As it stands now, the first round is one game on Friday followed by a tripleheader Saturday with games at 12, 4 and 8 EST. Would they try to cram two games into Friday? Or would they dare venturing into Thursday and competing directly against the NFL on yet another date? Of course they could stagger the start times with games overlapping a la the NCAA BB tourney. That would be a headache in negotiations though.

Definitely one on Thursday night. one Friday night, 4 on Saturday. Maybe a 14 team playoff with 2 byes? Could play a fifth on Saturday or 2 on Thursday and or Friday and then one on Monday night up against MNF if no byes.

-end after Thanksgiving. Then start the Playoffs the next week, which is a week earlier. You can spread the 8 first round games out.

and if TV ratings/money is their main goal, then the CFP needs to avoid the NFL, who has clobbered them in ratings going opposite of 1st round playoff games two years in a row. IMO they should move the season up a week, play the Army-Navy game on Thanksgiving weekend (concede the rest of Thanksgiving weekend to the NFL), play the conference championships the next weekend like they do now, then start the playoffs the following weekend (the NFL doesn't play Saturday games until the week before Christmas, so it would give both conference championships and the CFP a clear runway on Friday night and all of Saturday).

because people are off and you need more that one game. However let Army Navy be the following weekend and give every playoff team a bye. It is completely absurd that Bama getting blown out in the Conference Champ game did not matter according to the committee Get rid of the Conference Champ games and play a week earlier is not brainer, if the committee say it doesn't matter, then don't play it!!!

I suppose there is some benefit to keeping them in a 14 team format because the top two ranked CCG winners could get the two byes. Personally I would like to see the playoff stay in the current 12 team format with the following changes. 1) No conference championship games 2) P4 regular season champs + highest ranked non champ automatically advance to playoff (5 spots) 3) Play in game between the top two G5 conference champs for spot #6 4) Six play-in games on what used to be conference championship weekend for the final 6 spots. Play them at the sites of the old conference championship games plus two additional sites. 5) Seeding of the 12 teams is determined after the play in games are completed. Essentially this would be a 19 team playoff -- 5 auto bids plus 14 play-in participants. It also heavily weights conference championships and /or a great regular season for the at-large.

a game in their stadium. I don't see Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte, Indy, losing a weekend of tax rev. without a big fight. Add Vegas and KC for your 6 game scenerio. I'm all for on-campus games but that may fall on the sword to keep those folks and the politicians that rep. them happy.

And I find it interesting that everyone keeps using the P4/G5 language. I don't think they know what to do with the PAC yet. It's either going to be a P5 again or it becomes a G6.

catch up. I will be happy if they go to 16 no byes, that is progress, but the calendar really needs to change too.

If you keep them, then drop one regular season game.

Why? With a large conference, there are simply too many big matchups that don’t get scheduled. The Hoos did not play ANYONE at the top of the conf this year other than Duke in the reg season. No Miami, Pitt, SMU or GT. The only conf game they won where the ACC team was better than 4-4, was their first Duke game. The thing people didnt like about Coastal and Atlantic divisions was it got boring ….maybe could solve this with less in-division games? Not sure. The cross-over game was the dumbest part of it all.

Just giving tying teams a share of the title and move on. At that point they only really care about going into the playoff anyways

to the CGs. Now you and I know everyone would rather watch an additional playoff round. But sadly, out-of-touch people in power will hold on to their fiefdom.

of the Conference Commissioners probably says they $tay,

would receive that automatic bid? Particularly if those teams didn't play each other during the regular season. Then there is always the possibility a conference could end up with a 3-way tie and either all 3 teams didn't play each other or only 2 of the 3 teams played each other during the regular season. Since the conference payout is based solely on how many teams make the playoffs, there is a greater risk conferences could try to game the system to award the automatic bid to the lowest ranked team in the final FBS Playoff Poll. I guess there is always the possibility of gaming the system with the polls too depending on which conference(s) is/are in a co-champion situation. Edit: Also, there is the Team A beats Team B, Team B beats Team C, and Team C beats Team A scenario where those are the only conference loses for those 3 teams. ** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 1/4/2026, 5:27:40 PM

How else would it determine who plays in the conference championship games? Frankly other than determining it's champ (with or without a championship game), it would be up to the playoff selection committee to pick every other playoff team.

not involve the FBS Playoff Poll as being one of the factors. Given what happened with the ACC this passed season (notice people ignore the SEC which was in the same situation as the ACC), there is now talk about incorporating the FBS Playoff Poll as being a factor on determining which 2 teams play in the CCG. No information so far on where that criteria could fall within the pecking order. The ACC did say it was going to reform its tiebreak process and it sounds like the FBS Playoff Poll may be a criteria used early on in the process instead of the last resort to ensure it always has its 2 highest ranked teams playing in the CCG. The ACC is also pushing for every conference to use the same criteria in its tiebreak process. If the FBS Playoff Poll is used early on in the tiebreak process or becomes the only criteria in the process, then that is where it opens the door for it to become easier for people to manipulate the system. The Big Ten and SEC are probably in favor of using the FBS Playoff Poll early on or as the only criteria because they know if they ever end up in a 4-way co-champion situation, then all 4 teams would make the field. The same can't be said about the other 8 FBS teams because ESPN and Fox aren't as vested in them as they are in the P2s. Heck it would even help push the narrative that the FBS Playoffs should only involve P2 teams because it would show just how deep those conferences are compared to the rest of the FBS conferences. You can bet ESPN and Fox would never consider creating a Wheel of Destiny for the Big Ten and SEC like ESPN did for the ACC.

possible in the playoff. Instead of reinventing the wheel. just like you said place the two highest ranked teams using the Selection Criteria Poll and put them in the game. With so many teams in the Conferences, they don't play a lot of the top or same teams in the conference. It is has it's flaws, but it's probably the best way to reach that goal. Many have talked about UVA not playing the top teams this year. However the reversal will happen to Virginia Tech next year with Clemson, Miami and SMU on the road, plus Georgia Tech, Pitt and UVA at home. Not to mention B1G regional rival on the road at Maryland.

its only criteria and there is no CCG, then how would you feel if this scenario happens? Miami and VT both finish 8-1 in the ACC and 11-1 overall. VT beats Miami 48-14 during regular season. VT loses to FSU 35-31 who is ranked at the time the game is played and ranked ahead of VT in the final Poll even though they finish 7-2 in the conference. Miami is awarded the ACC's automatic bid and VT is left out of the CFP because Miami is ranked #7 and VT is ranked #17. The problem I have with using the CFP Poll as it stands now is it is subjective because you have people voting. So it does open the door to the possibility that the blue bloods and other established names could have a clear advantage going into the final poll because ESPN or whatever networks covering the games have business reasons for only wanting those programs to make the field every year. Also, it has the potential to devalue the regular season. Particularly head-to-head results because the Committee voted the team that lost the regular season game ahead of the team that won the regular season game. At some point it may not even matter if the 2 teams have the same conference record or overall record. Miami could be 10-2 (losses to VT and 6-6 UCF) and the Committee could still decide to vote them ahead of VT even though VT won the head-to-head match-up and the schedules are comparable to each other. For the record, I am fine if a conference wants to use a poll in its tiebreaker process. I do think it should be used as a last resort though. If it is going to be the only criteria, then it should be as objective as possible. Say what you want about the BCS formula, at least it was solid in the objective department. People's main objection to the BCS formula was that it "couldn't show its work" which ironically still the case with the current poll system because the voters really can't provide concrete data to justify why they voted for a particular school at a particular ranking. Their voting behavior with Alabama vs. Notre Dame somewhat proves it.

to complete for conference and national championships. Others in your conference being successful does not help VT, except for SOS. With uneven distributions, and the media contract not being negotiated until 2036, the ONLY thing that matters is VT to pull an Indiana, and maintain it. Everything else is just noise. From where I'm sitting, it doesn't matter which power conference VT is in.

know exactly how the money is given out for Playoff and Bowls for the ACC and other Conferences too. If you can link me to the contract I would love to see it, but if not we are doing a lot of guessing and might be making some big assumptions that may not end of being true. Agreed?

how the uneven distributions will take place, other than it's a 5 year average of different factors, including, but not limited to media ratings. I. like probably anyone on this board, would love to see how that is going to be calculated. I was referring to the ACC media contact that runs through 2036 in a general context. Pretty sure, the contract is not public. So ya, big time assumptions on the uneven payouts, but the payout numbers of the ESPN contract is public knowledge, except on how much the network brings in year to year.

The other contract, the schools basically make the same or very similar. You said I shouldn’t care what the other schools in the ACC do, okay please back up why you are saying that with the contract that proves it. Either provide the backup, or admit that is in your opinion, but not fact.

was attempting to apply common sense that if they are vying for championships, they will get the time slots and eyeballs. The other schools are relevant only for SOS. If they are ranked, and you beat them, the better. If the rest of the conference does better than VT, and wins national championships, and is on TV all the time, it doesn't help VT one iota - except maybe perception. Kinda like if UNC wins the national championship in basketball - VT might get some more money from the units, but VT gets that now. Do you think UNC if they were to win another national championship will get a bigger slice of the ACC uneven distribution than VT? may be speculation, but common sense say's hell yes they will.

see the contract on what that percentage or amount is for doing that. I do think that it helps Virginia Tech if our ACC teams do better because players want to play against the best. The SEC sells this all the time, especially in football and now that the ACC has decided to play the Transfer and NIL portal more, mainly with new coaches, I think we will be able to do the same in basketball in the near future, maybe even this year.

power conferences now?