Let's Consider This Year Under the 2024 Playoff Format

Submitted by enlightenedbum on December 4th, 2022 at 10:34 AM

Remember the rules:

Power 5 champions and the top Group of 5 champion get autobids, six at large selections based on the committees wins.  Four first round byes, which go to the four highest ranked conference champions.

Byes:

(1) Georgia

(2) Michigan

We have to pick two of Clemson/Kansas State/Utah here.  Committee has overvalued Clemson all year, but they suck.  Fuck Clemson.  Wildcats and Utes get the bids.

(3) Kansas State

(4) Utah

TCU clearly had a better season than OSU and Alabama has no wins over a team that is even sniffing the playoff, so that's your 5/6/7 order.  I'll throw a sop to Clemson for winning the ACC.  They can have a home game.  So the last thing to do is rank Tennessee/PSU/USC.  Tennessee beat one of the playoff teams, so they get the highest seed of those three.  USC had a couple of ranked wins, a close loss to a playoff team, and a blowout loss to ...the same playoff team.  Penn State had a close loss to a playoff team and a blowout loss to a playoff team, but no ranked wins.  Best win is over pre-Mockabee Purdue.  Rough.  So that ends up looking like:

(12) Tulane at (5) TCU

(11) Penn State at (6) Ohio State

(10) USC at (7) Alabama

(9) Tennessee at (8) Clemson

But then you look at the all Big Ten first round game and you get sad so you swap PSU and USC to avoid that matchup.  Final field:

(1) Georgia vs. winner of (9) Tennessee at (8) Clemson

(2) Michigan vs. winner of (10) Penn State at (7) Alabama

(3) Kansas State vs. winner of (11) USC at (6) Ohio State

(4) Utah vs. winner of (12) Tulane at (5) TCU

And looking at that field I sense some flaws with this system.  TCU/Utah would be a hell of a game though.

Newton Gimmick

December 4th, 2022 at 10:39 AM ^

We'll get a clearer picture in about 90 minutes.  Yeah I'd flip flop PSU and USC to avoid a rematch (PSU is a better team anyway)

The games do look entertaining but seriously, this would have been a perfect year for the BCS.  Michigan vs Georgia and the rest are good bowl games 

abt424

December 4th, 2022 at 10:53 AM ^

 This would be a two team year with major controversy about the Big 12 refusing to review TCU's third down TD in OT yesterday.

 

I don’t understand why this hasn’t gotten more discussion. Seemed like the running back was clearly across the goal line. Maybe it’s because there was no angle showing all of his body parts were off the turf. 

Still, it was amazing that the majority of the calls seemed to go against TCU. Nobody could say the Big 12 was biased toward getting a team in the playoffs … that’s for sure. 

bluebyyou

December 4th, 2022 at 11:54 AM ^

I know this won't happen any time soon, but I'm for four 20-team conferences. Each conference has a conference championship game and the winners of those four games are in the playoffs.

As it stands now, winning your conference is a big deal and my approach makes it an even bigger deal as you have no OSU or a blathering Saban pushing his case for a two-loss team to jump into the "natty" picture.

Three of the four playoff games this weekend were decided in the first half or early in the second half.  The level of competition as you go down the rankings tends to drop off quickly and I'm one of these people who believes less is often more.  It's still an eight team playoff but winning the conference is critical. 

UMxWolverines

December 4th, 2022 at 10:44 AM ^

All this is going to get us is more games to get the same outcome.

Yeah every once and a while you might get a 2014 OSU who gets hot at the right time but how many times have the first two playoff games been blowouts? 

Like it or not, bowl tie ins to conferences and debating whos the best team was controversial, but it kept things exciting and the regular season meant everything. 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

December 4th, 2022 at 10:51 AM ^

I got a better idea.  Let's consider this year under the BCS instead of all this unnecessary playoff frippery.  The scene this year is two teams who earned a shot at the national championship and 130+ teams who didn't.  Michigan and Georgia should be playing for the national title, and TCU, OSU, Alabama, and USC, who earned as much of a shot at the national title as UMass by screwing up their seasons, should not be.  Instead under this bullshit system we're giving undeserving teams a chance to get lucky.

aiglick

December 4th, 2022 at 10:54 AM ^

I think the 12 team playoff will make cfb more like basketball which is not necessarily a bad thing though maybe they should allow for larger rosters to account for injuries. I think there could be some upsets and this does have the result of potentially allowing for more parity as you don’t need to go to Bama, Clemson, Georgia, or Michigan to win a championship anymore.

Derek

December 4th, 2022 at 10:55 AM ^

But then you look at the all Big Ten first round game and you get sad

Ideally, they would stop considering conference affiliations in match-ups, instead taking advantage of the expanded field to seed the top 12 honestly. The likelihood of SEC-SEC and B1G-B1G pairings will certainly increase with the OK/TX and UCLA/USC moves, so they might as well just accept them.

skatin@the_palace

December 4th, 2022 at 11:04 AM ^

Honestly I miss the BCS and bowl tie ins. The system wasn’t perfect but it was better than the 4 team playoff and the 12 team playoff is doing absolutely nothing for me. I would so much rather have Michigan go to the rose bowl and then play in the battle of the last two undefeated teams. The approaches we use in sports to determine who’s best, who’s most deserving, etc etc are not effective imo. 

1WhoStayed

December 4th, 2022 at 11:36 AM ^

Anything where a committee “picks” is bullshit IMO. See 2006. Way too much bias. Would have preferred an 8 team playoff with automatic bids and NO SEEDING BY COMMITTEE. Alternate conferences who play each other and which conference is home. You will rarely see an SEC coming north as long as a “committee” is involved in rankings.

oakapple

December 4th, 2022 at 11:11 AM ^

There are no autobids for the Power Five champs. The autobids go to the top six champs, without distinguishing the P5. It will usually work the way you said, but the possibility exists for two G5 champs to make it in.

Mr Miggle

December 4th, 2022 at 11:16 AM ^

Remember the rules.

 It wouldn't matter here, but you got the first rule wrong. The top 6 ranked conference champions get in. There's no guarantee that every Power 5 conference will be included. Two Group of 5 winners could earn their way in over one of them. 

This particular rule is a nudge towards ending divisions. 

Dunder

December 4th, 2022 at 11:36 AM ^

Just go to 16 teams and do away with the conference championship games, or get together and form balanced conference alignments that make those games a reasonable round of 16 and then your official playoffs start at 8. 

The margin for error in college football is so insane: completely different make up this year riding on USC one point loss to Utah and Dabo not switching his quarterback in time to avoid a one point loss to South Carolina (checks watch, yes South Carolina did just score again vs TN). That is not even touching the super tight games Bama played. 

PS - been watching this ESPN show this morning and they've spent hours on comparing Alabama resume to TCU. Such a weird way to twist their bias for the usual suspects. Shouldn't the conversation be comparing Alabama and Ohio State? 

 

 

oakapple

December 4th, 2022 at 3:59 PM ^

I don't think that was ESPN bias. Many non-ESPN outlets were making that comparison too. I think that's because USC was surely going to drop out, with OSU replacing them. If you were going to debate anything, it could only be Alabama.

In truth, these were about the least suspenseful college football playoff rankings ever. But when you've got a previously scheduled sports show, you've got to find stuff to talk about. That can include creating a debate over something that is in fact obvious.

I am sure they will go to 16 eventually: it will be irresistible to add four more lucrative games that can easily be accommodated without lengthening the season. But the jump from four to 12 is pretty big. I think they will wait to see how that works before the inevitable expansion talk begins again.

But I don't see them doing away with conference championship games. Those games are money-spinners, and that's revenue the sponsoring conferences do not have to share.

turtleboy

December 4th, 2022 at 11:44 AM ^

I think the 12 team playoff is too much. Including half the ranked teams in the country just seems silly, but then again, so does the Jimmy Kimmel Bowl. 8 would've been much better, IMHO. The top 4 ranked conference champions, vs the lowest ranked champ and 3 alternates. The extra 4 teams in a first round just seem pointless and make an already physically grueling season too long. 

uminks

December 4th, 2022 at 12:26 PM ^

If M would have had a close loss to OSU, I doubt we would get into the playoff. At least a good team like Michigan can still get into a 12 team playoff, after a tough loss, without being a Alabama or OSU. 

b618

December 4th, 2022 at 12:34 PM ^

I'm not enthusiastic about early playoff matchups that already happened in the regular season.

I'm hoping that somehow such things don't become a problem in the 12-team system.

Also, as pointed out, the "highest-ranked conference champs" part of it will result sometimes in champs from Big12, Pac12, and maybe ACC (depending on how good Clemson is) placed higher than better non-champ teams from the SEC and Big10.  But if there is no preference for champs, there becomes a disadvantage to having conference championship games at all.

Which is better:  having conference champions (but knowing this will at times mess up seeding), or no conference champions?

HouseHarbaugh

December 4th, 2022 at 3:43 PM ^

Why can't the playoff have the same structure as the NFL playoffs? So the lowest seed left after the first round plays #1, second lowest plays #2, so on and so forth? No need for a bracket