CFP Expansion Idea

Submitted by SMart WolveFan on October 20th, 2018 at 10:07 AM

November is around the corner so we face that time again ......
when the playoff committee has way too many 1 loss teams and no idea how to whittle them to 4.

People want 6 teams? 8 teams? How about 10 teams with no further expansion!




That 10 team playoff your looking for, I can give it to ya.

Conference Championship Retasking!

There are already 5 games that help determine the final four, problem is about 3 of those 10 teams have no chance at the playoff. We can already see there are potential match ups in the B12 and Pac12 that will do nothing to get a one loss champ from either of those conferences into the CFP. But, if they are open to inviting a quality opponent to their championship game they can create a match up that is more compelling, so more profitable, plus gives them the greater potential for a spot in the CFP for their conference.

So, for example: LSU upsets Bama and heads to the SEC championship instead, now you have the "1 loss Bama" scenario and any 1 loss Champ from B12 or Pac12 knows they're cooked. So instead of playing some loser from the Pac12 south, the conference invites a 1 loss Bama to the Pac12 Championship game to play a 1 loss Oregon with the winner having a near lock to be one of the final four.

Thought it was a good idea, especially since it could even work this year if things get really chaotic.

Like about "all of the top 8 being 1 loss teams" chaotic.

What do you think?


Other Andrew

October 20th, 2018 at 10:23 AM ^

I think anything greater than six teams is a bad idea. Would cause more harm than good. I’m glad we have four because the “promise” of the BCS was never possible. I’m happy with how things are.

SMart WolveFan

October 20th, 2018 at 11:25 AM ^

Hey, I'm with ya.

 Actually I am a "mythical NC" type of guy, I loved it when three or four fan bases were "ride or die" that their team could bet anyone anywhere! 

My idea here is really about not changing too much of anything else, but replacing meaningless conference championship games with match-ups that could clear up a chaotic finish. 

I mean, does anybody think that a 1 loss team from the B12 or Pac12  will make the CFP? Heck no. But let's say Notre Dame loses a game, a 1 loss ND vs a 1 loss Texas team would be a match up with some CFP value.


October 21st, 2018 at 6:32 PM ^

Well . . . the FiveThirtyEight predictions think that a one loss B12 team would be likely to make the playoff over Michigan in a scenario where Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, Oklahoma and Michigan all win out . . . They must be putting a high weight on head to head. So not literally no one thinks a one loss B12 team could make the playoff.

SMart WolveFan

October 22nd, 2018 at 12:21 PM ^

Interesting, I can't see how Texas would with their "bad" loss, so that's Ok winning the B12; but, their loss would be to a 2 loss team that lost to Maryland.

I think that the useless re match of B12 teams nullifies their, chance unless they are a full game ahead of other conference champions. 


October 23rd, 2018 at 9:37 PM ^

This. I don't understand why people like six. Two semifinalists having to play an extra game is an insane burden in football. It's the most brutal popular game in America, you severely disadvantage 4 of the 6 teams in a 6 team playoff. It'd be even more pronounced in college as opposed to the wild card system in the NFL, because all the while in college the kids have school work (depending on the scheduling, classes would be starting back up).

If it's ever expanded from 4, it has to go to 8. 6 is horrible.

They should go to 8, with the 5 Power 5 champs getting automatic bids, plus 3 at-large selections from the committee. Then, the committee re-seeds the 8 like they already do with the top 4. This gets you to the six team amount that Bill C's numbers think encapsulates the "elite" teams in any given year, and doesn't unduly burden most of the teams.

Your playoff this year could look something like 1. Alabama 13-0, 2. Clemson 13-0, 3. Michigan 12-1, 4. Oklahoma 12-1, 5. Notre Dame 12-0, 6. Georgia 11-2, 7. Ohio State 10-2, 8. Washington State 12-1.

That gets you down to the 4 that should probably be the finalists, it gets all the Power 5 champs to get rid of the "didn't even win their conference" complaints, and still allows the committee to pick the few extra teams they think might be elite but didn't win their conference for whatever reason.


October 24th, 2018 at 1:10 AM ^

I hate auto-bids for conference champs.  Would devalue the non-conference so much.  A team could literally have a Purdue non-conference, win the B1G... and be in the playoff with Bama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Washington/Oregon/Wash U, etc.  Best part of the sport is how crushing every loss feels and how important every week is.  If every conference champ gets in, that'd go away.


October 20th, 2018 at 10:31 AM ^

I am not a big fan of having Alabama being the Pac-12 Champion.

Let's say UofM wins out and is 11-1....the West Division winner is a 10-2 Iowa.  Since Iowa can't make the playoffs at that record...we invite an 11-1 SEC team to play for the BigTen Championship against Michigan - dashing Iowa's fans' hopes for a conference title?  No Thank You.

SMart WolveFan

October 20th, 2018 at 11:14 AM ^

One point: no conference would have to participate if the champion is probably going anyway, so whether it be UofM or OSU they wouldn't cannibalize their chances by bringing in a quality opponent when they just need to win.

But even in that case, not a problem, give Iowa the co-B1G championship and a preferred Bowl game position.

On the other hand, what if a 1 loss UofM isn't getting in the playoffs because of a unbeaten Clem, UB ND, 1 loss LSU heading to SEC champ, and 1 loss Bama, wouldn't you rather play Bama in the B1G championship where winner gets in, or have an easy path to the Rose Bowl?


October 20th, 2018 at 11:44 AM ^

NCAA nuts up and no longer allows conference title games; all conferences must be a full round robin schedule. 

The major conferences all condense down to 10 teams.

1 or 2 new major conferences sprout up.

8 team playoff.

Homefield advantage in first round.




October 20th, 2018 at 11:52 AM ^

Makes sense to get the best final four and the best product for the fans. 

Stanford would be extremely pissed in this scenario and the conference will protect the conference over inviting a 1 loss Alabama team to come stomp their elected champion.

Arb lover

October 20th, 2018 at 6:41 PM ^

How about the 5 conference champions and one at large bid. I fail to see why the conference championship cannot contain teams the conferences send to the playoffs.

The one at large bid cannot have won that bid in the last 2 previous years and the conference with the at large bid cannot have received the at large bid in the previous year. 


October 20th, 2018 at 9:20 PM ^

Different option... 4 16 team conferences which have unique 8 teams they all play 7 in division conference games, and then play 3 out of conference games and 2 cross over conference games, then the Conference championship game is the quarter finals, then you have semi finals and championships after that.  

Or 8 10 team conferences and roll back closer to what was around to the 70's and again you  match conferences up on a rotation for conference championships for the first round.



October 21st, 2018 at 6:55 AM ^

How come 1-AA can get 24 teams in their tournament but 1-A couldn't possibly play that many extra games?  


11 Regular Season Games.  Max of 5 playoff games.  Seems pretty simple to me.

I never understood why people insist on auto bids.  2012 Wisconsin is a perfect example of why auto bids are dumb.


October 21st, 2018 at 8:43 PM ^

No that would be bizarre. The correct solution would be to eliminate conference championship games as they are stupid and unnecessary. Use that week as round 1 of an 8 team or 12/16 team playoff. If it's 8 teams, you will be left with 4 teams for the playoffs and 4 teams for the NY6 bowls. I think using the polls and committees to pick 4 teams is way too subjective. 8 teams would provide a virtual certainty of not leaving out any serious contenders. 12 or 16 teams would probably bring in too many marginal teams.


October 22nd, 2018 at 5:35 AM ^

“...when the CFP has no way to whittle them to four”...?    It’s called the rankings and the rankings are there based on wins, losses, schedule, etc etc.  They don’t start from scratch.   What did I miss?   


October 22nd, 2018 at 9:16 AM ^

Honestly, expanding from the current system is one of the easiest things to solve. Right now, we have 6 bowls that rotate for 2 semi-final games and then the final game is bid on.

  • Move to 8 teams
  • Rotate the same 6 bowls and have the other 4 host the quarter finals.
  • Any conference champion in the top 15 gets in.
  • Any undefeated team gets in.
  • After that, fill in the rest by ranking.
  • Rather than seeding, the first four bowls continue their conference affiliations, so B1G and Pac-12 still play in the Rose Bowl and select teams for good matchups.
  • Teams will be seeded in the semi-finals.

Almost nothing changes except now the other 4 bowl games are part of the playoff and everyone gets a fair shot.

SMart WolveFan

October 22nd, 2018 at 10:51 AM ^

All great ideas! Hope the NCAA gets off it's ass and implements one of them.

And maybe I wasn't clear enough in the OP but I meant this idea to be a "break glass in case of emergency" type idea for the short term not a long term solution.

 Something that might help if the top10 looks like this before the conference championship games:

LSU 11-1

UofM 11-1

Bama 11-1

UGA 11-1

Clem 11-1

Tx 11-1

Ok 11-1

WSU 11-1

Iowa 11-1

ND 11-1

UCF 12-0


October 22nd, 2018 at 12:28 PM ^

What's wrong with P5 champs plus 3 at-large? Gives the committee an opportunity to humiliate UCF three times by picking P5 also rans with admittedly better teams.


October 22nd, 2018 at 1:10 PM ^

CFP has 2 major failings:
1) Acclaim vs. On the field accomplishments.
    You should have to win your conference to get in. Period.
    This is the first qualifier.
2) Group of 5 is only being strung along. 
    the ONLY scenario I see is a year when there is one undefeated G5 team w/quality wins vs. P5 + at least 2 of the P5 conference winners have 2 losses.
A UCF, WMU, Boise St, USF fan has to know they're going to be screwed in this.

Of these two, "acclaim" is the worst.
STFU on the "team passes the eye test stuff". Win your conference.

6 or 8 team structure probably fixes this most often.

Better: (but will NEVER happen)
1) Separate championship ladder for the G5.
2) Pair up the conferences P5/G5 with revenue sharing and have promotion/relegation.
    B1G and MAC for instance.
    No independents get in. 


October 22nd, 2018 at 2:49 PM ^

The NCAA needs to step in and regulate the Conference Championship games.  Right now you have Conference Championship games that do not even match up the 2 best teams in its conference.  All Conferences need to scrap divisions and take the 2 top teams period.  We see it every year...look at the BIG West Division.  I am tired of having teams go to the playoffs that don't even play for their conference championships.

SMart WolveFan

October 22nd, 2018 at 3:23 PM ^

Absolutely, this makes sense. If it's not the best match-up to help build the winner's resume than it's useless.

Which is why I'd even bring in a G5, independent, or a quality team from another conference to my championship if winning that game gets you into the CFP as opposed to beating a cupcake and going to a NY6. especially if your conference is getting shut out. *cough Pac12 *cough


October 23rd, 2018 at 6:54 AM ^

This is very new for me as I am not an interested in such kind of conference but love to keep my self-updated which helps me to keep myself knowledgeable. And inviting a quality opponent to their championship game they can create a match up that is more compelling which is very important to know for the sports people who are taking professional cover letter writing service from the CV experts who are also providing CV help to sports at CV Folks. So they should aware about such kind of update. Thanks for letting us know about it.


October 23rd, 2018 at 5:21 PM ^

On December 2, the committee seeds the five Power-5 champions and three at-large teams.  On December 15 there are 4 games:

At-large #3 at Power-5 #1

At-large #2 at Power-5 #2

At-large #1 at Power-5 #3

Power-5 #5 at Power-5 #4