[TheFarm07]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15599.msg170338#msg170338 date=1473217958]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15599.msg170327#msg170327 date=1473213456]There is no perfect system

Sure there is, make the playoff large enough that every good team gets in. Last year proved that 4 is not enough, Stanford was certainly a better team than either MSU or Oklahoma proved to be.
[/quote]

A) While we could make a case that we were better than Oklahoma or MSU, I don't think we can make a case that we were better than Alabama or Clemson, so I don't think there is a great injustice in not getting into the playoff.
B) If you are arguing that once in the playoff anything can happen, then that undermines your assertion that a larger playoff will be better to determine the "best" team.

If you draw the line at 8, then the 9th ranked team will argue that they were better than the 7th or 8th and should have been included.  If you draw the line at 16, the 17th best team will complain.  If at 32... you get the idea.  Before you know it, you have 64 teams, and some are basically average.

You are ultimately facing a dilemma.  The more teams you let in, the greater the chance that the "best team" gets upset along the way.  The fewer teams you let in, the greater the chance that the "best team" doesn't get in.

I'm all for just accepting that the flaws inherent in any system.

BC
[/quote]

True, there will always be a team that gets left out who will complain that they are better than the last team let in no matter the size of the playoff field, but if you expand the field too large, the nth team that gets left out doesn't really have a legitimate argument that they have a decent chance of winning the whole tournament/playoffs, while if you expand the field slightly (from 4 to 6 or 8, for example), you can argue that the 2 or 4 additional teams are at or near the level of the top 4 teams and deserve a chance to prove their worth on the field, rather than be penalized by an untimely loss or a different schedule.

[TheFarm07]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15599.msg170338#msg170338 date=1473217958]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15599.msg170327#msg170327 date=1473213456]There is no perfect system

Sure there is, make the playoff large enough that every good team gets in. Last year proved that 4 is not enough, Stanford was certainly a better team than either MSU or Oklahoma proved to be.
[/quote]

A) While we could make a case that we were better than Oklahoma or MSU, I don't think we can make a case that we were better than Alabama or Clemson, so I don't think there is a great injustice in not getting into the playoff.
B) If you are arguing that once in the playoff anything can happen, then that undermines your assertion that a larger playoff will be better to determine the "best" team.

If you draw the line at 8, then the 9th ranked team will argue that they were better than the 7th or 8th and should have been included.  If you draw the line at 16, the 17th best team will complain.  If at 32... you get the idea.  Before you know it, you have 64 teams, and some are basically average.

You are ultimately facing a dilemma.  The more teams you let in, the greater the chance that the "best team" gets upset along the way.  The fewer teams you let in, the greater the chance that the "best team" doesn't get in.

I'm all for just accepting that the flaws inherent in any system.

BC
[/quote]

True, there will always be a team that gets left out who will complain that they are better than the last team let in no matter the size of the playoff field, but if you expand the field too large, the nth team that gets left out doesn't really have a legitimate argument that they have a decent chance of winning the whole tournament/playoffs, while if you expand the field slightly (from 4 to 6 or 8, for example), you can argue that the 2 or 4 additional teams are at or near the level of the top 4 teams and deserve a chance to prove their worth on the field, rather than be penalized by an untimely loss or a different schedule.