CFP sucks: here's what an ACTUAL playoff would look like
- December 14: First Round games on campuses
- December 21: Second Round games on campuses
- NYE & NYD: Quarterfinal Bowl Games (rotation)
- January 11: Semifinal Bowl Games (rotation)
- January 20: Rose Bowl National Championship
Rose Bowl should always be the national championship.
10 automatic bids to conference champions
22 at-large bids
I seeded this using the CFP Top-25 and used ESPN FPI to fill the rest out.
Tournament bracket is seeded with an S curve and deviates by preventing any regular season rematches IF POSSIBLE in the First and Second Rounds.
December 9th, 2019 at 12:06 AM ^
18, no?
December 9th, 2019 at 2:46 AM ^
Sure, it's a lot of games, but most of the teams that will routinely play 14+ games in this model are employing professional athletes that do not attend classes. So regardless, they could manage it, and profit greatly from more high impact games.
WD, this format would be nuts. We wouldn't get anything done all December, including family time.
December 9th, 2019 at 4:49 AM ^
17 if you eliminate the conference championship game, which seems likely.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:14 PM ^
I got an idea. Let’s put all the divisions together and put everyone in. Only need to win 23 games to win the title.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:51 PM ^
Or we could do it World Cup style. 12 game schedule as it currently is, but only one NC winner every four years.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:16 PM ^
16 teams. Conf champions and 6 at large.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:45 PM ^
Kinda like D-IAA, D-II, and D-III already do. Ha!
December 8th, 2019 at 11:02 PM ^
Those Divisions do it that way because of the regional nature of their 'conferences' and a lack of funding/inability to travel. It is out of necessity, not because it makes the product better.
December 9th, 2019 at 12:31 AM ^
The product is much better because they are playing meaningful games... not running the score up against Wofford because the CFP is a beauty contest.
December 9th, 2019 at 4:49 PM ^
Oh yes, it is so much better that without looking, you couldn't name three Div II programs or who has won any of the last five championships.
No sane person wants a playoff with 16 or 32 teams and even 8 teams is overkill. Neither Georgia, Oregon, or Baylor could win the National Championship. That has been proven on the field this year. Stop trying to figure out a way to get a three loss Michigan team into the playoffs, its just a pathetic look.
If you think it is a beauty contest and the four best team's aren't in the playoff you are simply not paying attention.
December 8th, 2019 at 11:48 PM ^
That's 16 teams and at least 5 of them will be outside of the top 16. Probably 2-3 outside the top 50.
Too many mismatches and too many bad teams for my taste.
December 9th, 2019 at 9:11 AM ^
The same could very much be said for the NCAA basketball tournament, and yet...
December 9th, 2019 at 10:11 AM ^
December 9th, 2019 at 11:06 AM ^
The big mismatches in the basketball tournament are part of 3-4 games going simultaneously, including better matchups. You can pick the most interesting games to watch. It's not the same at all.
December 9th, 2019 at 1:36 PM ^
Exactly. Many own those teams do not DESERVE to get a chance in the playoffs
December 8th, 2019 at 10:17 PM ^
One of the college football's great qualities is (and more so was) that the regular season was in essence a long playoff. A game in early September could make or break you, and no sport that I can think of had an equivalent.
This would just make the regular season all the more meaningless and lead to arguments about who the 32nd best team "really" was. I appreciate the work that you put into this, but that doesn't sound good to me.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:20 PM ^
Agree. Expanding would devalue the regular season. Hope they keep it at 4.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:24 PM ^
This argument is so old. The gales would actually be MORE meaningful because even after you lost a game early, you would feel like you still had a shot. I agree 32 is too much, but 4 is not enough.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:32 PM ^
That might be true in the aggregate, but single games that used to feel like playoff games - like an early season Michigan-ND matchup - are devalued. They aren't a near-knockout round anymore. So instead you have a bunch of teams fighting to be, say, the 11th team in. That has all the thrill of qualifying for the NBA playoffs, which is to say that it has very little.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:36 PM ^
It’s really more like the NFL than the NBA.
1978 is gone. It’s over.
8 or 16 teams.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:45 PM ^
I agree that game is devalued a bit but it still is “meaningful” if we take that to mean “has playoff implications.”
The more you expand the more games with playoff implications exist. At 8 games the top 15-20 teams are still in play with a month left and probably the top 12ish matter on the final weekend of the regular season.
You’re losing some playoff implications for the top 3-4 teams who feel safely in it late but even then seeding means more than it does now.
At the end of the day however we feel it will happen because it’s good for broadcast rights and attendance $$.
December 8th, 2019 at 11:02 PM ^
I'm repeating myself some here, but there is a difference between "has playoff implications," as you helpfully put it, and "has national championship implications." The latter type of game is more fun to watch.
I understand that playoff implications mean that there are also national championship implications in theory, but how often will, say, a 25th seeded team win the title. And more importantly, in my opinion, do we even want that? Would Virginia really have a claim to being the best team this season just because they caught fire and/or got lucky with regard to injuries in games 14 through 18? I say no, they plainly have not been the best team this season. And there is no need to run college players through more of a gauntlet to confirm that.
December 8th, 2019 at 11:49 PM ^
@EnD
The problem at this point is that it isn't about a season long playoff anymore. It's about politicking related to a committee choosing, allegedly, the best four teams. We see the ESS EEE CEE trying annually to manipulate this process with their soft scheduling of cupcakes every November and media work (with partner ESPN shilling) about how their league deserves two reps because their schedule is so difficult. You see this with a team like Georgia (or a better example might be Oklahoma this year) take a bad loss and they aren't eliminated at all (or they just politic...only a few weeks ago 1 loss Georgia was #4 after a bad loss to South Carolina.
Why not just let it play out on the field. Ten game season and eliminate this tv driven Conference Championship game. Let it play out on the field. People don't criticize a six seed Michigan in the tournament with the Fab 5 making the final against Duke...they make documentaries about their impact. I was there during that run and it was crazy (though without subs). Football would be so much bigger. You'd watch every game. Upsets would be amazing. Think a better (and more lucrative) version of March Madness.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:34 PM ^
This, as you allude to, was true but is no longer true.
To me, 4 is the dumbest number.
With the CFP no one gives a shit about the bowls. Let more teams in.
What is wrong with arguing about the 32nd best team? This happens every year in basketball. Has that ruined March Madness?
December 8th, 2019 at 10:50 PM ^
I do think that a flaw of the basketball tournament is that we end up focused on who the 68th best team is. The 68th seed has no argument whatsoever that it is the best team in college basketball.
It's a problem for basketball, I think, that making the tournament is so emphasized. Seeding is important, of course, but people generally don't remember if you went 26-6 prior to the tournament or 20-12. But that's a big difference. Those six games could mean more than they do.
The BCS and now the tournament were designed to settle who the best football team is. And you aren't talking about that when you're talking about who the 21st or 30th seeds ought to be. Now you're just focused on who is worthy of having what seed in the tournament, which was never the point.
December 9th, 2019 at 6:46 AM ^
It's a problem for basketball, I think, that making the tournament is so emphasized.
EPL fan I guess.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:37 PM ^
Thank you, this.
I don't need to find out if the #8-9 team in the country can win the title., let alone #15-16. They had a shot all season long.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:58 PM ^
16-just as Harbaugh has suggested.
You mean like Clemson, and all the SEC schools scheduling Charlotte, Wolford, Citadel and all those other HS team...that kind of super-sizing of the "meaningfulness" of the regular season??? Play a 10 game (only) conference schedule-with all the top schools playing each other. The power 5 conference winners are in with 11 at-large.
December 8th, 2019 at 11:23 PM ^
Yeah because March Madness absolutely sucks. But keep it at four teams so the same four to six teams who’ve created a monopoly at the top will always be in the four team CFP.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:19 PM ^
That's too many games. Come on man. Spend your time on more important things.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:26 PM ^
Do it.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:31 PM ^
I mean...do we really need teams like Navy, FAU and Iowa State in the playoffs?
December 8th, 2019 at 10:39 PM ^
To round out a field of 32, probably.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:50 PM ^
C-USA Champion.
You could ask the same question about any of the mid majors in the NCAA Tournament.
December 9th, 2019 at 6:49 AM ^
What I have learned from some of the above responses is that March Madness is a farcical waste of space. Who knew.
December 9th, 2019 at 10:22 AM ^
There are a lot of reasons why it works for basketball but not football.
- Basketball season is much longer, so a long tourney has less impact.
- Basketball is a lower contact sport, so again, more games isn't as big of a problem.
- The nature of basketball gives underdogs a much better chance to win games.
- The nature of college basketball also makes the difference between "elite" teams and small schools much smaller.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:38 PM ^
Regular season is already too long
December 8th, 2019 at 10:49 PM ^
Too long? Give me more games please
December 8th, 2019 at 10:43 PM ^
8 Teams.
The regular season is still meaningful, more teams get in, every major conference champion has a chance. It’s really only one more game than they currently play.
December 9th, 2019 at 11:16 AM ^
8 team is a big problem for me, based on one question. Can conference championship game losers get in?
If yes, why play the conference championship game? Georgia and LSU could have both rested starters for the more meaningful playoff at that point. Ohio State could have thrown the B1G title game to get two B1G team in.
If no, then 8 teams means 13 teams, with 5 thru 8 getting a bye week, and hypothetically 1v2 could face off in round 1.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:46 PM ^
32 teams is too many, and not because it's too many games. Games like LSU vs Miami don't need to be played. I would say 16 teams is the max. LSU vs Bama makes much more sense as an opening round.
December 8th, 2019 at 10:48 PM ^
This is a tournament made for the most absolute die hard college football fans only. The majority of people wouldn’t even bother watching the final rounds once their team was knocked out in this scenario. I still at least watch the championship game under the current format.
Part of what makes March Madness work is it is all wrapped up in three weeks and you are already down to the top 16 teams from 64 after one weekend.
December 8th, 2019 at 11:25 PM ^
So if the CFP was 16 teams then you wouldn’t watch the championship game?
December 8th, 2019 at 10:49 PM ^
Thec distance between the top 3-4 programs and the rest of the cfb teams is starting to ruin this sport.
How bad is it when 1 of those top 4 teams ends up playing another very good top 10 team and despite that the game ends up not being competitive. We've seen this lots the last few years and again yesterday with LSU versus Georgia.
No other major team sport is as top heavy as cfb is nowadays.
December 8th, 2019 at 11:18 PM ^
Speaking of top 4 teams, I think Alabama would beat Oklahoma.
December 9th, 2019 at 9:04 AM ^
Alabama beat nobody this year. The question is could Oregon beat Clemson? Probably. The ACC should have been viewed has a G5 level conference this year. The 2nd best team in the ACC (according to FPI) is 6-6 Miami (YTM), ranked below UCF, Memphis, Boise, App State, Mississippi State, Missouri, Tennessee, Michigan State, Indiana, and Cincinnati!
December 9th, 2019 at 8:53 AM ^
The distance between the top 3-4 programs and the rest of the cfb teams is starting to ruin this sport.
I don't think so. Alabama is ranked in the teens. LSU is ranked #1. Georgia and Baylor had every chance in the world to make the playoff this weekend. The playoff hasn't turned the ACC into a complete joke of a conference. Those non-Clemson traditional powers have done that with horribly ran ADs. Is it the playoffs fault that Michigan couldn't beat Ohio St in 2016, or as favorites in 2018? And I'm sure the playoff is definitely why USC has struggled since Carroll left...
December 9th, 2019 at 9:14 AM ^
Alabama might be ranked in the teens but they are still easily a top 5 team.
They'd be favored over every team in the country right now except for lsu, Clemson and Ohio state and they'd likely by at least a touchdown over anyone else including Oklahoma and for sure if their qb wasn't out.
Georgia looked like a jv team this weekend and Baylor would be 2 touchdown underdogs against those top 3 teams.
I still want big playoff but doesn't change fact the top 4 teams are light years ahead of the rest
December 9th, 2019 at 9:46 AM ^
I don't understand your argument. Your last line is all that needs to be said. The top 4 teams are light years ahead, so they should be the only ones playing for the title.
If that system had lasting, long term effects, then Georgia AND LSU wouldn't have been able to catch up to Bama. Clemson never would have been able to rise above a Jimbo Fischer led FSU. Baylor wouldn't have had any business taking Oklahoma to OT in the Big 12 title game.
It all comes back to Michigan. Michigan can't beat OSU in the current landscape, except they had them dead to rights in 2016, a legit shot in 2017, and were favored in 2018. Michigan blew their shot at elevating to the top level by going 0-3 in that stretch. Expanding the playoff to 8 teams doesn't make Michigan a National Title contender. Expanding the playoff to 16 teams doesn't make Michigan a National Title contender.
December 9th, 2019 at 10:11 AM ^
The top 4 teams are light years ahead, so they should be the only ones playing for the title.
By that reason, some years there are only one or three teams that are light years ahead. Others five. If it were merely about only including the teams with reasonable claims at being the best that year, the number of playoff teams should vary from year to year.
(Actually this year it was probably three. The fact that most pundits said that LSU, OSU, and Clemson could have lost their conference championship games and they would still be in the playoff making them superflous). The fact is, any "playoff" is actually a tournament, and it will nearly always include teams that others may consider "undeserving."