College Football Playoff working group recommends expanding field to 12 teams

[Doomsday101]

Calls for the expansion of the College Football Playoff began as soon as it replaced the Bowl Championship Series ahead of the 2014 season. Seven years later, those calls are on their way to being answered. A College Football Playoff working group Thursday formally recommended expanding the four-team field to 12 teams.

That 12-team model would invite the top six conference champions and six at-large teams into the field. There would be no limit on the number of selections from a conference, and no conference would receive an automatic bid.

In this format, the top four conference champions would get byes in the first round and the other eight teams would compete in first-round games on the campuses of the teams ranked Nos. 5-8. Those games would take place in the two weeks following conference championship weekend.

The quarterfinals would be played at bowl sites (games not specified), taking place on Jan. 1 (or Jan. 2 when New Year's Day falls on a Sunday) and an adjacent day. It has not yet been determined when semifinals and the national championship would be played, but the working group suggests the semifinals not be played as a doubleheader like presently constituted.


College Football Playoff working group recommends expanding field to 12 teams with six conference champions - CBSSports.com

 

[Doomsday101]

Always knew that once a playoff system was put in place it would be a matter of time before they expanded it.

 

[Jammer]

I'm curious, but of all the national champions since the the playoff started, has there been one winner not deemed the true champion by the vast majority of everyone?

 

[Doomsday101]

I'm curious, but of all the national champions since the the playoff started, has there been one winner not deemed the true champion by the vast majority of everyone?

In my opinion no. I think the only question marks are the 4 teams in the playoffs. Many felt ND should not have been in the playoffs (I was not one of them) but I think 12 teams will make for some exciting college football.

 

[jterrell]

I'm curious, but of all the national champions since the the playoff started, has there been one winner not deemed the true champion by the vast majority of everyone?

A singular champion isn't all that matters.
If it is, cancel D1 altogether and just play the 6 or so teams with a legit title shot.

A simulated 12 team playoff going back to 2014 shows 30% of P5 teams getting at least one bid.
That type of inclusiveness is needed if the game is to remain of interest to most.

It's also pretty easy to point to many great team's losing unexpectedly.
But it's really hard to point to that if in fact they don't play the games at all.
This was always going to end up a real tourney in the long run.
12 or 16 was always the perfect number.

Amazingly enough having more meaningful, more watchable football also makes a lot more money. Who'da thunk it?

If nothing else it helps solve the Florida issue where 5 guys opted out of the Bowl game then they got rolf-stomped in the first half.

 

[jterrell]

excerpted:
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...-12-team-historic-simulations-storylines-more



2018
First round

• 9 Washington (10-3) at 8 UCF (12-0)
  
  
• 12 Penn State (9-3) at 5 Notre Dame (12-0)
  
  
• 11 LSU (9-3) at 6 Georgia (11-2)
  
  
• 10 Florida (9-3) at 7 Michigan (10-2)
  

Top-ranked snubs: Washington State (10-2), Kentucky (9-3)

Quarterfinals

• Peach Bowl: 1 Alabama (13-0) vs. UCF-Washington winner
  
  
• Rose Bowl: 4 Ohio State (12-1) vs. Notre Dame-PSU winner
  
  
• Fiesta Bowl: 3 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. Georgia-LSU winner
  
  
• Sugar Bowl: 2 Clemson (13-0) vs. Michigan-Florida winner
  

Semifinal odds, per SP+

• 1 Alabama 85%
  
  
• 2 Clemson 66%
  
  
• 4 Ohio State 59%
  
  
• 6 Georgia 50%
  
  
• 3 Oklahoma 38%
  
  
• 5 Notre Dame 25%
  
  
• 7 Michigan 17%
  
  
• 10 Florida 16%
  
  
• 12 Penn State 16%
  
  
• 11 LSU 13%
  
  
• 9 Washington 9%
  
  
• 8 UCF 6%
  

Odds of top 4 all advancing: 13%
Most likely champions: Alabama (45%), Georgia (17%), Clemson (16%)

Beginning in 2018, the teams at the top of the pack began to get more dominant. This was Nick Saban's best Bama team to date, and Clemson was playing otherworldly ball at the end of the season. They stand out as favorites, and while the other two quarterfinals could be competitive, the chaos potential is minimized this year.

Two other notes:

UCF becomes the first Group of 5 team to host a first-round game, but even if the Knights win ... they get Bama again in the next round. Double ouch.

Unbeaten Notre Dame draws only the No. 5 seed because the Irish aren't conference champions. Their odds of reaching the semifinals are far lower than those of the top four seeds, but as athletic director Jack Swarbrick pointed out recently, they would have to play a conference title game to earn one of those top four seeds. That brings obvious risk as well.

2019
First round

• 9 Florida (10-2) at 8 Wisconsin (10-3)
  
  
• 12 Memphis (12-1) at 5 Georgia (11-2)
  
  
• 11 Utah (11-2) at 6 Oregon (11-2)
  
  
• 10 Penn State (10-2) at 7 Baylor (11-2)
  

Top-ranked snubs: Auburn (9-3), Alabama (10-2)

Quarterfinals

• Sugar Bowl: 1 LSU (13-0) vs. Wisconsin-Florida winner
  
  
• Cotton Bowl: 4 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. Georgia-Memphis winner
  
  
• Orange Bowl: 3 Clemson (13-0) vs. Oregon-Utah winner
  
  
• Rose Bowl: 2 Ohio State (13-0) vs. Baylor-PSU winner
  

Semifinal odds, per SP+

• 2 Ohio State 78%
  
  
• 1 LSU 74%
  
  
• 3 Clemson 70%
  
  
• 4 Oklahoma 46%
  
  
• 5 Georgia 44%
  
  
• 6 Oregon 16%
  
  
• 9 Florida 15%
  
  
• 10 Penn State 15%
  
  
• 11 Utah 14%
  
  
• 8 Wisconsin 11%
  
  
• 12 Memphis 10%
  
  
• 7 Baylor 7%
  

Odds of top 4 all advancing: 19%
Most likely champions: Ohio State (36%), LSU (28%), Clemson (14%)

There is great potential for a new crop of rivalry games in a 12-team era. With a possible Oklahoma-Georgia Cotton Bowl matchup, this might have been the third consecutive year that saw the Sooners and Dawgs face off, after the 2017 semis and 2018 quarterfinals. Meanwhile, Alabama and Ohio State might have played each other five years in a row -- the 2014 quarterfinals, 2015 semis, 2016 semis, 2017 quarters and 2018 semis. Yes, we probably still get our fair share of Bama-Clemson battles, but that isn't the only defining matchup.

Also: Using the CFP rankings as they were originally drawn up, a two-loss Alabama team gets left out of these playoffs in favor of Utah and Penn State. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the committee doesn't rank the Tide 13th if 12 is the new cutoff.

2020
First round

• 9 Georgia (7-2) at 8 Cincinnati (9-0)
  
  
• 12 Coastal Carolina (11-0) at 5 Notre Dame (10-1)
  
  
• 11 Indiana (6-1) at 6 Texas A&M (8-1)
  
  
• 10 Iowa State (8-3) at 7 Florida (8-3)
  

Top-ranked snubs: North Carolina (8-3), Northwestern (6-2)

Quarterfinals

• Peach Bowl: 1 Alabama (11-0) vs. Cincinnati-Georgia winner
  
  
• Fiesta Bowl: 4 Oklahoma (8-2) vs. Notre Dame-Coastal winner
  
  
• Cotton Bowl: 3 Ohio State (6-0) vs. A&M-Indiana winner
  
  
• Orange Bowl: 2 Clemson (10-1) vs. Florida-ISU winner
  

Semifinal odds, per SP+

• 1 Alabama 78%
  
  
• 4 Oklahoma 74%
  
  
• 3 Ohio State 73%
  
  
• 2 Clemson 61%
  
  
• 7 Florida 29%
  
  
• 6 Texas A&M 23%
  
  
• 5 Notre Dame 18%
  
  
• 9 Georgia 14%
  
  
• 10 Iowa State 10%
  
  
• 8 Cincinnati 9%
  
  
• 12 Coastal Carolina 8%
  
  
• 11 Indiana 5%
  

Odds of top 4 all advancing: 25%
Most likely champions: Alabama (42%), Ohio State (18%), Clemson (14%)

The "top six conference champions" rule wreaks havoc in 2020. With unranked Oregon beating USC, that means conference champion No. 6 is now the Sun Belt's Coastal Carolina. Meanwhile, Oklahoma's Big 12 title game win over Iowa State gives the Sooners a bye and sends the Cyclones to Gainesville for Round 1. That's all undercard, however. The top four teams are the most dominant set of four yet, though Clemson gets a tricky draw in potentially facing a Florida team that doesn't have Kyle Pitts et al opting out in the quarterfinals.

And yes, Alabama likely still wins it all.

 

[csirl]

The way D1 college football is organised is just nuts. The voting thing has no place in modern sports.

Divide the country up into regional divisions - the various conferences are already mostly there - and put the top teams into playoffs.

 

[Doomsday]

8 teams are more than enough.

 

[kskboys]

I'm curious, but of all the national champions since the the playoff started, has there been one winner not deemed the true champion by the vast majority of everyone?

Several times, yes.

Between 1990 and 97, three different times there were split champions because they couldn't agree. In 03, AP declared USC the champions after they got shut out of the title game.

Undefeated teams are left out unless they are in a certain conference. Utah was 12-0 one year.

 

[kskboys]

In my opinion no. I think the only question marks are the 4 teams in the playoffs. Many felt ND should not have been in the playoffs (I was not one of them) but I think 12 teams will make for some exciting college football.

Holy Larry, you slept through the 90's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jammer]

Several times, yes.

Between 1990 and 97, three different times there were split champions because they couldn't agree. In 03, AP declared USC the champions after they got shut out of the title game.

Undefeated teams are left out unless they are in a certain conference. Utah was 12-0 one year.

I was talking about time the playoff system has been around and not when teams were "voted" as champions.

 

[kskboys]

I was talking about time the playoff system has been around and not when teams were "voted" as champions.

Ah, sorry.

Undefeated teams such as Utah, and I think UCF one year.

And secondly, what people miss is that w/ an expanded playoff system, some of those who go to sit on the bench at ALA and such would choose a different college if more colleges had a shot at a title. Which would make for better teams and more contenders.

 

[jterrell]

8 teams are more than enough.

Nope. 12 or 16 are both better numbers.
The tourney should be inclusive of teams who have very strong years but aren't national powers.
The committee has shown zero ability to reward those types of teams so 12 and 16 team fields force their hand.

The point is more meaningful, inclusive football and 8 teams does a bit of this but not much. 12 offers a first round of games without most of the juggernauts.
Exclusive Brand Name CFP is about to be over thankfully.

 

[Hardline]

The playoff system needs to go away and strictly go by AP and coaches polls like in the past.

 

[Aviano90]

Then they will work it up to 64 team and there will still be controversy over who was left out.

 

[Aviano90]

The playoff system needs to go away and strictly go by AP and coaches polls like in the past.

Agreed. I liked it much better that way. I thought a championship game would make it better, but it's just gotten progressively uninteresting to me. I rarely even turn a college football game on anymore and it's only for a few minutes if I do. The realignments and loss of traditional rivalry games has soured me on the sport as well.

 

[kskboys]

Agreed. I liked it much better that way. I thought a championship game would make it better, but it's just gotten progressively uninteresting to me. I rarely even turn a college football game on anymore and it's only for a few minutes if I do. The realignments and loss of traditional rivalry games has soured me on the sport as well.

That's because they don't use logic, common sense, and simple fairness when voting on who should play who. Bad playoff system, need more teams.

 

[Aviano90]

That's because they don't use logic, common sense, and simple fairness when voting on who should play who. Bad playoff system, need more teams.

But regardless of how many teams they expand it to, there will always be controversy over who was left out, just like in college basketball.

 

[kskboys]

But regardless of how many teams they expand it to, there will always be controversy over who was left out, just like in college basketball.

Of course, however avoiding controversy is not a reason to expand/not expand the playoffs. It's about fairness. Fairness dictates that every team in Div 1 should have a shot. In the present system, only a very few(maybe 4-6 yearly) have a shot. That is the very definition of unfair.

In the 16 team playoffs that I recommend, you use a formula, which makes is close to fair. And the kicker is, when all teams have a shot, recruiting will change in a big way, and suddenly those 3rd stringers at ALA might actually go to a team where they can play. And suddenly teams that could not compete suddenly can. Changes everything and makes it much much better.