College Football Playoff Committee Approves 5+7 Format for Playoffs
College Football Playoff Board of Managers unanimously approves 5-7 qualifier format - On3
Prior to realignment, the format was going to be the 6 highest ranked conference champions plus 6 more at-large teams. Now it will be 5 and 7.
Top 4 highest ranked conference champs will earn a bye, while teams 5-12 will play each other on the homefield of the higher ranked team.
The home field aspect should be really fun for teams that aren't ranked top 4.
February 20th, 2024 at 2:37 PM ^
And - my understanding of the first "two rounds" of the CFP - with seeded teams 5 through 12 the first weekend - and - the quarterfinals the secone weekend - is: one (1) game on Friday night and three (3) games on Saturday - for the first two weekends of the CFP.
That's about 14 hours of college football television the first two weekends in December - and, those games will be ones people want to watch. The ratings will be "very attractive"...
February 20th, 2024 at 1:19 PM ^
In most years the top four conference champs will be from the power conferences so the auto conference champ bud going away won’t have much impact, especially for the b1g and sec.
Not sure I agree with no limits on conference bids. I know they claim to want the best competition available but for much of the season the 7-12 place rankings are all a popularity and glamour show with the supposed deep sec taking up most of those spots. I fully expect to see exclusions of 2-loss non-sec teams in order to gain more sec teams, even if they have three losses.
February 20th, 2024 at 1:40 PM ^
There's absolutely going to be years where the committee manages to pack a bunch of mediocre SEC teams. You'll see the league be something like 1, 3, and 8, 9, 11, 12 because they're gonna think being a 9-3 SEC team with no quality wins is an incredible accomplishment
February 20th, 2024 at 3:45 PM ^
I think that could happen. I could also see those last 3 SEC teams all losing to take the shine off of doing it again too. Or conversely, they all win, proving they should be in.
February 20th, 2024 at 1:21 PM ^
There needs to be a consensus on what to do with conference championship games. Theyre useless now as conferences have gotten so big they match up the top two teams, and usually those two teams have played each other already.
So the conference champ gets a bye in the playoff...but they just played an extra game that a first round team didnt...so is it really a bye?
February 20th, 2024 at 3:49 PM ^
I'd like it if the conferences just said that with tie-breakers and 16-18 teams they are going to value matchups that haven't happened already in the picks. Especially if it's the second team they are debating.
OSU is 12-0 and the only 1 loss team they hadn't played is Oregon. Set it up.
February 20th, 2024 at 1:24 PM ^
Any time there's a "vote" on who gets in or is left out / it would seem non-favorable to Michigan.
Just saying.
Go Blue.
February 20th, 2024 at 1:31 PM ^
No, that's not the case. That's paranoia.
Michigan was treated fairly by the committee, every single year from 2021 to 2023. 2021, U-M wasn't playing Cinci, they weren't going to re-match the 2 SEC teams in the semis (nor should they have). And 2022, whether a #1 or #2 seed, U-M was destined to play TCU, they weren't going to match U-M and UGA nor rematch U-M and OSU.
If there was a Michigan bias in 2023, Washington would have been ranked #1 for the 4-team CFP (and there was a case that could have been made for them at #1, some metrics had Washington with a better Strength of Record). And Washington would have then been sent to the Rose Bowl, leaving Michigan to play either Alabama or Texas in NOLA, where the opponent arguably would have had a home-field advantage.
But that didn't happen.
February 20th, 2024 at 1:47 PM ^
you're wrong a lot
just sayin
:)
February 20th, 2024 at 1:50 PM ^
OK. Then why won't you "just say" what the flaw is in what I said?
I stand by what I say: there isn't nearly as much a Michigan-bias as some folk here think. To be fair, that's the case with nearly all fanbases. Every fanbase has a faction of folks who think the world is against them.
February 20th, 2024 at 2:39 PM ^
Generally agree here - Michigan was treated fairly from '21-23. As bitter as 2016 was, it would be wilder to put Michigan in with that record than OSU/PSU.
However, I do think certain programs get a benefit of the doubt undeservedly - Bama in '23 and OSU in '22 were great squads, but they were in over the CFP's stated criteria because, IMO, of what they'd done prior to the season in question more than their in-season performance. Clemson had 2 losses to worse teams than OSU, but the CFP was supposed to give weight to conference champs. 2023's selection process has been over-wrought.
I also think in 2017, putting in Bama over both Auburn, OSU and USC was unfair - altho Bama won the title that year, they weren't a division champ, let alone a league champ. SC and OSU had both been beaten badly by non-playoff teams, Auburn had beaten Bama by two scores before being blown out by the #1 team in the land, but also had 2 other close losses - one to a playoff team. Bama makes but I still think literally everyone else made MORE sense, especially Auburn. That decision made it clear that the CFP cares little for non-con scheduling and treats conference title game losses more harshly than regular season losses.
2014 OSU was more defensible, but I still believe TCU had the better case. So while I don't think the CFP treated Michigan unfairly, I do think they have been inconsistent to the benefit of other programs - programs that have been consistently excellent, to be fair - and one of those programs IS our primary rival.
Also, the Big Ten absolutely did do Michigan dirty, changing its rules to try to derail our season, a short 3 years after changing its rules to try to prop up OSU's season in the pandemic (somewhat fairly, I'll add). The Big Ten isn't the CFP and your comments are accurate, but there really were very real inconsistencies in both organizations that benefited OSU.
February 20th, 2024 at 3:38 PM ^
I've always wondered - why should a team that didn't win their conference - OR - even win their division - possibly be allowed to compete for the National Championship.
First thought - it's a beauty context - the "prettiest teams" usually get the most attention.
IMO - the CFP Selection criteria should have included this - "If the team is a member of a conference - the first team selected from that conference MUST be the conference champion."
February 21st, 2024 at 2:27 AM ^
Here is the funny part. Many here would keep the 4 team playoff going. Where most years its the SEC invitational while Clemson, UM, and Oklahoma rotate who gets to join in. A 4 team playoff will always be "how do we get max SEC teams in".
February 20th, 2024 at 4:03 PM ^
That's all fair. Michigan, of course, unlike OSU and Alabama was never in a "maybe they're in, maybe they're not situation" as regards the CFP. They were always clear-cut in or out (I agree with you, in 2016 they had no real case). And OSU and Alabama are the only 2 cases of "a team in a conference that didn't win their division yet still made the CFP" --- their brand names certainly didn't hurt in terms of still getting the call.
An interesting thought experiment --- the 2016 PSU/Pittsburgh game. I'd argue that if PSU had beat Pittsburgh in 2016, then Alabama would not have won the 2017 National Championship. At first glance, those 2 things seem 100% completely disconnected, but my argument:
- In 2016, OSU made the CFP as a 1-loss non-divisional champ, PSU was left out as a 2-loss conference champ. PSU had more losses, so, fair enough on that decision.
- But if PSU beats Pittsburgh, then PSU isn't behind OSU on any metric (head-to-head, number of losses, conference champ). The CFP no longer can really exclude PSU and include OSU.
- BUT --- Washington. They're a 1-loss conference champ. And importantly, they're from a conference that missed the CFP the year before. From a political POV, you had to take them, the Pac-12 couldn't be the "left out conference" for a 2nd consecutive year.
- So: 2016, it's Alabama, Clemson, PSU, Washington. OSU is out.
- Now, 2017: in real life, that year it was Alabama at #4 and OSU at #5. But now, in my hypothetical, it is Ohio State and the Big Ten that are owed the political favor! And Alabama can't also point to 2016 OSU as regards precdent for a non-divisional champ making the CFP.
- So: 2017, it's Clemson, Georgia, Oklahoma, Ohio State. Alabama is now out. And, thus, we have some other 2017 National Champ.
Anyway, long story there. But politics - they do play a part in CFP decision making, yes.
February 20th, 2024 at 4:53 PM ^
It's an interesting thought. My thinking tho is 2016 PSU and 2017 OSU both had some UGLY losses to overcome. The road Michigan loss seems relatively forgiveable, but Penn State was never competive in a game they lost by 5 TDs. Likewise, a loss to the best OU team since 2000 is forgiveable, even at home. And a road loss in Kinnick seems forgiveable, but 55-24 in a game unranked Iowa never trailed and that wasn't close at the half or at any point in the second half is even uglier than PSU's loss.
I can see PSU recovering in the committee's eyes in 2016. But in 2017, I think Big Ten Finalist Wisconsin or SEC Finalist Auburn are better options than OSU, and also can't imagine the committee feeling like it owed the Big Ten anything if PSU gets in in 2016.
Either way, 2017 Bama (much like 2011 Bama) proved they were a very good team both times. I'm old school so I'm still not sure they deserve to be "champs" but in the 12-team era, those old controversies will seem sillier to our future selves. Pretty much all the "undeserving" teams of the last 15 years either won the title (those 2 Bama teams, 2014 OSU) or had a close loss to validate the committee ('22 OSU, '23 Bama). 2016 OSU is the exception.
This is different than most of the BCS era, where controversial #2s usually fell flat on their face ('00 FSU, '01 NU, '03 and '04 OU). Only '06 Florida and '11 Bama bucked the trend - and in both cases, emphatically. For all the rightful griping of the CFP, it's undoubtedly better than the BCS.
February 20th, 2024 at 6:11 PM ^
On second thought --- I agree with you on 2017. The OSU loss to Iowa - it was too much to overcome vis-a-vis a 1-loss Alabama.
We've talked about the 2023 selection process a ton, but I think much of 2023 boils down to "the committee decided FIRST that Alabama was in. And then they worked backward from there." Which, well, there shouldn't be political machinations and they shouldn't work from the lower seeds first, but sometimes that's how things get done.
In 2016, I think it was a bit the same. "Washington is a 1-loss Pac-12 Champ and for various reasons we'd prefer to include them. So they're in, and so is undefeated Alabama of course. That's 2 teams, let's start from there to decide the other 2."
February 20th, 2024 at 6:19 PM ^
In 2023 if they took FSU, M would've played Texas in the first round. I think of the 7 other contending teams heading into championship weekend, they would've been our toughest matchup (no apologies, Georgia). The CFP's machinations hurt FSU, who I think M would've beaten comfortably, but also helped Michigan win the Rose Bowl and therefore the national title.
Sucks big time for FSU and was absolutely unfair. But nobody in Ann Arbor is complaining that it hurt us.
February 20th, 2024 at 2:25 PM ^
The CFP absolutely should've rematched UGA and Alabama. I know the team wasn't as strong as in the coming years, but with Michigan beating the snot out of OSU and Georgia getting beat by Alabama in the SECCG, Michigan earned the right to play Cincinnati.
February 20th, 2024 at 2:52 PM ^
- For Michigan to play Cincinnati --- the argument isn't "did Michigan deserve a higher seed than Georgia?", the argument is "did Michigan deserve a higher seed than Alabama?" And Alabama had (to use your term) just beat the snot of our of then-#1-ranked Georgia, winning by 3 scores, on a neutral-field no less. Their loss wasn't any worse than U-M's loss. Alabama had a very valid claim to the #1 seed.
- In NCAA tournaments, teams are bracketed to avoid same-conference match-ups during the early rounds. I philosophically agree with that: it's a NATIONAL tournament, after all. College football lacks regular season cross-conference match-ups as is: let's get the cross-conference match-ups when we can.
- I get it, U-M folk wanted a GA/Alabama match-up in 2021 so that U-M could benefit from playing the weakest team in the tournament (Cincinnati). But if you're going to argue that, if you're being consistent, you can't complain if Georgia fans were asking to play TCU in 2022. And, I'm sorry, there's not a U-M fan around who would have thought a OSU/U-M 2022 SF would have been fair (and I would have agreed with that). If that wouldn't have been fair, neither would have GA/Alabama in 2021.
February 20th, 2024 at 2:40 PM ^
I think he may be referencing the 1973 Rose Bowl vote here, my man...
February 20th, 2024 at 3:40 PM ^
You may be right.
The whole idea that they had "other conference ADs decide" back in 1973 is still incredibly wild to me. Of course old grudges and politics came into the decision!
Seriously, they should have just flipped a coin - televise it from an undisclosed spot on the Ohio/Michigan border, Friday Night Lights style.
February 20th, 2024 at 1:28 PM ^
This year would have been 5 B1G, 5 SEC, 1 ACC, 1 B12 (if you carry the teams to the new conferences)
1. Michigan
2. Alabama
3. FSU
4. Arizona
5. Georgia
6. Washington
7. Texas
8. Ohio State
9. Oregon
10. Mizzou
11. Penn State
12. Ole Miss
Edit: Liberty to replace Ole Miss if G5 gets an autobid (seems dumb if only top 4 conference champs get autobid)
February 20th, 2024 at 1:30 PM ^
You're missing the G5 team
February 20th, 2024 at 1:35 PM ^
G5 gets an autobid? If so, replace Ole Miss with Liberty
February 20th, 2024 at 1:59 PM ^
G5 does not get an auto bid. There are no conference auto bids.
February 20th, 2024 at 2:42 PM ^
but there are 5 bids for conference champs, so at least one (and likely only 1) will go to G5
February 20th, 2024 at 2:47 PM ^
Good point.
February 20th, 2024 at 1:28 PM ^
I love the home field aspect. Great for the teams, fans, universities and cities that gets to host those premier home field games. I just hope that the devil (i.e. NCAA) doesn't get the money from the gate and concessions.
February 20th, 2024 at 2:07 PM ^
NCAA does not run the College Football Playoffs
February 20th, 2024 at 1:30 PM ^
I was about to rip this to shreds for every reason I could find: but before I do - "Top 4 highest ranked conference champs", does this mean Notre Dame can never get a bye? If so, it is the second best possible format, only falling short of the "Notre Dame is never included" format.
February 20th, 2024 at 1:30 PM ^
does this mean Notre Dame can never get a bye?
Yes.
I also wish they would make it so you have to be in a conference to host a game. ND gets a de facto bye by not playing in a conference championship game. They should be forced to play their first round game on the road.
February 20th, 2024 at 1:39 PM ^
As I mentioned above - ND never plays at home after Thanksgiving. Why start now?
Though - as point of reference - ND did play in an ACC CCG during the Covid season.
February 20th, 2024 at 3:03 PM ^
I still don't understand why they won't just join the ACC, especially now that it would make it easier for them to get in.
February 20th, 2024 at 3:42 PM ^
Is your question - why won't ND join the ACC in Football? Since, I believe - they are a member of the ACC in every other sport the ACC offers. (There are a couple of exceptions like Ice Hockey.)
There seem to be two reasons why ND won't join the ACC for football. The first reason is - they cherish their independence which allows them to play "whoever they want - wherever they want - whenever they want" - and, it also allos the Irish to play with only ten defenders at the end of certain games. The other reason? Hmmm - I think it's about "$ 40 Million" per year - which is the approximate difference between ND's media payout and what they would get as a "full" Acc member.
February 20th, 2024 at 1:48 PM ^
It’s probably the best way to put this together
Glad we won the national title the last season college football remotely looked like college football, because it’s more and more NFL-lite every year
February 20th, 2024 at 1:59 PM ^
The first time Michigan and Ohio face off in the regular season, the championship game and a playoff heads will explode.
February 21st, 2024 at 2:31 PM ^
People say this a lot. We wont be on the same side of the bracket so the chances are very very slim.
February 20th, 2024 at 2:00 PM ^
I've asked this question several times and never really gotten an answer. I will assume that there is some payout for making the CFP. And also assume that whatever this payout is goes to the conference. What about ticket sales for the four home teams that get a bonus home game? Concessions?
The reason this whole 12 team thing makes no sense to me is they could've easily done 16 with the same exact format. Maybe they are getting there incrementally. Teams 1 through 8 get a home game mid December. Then everyone takes a whole 2 weeks off before the NY6 games. The losers of the playoff games still would get bowl invites.
So would you rather have a bye or be ranked 5-8? I'd rather be 5-8 if I'm in the athletic dept. How many more millions are you collecting? Not to mention you get 3.5 hours of TV time for your university/campus/recruiting.
Feel like playing in AA or PSU or The Ohio in mid Dec. would be very daunting for some of the southern teams.
February 20th, 2024 at 2:04 PM ^
Personally, I love it. I found this article helpful in listing out the specific dates for the next 2 years (see bottom of article) because I hadn't quite put that together yet. Previously I thought the 1st round would occur right after the conference championship game weekend, but this says it will be 2 weeks after, and interesting that games will be on Friday and Saturday. Teams with a 1st round bye will essentially have the same schedule as previous with an extra semifinal week added after.
Kinda wish they would re-seed like the NFL. Seems like if the 12-seed upsets the 5-seed, the 1-seed would rather play the 12-seed than the 8 or 9 seed. But, makes it more complex I guess.
February 20th, 2024 at 2:16 PM ^
They forgot to adjust for the change in conference champion bids. Liberty is out with the reduction from 6 to 5.
February 20th, 2024 at 2:07 PM ^
It should be Top 4 teams get a bye and then have home field advantage in the 2nd round. This would make the regular season extremely important as that would be a huge advantage. They won't do that because it would mean not as much money going to these stupid bowl sponsors. I can't wait to attend a home playoff game at The Big House in the future. Go Blue!
February 20th, 2024 at 2:18 PM ^
I may have missed this but how will the B1G internally figure out who is the # 2, #3, #4 teams going into the B1G championship money grab, since they all don't play each other?
Polls? Another committee?
And if 3 teams from the SEC and B1G possibly get into the final 12, does a #2 conference team get in, after getting waxed by #1 ( see Iowa last year for argument's sake) in the conference championship get in over the # 3 conference team? # 4 team?
Looking forward to SEC schools playing in northern climates in December but should we be rooting for B1G schools to win their out of conference games aside from UM/Texas to get 3rd and 4th team in ( which could be us)? OSU and Oregon will be favored to play in B1G championship.
...OOC conference games of note: PSU at WVU, Alabama at Wisky, USC v LSU / Notre Dame, UCLA at LSU, OSU vs Akron (their toughest OOC match).
I
February 20th, 2024 at 2:27 PM ^
There could very well be unranked teams making the playoffs if they're taking the top 5 conference champs. Texas and Oklahoma are bailing on the Big12, and FSU is lining up to leave the ACC. Imagine Michigan, Georgia, 4 loss Big12 champ Utah, 4 loss Clemson, and UTSA making the playoff next year. With Utah and Clemson getting 1st round byes.
February 20th, 2024 at 3:06 PM ^
Has a 4 loss team ever won a P5 conference before? To me that seems exceedingly rare, let alone having two in one year. Could it happen? Sure. Will it? Probably not. I'd expect 1 or 2 loss FSU/Clemson and the Big 12 champ to have 2 or 3 losses. So both of these teams would probably be in the top 12...
February 20th, 2024 at 3:53 PM ^
Imagine the B1G, then Michigan and OSU leave for another conference, and 4 loss Iowa ends up winning the championship game. Now, look at the Big12, with Texas and Oklahoma leaving, the conference is turning into the B1G West. They wouldn't be the unraked team, though, the 5th conference champion would be, from the MAC, or MW, or CUSA, or whoever else it might be.
February 20th, 2024 at 5:43 PM ^
Texas 1996. 2005 Fla St, Va Tech 2008.
Does happen. Not sure it would happen when a first round bye is on the line.
February 20th, 2024 at 3:17 PM ^
We can feel good about our national championship. It is the last true national championship decided by the actual best teams. This is really a tournament championship like basketball, meaning that it is basically a second season and the key will be peaking at the right time. Doesn’t mean that it isn’t a valid title if we win the tournament, but it’s just not as special as only having a chance to get in if you have no more than one loss. More often than not you expect the best teams to win but there will definitely be occasions when a borderline "Cinderella" gets in with a 9-3 or 10-2 record, wins it all based on streak play or a fluke, and it has us all questioning whether the team that won should really be considered the national champs.
February 20th, 2024 at 3:23 PM ^
To be fair, there have been championships in the past that were not decided by "the actual best teams" because certain deserving teams didn't get in because the field was too small. Even this year there was the debacle with FSU, although I doubt they would have won a game if they had made it. Still, I'd rather have an expanded playoff if it means every deserving team gets in, than a smaller playoff where there's a chance teams get left out for no reason other than ESPN's SEC bias.
February 20th, 2024 at 3:35 PM ^
True, but think about the circumstances of those "disputed" titles. They almost always came from either the pre-BCS or BCS era. Deciding on the top two teams is more art than science and as per this year it’s often very close between the top six teams. But rarely do you get beyond the top eight and conclude that one of those teams might be the best team in the land. If they were truly merited they‘d already be in the top eight or so because most of the time the teams in the top eight have no more than two losses and even then you can tell that one or both of the two stragglers are clearly inferior, either because the teams ahead of them have beaten them or by eye test. I grant you that there it can often be close between teams four, five, and six. But generally once you go beyond that it’s pretty clear that other teams are just a notch down in level. I’m all for expansion. I just think that six or eight make sense than twelve because by the time you get to teams nine through twelve there is usually a pretty obvious flaw or two and letting them into a national championship tournament dilutes what better teams have accomplished and rewards the merely good teams.
February 20th, 2024 at 7:50 PM ^
I can't believe the SEC agreed to this format. They are not built for Michigan/Ohio/Happy Valley in the winter...