The public workshop
Read freely. Signed-in members can vote, start a thread, or reply.
Find the conversation
Search public threads and members.2 public threads0 replies12 topics
18-team CFP
Compare the field sizes now being discussed. The proposal uses 18 to create four earned paths: double bye, bowl entry, campus host, and road entry.
Conference championships
The central tradeoff is national access versus reserving every place strictly for the highest-ranked teams.
18-team CFP
Choose the overall balance. The proposal favors campus games while students are present, then six bowl sites during holiday break.
Conference championships
A team that earned an extra game should face real consequences without being punished as if every résumé had the same opportunity.
Ranked by net thumbs, then likes, replies and recency.
Conference championships
I think five conference champions should receive automatic CFP access, especially if the playoff expands to 18 teams. Guaranteeing at least one spot for a non-Power Four champion gives more programs a legitimate path to the playoff without giving conference champions too many automatic bids. The exact setup depends on the final format, but I think keeping that broader access is good for college football as a whole.
18-team CFP
I like how the current format rewards only 4 teams with a bye. I don’t think a double bye week would be as big of an advantage as you could go 3-4 weeks without playing a game depending on the schedule and if you’re Notre Dame or not. Additionally I think the expansion of on-campus games to the quarterfinals would cause the top 4 spots in the current format to become even more important as it would guarantee a home game after your bye week, instead of having to travel for a neutral site game which could be anywhere in the country (below mason dixon line).
The latest public conversations. Open a thread to read or reply.
I like how the current format rewards only 4 teams with a bye. I don’t think a double bye week would be as big of an advantage as you could go 3-4 weeks without playing a game depending on the schedule and if you’re Notre Dame or not. Additionally I think the expansion of on-campus games to the quarterfinals would cause the top 4 spots in the current format to become even more important as it would guarantee a home game after your bye week, instead of having to travel for a neutral site game which could be anywhere in the country (below mason dixon line).
I think five conference champions should receive automatic CFP access, especially if the playoff expands to 18 teams. Guaranteeing at least one spot for a non-Power Four champion gives more programs a legitimate path to the playoff without giving conference champions too many automatic bids. The exact setup depends on the final format, but I think keeping that broader access is good for college football as a whole.
Proposal rooms
Each policy chapter has a dedicated forum. The same room also appears inside that proposal chapter, so readers can move between the rule and its debate without losing context.
Discuss the interaction among access, incentives, athlete freedom, voluntary commitments, national rules, and accountable authority.
Open Overall framework →Test the four competitive bands, campus games, reseeding, earned byes, and championship access.
Open 18-team CFP →Debate title-game protection, champion access, format choice, and the value of qualifying.
Open Conference titles →Examine categorical eligibility, tournament identity, campus hosting, scheduling, and CFP-qualifier protection.
Open National Tournament →Develop the résumé standard, public evidence, committee discretion, recusal rules, and review process.
Open Rankings & selection →Discuss opponent-quality expectations, interconference inventory, campus games, and rivalry protection.
Open Scheduling & rivalries →Test transfer windows, signing, coaching movement, lawful exceptions, hardship relief, and enforcement.
Open Roster calendar →Discuss compensation, agents, disclosure, due process, representation, privacy, health, education, and economic freedom.
Open NIL & athlete rights →Test one-to-four-year agreements, voluntary exits, buyouts, school breach, coaching changes, transfer windows, and tampering boundaries.
Open Player market →Debate five-to-play-four eligibility, professional exploration, NCAA jurisdiction, conference authority, and the limits of national power.
Open Eligibility & governance →Examine violation categories, individual and institutional responsibility, independent adjudication, appeals, penalty bands, and rule stability.
Open Integrity & due process →Pressure-test rights value, travel and host costs, athlete funding, distributions, and downside protection.
Open Economics & media →Choose up to three priorities. These anonymous signals are not a scientific poll.
Build a fan profile
Members choose a display name, favorite team, and perspective. Sign-in email, optional phone, and account identifiers are stored privately for integrity and moderation, are never displayed on threads, and are not sold. Phone is not required for sign-in or posting.