Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: SEC and Big Ten Arguing Over Size of CFP Field Author: An Observer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 11:40:20 01/21/26 Wed FBS football is not controlled by the NCAA. It is not controlled by the Power 4 conferences. It is controlled by the SEC and the Big Ten, alone. By themselves. Answering to nobody else except television broadcasters, advertisers and other money sources. The SEC and the Big Ten right now are engaged in a fierce battle over how large to expand the CFP tournament field. The SEC wants to go to 16. The Big Ten wants 24. I'm surprised that it's the SEC with the lower preference. Apparently there is a deadline of sorts looming this coming Friday the 26th. If the SEC and Big Ten cannot reach an agreement by then, the field will stay at its current 12. Obviously, the economic forces will always prefer a bigger field with more games, more revenue, more action. I get that. Money always want more, more, more. As a fan, I want a tournament structure that is exciting, but also tries to keep the regular season relevant and exciting in its own right. The way the Ivy League conducts its four-team postseason conference tournaments is so far superior to what other conferences do that I can't believe nobody else has followed our lead. Keeping SOME teams out of the tournament field makes the end of the regular season MORE exciting, as teams 4, 5 and 6 battle for a ticket. I like the CFP field at 12, its current size. There were two auto bids this year which were not among the best twelve teams in the nation. The ACC's conference champion Duke not being qualified was a fluke. It won't happen very often. Usually it will be the eleven best teams plus one representative from the Group of Five. That's plenty. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: Re: SEC and Big Ten Arguing Over Size of CFP Field Author: voy vey [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 21:07:47 01/21/26 Wed If I recall correctly, after two CFP seasons, top-four seeds are now 1-7 after "earning" a bye. I think it's a certainty that staying at twelve will not stand. In my opinion, the solution is to cut the field to 8, with no auto bids. If you're not among the top 8 based on your full season's body of work, what claim do you have to being the best team in the country? I know better than to think this idea would ever be implemented. "We want 16, y'all want 24. Howsabout we compromise at 32?"

[> [> Subject: Re: SEC and Big Ten Arguing Over Size of CFP Field Author: sparman [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:15:15 01/22/26 Thu I am not a Miami fan, but a field of 8 would have excluded Miami, who clearly was capable of winning the NC and came very close to doing so. But as you say, the push will be to expand the field for monetary reasons. Always follow the money.

[> [> [> Subject: Re: SEC and Big Ten Arguing Over Size of CFP Field Author: voy vey [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:12:13 01/22/26 Thu I was aware that finalist Miami was a #10 seed when stating my case for an 8-team field. Yes, they were capable of winning the final game. Also, 5-7 Florida State was capable of beating -- and did beat -- #9 seed Alabama. Does that mean we need to include FSU in the playoff? I'm sure we'd all agree the answer is no. Had Miami won the title, it would have proved that they were the best team from December 19 through January 19, not for the entirety of the season. If the field is expanded in future years, we'll be allowing a team to win the national title whose 12-game body of work is subjectively merely 80th percentile. My point is, if one goal of altering the bracket is to eliminate the apparently-detrimental bye, an 8-team bracket makes a lot more sense than a bracket of 16 or more. But, 16 or more makes more cents. And cents always outweigh sense.

[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: SEC and Big Ten Arguing Over Size of CFP Field Author: sparman [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:14:23 01/22/26 Thu " it would have proved that they were the best team from December 19 through January 19, not for the entirety of the season." Sure, but for what sport is this not the case?

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: SEC and Big Ten Arguing Over Size of CFP Field Author: voy vey [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 20:00:39 01/22/26 Thu "for what sport is this not the case?" The smaller the playoff field, the more that the whole season matters. An ideal playoff in any sport should be large enough to account for schedule disparities, and small enough to include only teams with a legitimate title claim. IMO, 12 is a reasonable compromise, but our admittedly-small dataset (2 years) appears to indicate a negative impact to the "best" teams by sitting idle an extra week. Interestingly, the B1G's desire to expand to 24 teams won't address that. Another example of commerce over competition.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: 1-7 Record of Teams With A Bye Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 22:07:32 01/22/26 Thu The 1-7 record over two seasons of the eight teams which earned a first-round bye is thought-provoking. But it's exaggerated by the fact last year's top four seeds were conference champions even when not in the top four of the rankings. They went 0-4. This year's byes went to the top four in the rankings. They still went 1-3. Does this mean that earning a bye is a disadvantage? Reasonable people can and do disagree on this topic. The FCS playoffs would suggest that having a bye is an advantage. I agree with Voy Vey that 12 is a good number for the size of the field. It's small enough to keep the regular very meaningful. It's large enough that it includes the significant majority of teams that *can* win the national championship. Alabama was the #9 seed. Not capable of winning the national title. Miami was the #10 seed. Capable. Notre Dame was ranked #11. Probably capable. I'm comfortable that only about a dozen teams can win the whole thing. So including eleven plus one from the Group of Five will cover you in most years. It will be interesting where the SEC and Big Ten end up. I think 24 is way too many. Plus, 24 would give eight teams a bye. Now you've doubled the number of teams which sit idle for a week. 16 keeps everybody playing a game in week one. I hope we stay at 12.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: 1-7 Record of Teams With A Bye Author: Northbounder [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 05:39:20 01/23/26 Fri Hard to see FBS and FCS byes as apples to apples. The reward of the former is i) a neutral-site game, ii) a month after your last (just enough time to get cold), and iii) against a team ranked between 5 and 12, probably between 5 and 8. The reward of the latter is i) a home game, ii) following a single bye week (just enough time to heal up), and iii) against a team ranked between 9 and 24, maybe 9 to 16. Under the current format I'd rather be the fifth seed in the FBS than the four seed. That can't make for a healthy tournament, right?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: 1-7 Record of Teams With A Bye Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:45:20 01/23/26 Fri All fair points. FBS bye =/= FCS bye. FBS #5 seed gets a home game against the #12 seed, which could be substantially weaker than the rest of the field. At the risk of a nonzero chance of losing, you get what amounts to a pep rally for your fans and a chance to showcase your stadium and campus to the television audience. That's a good deal.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: 1-7 Record of Teams With A Bye Author: observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:35:31 01/24/26 Sat Not to mention coaching carousel and transfer portal shenanigans from the end of the regular season until the first playoff game...

[> Subject: For Once, Money Does Not Talk Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:45:14 01/23/26 Fri It is done. That is, nothing is done. SEC and Big Ten unable to agree by today's deadline. CFP field will stay at 12 teams. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in that room. All that money at stake and the two sides could not reach an agreement. I suspect that each conference had an opinion on what was better for it from a FOOTBALL perspective, neither side wanted to budge from that, and both sides walked away from a lot of cash to protect their football interests.

[> [> Subject: Money Always Talks, But So Does Winning Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:33:13 01/27/26 Tue Here's an article which, while not making a convincing case in my opinion, does essentially say, "Hey, Big Ten, you're winning national championships in the current structure. Don't mess with a good thing." https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/breaking-news/article/as-indiana-wins-big-tens-third-straight-title-the-conference-needs-to-rethink-its-stance-on-playoff-expansion-161929763.html The counterargument is, "We could still win in an expanded field AND make more money." But this is my point in the post immediately above: While everybody want mo' money, mo' money, mo' money, the conferences do recognize that they have long-term strategic interest in winning on the field, no matter how much the cash registers are ringing. Cha-ching!