This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/cfb by /u/Doogitywoogity on 2025-08-01 01:02:56+00:00.
Intro
Recently on this sub and in the CFB media environment, there has been a push towards an expanded 16 team playoff, with the SEC and B1G proposing the two primary models thus far. In this, I will use the rankings from the playoff era (2014/15-2024/25) to determine which conferences and teams benefit the most from each model to understand why there are these pushes. The B1G is proposing a “4+4+2+2+1+3” model which institutionalizes a hierarchy of conferences with the SEC and B1G each getting 4 autobids, the ACC and Big XII each getting 2, the highest ranked other conference champion getting a spot, and 3 at large bids. The SEC backed model “5+11” is similar to the current model with the 5 highest ranked conference champions getting a bid and 11 at large bids. However, it has also been proposed that this model would use a modified SOR metric to help determine at large teams which critics point out would likely disproportionately benefit the SEC. Other alternatives for a 16 team playoff could be a simple no autobid model, and a FCS playoff style model where each conference champion gets a bid and the remaining slots are at large bids.
Methods
Using SP+, AP Poll, and Coaches Poll data from every year in the playoff era, I find the teams that would be selected in that year for each poll. There are some important caveats here.
- In some years, some conferences do not have enough teams ranked in the top 25 to meet their autobid requirements, in this scenario the next best team is selected via FPI.
- I unfortunately do not have the modified weighted equation that the SEC has proposed could be used in the 5+11 model’s at large selections. I simply just have to use the rankings as they are generated. But, some may find solace in that the SP+ is one of the polls used so maybe that can capture some of that behavior. This is flawed, but there’s no way around it until Greg Sankey emails me the equation they want to use.
- Teams have moved conferences. Unless I were to simulate future seasons, which is frankly more problematic in my opinion given the implicit biases that would come from any assumptions about future team composition and performance.
I will then take the teams selected by the different methods and average across the 3 polls to find the occurrence rate of each team and conference. I will use the simple straight 16 seeding as a baseline to compare models against. That in itself is certainly not perfect as some users scream of “SEC bias” influencing the polls, I would love to hear an alternate. As far as I can tell it is the best option we have.
Results
The Conference Averaged Expected Number of teams are show in the table below with the expected change from Top 16 shown in parenthesis:
| Conference | Top 16 | FCS Style | 5+11 | 4+4+2+2+1+3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC | 4.07 | 2.98 (-1.09) | 4.07 (+0) | 4.05 (-0.02) |
| -------- | :------- | -------: | :------: | :------: |
| B1G | 2.68 | 1.86 (-0.82) | 2.64 (-0.04) | 4.00 (+1.32) |
| -------- | :------- | -------: | :------: | :------: |
| ACC | 2.30 | 1.93 (-0.37) | 2.50 (+0.2) | 2.05 (-0.25) |
| -------- | :------- | -------: | :------: | :------: |
| Old Pac12 | 2.05 | 1.55 (-0.5) | 1.93 (-0.12) | 0.27 (-1.78) |
| -------- | :------- | -------: | :------: | :------: |
| Big XII | 1.90 | 1.50 (-0.4) | 2.23 (+0.33) | 2.02 (+0.12) |
| -------- | :------- | -------: | :------: | :------: |
| AAC | 1.0 | 1.40 (+0.4) | 1.02 (+0.02) | 0.79 (-0.21) |
| -------- | :------- | -------: | :------: | :------: |
| Mountain West | 0.75 | 1.50 (+0.75) | 0.73 (-0.02) | 0.50 (-0.25) |
| -------- | :------- | -------: | :------: | :------: |
| Independents | 0.73 | 0.24 (-0.49) | 0.45 (-0.28) | 0.18 (-0.55) |
| -------- | :------- | -------: | :------: | :------: |
| Sun Belt | 0.33 | 1.05 (+0.72) | 0.36 (+0.03) | 0.09 (-0.24) |
| -------- | :------- | -------: | :------: | :------: |
| MAC | 0.21 | 1.05 (+0.83) | 0.27 (+0.06) | 0.15 (-0.06) |
| -------- | :------- | -------: | :------: | :------: |
| CUSA | 0.15 | 1.0 (+0.85) | 0.15 (+0) | 0.27 (+0.12) |
Discussion
It is clear here that only one conference meaningfully benefits from the 4+4+2+2+1+3 model. That being the B1G. What we see across the board is largely other conferences getting less of a shot in the playoffs than with straight seeding with only the Big XII and CUSA with positive changes at 0.12, so an extra team once every 8+ years. Everyone else loses out at varying rates. The SEC proposed model shows varying loss and gain for each conference, with no conference having a delta value greater than 0.33 (an extra team every three years for the Big XII or -0.28 one less independent team every ~3.5 years). The FCS style model greatly increases G5 conferences ability to play in the playoffs, at the expense of primarily the SEC and B1G, though also of the ACC and Big XII. All three alternate models to the straight 16 seeding disadvantage independent teams the most, though the B1G model does so substantially more (an additional team misses slightly more than every other year). It is therefore interesting to see which teams gain or lose the most playoff spots for the different models.
Using the same models we will predict the number of times we can expect a team to appear in the playoffs over a decade. It is VERY important to note that this is based off the previous decade’s results, and as such is heavily biased towards recent performance.
In the B1G model, we see that Ohio State (+2.95), Michigan (+2.05), Michigan State (+2.05), Penn State (+2.05), Wisconsin (+1.59), and Alabama (+1.14) are the most advantaged teams. Meanwhile Utah (-4.32), Notre Dame (-3.18), and TCU (-2.5) are the most disadvantaged. This also had predicted USC and Oregon as the next two most disadvantaged, with the assumption that conferences are static (which they’re not) and thus those two should be disregarded. It’s reasonable to think that Utah wouldn’t be as disadvantaged in the new Big XII as they were in the old Pac 12, but that likely wouldn’t help them enough to get out of this grouping.
In the SEC model, the most advantaged teams are Alabama (+4.54), Ohio State (+4.54), Clemson (+3.64), and Oklahoma (+3.41). The most disadvantaged teams are Notre Dame (-2.27), TCU (-2.05), Penn State (-1.14), and Florida (-1.14). This is very much a reward structure that rewards the rich, and punishes the middle tiers and below.
In the FCS style model, the most advantaged schools are Boise State (+6.74), Toledo (+5.45), Ohio State (+4.32), App State (+3.64), and Alabama (+3.64). The most disadvantaged schools are LSU (-2.73), Notre Dame (-2.73), Oklahoma State (-2.65), Ole Miss (-2.58), TCU (-2.5), Northwestern (-2.27), and Wisconsin (-2.05). Not shockingly, this system most rewards G5 schools and those that have recently been conference champions in power conferences. Many more teams were raised by multiple games (WKU, JMU, FAU, GaSo, Tulane).
What is clear from all of this is that Notre Dame and TCU are consistently disadvantaged by these other systems, with the more autobids there are total, the more those teams are hurt (slightly less than TCU). We can speculate the driving factors behind the pushes of different models from this.
- The B1G model disproportionately advantages their teams, far more than any other model advantages any other conference. It also disproportionately disadvantages Notre Dame, more-so than any other model. This is suggestive that this is a combination of trying to force Notre Dame to join the B1G and get themselves more standing than the past decade of CFP era football suggests they are due. The best argument in favor of this, that the B1G is on the up and rising in quality across the board, is also the strongest argument against such a system as it shows that relative power between conferences is ever changing and introducing unequal autobids between conferences is not reflective of reality.
- The SEC model rewards the best teams at the expense of “mid level” teams. We can expect that in a true SEC model with the proposed adjusted SOR, that this would further advantage SEC schools, and potentially B1G schools with their recent expansion. While some lower tier schools get some advantage, it is far outweighed by the advantages the established powers get from this model. A disadvantaging of independent Notre Dame is further beneficial to the SEC, if they feel that the AD of Notre Dame should not get the same say at the table as entire conferences of schools.
- A FCS style model would significantly advantage G5 schools at the cost of the upper middle tier of power conferences. This is likely not in the interest of either the B1G or the SEC (or Notre Dame) and given the recent structure changes in the CFP this makes this likely a non-starter.
It is interesting the TCU is so consistently disadvantaged, though I would suggest that this is more a critique of how they’ve been ranked the past decade than of systematic effort to disadvantage them. Schools like Baylor, who by my memory seem to have similar (if not slightly worse) records over this period are generally advantaged and in the same conference the whole time. Conversely, it seems the assault on Notre Dame is purposeful and determined to get them out of independence across the board, though for various reasons.