CFP article from Andrea Adelson and it's predictability

The CFP didn't get instituted because people thought the BCS was too objective. What's objective about the coach and AP polls? They really never tried the less subjective solution with the BCS. They neutered the computers when they didn't have a consensus with the voters, like removing margin of victory. The BCS changed to the CFP because there were many years when it looked like more than 2 teams may have been the best, not because of objectivity.

This is not a selection criteria issue. The BCS often had to pick between two teams that were roughly equally deserving (each had zero or more often one losses, major conference, good-looking team, not much to pick between the two). Sometimes it picked poorly, sometimes it picked well, but it was stuck with a tough choice.

We have long memories. Everyone remembers that. Everyone knows that a BCS decision between Clemson and Ohio State would be ultra-controversial. People plain don't feel as bad about Notre Dame vs Texas A&M; both have lost to playoff teams, Notre Dame has a better win, A&M had its shot against Bama, tough rocks. 

The problem is that there are just too many second-tier good teams left out each year. It's not that A&M deserved better, it's that there's a half dozen teams that perform at that level that don't get in, and the same teams DO get in every year. 

The B1G has sent two teams to the playoff, total. The ACC has sent two teams to the playoff, total (well, three if you count Notre Dame). The Pac 12 has sent two teams. The Big 12 has sent one team. The ultra-strong SEC has only managed 3, somehow.

Bama has gone 7 times. Clemson 6 (this is the same number of appearances as teams that have appeared exactly once in the playoff. Only six such occurrences so far). Oklahoma and Ohio State 4 each. Notre Dame now makes its second appearance.

The chart on wikipedia's article is enlightening. There's a category for 0 or 1-loss P5 teams that weren't selected. 5 of those 6 teams have never made the playoff. There are 5 P5 champions that were not selected that have never made the playoff. 

The playoff would be a lot richer if more of those teams made it in. They might not win, but I'll bet a team like 2017 Wisconsin or 2014 TCU could do some real damage with the right matchup. Honestly, I look down on Wisco just a bit, I think they've hit their ceiling. But what if Wisconsin had a playoff win under its belt? Why couldn't it start nabbing some more top-100 types? 

There just isn't enough room for these teams to maneuver. They need perfect seasons and they're stuck in conferences with a single 800-lb gorilla that takes all the 5-stars and knows them. Imagine Wisconsin sneaking into the playoff, facing Oklahoma, and then plowing Oklahoma into dust with a ground attack that Oklahoma hasn't seen in years. It's plausible.

Or it would be. If more teams could make the playoff. 

As odd as it seems, the previous systems mitigated the impact of cheating by being more random. Teams cheated as much then as they do now. The whole SWAC for instance. The difference was who played for and was named national champion had less predictability preventing monopolies.

Clemson, OSU, and Alabama cheated to get where they are at whether it be mass illegal benefits, steroids or both. Now the playoff is present and the system creates legal benefits which perpetuate their advantage. They probably don’t have to cheat on the same scale as before now because they have the built in advantage of being in the playoff every year.

If people really want to fix the playoffs, address the elephant in the room, create a more even playing field for all teams and then expand the field. If not, you’re just delaying the inevitable Alabama, OSU, Clemson match ups in the later round with the hope of a random upset every once in a while in the first round.

The problem in all of these is the selection - change it to a six team playoff with the power five conference champions and the G5 Cinderella of the year seeded in major bowls or all conference champions seeded in major bowls and play off from there.

The regular season non-conference games are important for seeding but allow for some risk because they won’t eliminate you from the division championship race

Regular season conference games become important because there are no second chances if you eliminated from the conference championship

This also occasionally removes Ohio State, Alabama and Oklahoma from the rotation

Conference championship games are elimination games - no second chances there either

Agreed.  I had no idea how toxic the small playoff would be for the health of the sport. 

Every year this format is allowed to exist it just continues suffocate the competitive balance out of the sport, like a big ol' python. 

The recruiting rankings are the tell.  With social media and the national recruiting camps, all of the elite players network and end up going to the same small handful of programs.

It needs to die in a fire.  At this point ANYTHING is better than this cancer.

The problem with a 16 team playoff is how many regular games are there for those who do not make the playoffs? Take Michigan for example and say that they don't make the 16 team field (I know it's a difficult imagination but play along.) 

Michigan currently has 3 out of conference games. At worse, they will play 2 of those at home. For league play they have 9 conference games, with the most 5 at home. (Usually the 2 out of conference games are played in years with 5 conference home games.) That gives Michigan 7 home games currently on the schedule. Eliminating any of those 7 home games is really going to cut into the schools revenue. 

An expanded playoffs is a great idea. The problem is how not to turn a college football season into a NFL length season while keeping as many home games as possible.

You think Bama isn't going to crush ND? Can't believe we JUST had 2 teams from a 4-team playoff with one getting blown off the field and people think Cincinnati shouldn't have a shot.

Regular season is already less meaningful.  Why not just do 16 teams like the rest of the division?

The three point shot also adds to the variability in basketball.  

Also, smaller schools can develop a senior class over four years that can compete with the one and done freshman playing star ball in a one game scenario. 

Like I said, the top 2-3 teams are just much better than their opponents.  It can be due to talent, to coaching, to "bad breaks", whatever.  My point is that the #3 team in this playoff is a 7-point underdog to the #2 team.  

Clemson and Alabama both have 6-3 records in the playoffs and of those 6 losses, 3 have come against each other.  The combined record of every other team in the playoffs (including OSU) is 6-12.  It's not just about recruiting obviously, but clearly those two teams are heads-and-tails above the other programs in the country when it comes to winning titles consistently.  

Yeah, I kind of liked when teams got to play different opponents and could lay claims to being national champions even if, in lots of instances, it wasn't all that logical.  It gave way more teams goals to shoot for, and added intrigue to way more bowls and postseason games.  Winning the Rose Bowl meant something to the teams and conferences; now there's a good chance that the "actual" Rose Bowl is played by the #2 team in the Pac 12 or Big 10 because of additional playoff implications for the #1, and I think that somewhat cheapens the whole experience.  But I also have come to accept that this is what college football is to a lot of people, and as a willing consumer of the sport that's sort of the deal I make with it.  I do agree that winning a game in Jerry World a month after the season ends, and that game being "the most important one" in terms of historical relevance for a season, isn't particularly compelling to a fan.

I remember who won. I always wanted the national title. I wanted to be the elite of the elite. 

We had a great season in 85, beat Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl; Oklahoma won the title. 88 was a great season, finished 4th, could have been 3rd, since #1 and #2 were Notre Dame and Miami--and we lost to both of them by the closest of margins. I remember.

I remember Alabama surprising Miami after the 92 season to win the title in the Sugar Bowl after we beat Washington in the Rose Bowl. Somehow they were the underdog. Made sense then, sounds weird now, but there it was. I remember Florida State and Va Tech playing an electric shootout after the 99 season when we won the Orange Bowl over Bama. That year both we and Michigan State had great teams with close, tough losses. We each played a contestant from that year's SEC championship game and won in the bowls. We were close, a play here or there at MSU and a non-collapse against Illinois and maybe we're in the BCS championship instead of Va Tech and Michael Vick. 

I didn't have to look any of this up. I remember them all. I don't want consolation prizes. I want to win. I want Michigan to be the team others fanbases fear, the team that everybody respects. A team that wins. I want to see the guys on the set of Gameday after the title game. 

Don't get me wrong. I like the Rose Bowl wins, the Orange Bowl win, the Sugar Bowl win. But it's not like we're winning these games now, anyway. We haven't been to a Rose Bowl since 1/1/07. OSU has gone. PSU has gone. Illinois (!) has gone. 

I remember. 

Totally nailed it. 

10 conference champs plus 2 at large.  Everyone has a seat at the table and the regular season is valued but flexible enough for the 11-1 division runner up.

I don't mind the idea of expanding the playoffs because, like you said, it might encourage some recruits to consider other schools.  But at the same time college football has just become to stratified at the top that I don't know if it fundamentally changes anything.  I know it comes across as whiny and it is a bit, but when the NCAA cries poverty and "amateurism" about college kids possibly being paid/being able to utilize their NIL rights while you see the same couple of schools clearly circumvent those restrictions under the table (and on the rare occasion the NCAA finds violations, portrays them as greedy, immoral student-athletes), I have a hard time seeing much of the paradigm changing.