Scuttlebutt has it that the B1G and the SEC are seriously considering a 24-team playoff and are working with ESPN, the ACC, and the B12 to see if the CFB calendar could be changed to make this happen in 2027.

I am not here as an advocate, only as an informant. But I do note that if the NCAA had managed the 'Division 1' postseason years ago, the playoff field would have had a 24-team field.

Four teams from the ACC, B1G, B12, and the SEC would be in the field. Two teams from the G6 would be included, along with six at-large teams.

Using the PO committee's latest ranking, this would be the PO field.

The top eight seeds would host a second-round playoff game.

1. Ohio State vs. 17 USC at 16 Texas.

2. Indiana vs. 18 UVA at 15 Michigan.

3. Texas A&M vs. 19 Tennessee at 14 Vanderbilt

4. Georgia vs. 20 ASU at 13 Utah

5. Texas Tech vs. 21 SMU at 12 Miami

6. OREGON vs. 22. Pitt at 11. BYU

7. Ole Miss vs. 23 Tulane at 10 Alabama

8. Oklahoma vs. 24 JMU at 9 Notre Dame.

Other than for 'The Good of the Game', I see no reason why any conference, and Notre Dame, would not favor this format.

Put the Dawgs Down in Seattle!

Let's get there already. All the crap there used to be about how there are only really 4 teams capable of winning it all each year, and yet now that the playoff size has grown, so has the field of contenders.

Look at Texas Tech. Would they be investing like this with a 4 team playoff? Heck no. Poor risk-reward. But if that money can get them in the playoffs every other year it pays off.

If you expand the playoff field you'll expand the number of contenders, and levels the competition at the top.

A field of 24 covers every ranked team minus one, which has been the threshold of relevance for a very long time. If you are relevant enough to be ranked, then you are relevant enough to play in the playoffs.

Edited 16 hours ago16 hr by Solar

Anything to mitigate the beauty contest that still exists. If there was a “perfect” way to get to 8, it would probably be enough, but there isn’t.

The champion would be the team lucky enough to avoid injuries through a 16-game season.

12 minutes ago, Triphibius said:

The champion would be the team lucky enough to avoid injuries through a 16-game season.

I think the champion would typically be the team playing the best in December, with a little luck, and a little depth.

Wouldn't it be fun to see a team like Utah inexplicably knock off a team like Georgia from time to time and make little Cinderella run?

36 minutes ago, Solar said:

Wouldn't it be fun to see a team like Utah inexplicably knock off a team like Georgia from time to time and make little Cinderella run?

That would be fun....

But I don't think that would ever really happen. There is a still a massive talent gap between the top and the bottom. Especially when it comes to the end of a season.

I mean in the 2022 Rosebowl Utah went up against Ohio State which had some of their biggest players sit out for the draft... And lost. Yes they lost their star QB but I don't think that would have made a difference in terms of the final result... Maybe the score board would have looked nicer but OSU would have gotten the win regardless.

A 24 team playoff...

Frankly I hate it.

But this is one of those things that will move on with or without Dan support because at the end of the day we are all tied to our teams and we'll at least follow things for our team's sake.

Just looking at this year's rankings so far I feel there are a lot of teams in the Big 12 that are not good enough to make the playoff but have received a ton of hype so far. The Big 12 isn't what it used to be and the ACC is pretty weak as well.

As for the B1G and SEC any team that gets three losses on their record isn't in the top tier of the conference.

But I suppose more games, even games with sacrificial lambs, make money so I'm sure this will happen.

College football has leveled out in the transfer portal and NIL era. I mean... Indiana, need I say more? So the playoff expansion is warranted and 12 feels probably about right and 16 is pushing it but has merits based on fairness, everyone plays a first round game.

But 24? Just make another tournament like the NIT... A lower bracket tournament for the rest of the spread of teams. Maybe a conference that isn't the B1G or SEC might actually win it.

Might be a better and more exciting tournament honestly.

If 3-loss SEC teams miss this season's PO, as I believe will happen, Sankey could return to supporting Petitti's 4-4-2-2-1-3 model, which could be supported by the ACC and/or the B12, missing out on millions of dollars with a single team in the field.

Having surrendered PO voting power to the B1G and the SEC, the ACC and B12 have acknowledged that there is a Power 2. A Power 2 is also borne out by the committee's rankings to date.

Why not simply expand to 16 teams? Go with a 3-3-2-2-1 format and 5 at large teams with CCG week used as a play in round between the P4 teams qualified to participate? That basically maintains the most important aspect of college football: making every week matter. Making those Play In Games relevant also matters as there must be some objective measurement used as a measuring tool for those contenders.

I believe that would be fairly simple, as contending for your conference title should definitely be one of those measurements. Same with defeating teams you were favored against, and defeating teams you were an underdog to. This year is going to be a mess. I believe Texas losing to Florida ruined what is considered facing a gauntlet schedule (all three of their losses are to teams that are playoff bound, and they defeated a fourth while eliminating Vandy as a fifth). Expanding to 16 definitely makes sense. Using Play In games would expand it further, and create the kind of drama fans of the sport love. Not to mention settle matters on the field.

https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/rj-youngs-24-team-college-football-playoff-bracket-entering-week-12

This article actually makes sense to me. I don't necessarily like the fact that some teams just don't qualify in my opinion, but settling things on the field would settle a lot of headaches and arguments. I prefer the 16 team 3-3-2-2-1 and 5 at large bids more. It would preserve some of the bowl season. But this presentation makes total sense based on how this season has progressed.

Absolute garbage IMO. However, NIL was the support needed for a realistic expanded playoff. It has leveled the playing field. The top 4 has quality but who looks unbeatable? Nobody. Before NIL, we had some clarify cut top echelon teams by years end. Now those teams lose so many players from year to year as well as teams can’t horde every 5* for the last 5 years. This has made teams more even with personnel. Personally, 16 is enough. .750 record is a quality team. .666 team has no business in the playoffs. That’s just plain mediocrity. But, we will go to 24 or 48 or 96. So, tell me, what will the season look like if you have a 5 game post season? Thaaaaaats a-laaaahhhttt!

6 hours ago, Mike West said:

That basically maintains the most important aspect of college football: making every week matter.

This is my main concern. I don’t want a massive playoff to devalue the regular season. Saturdays in the fall are sacred to me, and I want to keep it that way.

In a 24 team playoff, does the Texas vs TA&M game even matter? I imagine teams in TA&M’s position doing load management and resting players at the end of the year.

24 is too much IMO, but if they expanded to 16 and stopped, I think that would still work in providing the week in, week out excitement.

16 teams just seems to be the next logical and profitable number for the next round of CFP progression.

Jumping to 24 would cheapen the field. For example, does an 8-4 team really deserve a shot at the Natty? Taking care of business, with a sense of urgency builds excitement and pressure.

Is the reward because we had a great season or because we finished in the top 6 of of a P-2 conference?

Money drive this train!