only 85-95 that really belong at the highest level based on resources and ability to compete.

The 12 team playoff is still unfair and excludes the majority of teams because they will only accept the "highest ranked" G5 team. The rankings are subjective and based on coaches' and writers' opinions of teams instead of actual on-the-field results. So, you could have 2 G5 teams that are say, 11-1. Both are conference champions, but one played a "stronger" schedule based on... opinion? How is that fair? Again, with 12 spots, you could give all 10 FBS conference champions a spot and still have 2 at-large bids for the 2 best non-conference champions. Everyone has a chance. You win your conference- you're in. If you aren't good enough, you'll get beat by a better opponent.

The AP and Coaches polls are not used for the CFP. They have made that clear and their rankings are vastly different from the media and coaches. Remember last year when media had UTSA in the top 20 and they were still not ranked in the CFP? Why? Because UTSA had a weak resume with no wins over anyone who had 8 wins or more. It was mostly against teams with losing records.

You are viewing the G5 and P5 as equals but I don't. You are saying that a 9-4 MAC Champ with no quality wins is more worthy than a third team from SEC who is 10-2. Big Ten, SEC, ACC fans would be complaining how the format with 10 auto-bids is screwing over P5 teams who would kill a G5 team who did not beat anyone with a winning record. It is one thing to beat 1 or 2 P5 teams but imagine playing them every week. The grind we have brought up defending why we struggled with Troy is exactly what UNC and A&M are dealing with every single week from here on out.

I also think you are assuming they are going to cap this with just 1 G5 and I don't think that is the case. If there is a 12-1, 11-2, or 13-0 G5 team with a good resume they will be ranked high by the CFP. CFP is rewarding teams who played a solid schedule and did not just beat a bunch of 5 win or less teams every week. I think some years we will only have 1 G5 but I also think we will see 2-3 get in some years as well.

I think you're wrong. I think they will do everything in their power to keep out G5 teams, because that is what the BCS and CFP have done for as long as they have existed.
I am saying that a 9-4 MAC champion should be more worthy than the 3rd place SEC team. One of those teams is a champion, one is in third place. "Better" competition doesn't matter. Both teams have played a schedule of teams that are considered "peer competition." They are in conferences with other teams who have similar budgets, resources, players, and recruiting footprints.
The playoff you want is a continuation of the status quo, which is mostly based on how people BELIEVE that some conferences are bigger and stronger than others. I want a playoff where the big boys have to PROVE they are really bigger and better.

[AppStFan1]

I disagree that other sports have less of a talent gap than football. Which means we disagree on a fundamental level, and we will most likely never see eye-to-eye on this. I'll just restate my point that, until every team in every conference has a fair shot at making the playoff from the beginning of the season, I will not be happy with the playoff format. College football doesn't care about everyone having a shot at a championship, they only care about the maximum amount of money they can make. This is why over 60% of FBS football teams have a 0% chance to win a championship before the season even starts.

You see a lot more random schools in other sports that compete at a high level in playoffs. Look at college baseball for example. How many schools play baseball but don't play football? This sport is also way more grueling than all those other sports are. You are asking kids to play more and more games and that is just not good for injuries. Look at how many injuries we have already?

A few questions for you. Why do you think every team does not have a fair shot with the new 12 team format? There is a clear path for every team. Play well enough during the season by winning a lot of games and become ranked high enough to get in. With 4 teams we all don't have a fair shot but I feel like there is a fair chance now. If your schedule is really weak then you need to win by 20+ per game and win 11-12 games to show you are way better than everyone else in your league. I feel like 12 is not too watered down but 20+ teams would be watered down.

On logistics. How would you schedule the playoffs? When would they start and end? What would you do with the bowl games?

There are a lot of things that can be considered here. Should we drop from 42 bowl games (84 teams go to a bowl) down to say 30-35 bowl games? Would we have each playoff game be a bowl game? Would we drop back to 11 regular season games? Should there be a win minimum to get in so every league has a fair shot but you need 9 regular season wins plus win the title game to get in playoffs?

Here is something to ponder and would love to see many opinions on this. Should NCAA set new minimum requirements and enforce them so we know all teams belong at the highest level? Teams could move up and down if they grow to be worthy or have major issues and their program drops off? What if the NCAA and FBS presidents all agreed to say 18,000 average attendance, must give minimum of 82 scholarships every year, a certain stadium size of say 20,000+ seats, a minimum budget, and minimum enrollment to be FBS? This would ensure that every team has reasonable enough support, money, and resources so you know the teams at the highest level are actually able to compete. We have 131 teams in FBS now and probably only 85-95 that really belong at the highest level based on resources and ability to compete.

The 12 team playoff is still unfair and excludes the majority of teams because they will only accept the "highest ranked" G5 team. The rankings are subjective and based on coaches' and writers' opinions of teams instead of actual on-the-field results. So, you could have 2 G5 teams that are say, 11-1. Both are conference champions, but one played a "stronger" schedule based on... opinion? How is that fair? Again, with 12 spots, you could give all 10 FBS conference champions a spot and still have 2 at-large bids for the 2 best non-conference champions. Everyone has a chance. You win your conference- you're in. If you aren't good enough, you'll get beat by a better opponent.

The AP and Coaches polls are not used for the CFP. They have made that clear and their rankings are vastly different from the media and coaches. Remember last year when media had UTSA in the top 20 and they were still not ranked in the CFP? Why? Because UTSA had a weak resume with no wins over anyone who had 8 wins or more. It was mostly against teams with losing records.

You are viewing the G5 and P5 as equals but I don't. You are saying that a 9-4 MAC Champ with no quality wins is more worthy than a third team from SEC who is 10-2. Big Ten, SEC, ACC fans would be complaining how the format with 10 auto-bids is screwing over P5 teams who would kill a G5 team who did not beat anyone with a winning record. It is one thing to beat 1 or 2 P5 teams but imagine playing them every week. The grind we have brought up defending why we struggled with Troy is exactly what UNC and A&M are dealing with every single week from here on out.

I also think you are assuming they are going to cap this with just 1 G5 and I don't think that is the case. If there is a 12-1, 11-2, or 13-0 G5 team with a good resume they will be ranked high by the CFP. CFP is rewarding teams who played a solid schedule and did not just beat a bunch of 5 win or less teams every week. I think some years we will only have 1 G5 but I also think we will see 2-3 get in some years as well.

I think you're wrong. I think they will do everything in their power to keep out G5 teams, because that is what the BCS and CFP have done for as long as they have existed.
I am saying that a 9-4 MAC champion should be more worthy than the 3rd place SEC team. One of those teams is a champion, one is in third place. "Better" competition doesn't matter. Both teams have played a schedule of teams that are considered "peer competition." They are in conferences with other teams who have similar budgets, resources, players, and recruiting footprints.
The playoff you want is a continuation of the status quo, which is mostly based on how people BELIEVE that some conferences are bigger and stronger than others. I want a playoff where the big boys have to PROVE they are really bigger and better.

The CFP is not trying to keep out G5 teams. They just know there is a gap for the most part and they want to make sure they put a truly deserving G5 team in there.

So the big boys that win 10+ games with a P5 schedule who poach from G5 schools in recruiting all the time, have double or triple resources, and more of everything should have to prove they are better than Akron, Kent State, Coastal Carolina, Liberty, App, JMU, etc? We aren't in position to demand anything of them so I am happy we get a chance and just want to prove we can hang.

Here is a look at the bowl results last year.

Utah State was ranked and only beat 7-5 Oregon State by 11.
Army beat Missouri by 2 points but again Missouri was 6-6 and not really that good.
UCF beat Florida by 12 and UCF was a 9-4 team while Florida was 6-6.
Houston was ranked and 12-2 and beat a 6-6 Auburn team 17-13.
Air Force was 10-3 and ranked or RV and they only beat a 6-7 Louisville team by 3.
Central Michigan won 9 games and beat a 7-6 Washington State team by 3.
Alabama beat top 5 ranked Cincinnati 27-6.

G5 teams had a pretty good year last year in bowls but it was against 6-7 win P5 teams. When a G5 is playing a legit 9-12 win P5 they are losing but they 9+ win G5 teams are just a little better or equal to a 6-7 win P5. The teams we would see in playoffs are not 6-6 or 7-5 but they are 10-2, 11-1, or 12-1 or 13-0.

[spacemonkey]

you are arguing against yourself with your examples. All of the g5 teams hung with or beat all of the teams that the p5 10-2 teams beat....so maybe they would have gone 10-2 in the same conference. It is Alabama, Ohio St., and the rest of FBS.

[MrCraig]

You see a lot more random schools in other sports that compete at a high level in playoffs. Look at college baseball for example. How many schools play baseball but don't play football? This sport is also way more grueling than all those other sports are. You are asking kids to play more and more games and that is just not good for injuries. Look at how many injuries we have already?

A few questions for you. Why do you think every team does not have a fair shot with the new 12 team format? There is a clear path for every team. Play well enough during the season by winning a lot of games and become ranked high enough to get in. With 4 teams we all don't have a fair shot but I feel like there is a fair chance now. If your schedule is really weak then you need to win by 20+ per game and win 11-12 games to show you are way better than everyone else in your league. I feel like 12 is not too watered down but 20+ teams would be watered down.

On logistics. How would you schedule the playoffs? When would they start and end? What would you do with the bowl games?

There are a lot of things that can be considered here. Should we drop from 42 bowl games (84 teams go to a bowl) down to say 30-35 bowl games? Would we have each playoff game be a bowl game? Would we drop back to 11 regular season games? Should there be a win minimum to get in so every league has a fair shot but you need 9 regular season wins plus win the title game to get in playoffs?

Here is something to ponder and would love to see many opinions on this. Should NCAA set new minimum requirements and enforce them so we know all teams belong at the highest level? Teams could move up and down if they grow to be worthy or have major issues and their program drops off? What if the NCAA and FBS presidents all agreed to say 18,000 average attendance, must give minimum of 82 scholarships every year, a certain stadium size of say 20,000+ seats, a minimum budget, and minimum enrollment to be FBS? This would ensure that every team has reasonable enough support, money, and resources so you know the teams at the highest level are actually able to compete. We have 131 teams in FBS now and probably only 85-95 that really belong at the highest level based on resources and ability to compete.

The 12 team playoff is still unfair and excludes the majority of teams because they will only accept the "highest ranked" G5 team. The rankings are subjective and based on coaches' and writers' opinions of teams instead of actual on-the-field results. So, you could have 2 G5 teams that are say, 11-1. Both are conference champions, but one played a "stronger" schedule based on... opinion? How is that fair? Again, with 12 spots, you could give all 10 FBS conference champions a spot and still have 2 at-large bids for the 2 best non-conference champions. Everyone has a chance. You win your conference- you're in. If you aren't good enough, you'll get beat by a better opponent.

The AP and Coaches polls are not used for the CFP. They have made that clear and their rankings are vastly different from the media and coaches. Remember last year when media had UTSA in the top 20 and they were still not ranked in the CFP? Why? Because UTSA had a weak resume with no wins over anyone who had 8 wins or more. It was mostly against teams with losing records.

You are viewing the G5 and P5 as equals but I don't. You are saying that a 9-4 MAC Champ with no quality wins is more worthy than a third team from SEC who is 10-2. Big Ten, SEC, ACC fans would be complaining how the format with 10 auto-bids is screwing over P5 teams who would kill a G5 team who did not beat anyone with a winning record. It is one thing to beat 1 or 2 P5 teams but imagine playing them every week. The grind we have brought up defending why we struggled with Troy is exactly what UNC and A&M are dealing with every single week from here on out.

I also think you are assuming they are going to cap this with just 1 G5 and I don't think that is the case. If there is a 12-1, 11-2, or 13-0 G5 team with a good resume they will be ranked high by the CFP. CFP is rewarding teams who played a solid schedule and did not just beat a bunch of 5 win or less teams every week. I think some years we will only have 1 G5 but I also think we will see 2-3 get in some years as well.

I think you're wrong. I think they will do everything in their power to keep out G5 teams, because that is what the BCS and CFP have done for as long as they have existed.
I am saying that a 9-4 MAC champion should be more worthy than the 3rd place SEC team. One of those teams is a champion, one is in third place. "Better" competition doesn't matter. Both teams have played a schedule of teams that are considered "peer competition." They are in conferences with other teams who have similar budgets, resources, players, and recruiting footprints.
The playoff you want is a continuation of the status quo, which is mostly based on how people BELIEVE that some conferences are bigger and stronger than others. I want a playoff where the big boys have to PROVE they are really bigger and better.

The CFP is not trying to keep out G5 teams. They just know there is a gap for the most part and they want to make sure they put a truly deserving G5 team in there.

So the big boys that win 10+ games with a P5 schedule who poach from G5 schools in recruiting all the time, have double or triple resources, and more of everything should have to prove they are better than Akron, Kent State, Coastal Carolina, Liberty, App, JMU, etc? We aren't in position to demand anything of them so I am happy we get a chance and just want to prove we can hang.

Here is a look at the bowl results last year.

Utah State was ranked and only beat 7-5 Oregon State by 11.
Army beat Missouri by 2 points but again Missouri was 6-6 and not really that good.
UCF beat Florida by 12 and UCF was a 9-4 team while Florida was 6-6.
Houston was ranked and 12-2 and beat a 6-6 Auburn team 17-13.
Air Force was 10-3 and ranked or RV and they only beat a 6-7 Louisville team by 3.
Central Michigan won 9 games and beat a 7-6 Washington State team by 3.
Alabama beat top 5 ranked Cincinnati 27-6.

G5 teams had a pretty good year last year in bowls but it was against 6-7 win P5 teams. When a G5 is playing a legit 9-12 win P5 they are losing but they 9+ win G5 teams are just a little better or equal to a 6-7 win P5. The teams we would see in playoffs are not 6-6 or 7-5 but they are 10-2, 11-1, or 12-1 or 13-0.

Yes. Correct. Also, all conference champions should be in the playoff.

[Rick83]

You guys are arguing over something you have no control over. Let's just celebrate that we will have a legit and reasonable path in 2-4 years to the playoffs that we can sell to recruits right now. We have a tradition of winning including over the big boys...so come be part of something special.

[AppStFan1]

you are arguing against yourself with your examples. All of the g5 teams hung with or beat all of the teams that the p5 10-2 teams beat....so maybe they would have gone 10-2 in the same conference. It is Alabama, Ohio St., and the rest of FBS.

My argument is that a 8-9 win G5 who gets lucky and wins a weak G5 league should not play for the title. The examples I gave were 8-12 win G5 teams beating 6-8 win P5s. My whole reason for the argument is that we need proven G5s like Cincinnati and Houston in 2021 or UCF in 2017 to play for the title. 8-9 win type G5 teams just won't be good enough and the elite P5 teams. They can beat a 6-6 or 7-5, maybe 8-4, but they won't beat the SEC or Big Ten Champion or runner-up who was 11-2 or so. The playoffs should be the 12 best teams and the format they are using should give us that. Maybe they pick the 13th best team over the true 12th best but overall they should give us the 12 best resumes.

[AppStFan1]

You guys are arguing over something you have no control over. Let's just celebrate that we will have a legit and reasonable path in 2-4 years to the playoffs that we can sell to recruits right now. We have a tradition of winning including over the big boys...so come be part of something special.

That is my point as well. We have a legit path whereas with 4 we did not. There will be a G5 rep every year and may see years with 2. We won't be excluding a truly title worthy contender with this 12 team format and should get the 12 best teams in the country.