Admittedly, I'm someone who ABSOLUTELY HATES the idea of a 24-team playoff. But, it's official that we'll be stuck with one starting in 2027.

But, at least one silver lining is the Big-10 will finally agree that all teams have to play at least one Power-4/ND opponent in the out-of-conference schedule. Notably, Oregon has no such opponent on their 2027 schedule as of today. There are currently three other Power-4 teams (outside of the Big-10) that are also missing a P4/ND opponent:

Texas Tech

TCU

Missouri

So which team would you like for the Ducks to add? I'll give three options:

1. Drop Western Kentucky on 9/18, which then becomes a bye week. Add TCU as the new opener on 8/28 (TCU would drop Sam Houston State on 9/18, which would also become a bye week for them).

2. Drop Coastal Carolina on 9/11 and add Texas Tech (Texas Tech currently doesn't have a game scheduled on 9/11)

3. Add Missouri as the new opener on 8/28 and then drop Western Kentucky on 9/18, which becomes a bye week. (Mizzou would also drop one of their current OOC games, which would become a bye week for them)

Any of those options would be ok with me. Personally I'd prefer matching up against Missouri to potentially get a win against a SEC team, but I'd settle for a Big-12 matchup as well.

But what would you guys prefer?

Play the best opponent available and learn the most about our team. Regular season losses don't matter any more. Take the upside for strength of schedule. If you lose, you can lose another couple times and still make the playoffs.

23 minutes ago, mikethehiker said:

Play the best opponent available and learn the most about our team. Regular season losses don't matter any more. Take the upside for strength of schedule. If you lose, you can lose another couple times and still make the playoffs.

What you say makes sense and sounds logical, except there is zero evidence that SOS has ever, or will ever matter.

It's all about wins and losses.

Play somebody weak, run up the score, play backups. That's the way.

1 minute ago, DanLduck said:

What you say makes sense and sounds logical, except there is zero evidence that SOS has ever, or will ever matter.

It's all about wins and losses.

Play somebody weak, run up the score, play backups. That's the way

Agree, let the first two games be non-Power 4 games, let the third game be the Power 4 game.

Teams with a 2027 scheduling problem include Oregon, Indiana, and USC.

A game against Oregon State and Washington State next season counts as a Power 4 contest.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-playoff-expansion-indiana-usc-2027-schedules/

For all those who hate a 24-team PO. It's a 16-team PO with eight on-campus play-in games featuring teams that would instead have played in crummy bowl games off-campus, with many of the best players sitting out the exhibition bowl game.

Better out-of-conference games will be scheduled. SOS will matter when sorting out the top 8 and the top 16 seeds. The fans of teams that have no blue blood will have a reason to support their team until the end of the season.

On the verge of 80 years of age, I can't count the number of times I've been told that postseason expansion will destroy the regular season. It hasn't happened, including in Major League Baseball, where Tony Petitti helped engineer postseason expansion.

Somewhat ironic that our 2026 that has been criticized by some meets the new requirement but 2027 doesn't.

Perfect opportunity for home/home series with Cal/Stanford and the Arizona schools. Maybe Utah and Colorado too.

I'm curious if they'll require the domers to play 10 A4 games to be eligible or treat them like a G6 team.

56 minutes ago, Jon Joseph said:

Teams with a 2027 scheduling problem include Oregon, Indiana, and USC.

A game against Oregon State and Washington State next season counts as a Power 4 contest.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-playoff-expansion-indiana-usc-2027-schedules/

For all those who hate a 24-team PO. It's a 16-team PO with eight on-campus play-in games featuring teams that would instead have played in crummy bowl games off-campus, with many of the best players sitting out the exhibition bowl game.

Better out-of-conference games will be scheduled. SOS will matter when sorting out the top 8 and the top 16 seeds. The fans of teams that have no blue blood will have a reason to support their team until the end of the season.

On the verge of 80 years of age, I can't count the number of times I've been told that postseason expansion will destroy the regular season. It hasn't happened, including in Major League Baseball, where Tony Petitti helped engineer postseason expansion.

Pac12 is G6. How would OSU and WSU count as P4?

"A handful of teams are currently saved by a unique carve out for Oregon State and Washington State under the new rules. For 2027, Oregon State and Washington State still count as P4 teams after the old Pac-12 abandoned them, the CFP confirmed to CBS Sports' Richard Johnson."

I guess this is their participation trophy.🤣

"Pac12 is G6. How would OSU and WSU count as P4?"

Washington had earlier received a Big Ten "waiver" for scheduling WSU as the B1G now requires 10 Power4 games. This happened before today's CFP announcement. So, the WSU matchup will now also satisfy the CFP for 2027.

Oregon has 3 non-Power4 non-conference games in 2027. OSU is not on their schedule. So, they will have to drop a non-con opponent, and find another Power4 opponent. OSU has 2027 games against BYU and Ole Miss, so those two opponents will not have to drop OSU due to today's announcement. Though, BYU also has Notre Dame in 2027 and would have been ok.

I suppose that is an additional option for Oregon? Get BYU to drop OSU (August 28) and help them find a replacement, which would make OSU available to Oregon.

On another note, UW is considering extending their WSU matchups to 2030. After 2027 WSU would not qualify as their 10th Power4.

Many schools such as Cal, Stanford, ASU, Utah, Arizona already have their 10th opponent. Though in Arizona's case it is WSU.

It appears the Ducks will have to look East to find the 10th.

4 hours ago, DanLduck said:

What you say makes sense and sounds logical, except there is zero evidence that SOS has ever, or will ever matter.

It's all about wins and losses.

Play somebody weak, run up the score, play backups. That's the way.

Wrong objective IMHO. Goal isn't a win. Goal is to roll the dice on a quality win and if you lose, you learn so much more about your team in preparation for conference play. Now that you can lose 3-4 games per year, what's the downside? If you can't make a 24 team playoff, you have no business competing for a championship that year.

1 hour ago, Solar said:

Pac12 is G6. How would OSU and WSU count as P4?

They were Power 5 members when scheduled. Thus, the one-year grace period.

12 hours ago, Jon Joseph said:

Teams with a 2027 scheduling problem include Oregon, Indiana, and USC.

A game against Oregon State and Washington State next season counts as a Power 4 contest.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-playoff-expansion-indiana-usc-2027-schedules/

For all those who hate a 24-team PO. It's a 16-team PO with eight on-campus play-in games featuring teams that would instead have played in crummy bowl games off-campus, with many of the best players sitting out the exhibition bowl game.

Better out-of-conference games will be scheduled. SOS will matter when sorting out the top 8 and the top 16 seeds. The fans of teams that have no blue blood will have a reason to support their team until the end of the season.

On the verge of 80 years of age, I can't count the number of times I've been told that postseason expansion will destroy the regular season. It hasn't happened, including in Major League Baseball, where Tony Petitti helped engineer postseason expansion.

I humbly disagree. I don't think the 24-team playoff will automatically guarantee better out-of-conference games. The only way to guarantee that is to REQUIRE it with a rule.

Let me give you one piece of evidence. Three years ago they tripled the size of the playoff--from 4 teams to 12 teams. Did that result in better out of conference schedules.......heck no!!!!!! Despite tripling access to the playoff, the out of conference slate was super weak this year. Teams like Indiana and Penn State scheduled three cupcakes without hesitation. The Big Noon game on week 1 was Indiana vs. North Texas!!!

Thankfully, they are at least requiring 1 P4/ND out of conference game, which will help somewhat. It'd be MUCH better if they required 2 such games however.

13 hours ago, noDucknewby said:

Somewhat ironic that our 2026 that has been criticized by some meets the new requirement but 2027 doesn't.

Perfect opportunity for home/home series with Cal/Stanford and the Arizona schools. Maybe Utah and Colorado too.

I'm curious if they'll require the domers to play 10 A4 games to be eligible or treat them like a G6 team.

Notre Dame is officially required to play 10 Power 4 teams to be eligible. So their 2027 schedule is in compliance (two Big-10 opponents, one SEC opponent, one Big-12 opponent and six ACC opponents).

43 minutes ago, Bizzle2002 said:

I humbly disagree. I don't think the 24-team playoff will automatically guarantee better out-of-conference games. The only way to guarantee that is to REQUIRE it with a rule.

Let me give you one piece of evidence. Three years ago they tripled the size of the playoff--from 4 teams to 12 teams. Did that result in better out of conference schedules.......heck no!!!!!! Despite tripling access to the playoff, the out of conference slate was super weak this year. Teams like Indiana and Penn State scheduled three cupcakes without hesitation. The Big Noon game on week 1 was Indiana vs. North Texas!!!

Thankfully, they are at least requiring 1 P4/ND out of conference game, which will help somewhat. It'd be MUCH better if they required 2 such games however.

Playing a P4 team out-of-conference is required by rule.

By 2030, we'll see an SEC/B1G challenge and the money that comes with these value-added out-of-conference games. I believe we'll see similar ACC/B12 matchups.

4-loss Iowa would have been in a 2025 24-team PO field. Deservedly so, with four close losses to quality teams, before defeating 10-2 Vanderbilt in an all-hands-on-deck bowl game. This was with playing and losing to Iowa State OOC.

The calculus for PO admission has changed. Strength of schedule and strength of record will factor into seeding, which is critical for securing a 1st or 2nd round home game.

I am not certain, but I expect the PO home games will have the same attendance criteria as today's first-round PO games. These are true home games. The host team has to make 3500 seats and seats for the visiting band available; that's it.

Tony Petitti is an intelligent businessman. He heard the same kind of concerns when he helped engineer MLB playoffs expansion. Expansion was needed because the cost of fielding a quality team skyrocketed. Exactly what we see in today's CFB. People still attend MLB games and watch postseason games in record numbers.

I expect OOC games vs. FCS opponents will disappear. Most programs will play two G6 opponents, with the majority of these games played on home turf, and, again, all P4 teams have to play a P4 opponent OOC. (Rob needs to seriously consider whether playing the Beavers home-and-home makes $ense.)

How can OOC game quality not improve? The five B1G teams that played no P4 teams OOC this season will not be able to do so next season. Requiring a P4 OOC game is an ipso facto improvement over scheduling three lower-level teams OOC.

In 2027, Oregon will have to exchange Eastern Washington, Coastal Carolina, or Western Kentucky for a P4 opponent.

Another benefit to the format is starting the season on what is now Week 0 and starting the PO earlier. (Not too far in the future, I expect the Army-Navy game will not have an exclusive broadcast window on a Saturday, and the PO will start a week earlier than next season through 2031. How about an exclusive window on the eve of Thanksgiving? )

Give 24 a chance. IMO, it will be terrific. And quality teams like BYU and Notre Dame will be in the field. Going back to the first season of the four-team PO, with a 24-team format, 80 programs would have participated in the postseason. And in today's CFB world, programs across the board need the postseason money.

I'm hoping a 24-team PO will hold off consolidation into a Super League and that the ACC and the B12 can survive. I do not want millions of ACC and B12 fans to be 'disenfranchised'.

I don't know if this will help assuage concerns over expansion, but the NCAA not conducting a D1 football PO is a quirk of history. If the NCAA managed the postseason, D1 would have had a 24-team PO field decades ago.

I hope that by 2032, using bowl games for quarterfinal and semifinal games will be eliminated. And that the PO is managed by the FBS schools and not ESPN.

If the expansion concerns come to fruition, I'll be at the front of the line with a Mea Culpa, but I don't see it happening.

MASH MICHIGAN!

21 minutes ago, Jon Joseph said:

Playing a P4 team out-of-conference is required by rule.

By 2030, we'll see an SEC/B1G challenge and the money that comes with these value-added out-of-conference games. I believe we'll see similar ACC/B12 matchups.

4-loss Iowa would have been in a 2025 24-team PO field. Deservedly so, with four close losses to quality teams, before defeating 10-2 Vanderbilt in an all-hands-on-deck bowl game. This was with playing and losing to Iowa State OOC.

The calculus for PO admission has changed. Strength of schedule and strength of record will factor into seeding, which is critical for securing a 1st or 2nd round home game.

I am not certain, but I expect the PO home games will have the same attendance criteria as today's first-round PO games. These are true home games. The host team has to make 3500 seats and seats for the visiting band available; that's it.

Tony Petitti is an intelligent businessman. He heard the same kind of concerns when he helped engineer MLB playoffs expansion. Expansion was needed because the cost of fielding a quality team skyrocketed. Exactly what we see in today's CFB. People still attend MLB games and watch postseason games in record numbers.

I expect OOC games vs. FCS opponents will disappear. Most programs will play two G6 opponents, with the majority of these games played on home turf, and, again, all P4 teams have to play a P4 opponent OOC. (Rob needs to seriously consider whether playing the Beavers home-and-home makes $ense.)

How can OOC game quality not improve? The five B1G teams that played no P4 teams OOC this season will not be able to do so next season. Requiring a P4 OOC game is an ipso facto improvement over scheduling three lower-level teams OOC.

In 2027, Oregon will have to exchange Eastern Washington, Coastal Carolina, or Western Kentucky for a P4 opponent.

Another benefit to the format is starting the season on what is now Week 0 and starting the PO earlier. (Not too far in the future, I expect the Army-Navy game will not have an exclusive broadcast window on a Saturday, and the PO will start a week earlier than next season through 2031. How about an exclusive window on the eve of Thanksgiving? )

Give 24 a chance. IMO, it will be terrific. And quality teams like BYU and Notre Dame will be in the field. Going back to the first season of the four-team PO, with a 24-team format, 80 programs would have participated in the postseason. And in today's CFB world, programs across the board need the postseason money.

I'm hoping a 24-team PO will hold off consolidation into a Super League and that the ACC and the B12 can survive. I do not want millions of ACC and B12 fans to be 'disenfranchised'.

I don't know if this will help assuage concerns over expansion, but the NCAA not conducting a D1 football PO is a quirk of history. If the NCAA managed the postseason, D1 would have had a 24-team PO field decades ago.

I hope that by 2032, using bowl games for quarterfinal and semifinal games will be eliminated. And that the PO is managed by the FBS schools and not ESPN.

If the expansion concerns come to fruition, I'll be at the front of the line with a Mea Culpa, but I don't see it happening.

MASH MICHIGAN!

22 minutes ago, Jon Joseph said:

Playing a P4 team out-of-conference is required by rule.

By 2030, we'll see an SEC/B1G challenge and the money that comes with these value-added out-of-conference games. I believe we'll see similar ACC/B12 matchups.

4-loss Iowa would have been in a 2025 24-team PO field. Deservedly so, with four close losses to quality teams, before defeating 10-2 Vanderbilt in an all-hands-on-deck bowl game. This was with playing and losing to Iowa State OOC.

The calculus for PO admission has changed. Strength of schedule and strength of record will factor into seeding, which is critical for securing a 1st or 2nd round home game.

I am not certain, but I expect the PO home games will have the same attendance criteria as today's first-round PO games. These are true home games. The host team has to make 3500 seats and seats for the visiting band available; that's it.

Tony Petitti is an intelligent businessman. He heard the same kind of concerns when he helped engineer MLB playoffs expansion. Expansion was needed because the cost of fielding a quality team skyrocketed. Exactly what we see in today's CFB. People still attend MLB games and watch postseason games in record numbers.

I expect OOC games vs. FCS opponents will disappear. Most programs will play two G6 opponents, with the majority of these games played on home turf, and, again, all P4 teams have to play a P4 opponent OOC. (Rob needs to seriously consider whether playing the Beavers home-and-home makes $ense.)

How can OOC game quality not improve? The five B1G teams that played no P4 teams OOC this season will not be able to do so next season. Requiring a P4 OOC game is an ipso facto improvement over scheduling three lower-level teams OOC.

In 2027, Oregon will have to exchange Eastern Washington, Coastal Carolina, or Western Kentucky for a P4 opponent.

Another benefit to the format is starting the season on what is now Week 0 and starting the PO earlier. (Not too far in the future, I expect the Army-Navy game will not have an exclusive broadcast window on a Saturday, and the PO will start a week earlier than next season through 2031. How about an exclusive window on the eve of Thanksgiving? )

Give 24 a chance. IMO, it will be terrific. And quality teams like BYU and Notre Dame will be in the field. Going back to the first season of the four-team PO, with a 24-team format, 80 programs would have participated in the postseason. And in today's CFB world, programs across the board need the postseason money.

I'm hoping a 24-team PO will hold off consolidation into a Super League and that the ACC and the B12 can survive. I do not want millions of ACC and B12 fans to be 'disenfranchised'.

I don't know if this will help assuage concerns over expansion, but the NCAA not conducting a D1 football PO is a quirk of history. If the NCAA managed the postseason, D1 would have had a 24-team PO field decades ago.

I hope that by 2032, using bowl games for quarterfinal and semifinal games will be eliminated. And that the PO is managed by the FBS schools and not ESPN.

If the expansion concerns come to fruition, I'll be at the front of the line with a Mea Culpa, but I don't see it happening.

MASH MICHIGAN!

I agree that REQUIRING a P4 out of conference game will help. But my point was that coaches will never do that voluntarily. They will only do that if there is such a rule requiring it (and FINALLY starting next year that will be required for the Big-10).

But where I disagree you is about the other games. I definitely don't see the FCS games going away altogether. Look for Indiana to set up an out-of-conference schedule that looks something like this: Boston College, Ball State and Indiana State. That satisfies the P4 requirement (since BC is in the ACC), but it's a truly weak opponent. Indiana will almost certainly be favored in all of those games, probably by a lot. Cignetti will then know that he can then go 6-3 in Big-10 conference games and still make the playoffs easily (they may even be able to go 5-4 and make it in some years).

While the records will matter for seeding, as you pointed out, that's not nearly as big of a carrot as actually making the playoff is. We just saw a fantastic ND vs. Miami game last Saturday. That game was essentially a playoff elimination game for ND. But it won't be next year because both of those teams will be SAFELY in the field.

I also think we'll see some (not all though) coaches rest key players down the stretch if they are already safely in the playoff. In many cases they won't even risk falling out of bye contention. But I also think some coaches would MUCH rather just ensure they have key players healthy over having to play on the road.

On a separate note, I could not agree more strongly with you about the cartel that is the bowls. I absolutely hate them. IMO, ALL of the playoff games should be on home campuses and only the championship game should be at a neutral site. The Bowls already got to run their grift on college football for like 100 years. It's time to send them to the cemetary!

3 hours ago, Bizzle2002 said:

ALL of the playoff games should be on home campuses and only the championship game should be at a neutral site.

I agree with this above, but resting players runs risk of losing games and losing seeding. Just being seeded as high as possible can mean the difference in how far you go in the Playoffs, IMHO.