80 different schools would have made it at least once.
If a 24-Team CFP had existed from the very beginning (2014)
- Thread starter LaQuintaHawk
- Start date
I hate the espn pundits that complain about “only the top 4 or so schools have a chance to win it all and therefore we should not be having this many teams in the playoff.”
Besides just spouting off what big money wants them to say, they are also completely missing the point that this type of wide, national involvement is exactly what makes college football so dynamic and successful. Start to limit it to just the “haves vs have nots” and the national appeal to every single fanbase will start to fade. Need to expand to at least 16 if not 24 and fix NIL/transfers rules to keep competitive and national balance, imo!
Besides just spouting off what big money wants them to say, they are also completely missing the point that this type of wide, national involvement is exactly what makes college football so dynamic and successful. Start to limit it to just the “haves vs have nots” and the national appeal to every single fanbase will start to fade. Need to expand to at least 16 if not 24 and fix NIL/transfers rules to keep competitive and national balance, imo!
If only. You have to wonder how far some of the teams would've gone. Also, which years would have gone? 2015, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 25?
I think teams like 15, 21, 23 would've been a first round out. But 18, 20, add 25 would've made it at least one or two games.
I think teams like 15, 21, 23 would've been a first round out. But 18, 20, add 25 would've made it at least one or two games.
I really hope that they do not go to 24 teams!?! 16 is plenty... But in reality the current system is the best.
The NCAA basketball tournament is a joke at the 94 or however many teams they have it up to now. F'n joke.
The NCAA basketball tournament is a joke at the 94 or however many teams they have it up to now. F'n joke.
What is hilarious unless my eyes deceived me. Seeing what big 10 schools didn’t make it like Rutgers and Maryland. Looks like you can add Nebraska to the list.
College football is not like college basketball where a top 20 team could knock off number 1 and maybe make a run. Nobody, at the end of the season, thinks #12 could knock of #1, let alone #24. There's never an argument for who is the best beyond 4-5 teams
The 10 seed and last P4 team in just went to the national championship and gave the #1 team all they could handle just this season.
It needs to be 24 teams, period. That would put D1 in the same ball park with every other division of college football in terms of the percentage of teams who make the football playoffs.
In 1980 there were 15 major bowls, 30 teams. Last year there were 41 bowls, 82 teams. So if there are still sponsors and TV for bowl games, go ahead, but the playoffs should be 24 teams, and at least the first two rounds should be on campus.
Every other division of college football would disagree: FCS, with 128 teams, has 24 teams in its playoffs. Division two has a 32-team playoff. Division three has 40 teams in the playoffs. That's about 18-20 percent of teams in each of those divisions. Major college football has 138 teams, so 24 teams in the playoffs would be in line with every other division of college football, including FCS. Those are the facts.
All matters about when you get hot and injuries
Just thinking about this, but very very few DIII teams receive national attention. Most know a handful of schools like Mount Union, North Central, and Wartburg. But there are many schools out there you and I have never heard of, or at least not much about. If one of them has a hot season nobody else knows about, they deserve consideration like being one of forty teams.
Last edited:
In your analogy, a #24 knocking off a #1 would be the equivalent to a 16 seed beating a 1 seed in the ncaa basketball tourney. I actually think there’s a better chance of a football 24 beating a 1 seed than a 16 seed beating a 1 seed in March madness. It’s only happened 2 out of 164 times. I bet a football upset would happen more often.
I’m not actually making the argument that I think a 24 would win be try often at all. More so I’m saying if people like March madness set up (of 64/68 teams - not talking expansion), then I don’t see why you wouldn’t like a 24 team football playoff.
The football and basketball tourneys are no longer about having teams that have a chance to be national champion. It's about money. More teams, more money. And, money is important for sure - but I'm not convinced it should drive every decision.
In the past, teams would be focused on trying to win their conference. If that didn't happen, you'd focus on getting to a bowl. Now it's making the playoffs. Without the top 24 teams the Bowls will really suck.
So, programs will get richer, coaches will get richer and players will get richer. Tickets for playoff games will be unaffordable for most.
In theory, it could mean much better out of conference games since teams can afford to lose more games and still make the playoffs, Maybe we'll see more OSU v Alabama instead of OSU vs. Cupcake State.
I guess we'll see how it develops
In the past, teams would be focused on trying to win their conference. If that didn't happen, you'd focus on getting to a bowl. Now it's making the playoffs. Without the top 24 teams the Bowls will really suck.
So, programs will get richer, coaches will get richer and players will get richer. Tickets for playoff games will be unaffordable for most.
In theory, it could mean much better out of conference games since teams can afford to lose more games and still make the playoffs, Maybe we'll see more OSU v Alabama instead of OSU vs. Cupcake State.
I guess we'll see how it develops
Pettiti made a rational case for his 24 team playoff.
I was not a big fan of it but if they really want to revamp the calendar it makes sense to try to get all the ducks in a row once and for all.
Calendar:
Start week zero...one bye only.
Finish regular season on Thanksgiving weekend.
Eliminate conference title games.
Start playoffs with 2 rounds on campus.
Finish season by Jan 8 .at latest.
Portal opens
It will be as much as 17 game season for title game participants
Like the NFL...which is what college football has become.
Elimination of conference title games revenue will require new revenue hence more playoff games.
As the old saying goes:
We have already established what college sports has become..now it's just determine the price
I was not a big fan of it but if they really want to revamp the calendar it makes sense to try to get all the ducks in a row once and for all.
Calendar:
Start week zero...one bye only.
Finish regular season on Thanksgiving weekend.
Eliminate conference title games.
Start playoffs with 2 rounds on campus.
Finish season by Jan 8 .at latest.
Portal opens
It will be as much as 17 game season for title game participants
Like the NFL...which is what college football has become.
Elimination of conference title games revenue will require new revenue hence more playoff games.
As the old saying goes:
We have already established what college sports has become..now it's just determine the price
This is the real reason ESPN is against going to 24 teams:
- Broadcast Rights: Because ESPN's current contract only covers up to 14 teams, the media rights for any additional matchups (10 games in a 24-team model) would hit the open market. Networks like FOX have expressed high interest in bidding on these games.
- ESPN's Stance: ESPN has been reluctant regarding massive expansion, communicating a preference to cap the playoff at 12 or 14 teams (and no higher than 16), primarily due to economic concerns.
I like the idea of 24, simply because it allows teams with a few losses to still have hope they have a shot. Knowing your season is over after an early loss or two kills interest for the remainder of the season. They want to keep fans engaged as long as possible. Last year, teams like Iowa, Michigan, Washington, and USC were all in the race up until we lost to USC, USC lost to Oregon, Washington lost to Rutgers, etc.
I’ll add that depending on how the tournament is seeded, a #1 would be unlikely to face a #24, and least in the first two rounds. The #1 would most likely play the 16/17 winner in its first game.
The 24 would likely face the 9 in the opening round, with the winner taking on the 8.
That's an interesting take. An argument against 24 has been that it makes the regular college football season less meaningful. One of the selling points of college football is the regular season, unlike pro sports where half of the league makes the playoffs.
That's valid, but I think the key difference is that there is a much bigger field in college than thr limited 32 team field in the NFL. I'm also just desperate to see Iowa have a playoff birth.
24 team playoff only works in a non-hypocritical way if you include all conference champions. Sorry not sorry.
Otherwise it needs to shrink to an 8 team playoff.
Otherwise it needs to shrink to an 8 team playoff.
In March a 9 seed( 36-39 seed overall) beat a 1 seed( 1-4 overall) in the NCAA tourny.
In this cfp plan Iowa would not have even made the bb tourny as the 38th seed overall
I know, different sport where upsets are easier, but I do think the 2025 Iowa hawks showed that they could compete with Oregon,IU and USC just fine...and would have not embarrassed the school in the playoff...probably beat bama.
In this cfp plan Iowa would not have even made the bb tourny as the 38th seed overall
I know, different sport where upsets are easier, but I do think the 2025 Iowa hawks showed that they could compete with Oregon,IU and USC just fine...and would have not embarrassed the school in the playoff...probably beat bama.