(04-26-2021 02:57 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 10:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 05:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 05:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So far there hasn't been much reason to have 4 schools. Most year's the semis have been blowouts and the final two were pretty clear cut. Expanding the playoffs will demean the regular season and having a regular season that counts sells tickets.

Thats a popular belief---but I dont think there's all that much substance to it. The truth is---we dont know what we dont know. If I remember correctly, the #1 ranked team has only won the CFP once. The fourth place team won the national championship in just the second year of the new formats existence. That means Ohio St---who wouldnt have even participated in the 2-team BCS playoff--won the national championship. Thus, looking back on the BCS era---one has to wonder how many times did a team claim a national championship that they might not have won in the CFP era? I see no reason to think the same thing is not true for the CFP era vs an 8-team version of the playoff. Once expansion occurs, I suspect it wont take long for #5, #6, #7, or #8 seeded team to win a national championship.

Well, in seven years of the CFP, the national champ has been one of the top two seeds, what would have been the BCS matchup, 5 out of 7 years. The exceptions being 2014 (Ohio State) and 2017 (Alabama).

So 2/7 is not that high a percentage, IMO. And, if we expand to 8, we'd expect diminishing returns on it happening outside the top 4. It's one thing for one top-four team to be better than another. It's another for a top 5-8 team to really be best. That's much less likely.

And one reason is, whereas 1-4 is often a guessing game as far seedings because the teams are unlikely to have played (e.g., 12-0 Clemson vs 12-0 Alabama vs 12-0 Ohio State, we don't have direct evidence of who is better so who gets seeded higher is more of a guess), with 5-8, we often have game results vs higher ranked teams. E.g., in 2019, Georgia was #5 - but we had just seen them lose big to #1 LSU in the SEC title game. Wisconsin was #8 - and they had lost to #2 Ohio State. Baylor was #7 and they had lost to #4 Oklahoma.

So that gives us a lot more certainty about how good those 5-8 teams are relative to other playoff teams compared to seeds 1 - 4.

Plus, there's a reason that JR's position is "popular" - most of the semifinal games have been blowouts or easy wins. That does not suggest we need more teams in the playoffs. All it suggests is that about 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 years, the CFP mistakenly seeds the #2 team as the #4 team, or vice-versa.

Finally, as to the G5 autobid aspect - the G5 teams have lost their last three NY6 games. Overall, G5 champs are 3-4 in NY6 games, games played against P5 that were clearly outside the playoff mix. That doesn't suggest the need for G5 involvement, at least not at the "auto" level.

Exactly. In other words---the committee was wrong. In the BCS days---the data suggests that the BCS didnt even have the right team in the playoff about a third of the time. The ONLY way we know that is because we expanded the field to 4. Your explanation that the seedings are off because the teams havent played each other----well---yeah---Of course. Thats the EXACT same reason the rankings will be off (apparently about one-third of the time). As I said before to JR---we dont know what we dont know. Yes---I absolutely believe a 5 through 8 seed will be less likley to win the championship (thats the way it works in most every sport!). But I also believe it probably wont take very long for a 5-8 seed to win it. We all know eventually one of those lower 4 seeds is going to break through.

Any of the Top 8 are beatable if they don't show up.

That is the problem with an enlarged championship it doesn't find necessarily the best team but makes a champion out of a school that is deserving by virtue of winning it.

In basketball the champion every year has multiple losses. Going the route of an 8 team playoff will make it that much harder to go undefeated.

-win your division
-win your CCG
-win the playoff

It becomes more merit based than a mythical NC.

I don't know what is fair for the G5. The two highest rated champions would prevent a situation where it scales out to a G6, G7, G8 ect. Also prevents a situation where the quality transfers to the P5 (e.g. AAC schools moving to a P5).

That as why I think 12 using the NY6 (5-2-5) is the sweet spot. Play the bowls but then give the top 2 regular season rated teams a bye after the bowls provided they can win.

To be clear---Im not against "bigger". Id love nothing better than a 16 team playoff where every conference champ is in as well as some deserving wildcards. I just dont think its realistic. Logistically--I think the time frame window is big enough for 8 teams---and thats about it. Then, there is the fact college football accepts change at a snails pace. Getting them to agree to 8 is not going to be simple---jumping to more than 8--given the current attitudes on time, logistics, and player safety---just seems like a bridge too far. If done right, a 5-1-2 8-team playoff is an excellent compromise format that will be very popular and very likley will be in place for a very long time.