2025-2026 College Football Thread

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally Posted by broganreynik

Well I'd say if you're gonna go 12 teams, why not go with the 11 conference champions, and 1 at large for the independents.

What if Army, Navy and ND all win 6 games?

What if a conference winner wins 8 games, and two teams in a "stronger" conference go 12-0 and 11-1, losing only the championship game?

How does it help college football to have nobodies play in a playoff while several of the twelve best are left out? this kind of playoff would exclude Georgia while including Hawaii in 2008. How is that good for the sport? Clearly inferior teams are included while exceptional teams are excluded.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

The bowls are too powerful to let this happen though. It would take a desire from the TV networks for that to happen.

Yep, you couldn't be more right. Everyone makes WAY to much money now for it to change.

As for the twelve teams (while I guess you'd still need polls, have end of the year polls take a look at each teams whole year, do it by whole SOS, quality wins, OoCS) then sort out whose in whose out, sure you'd every now and then get a Pats of 2008 (where they were 11-5 in a tough, tough conference), but it would be better then the hail mary they have going on now.

And have 1 or 2 play-in-games for teams like boise, ND, exc. where they get to play into the 12/16 team playoff. Just looking at the final 2008 polls, had there been a 12/16 team playoff I'd have been happy with who got in.

[broganreynik]

Originally Posted by Teufel Hunden

What if Army, Navy and ND all win 6 games?

What if a conference winner wins 8 games, and two teams in a "stronger" conference go 12-0 and 11-1, losing only the championship game?

How does it help college football to have nobodies play in a playoff while several of the twelve best are left out? this kind of playoff would exclude Georgia while including Hawaii in 2008. How is that good for the sport? Clearly inferior teams are included while exceptional teams are excluded.

In that case, if anyone has beef they should've won their conference. I'm of the opinion if you aren't the best team in your conference, then you can't be the best in the nation (this coming from a Nebraska fan who saw his team play for the National Championship after failing to win their own division).
If Army, Navy and ND win 6 games, then you obviously go with another team... hence the at-large. That would help out in the cases of the Big Ten having two teams undefeated cuz they don't play eachother.

Every playoff idea I've seen has flaws, but in this case you don't have anyone *****ing about their team being screwed because of polls. Teams ranked 17 and 18 would be crying foul and whatnot if you just go top 16 teams. If you want in, win your conference. Seems pretty logical to me. As far as having inferior teams from the Sun Belt over a 2 loss SEC team, well I'm sure if they're inferior, they will lose in the first round. Having inferior teams doesn't hurt the NCAA basketball tournament.

Or if everyone gets their panties in a bunch for having a conference champion over a team that couldn't win their conference, then make it so you have to be ranked in the top 25 in the final BCS polls or something. But then, when the Sun Belt and MAC teams don't make it and it opens up at-larges, you get that *****ing again because some team thinks it deserves the at-large over a different team. It'll be another situation like last year when the Texas fans were all whining that Oklahoma went to the Big 12 Championship game, acting like everyone should forget the fact that Texas Tech beat them, so if they get in over Oklahoma because of head to head, Texas Tech should've got in over them.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by broganreynik

In that case, if anyone has beef they should've won their conference. I'm of the opinion if you aren't the best team in your conference, then you can't be the best in the nation (this coming from a Nebraska fan who saw his team play for the National Championship after failing to win their own division).

That doesn't make sense in competitive conferences. You could have Florida and LSU both be 11-0, perhaps beating quality OOC opponents, then finally meet in the Georgia Dome for the SEC Championship game, and have one be excluded from the playoffs simply because it lost to arguably the best team in the country?

If, say, it's LSU who lost in the game, they should get an at-large spot. They might be better than the ACC, Big 10, Pac 10, Big East, and Big 12 champions.

If I had a vote, and you're doing a 12-team playoff, I say take the top 12 BCS teams. That way the BCS still is important (in some regard). If LSU is still top 12 as an 11-1 team losing to the best team in the country, then they're good to go.

If they instead scheduled a bunch of weakling OOC opponents and only played the weak teams from the SEC East, and barely won their games, then they might not be in the top 12.

[Moviefan1203]

Big game for Miami tomorrow night against Georgia Tech. We'll find out if we really are going to be able to contend for the ACC title or whether last week we just got an emotional victory over a hated rival. I'm leaning towards the former, we have way too much talent, especially at the skill positions. GO 'CANES! I'm pumped for this game!

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Moviefan1203

Big game for Miami tomorrow night against Georgia Tech. We'll find out if we really are going to be able to contend for the ACC title or whether last week we just got an emotional victory over a hated rival. I'm leaning towards the former, we have way too much talent, especially at the skill positions. GO 'CANES! I'm pumped for this game!

Yeah I think the U's still 2 years away from a full comeback maybe more if Randy isn't the guy.

[rebfandan]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

That doesn't make sense in competitive conferences. You could have Florida and LSU both be 11-0, perhaps beating quality OOC opponents, then finally meet in the Georgia Dome for the SEC Championship game, and have one be excluded from the playoffs simply because it lost to arguably the best team in the country?

If, say, it's LSU who lost in the game, they should get an at-large spot. They might be better than the ACC, Big 10, Pac 10, Big East, and Big 12 champions.

If I had a vote, and you're doing a 12-team playoff, I say take the top 12 BCS teams. That way the BCS still is important (in some regard). If LSU is still top 12 as an 11-1 team losing to the best team in the country, then they're good to go.

If they instead scheduled a bunch of weakling OOC opponents and only played the weak teams from the SEC East, and barely won their games, then they might not be in the top 12.

That's a great point about using 1-12 according to BCS ranking. That means that every game would still count, even OOC games because it all goes into your BCS ranking. If you go with only the conference champs in the playoff, that means, theoretically, that you could have conference champs in who lost all their OOC games but won the conference games when they needed to. If a team were to win it all with OOC losses, then we're right back to square one with a flawed system and the same old complaints.

[broganreynik]

Can't wait to see the Nebraska-Va. Tech game. I'm thinking it's going to be a close one. My prediction is 31-21 NU, with the game being closer than the score would indicate. It's kinda weird that it's the only game between two ranked teams this week but it's not really getting the attention that Texas-Texas Tech is.

[Moviefan1203]

Originally Posted by broganreynik

Can't wait to see the Nebraska-Va. Tech game. I'm thinking it's going to be a close one. My prediction is 31-21 NU, with the game being closer than the score would indicate. It's kinda weird that it's the only game between two ranked teams this week but it's not really getting the attention that Texas-Texas Tech is.

I'm really pulling for Nebraska in this one. I always enjoy seeing Virginia Tech lose, and I would be happy as a clam to see them drop to 1-2. I don't think Nebraska will win, but I'll be rooting for them hard.

[broganreynik]

Originally Posted by Moviefan1203

I'm really pulling for Nebraska in this one. I always enjoy seeing Virginia Tech lose, and I would be happy as a clam to see them drop to 1-2. I don't think Nebraska will win, but I'll be rooting for them hard.

[gvortex7]

I'm taking the Canes by a touchdown over Gtech, and I'm also rooting for Nebraska as well. I hate Vtech with a passion.

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally Posted by broganreynik

In that case, if anyone has beef they should've won their conference. I'm of the opinion if you aren't the best team in your conference, then you can't be the best in the nation (this coming from a Nebraska fan who saw his team play for the National Championship after failing to win their own division).
If Army, Navy and ND win 6 games, then you obviously go with another team... hence the at-large. That would help out in the cases of the Big Ten having two teams undefeated cuz they don't play eachother.

Every playoff idea I've seen has flaws, but in this case you don't have anyone *****ing about their team being screwed because of polls. Teams ranked 17 and 18 would be crying foul and whatnot if you just go top 16 teams. If you want in, win your conference. Seems pretty logical to me. As far as having inferior teams from the Sun Belt over a 2 loss SEC team, well I'm sure if they're inferior, they will lose in the first round. Having inferior teams doesn't hurt the NCAA basketball tournament.

Or if everyone gets their panties in a bunch for having a conference champion over a team that couldn't win their conference, then make it so you have to be ranked in the top 25 in the final BCS polls or something. But then, when the Sun Belt and MAC teams don't make it and it opens up at-larges, you get that *****ing again because some team thinks it deserves the at-large over a different team. It'll be another situation like last year when the Texas fans were all whining that Oklahoma went to the Big 12 Championship game, acting like everyone should forget the fact that Texas Tech beat them, so if they get in over Oklahoma because of head to head, Texas Tech should've got in over them.

Ok, so how do you pick the two teams playing for a National Championship?

12 teams - 6 teams - 3 teams...

Good plan.

[broganreynik]

Originally Posted by Teufel Hunden

Ok, so how do you pick the two teams playing for a National Championship?

12 teams - 6 teams - 3 teams...

Good plan.

What? It's a playoff. Therefore they would play and eliminate each other until the final two are standing. The same way every playoff works. There are such things as byes you know. I guess I didn't think I needed to point that out. Obviously I was wrong.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by broganreynik

What? It's a playoff. Therefore they would play and eliminate each other until the final two are standing. The same way every playoff works. There are such things as byes you know. I guess I didn't think I needed to point that out. Obviously I was wrong.

He's right, actually. If it's 12 teams, without byes, there would be 6 in week 2, and 3 in week 3. You can't get from 3 to 2 to have a championship game, so it's a massive fail.

If you DO have 12 teams, you'd need to have 4 teams with a bye (or 33% of the field). That'd be lame.

12 teams wouldn't work.

[fatediesel]

All the other divisions do 16 team playoffs, so I'd just go with that. Not really sure why we're arguing about this anyway, it'd be another 4 years at the earliest before we see a playoff, and even then there's going to be a lot of opposition. I think the best case in the near future is a 4 team playoff where teams play in the traditional bowls and then there would be a national title game.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

All the other divisions do 16 team playoffs, so I'd just go with that. Not really sure why we're arguing about this anyway, it'd be another 4 years at the earliest before we see a playoff, and even then there's going to be a lot of opposition. I think the best case in the near future is a 4 team playoff where teams play in the traditional bowls and then there would be a national title game.

We're arguing out of wishful thinking. The current system, polls and bowls included, is silly. No other way to put it.

[rebfandan]

Originally Posted by broganreynik

It's kinda weird that it's the only game between two ranked teams this week but it's not really getting the attention that Texas-Texas Tech is.

I just don't see why this game is getting so much attention. Does anyone really feel in their gut that Tech will pull off a win? And I don't see how it will be a chance for Texas to get revenge because Tech won't be in the BCS hunt this year (as it looks so far), so a win for Texas will be just that, a win.

[broganreynik]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

He's right, actually. If it's 12 teams, without byes, there would be 6 in week 2, and 3 in week 3. You can't get from 3 to 2 to have a championship game, so it's a massive fail.

If you DO have 12 teams, you'd need to have 4 teams with a bye (or 33% of the field). That'd be lame.

12 teams wouldn't work.

Originally Posted by Teufel Hunden

This needs to be called down as flat out ignorant.

Top 12 teams? How do you measure who are the top 12, and how do you have a 12 team playoff?

Are the top 12 based on record? Does that mean that a 10-2 WAC/USA/Sunbelt team is better/more deserving than a 9-3 SEC team? Is it based on who you beat? Elo-Chess? No, Elo-Chess is basically a poll.

Then, how do you turn 3 winners of the first two rounds of a 12 team playoff into a 2 team championship game?

Originally Posted by supersix4

I agree with that, I still don't think the certain teams take big enough hits when getting loses, but that could be avoided with no polls and a playoff and just let the top 12 go at it.

I was simply going with their 12 team idea. If you're going to have a 12 team playoff it'd make sense to have every conference winner. I'm not saying it's the best idea. Personally, an 8 team playoff for me would be better. Each of the BCS conference champions with 2 at-larges.

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally Posted by broganreynik

What? It's a playoff. Therefore they would play and eliminate each other until the final two are standing. The same way every playoff works. There are such things as byes you know. I guess I didn't think I needed to point that out. Obviously I was wrong.

Uh huh...

8 teams play leaving 8 (4 winners + 4 teams with bye weeks) teams for the second round?

So, how do you pick the 4 teams who get a pass in the first round?

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally Posted by broganreynik

I was simply going with their 12 team idea. If you're going to have a 12 team playoff it'd make sense to have every conference winner. I'm not saying it's the best idea. Personally, an 8 team playoff for me would be better. Each of the BCS conference champions with 2 at-larges.

The original argument was that polls should be eliminated and the top 12 teams just play.

There is no way to close a field of 120 to 16, 12, 8, 4 or 2 without polls.

Bottom line, and why I have been shooting hols through the stupid idea all along, is that polls are necessary, or you need 128 teams in 16 eight team conferences (every team plays a home and home, and then the best record goes to the playoffs). Start to finish -with a bye between the regular season and playoffs- there would be a 19 week season.

Polls aint going anywhere.