Started By
Message
Looks like changes are coming next year to CFP format, including seeding teams correctly
Posted on 12/30/24 at 11:55 am
Posted on 12/30/24 at 11:55 am
Under the current format, none of the teams placing third through eighth in the final rankings — including three Big Ten teams, two SEC teams and Notre Dame — were eligible for a first-round bye as non-conference champions.
Meanwhile, the only other team that was eligible for a bye in this year’s field was Clemson, which landed at No. 16 in the final rankings but made the playoff after winning the ACC Championship Game, securing the conference’s automatic bid.
LINK
Meanwhile, the only other team that was eligible for a bye in this year’s field was Clemson, which landed at No. 16 in the final rankings but made the playoff after winning the ACC Championship Game, securing the conference’s automatic bid.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. LINK
12
Posted on 12/30/24 at 11:58 am to JetDawg
Biggest improvement they could make is incorporating BCS style computer rankings.
Posted on 12/30/24 at 11:59 am to JetDawg
First round byes for conference champions was a decent idea since it gave great benefit to winning your conference, but giving teams like Arizona State and Boise State a bye over much better football teams makes no one happy. Those round one CFP games were abysmally bad.
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:00 pm to JetDawg
16 team in 2026 is a lock, so it's going to change every year it seems
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:01 pm to UltimaParadox
quote:
16 team in 2026 is a lock, so it's going to change every year it seems
4 more shitastic games! Yippeeeee!
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:02 pm to JetDawg
Why would teams not rest players in CCG if they aren't playing for a bye?
Take Texas for example. If they're getting a bye win or lose, why wouldn't they rest every even slightly dinged up player in the SECCG? Same goes for both PSU and Oregon.
College football can't have it both ways. Either they can have CCGS mean something but end up with imperfect seedings, or they can do away with CCG's.
But you won't get teams in the title hunt caring about a game if it doesn't matter for winning the championship.
Take Texas for example. If they're getting a bye win or lose, why wouldn't they rest every even slightly dinged up player in the SECCG? Same goes for both PSU and Oregon.
College football can't have it both ways. Either they can have CCGS mean something but end up with imperfect seedings, or they can do away with CCG's.
But you won't get teams in the title hunt caring about a game if it doesn't matter for winning the championship.
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:07 pm to Opry
quote:
Biggest improvement they could make is incorporating BCS style computer rankings.
Or just going back to the BCS
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:11 pm to DawginSC
quote:
Why would teams not rest players in CCG if they aren't playing for a bye?
Take Texas for example. If they're getting a bye win or lose, why wouldn't they rest every even slightly dinged up player in the SECCG? Same goes for both PSU and Oregon.
To be fair, getting a high enough seed to get a bye might be an incentive.
A win this year secures Texas a top 4 seed and a bye; the loss dropped them and gained no bye.
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:13 pm to DawginSC
quote:
Why would teams not rest players in CCG if they aren't playing for a bye?
Take Texas for example. If they're getting a bye win or lose, why wouldn't they rest every even slightly dinged up player in the SECCG? Same goes for both PSU and Oregon.
College football can't have it both ways. Either they can have CCGS mean something but end up with imperfect seedings, or they can do away with CCG's.
But you won't get teams in the title hunt caring about a game if it doesn't matter for winning the championship.
You can still get the bye for ranking in the top 4 correct?
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:19 pm to 3down10
quote:
You can still get the bye for ranking in the top 4 correct?
in this new seeding proposal, yes.
but it's still a big risk losing your last game of the season and remaining top 4.
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:20 pm to 3down10
I am okay with guarranteeing the top 4 conference champs a playoff spot if they are in the top 12 but not 5. Clemson at 16 did not deserve a playoff spot period
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:26 pm to skrayper
quote:
A win this year secures Texas a top 4 seed and a bye; the loss dropped them and gained no bye.
Texas was #3 after losing in the SECCG. They would get a bye if it were based on rankings and not limited to conference champions.
PSU was #4 after losing in the Big 10 championship.
The only team that wasn't in the top 4 that moved into the top 4 after the championship games was UGA
Top 4 before CCG's:
Oregon, Texas, PSU, ND.
Top 4 after CCG's.
Oregon, UGA, Texas, PSU..
This post was edited on 12/30/24 at 12:29 pm
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:27 pm to artompkins
quote:
I am okay with guarranteeing the top 4 conference champs a playoff spot if they are in the top 12 but not 5. Clemson at 16 did not deserve a playoff spot period
Clemson lost 1 conference game and won a P4 championship. SMU lost 0 conference games but lost their conference championship…to Clemson. There should have been 1 ACC team in the field, and it should have been Clemson…who earned it on the field.
Give SMU Clemson’s schedule and SMU loses at least 4 games. Give Clemson SMU’s schedule and Clemson loses a max of 2 just like SMU…but has the conference championship and head to head win. Including P4 champions isn’t the issue IMO
Edit: and the fact that SMU was ranked higher than Clemson after that game says everything you need to know about the committee’s ability to judge teams. They ignored the CCGs on purpose, but literally no one thinks SMU beats Clemson in a rematch or PSU was better than OSU despite both having 2 losses and OSU winning the head to head. The whole process was flawed this year and screwed a bunch of teams like Oregon, Tennessee, OSU, etc. It also was detrimental to 3 SEC teams that were infinitely better than all ACC teams, especially an undeserving SMU team (can’t say they got screwed, since 3 losses doesn’t really meet the “got screwed” threshold).
This post was edited on 12/30/24 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:29 pm to artompkins
quote:
Clemson at 16 did not deserve a playoff spot period
Clemson beat SMU and should’ve jumped them in the rankings anyway. Not sure why they had SMU ahead of Clemson
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:33 pm to BamaBravesPackers
quote:
Clemson lost 1 conference game and won a P4 championship. SMU lost 0 conference games but lost their conference championship…to Clemson. There should have been 1 ACC team in the field, and it should have been Clemson…who earned it on the field.
And Clemson opened the season by getting run out of MBS by another CFP team. The loss vs UGA is more proof that they couldn't hang than 1 conference loss during their ACC schedule.
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:34 pm to artompkins
quote:If they are in the top 12, they don't need a guaranteed spot.
I am okay with guarranteeing the top 4 conference champs a playoff spot if they are in the top 12
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:35 pm to Opry
Great idea! And only 8 teams should make the playoffs! And they should be played in Tempe, New Orleans, Pasadena and Miami! Oh and #1 vs #2 should happen in the 1st round and the winner be determined national champion after the game!
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:52 pm to RebelTheBear
quote:
First round byes for conference champions was a decent idea since it gave great benefit to winning your conference,
Strongly agree. It gives real juice to a devalued regular season. Otherwise it becomes almost irrelevant (who wins the conference is trivial RE: the playoffs)
quote:
giving teams like Arizona State and Boise State a bye over much better football teams makes no one happy.
Here I'm plus-minus on the logic especially since they don't even get the benefit of hosting a home game. If there must be a 12 team field instead of 8 they should play the first two rounds on someone's home turf.
The biggest problem that we had this year was a big drop off in quality after the top eight teams. None of the 5-12 games were worth watching
This post was edited on 12/30/24 at 12:54 pm
Posted on 12/30/24 at 12:56 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
And Clemson opened the season by getting run out of MBS by another CFP team. The loss vs UGA is more proof that they couldn't hang than 1 conference loss during their ACC schedule.
Along with a home loss to a non CFP (arguably should have been) SEC team.
We knew Clemson barely belonged in if at all, so SMU losing to them and having literally nothing else on their resume that suggested they could play with the big boys should have been an immediate disqualification.
The ACC is so weak, it should be a 1 bid league from now on unless a non-champion from their league has actually beaten a top 12-15 SEC or B1G team to prove they belong. Racking up wins against no-talent bottom feeders isn’t hard when they aren’t sandwiched in between games with highly talented teams (even talented teams that are underperforming can play 1 decent game and beat a good team, but no-talent bottom feeders like Wake Forest or Virginia have no chance of beating a good team).
Posted on 12/30/24 at 1:59 pm to Rohan Gravy
quote:
Or just going back to the BCS
Go back to the BCS, but incorporate a 4 or 6 team playoff. 6 team playoff and the #1 and #2 ranked teams get a bye to the semis. That rewards the #1 and #2 teams. No guarantees to any conference champions, and again if you do not play in a CCG, you do not get a bye no matter where you are ranked. (Looking at ND)
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News