Getting a top seed in the NCAA tournament means you get to play a 16 seed, which is a guaranteed victory (unless you are UVA). I don't think there's anything wrong with the tops seeds playing JMU andTulane. The point isn't to get the best 12 teams. The point is to get the best handful of teams, give access to teams to play their way in, and reward the best teams with the best path to the championship game.

12 at-large teams puts even more power in a committee that already makes arbitrary decisions.

Gets G5 ( if higher ranked so be it and seeded where appropriate) Like basketball in 1 vs 16. And eliminate Championship games ** Edited by VTJay at 12/20/2025, 11:08:45 AM

So 14 might be better. Also, there are always going to be people *****ing no matter where the cut off is established. Hell, the day after the NCAABBT field is announced, there's a full day of faux outrage from teams that thought they were in the top 68. If I could have found a way to keep entitled ND and Bama OUT I would have done it. LOL ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 12/20/2025, 11:17:32 AM

games. If all 4 games were just the last 8 at-large bids, then the debate might be more apples to apples. However, because 2 of the games are #16 seeds, some fans think their team got screwed for not getting a bid because they think the play-in games should involve all #16 seeds which are always mid-major conference champions. I guess they think it would free up a couple more slots for at-large teams to make the field. ** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 12/20/2025, 4:37:54 PM

the playoffs for the "NCAA title," then I suggest you tune into the DI-FCS Playoffs because that tournament does compete for the NCAA DI National Title. The winner of the FCS Playoffs even gets the standard NCAA team trophy. Whereas the FBS, like the BCS, ended up creating its own trophy. Having said that, the reason the automatic bids was implemented was to give the non-power conferences an opportunity to make the field and avoid the possibility of any antitrust lawsuits. Also, remember all 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame co-own the organization that runs the FBS Playoffs just like they co-owned the organization that ran the BCS. Given the organization decided that it must have unanimous consent to make any changes to the rules, why would any of the owners agree to make a change that isn't in their best interest? If you were a co-owner of a company, then would you agree to a change in the company that wasn't in your best interest (i.e. you receive less votes at the owners' meetings, you are forced to sell some of your stocks in the company to another co-owner so you end up with a smaller percentage, etc.)?

Leave it to the ACC to screw that up.

If ACC had Miami vs Virginia then you would have had Miami and ND in the field most likely... Or at least ND and UVA (who would have earned it with a win over Miami)

Had the same tiebreaker rules. Pretty sure no other p4 conference would have a team involved in a tiebreaker that lost to Uconn, Tulane, and got hammered by Illinois.

and Tulane got in. Nothing to do with Alabama.

year. If people are going to complain about the ACC not matching its 2 highest ranked teams, then the same complaint should be made with the SEC.

To determine the tiebreaker. Just like how Duke got in the conference title game. Alabama had a bad loss. But still would have taken the automatic bid had they beat Georgia. Only when a team is as bad as Duke wins a power 4 conference with 5 losses and a few embarrassing ones does it open the door for two g5 automatic qualifiers. I can safely assume the powers that be never saw that coming in a million years. Only the ACC for sure.

the ACC did its tiebreaker, then people should be complaining about the way the SEC did its too because the SEC ended up with a similar matchup. If the SECCG was UGA vs. Ole Miss or TAMU, then would the Committee have felt a "need" to include Alabama in the field regardless what happened in the ACCCG? My guess is probably not which should mean Notre Dame would have gotten that spot. Then it would have been a debate on whether Notre Dame or the 5th ranked SEC team should have received the final at-large bid, which is really what the debate should be about in the first place. ** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 12/20/2025, 4:49:21 PM

Had the same tiebreaker. There will always be a few power teams left out with controversy regarding the at large. But the topic here is two g5 in the 12 team playoff. It took a pretty remarkable scenario for that to happen. One no one thought possible. ** Edited by crazylane at 12/20/2025, 5:05:11 PM

they did, then the ACC wouldn't have suggested at the latest meetings that all conferences implement that change.

May or may not be true.

The polls rate P2 teams higher than where they should be, thus the playing field is already tilted in their favor. The top few teams in each P2 conference should be in the playoff, but their 3rd-10th teams are generally not better than the top teams in the -P2, but are always ranked higher because they are in the P2.

Not sure how that brings back any glory to winning a conference championship... Would probably do the opposite....