CFP-16 with no byes and no one idle during conference championship week đĄ
Here's how it can be done, and here's what it would look like.
CFP-16 field would include: 6 conference champions, 4 conference runners-up, and 6 at-large.
The 6 at-large the winners of a 12-team play-in game field. These games are played the same weekend as conference championship games. These would be the top 12 teams NOT playing in a CCG that weekend. Would most likely be Notre Dame and 11 P4s. No conference can have more than 6 of the 12, and there can be no in-conference matchups.
The eventual CFP-16 teams would then be straight seeded.
Using the CFP rankings from the year, it would look like this:
Play in bracket (top 6 get home games, small adjustments made to prevent in-conference match-ups:
Syracuse at Notre Dame
Illinois at Tennessee
Missouri at Ohio State
South Carolina at Indiana
BYU at Alabama
Ole Miss vs. Miami
(first team OUT: Colorado)
Assuming the home teams won, the CFP-16 would look like this:
(16) Army vs. (1) Oregon
(9) Boise State vs. (8) Indiana
(12) Arizona State vs. (5) Notre Dame
(13) Miami vs. (4) Penn State
(14) Clemson vs. (3) Texas
(11) Alabama vs. (6) Ohio State
(10) SMU vs. (7) Tennessee
(15) Iowa State vs. (2) Georgia
In this scenario: SEC has 4, B1G has 4, ACC has 3, BigXII has 2, G5 has 2, plus ND.
This would eliminate the asinine idea of giving conferences a set amount of bids before the season even starts. And more interest and incentive would be created. And lets face it, the rankings are gonna be skewed to the P2. But at least the other conferences will have reasonable access.
A couple issues I see:
How is the Army-Navy Game worked around if either of those schools were in the CFP contention? Army was the AAC champion and finished the season ranked #22 in the final CFP Poll. Army is the #16 seed in the CFP-16 scenario listed above.
Would CFP-16 games be played on campus? If so, would we want the highest seeds getting the home games, or would we want conference champions to get home games? Assuming CG games are at neutral sites, would we prefer Ohio State, Notre Dame, Indiana, and Tennessee get a second home game, or do we prefer conference champions ASU, Clemson, Boise, and Army get the home games. If the latter is chosen, then the bracket will need to be tweaked to allow that in the most sensible way possible.
It might look like this
Assuming the home teams won, the CFP-16 would look like this:
(16) Iowa State at (1) Oregon
(9) Notre Dame at (8) Army
(12) Indiana at (5) Boise State
(13) SMU at (4) Penn State
(14) Alabama at (3) Texas
(11) Tennessee vs. (6) Arizona State
(10) OSU vs. (7) Clemson
(15) Miami vs. (2) Georgia
Just at first glance, I think I prefer the first way (straight seeding). But I don't know. What do y'all think?
OR, perhaps you could just move the champions down far enough to avoid other champions so they can all have a home game, so it might look like this:
(15) Iowa State at (1) Oregon
(8) Indiana at (9) Boise State
(5) Notre Dame at 16) Army
(10) SMU at (4) Penn State
(11) Alabama at (3) Texas
(6) Ohio State at 14) Clemson
(7) Tennessee at (12) Arizona State
(13) Miami vs. (2) Georgia
To avoid two straight home games by non-champions, and rewarding conference champs with a home game. Also gives SEC and B1G runners up (who played in a neutral sites conference title game) a deserving home game. As a side note, I would flip SMU and Alabama to avoid the SEC match-up of Alabama-Texas in the first round. So it would be Alabama at Penn State and SMU at Texas instead. It would also avoid having all four SEC teams in the bottom half of the bracket. So, it would look like this.
(15) Iowa State at (1) Oregon
(8) Indiana at (9) Boise State
(5) Notre Dame at 16) Army
(11) Alabama at (4) Penn State
(10) SMU at (3) Texas
(6) Ohio State at 14) Clemson
(7) Tennessee at (12) Arizona State
(13) Miami vs. (2) Georgia
Yeah, I think I like this 4th option the best.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 5/25/2025, 9:55:58 AM
14 Replies
E
EDGEMAN
1y
Give the higher ranked teams home field advantage in the first round, then use bowl destinations for the second and subsequent rounds.
Problem solved.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
that same weekend. Not making the title game is a defacto bye the way they are talking now. Every potential CFP team needs to be playing a 13th game, including Notre Dame. And the game has to be meaningful (i.e., there needs to be a CFP bid on the line).
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 5/24/2025, 8:49:42 PM
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1y
outcome of the conference title games...you'd have to say all the losers are either in out out, right?
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
And the G6 CG losers are out. Barring something strange. And even then, it is based on CFP rankings.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
S
Stech
1y
then every team plays the same amount of games. Make the week 0 games TV rating draws, and bring back or create new OOC rivalry games. More money off more games, rather than a handful of games.
Oklahoma Nebraska
Florida Florida State
Virginia Tech West Virginia
There are so many good annual rivalry games lost, and since how you do in your conference matters, finish Thanksgiving with Conference Rivalry games on Thanksgiving weekend.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
and others don't. I am not opposed to your idea, but it doesn't solve this issue that I raised.
And in terms of rivalry games, I'd rather see them spread out throughout the season. In fact, if you think about the idiotic idea of locking in automatic slots for the CFP, the last weekend of the regular season might be a time to rest players--just like the NFL.
There is a lot of things the people making these decisions aren't thinking about
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
be the first game, honestly in DC. The Bowls like it or not are going to die even more with 16 team playoff. I like the idea of late August being the preseason Bowls. If you lose an early OOC game you can still recover from having a great conference record. People would be talking the entire offseason about about their upcoming Rivalry Game.
PS Consistency, everyone plays the same amount of games.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
even really matter. Just finish in the Top 4 of the B1G or SEC and it won't matter what happens in the OOC.
And this raises a question: if there are 4 AQs for a given conference, will it be the top 4 place winners? Or will it be the top 4 as selected by a committee? If it is the latter, OOC games might still matter a bit, but not than much. If it is the prior, then OOC games will become like NFL preseason games.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
the conferences a pretty good chunk of change.
An expansion of the playoffs, including play in games, should be worth a lot more money to the conferences than the CC - so I see them ending. All media contracts with be renegotiated around 2030/31 except for the ACC, but if the money considerations are there, and the networks can make more money from the playoff/play in games, then this hiccup of a problem may go away.
The conference champion can be decided on ties breaking rules, or what ever the conference criteria ends up being. If the P4 get at least 2 in the playoffs, only seeding for the playoffs is at stake. Just do away with them, and have the play in games that weekend.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
And what I'm saying is that there needs to be a plan to make winning the game an incentive and not have the game be a disadvantage for the participants going into the CFP. And the ideas floating by the powers that be would do just that. 16 team-CFP with automatic at-large spots allowing most of the teams the week off for conference championship week? Dumb.
I am fine with getting rid of championship games (I hate neutral sites games anyway). If there is a tie at the top, just declare co-champions. That's what they used to do in the past. It's no big deal. No one cares. The Big Ten and Pac-10 used to do that. And I think the team among the co-champions that was to the Rose Bowl most distantly, would get the Rose Bowl bid, and the other would usually go to the Orange, Cotton, Sugar or Fiesta.
That being said, people want more games and want those games to be meaningful. Having six play-in games on top of the conference championship games the first weekend in December will do that. It's a win-win.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
I don't think anyone cares about the championship games, unless there is a playoff spot at stake. It's currently the only way a 3 or 4 loss team can get into the playoffs. They will lose them IMHO, as soon as they are able to account for the revenue.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
They will need to be shown that it is losing them money first. Look how long these useless "NY6" bowls unrelated to the national championship have stuck around in the BCS and CFP era...even right up until FSU made a mockery of the Orange Bowl two seasons ago.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 5/26/2025, 12:59:30 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
rid of the week "0" rule.
With the playoffs going to 16 (or higher eventually), and the players getting paid, Start the season in mid August so that the championship game can be played a week after Jan. 1.
Use the dang FCS playoff model, pair down the G5(6) conferences, and allow all conference champions to participate. The rest can be at large bids based on the polls, and some committee that will satisfy the P2.
(In response to this post by Stech)