[BostonCard]

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.

That is, in essence, the dilemma, I mentioned.  If you allow more teams into the playoff, it increases the chances that the "best team" gets into the playoffs, since such a team might have had an untimely loss in the regular season.  But it also decreases the chances that the "best team" wins the championship, since it is easier for a team to be upset if it has to play three times than if it has to play twice, since teams can have untimely losses in the playoffs too.  Any system requires tradeoffs, and I am not convinced that it the "best team" will be left out of a four team playoff any more often than it being upset when playing one more playoff game.

To me the better argument for a playoff involves giving every P5 conference champion a seat, plus the best non-P5 team (such as BYU or Houston, or, ugh, UDFG) if you stop at 6, and two wildcards if you stop at eight.  There is a nice aura of inclusiveness there, but I bet it doesn't get any closer to crowning the best team as champion than a system where the best 4 P5 conference champions make the playoff.

On the other hand it means another game, and another chance for injury, for the players.  Increasing the number of games from 15 (12 regular season games plus a conference championship plus two playoff games) to 16 might not seem like much, but remember that not too long ago, teams were playing 12 games total (11 regular season games, 1 bowl game).  At some point we have to remember these guys are supposed to be students too, not professionals.

Last year was about the worst possible scenario for Stanford vis a vis the playoffs, being the odd P5 team out.  And yet I was not bothered one bit.  Loved the Rose Bowl and loved kicking the crap out of Iowa.  I don't think the playoffs would have been a better experience, to be honest.

BC

[BostonCard]

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.

That is, in essence, the dilemma, I mentioned.  If you allow more teams into the playoff, it increases the chances that the "best team" gets into the playoffs, since such a team might have had an untimely loss in the regular season.  But it also decreases the chances that the "best team" wins the championship, since it is easier for a team to be upset if it has to play three times than if it has to play twice, since teams can have untimely losses in the playoffs too.  Any system requires tradeoffs, and I am not convinced that it the "best team" will be left out of a four team playoff any more often than it being upset when playing one more playoff game.

To me the better argument for a playoff involves giving every P5 conference champion a seat, plus the best non-P5 team (such as BYU or Houston, or, ugh, UDFG) if you stop at 6, and two wildcards if you stop at eight.  There is a nice aura of inclusiveness there, but I bet it doesn't get any closer to crowning the best team as champion than a system where the best 4 P5 conference champions make the playoff.

On the other hand it means another game, and another chance for injury, for the players.  Increasing the number of games from 15 (12 regular season games plus a conference championship plus two playoff games) to 16 might not seem like much, but remember that not too long ago, teams were playing 12 games total (11 regular season games, 1 bowl game).  At some point we have to remember these guys are supposed to be students too, not professionals.

Last year was about the worst possible scenario for Stanford vis a vis the playoffs, being the odd P5 team out.  And yet I was not bothered one bit.  Loved the Rose Bowl and loved kicking the crap out of Iowa.  I don't think the playoffs would have been a better experience, to be honest.

BC