(01-03-2018 11:19 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  This is all very simple.

The more objective the qualification the better. The problem lies in the subjectivity. Unfortunately, the sheer size of the field dictates that you cannot eliminate all subjectivity, but you have to eliminate it as much as possible.

Unless you do that, it doesn’t matter how big you make the field, there will always be problems.

While making the field larger doesn’t solve all problems, I think people are too willing to use that as an excuse for the status quo. If you have 5 P5 auto-bids plus a spot for the top G5 team in a playoff, that eliminates the vast majority of the issues of perceived inequity. We may still debate whether team #8 should have gotten in over team #9, but that impact is a lot less when those teams failed to qualify automatically by winning its conference (which is literally the only thing a team has total control over, unlike strength of schedule, non-conference opponents, the “eye test”, etc.).

There isn’t anything objective in this 4-team playoff, which, to be fair, is really the only way that you can structure such a limited field. (We can’t have a conference champ requirement that would treat a non-SEC champ Alabama team any differently than an independent Notre Dame under the current system.) A 4-team playoff can’t be based on anything other than subjective factors. An 8-team playoff is large enough for P5 auto-bids, which can introduce objective standards.