[BostonCard]

The strongest argument, in my mind, is simply that the conference championships rarely definitively resolve who is the best team (see last season where Bama wasn't even in the game and then went on to win the championship, and the year before, where OSU was top 4 even though they didn't play in the Big Ten Game). And if they don't actually help resolve the best teams, why not let a 8-game playoff do it, which *would* resolve this question. Having two at-larges takes care of the years when Bama or OSU don't win their conference but are nonetheless a top team, and also addresses the UCF problem. I entirely agree with you that that's a better solution.

No, it wouldn't.  It would simply resolve who won three games in a row to win a championship.  While (barring unusual match-up issues) the better team will win a game at a neutral site more often than not, that doesn't mean that the better team will always win three consecutive games.  In fact, that is to a degree an argument against expanding the playoff.  The more games in a row a team has to play to win a championship, the more unlikely it is that the "best team" will make it through without being upset along the way.  The "best team" should always have the greatest probability of winning, but at the end of the day, the larger the field is, the higher probability that "the field" wins the championship.  I believe there was such a discussion related to the disappointment of our women's soccer team.

The problem that an expanded playoffs would "solve" is the idea that participation in the play-off isn't determined purely on the field and has a subjective component of committee selections.  That is, to some extent, a fair gripe, and I think the idea that a team may not purely hold its destiny its own hands is off-putting to many.  However, this being sports, fans will find something else to grip about, whether it is seeding, or which teams outside the conference champions were included (you can't get away from a subjective determination here). Then there is also the possibility that a mediocre team will sneak into the playoffs by winning in a down conference (especially if there are conference championship games).  I remember when there was grousing that a Big East team had to be included in a BCS bowl even though none of them were ranked in the top-25.

There is no perfect system; all of these things involve trade-offs.  The bottom line is that the smaller the playoff field, the greater the chance that the "best team" is left off the playoff roster; the larger the playoff field the greater the chance that the "best team" is upset during the playoffs.  The more "objective" the system, the higher the likelihood that through flukish means a worse team meets the criteria to enter the playoffs without actually being the better team; the more "subjective" the system, the higher he likelihood that bias creeps in.  The "ideal" system is a question about what trade-offs we are willing to take.

Last thing... lost in all of these discussions is the physical toll that the ever-lengthening season takes on players.  I would like to see that reversed, and see us play fewer, not more games.  If the playoffs are expanded, then I agree, do away with the conference championship game, or get rid of a game in the regular season.  There was a time when players played at most 12 games (11 in BobK's and TC's days); now  some play 12 regular season games, a conference championship, and two playoff games.  That's too much for players that are not paid.

BC

[BostonCard]

The strongest argument, in my mind, is simply that the conference championships rarely definitively resolve who is the best team (see last season where Bama wasn't even in the game and then went on to win the championship, and the year before, where OSU was top 4 even though they didn't play in the Big Ten Game). And if they don't actually help resolve the best teams, why not let a 8-game playoff do it, which *would* resolve this question. Having two at-larges takes care of the years when Bama or OSU don't win their conference but are nonetheless a top team, and also addresses the UCF problem. I entirely agree with you that that's a better solution.

No, it wouldn't.  It would simply resolve who won three games in a row to win a championship.  While (barring unusual match-up issues) the better team will win a game at a neutral site more often than not, that doesn't mean that the better team will always win three consecutive games.  In fact, that is to a degree an argument against expanding the playoff.  The more games in a row a team has to play to win a championship, the more unlikely it is that the "best team" will make it through without being upset along the way.  The "best team" should always have the greatest probability of winning, but at the end of the day, the larger the field is, the higher probability that "the field" wins the championship.  I believe there was such a discussion related to the disappointment of our women's soccer team.

The problem that an expanded playoffs would "solve" is the idea that participation in the play-off isn't determined purely on the field and has a subjective component of committee selections.  That is, to some extent, a fair gripe, and I think the idea that a team may not purely hold its destiny its own hands is off-putting to many.  However, this being sports, fans will find something else to grip about, whether it is seeding, or which teams outside the conference champions were included (you can't get away from a subjective determination here). Then there is also the possibility that a mediocre team will sneak into the playoffs by winning in a down conference (especially if there are conference championship games).  I remember when there was grousing that a Big East team had to be included in a BCS bowl even though none of them were ranked in the top-25.

There is no perfect system; all of these things involve trade-offs.  The bottom line is that the smaller the playoff field, the greater the chance that the "best team" is left off the playoff roster; the larger the playoff field the greater the chance that the "best team" is upset during the playoffs.  The more "objective" the system, the higher the likelihood that through flukish means a worse team meets the criteria to enter the playoffs without actually being the better team; the more "subjective" the system, the higher he likelihood that bias creeps in.  The "ideal" system is a question about what trade-offs we are willing to take.

Last thing... lost in all of these discussions is the physical toll that the ever-lengthening season takes on players.  I would like to see that reversed, and see us play fewer, not more games.  If the playoffs are expanded, then I agree, do away with the conference championship game, or get rid of a game in the regular season.  There was a time when players played at most 12 games (11 in BobK's and TC's days); now  some play 12 regular season games, a conference championship, and two playoff games.  That's too much for players that are not paid.

BC