Kind of interesting if it is, in fact, "the six highest conference champions". Would be interesting to see how that works if, say, Cincinnati goes 13-0 and UCF is 12-1 and rated higher than 11-3 Oregon, or something like that. I suppose the lower-rated conference champion could still be one of the other six but it would get interesting.
Are they going to put a cap on number of teams from the same conference? 5 teams from the SEC in a 12 team playoff would be a load of crap.Only three Husker opponents on here...
Probably to begin with yes but kids will filter around to more schools if they are making it, which should help parity. Better teams lead to more draft picks and things should lead to more upsets of the big 4 in the playoff.Sam's take on this. It's a solid take.
Regardless of where ND may lie I still think 12 games is simply too much. 8 at the most makes the most sense to me. You're talking a pretty long season - 15-16 or whatever games just to make it all the way. Overkill.
It's maybe one game more than Texas high school champions play. Last year's finalists, Southlake Carroll and Austin Westlake played 14 & 15 games, respectively.
Notre Dame plays a 12-game season, makes the playoffs, can't get a bye so they play in the first round. They win the first & second round games, they'll play 15 games in a season.
Clemson plays a 12-game season, plus the ACC Championship. They win, they get a first-round bye, win their first playoff game (round two) and they'll play a 15-game season.
If High School kids can do it, they can do it in college.
I still maintain that 12 teams is simply overkill. It's all a matter of opinion though.
You may be right. As I said, they can do it - doesn't mean they should.
It'll be interesting to see if the prospect of even more post-season games makes more players opt out, too. Why risk one, two or even three playoff games when you're a first-round projection?