While we argue who should be number 4, I miss the days of arguing who's #1, and am not looking forward to "whio's on the bubble" for #12.

No, I don't miss arguing who was #1 or #2. The prior systems were either incapable of truly sussing it out, or got it outright wrong anyway.

Oh I member.

Cue "should the SEC get 5 teams in?"

(BTW if your conference is so bad at deciding champions that the 3rd or 4th place team might actually be the best team in the country, we have bigger structural issues than the playoff)

I'd rather argue about who's #12 than argue about who's #1. 

Entirely agree. I don't really find this system to be better. Except and pumping more money into college football and more interminable ads into games.

I look at it this way: we're less likely to screw over the best team in the country by leaving them out. We're more likely to leave the third or fourth best team out of the playoffs. When it expands to twelve, the teams that get screwed over are generally going to be worse, and we'll be more likely to see non-P5 teams in the playoffs.

It's similar to teams on the bubble in the NCAA basketball tournament. Sure, occasionally one of them makes the final four--but not very often. However, the basketball tournament has far more teams, which will be alleviated somewhat when the playoffs expand.

Are the college football playoffs perfect? No, but I can live with the annoying bullshit (like Saban's lobbying).

I prefer those days. Those days are gone. I am moving on.

I understand, but the BCS sucked.

And arguing for #12 isn't going to be much different from arguing #4, so I really don't think it's a big deal.

What I think is a bigger problem is the quarterfinals aren't on home campuses. Just the #5-#12 games.

If you earn a bye, you should get a game on campus.

I also don't like that conference champions get byes. Just give it to the top 4 teams. All conferences are not even close to equal.

This is why I've always felt 12 was too many. 

An 8-Team playoff was the perfect balance. No byes. Quarterfinals at home campus of top 4 seeds. Go.

The truth is that we rarely know who can play better on a given day. And that IS why they play the games. Introduce more variables and the odds of a unanticipated outcome DO rise, which is why the NCAAs in hoop are fun even if, often, fine teams get left by the wayside. 

In the end, they've come up with a way to make more money off of it AND to bring more teams into the picture. Even though Michigan is on the rise to further prominence, I'm okay with the latter part of that. Because Dabo and Nick Saban really can suck it, for all I'm concerned. And a lot of people have felt that way with me for far too long. 

It's always worth remembering that the reason the prior systems were scrapped was they didn't hold the interest of the largest amount of possible fans. 

It's about creating urgency in as many games for as many teams as possible. People weren't buying the bowls any more for the most part. Save a couple of the big name bowls. 

Same reason you see baseball and football expand their playoffs in the pros. Baseball was suffering badly for years with all but 5 or 6 teams playing meaningless games for the last month of the season. 

I really miss the old days when there was less objectivity in the process. I sure enjoyed seeing Michigan "share" their national championship in '97-'98. What a pleasant memory.

More recently, I really miss the days when talent got concentrated with a few teams because those teams always made the playoff, meaning they were more likely to get in the playoff again and benefit from the exposure, which would bring more recruits, etc. I'm shedding tears as I write.

I'm kidding.

By the way, the advertising and game lengths are a largely separate issue.

The rose bowl never mattered.  It almost never had an impact on the national championship.  It is just more obvious now

The rose bowl never mattered.  It almost never had an impact on the national championship.  It is just more obvious now

When we used to argue about who was #1, it was seldom us in the conversation.  It was always the media darling "style" teams.

The current situation is much better for us.

No one will care about #13 bc after about #8 teams fall off dramatically.

I miss hearing disco playing on the radio. I miss The Love Boat.

My get off the lawn is; only conference champions should make the playoffs. 

Get rid of divisions and conference championship games. Only play a championship game if all categorized tie breakers are exhausted.

Realign all 131 teams into 12 conferences. I don't know how, this is my lawn and I can yell it into existence.

If a 16 team playoff is prefered, maybe allow 4 conference runner-ups play as wildcards in addition to the champions.

In a 4 team playoff, only conference champions should be eligible. If the conference champion is not the best team in your conference, that's a conference problem. Fix your conference championship so that it picks the best team in your conference. Sample size in college football is too low to allow any other teams in a conference in and have it make sense. 

Nebraska?

I wholeheartedly disagree. Why argue about who is #1 when you can settle it on the field? All those great UM teams in the 80s and 90s with 1/2 losses would get a chance to win it all (which matters for a variety of reasons, including recruiting, donations, bragging rights and Fandom-gasms).

If you lost one game, it was basically over. Now UM should be in every playoff, even at 10-2 and especially 11-1 or better. Bowl games were cool but conference tie ins severely limited interesting matchups. Remember when 5 loss Wisconsin played in the Rose Bowl?

Regular season is still hugely important for seeding. I like 8 teams better than 12 and 12 better than 16, and would prefer to stick with 4. Bama and USC can bitch all they want. 

Saban last night saying that the playoffs killed the bowls.  He’s right and it makes college football worse.  College football is about my team can beat your team not about one crowned champion.   In the old system every game was meaningful and you wanted to play tough teams so you could lay a claim to #1.   At the end of the year all of the good teams could play each other and half could say they were tougher than the other half.  I’d love to watch a Tennessee Clemson bowl game.  I don’t think they deserve to be in a playoff and I don’t care to see them lose to the better teams.   Winner takes all is lame.

Lebowski, I remember and would go back if we could but we can't.  It is more likely the Rose Bowl will be torn down in the next 10 years than we will be sitting there looking at the San Gabriel Mountains playing for #1.

I do worry that 12 teams in the playoffs will make the regular season have less value.

6 would have been better.

Michigan beat the number 4 team in the nation by 3 scores two weeels ago.  Sounds like number one material to me.  

Nice shot at non-alum viewers, dick

If they really wanted to make the bowl games more interesting they’d do away with the home game first rounds and have the third tier bowls rotate year to year on hosting those first round games. At most it’d take 8 .500 teams out of contention for a bowl spot, but would make pre-Christmas bowl games more exciting and build those bowls up more. Imagine a Tennessee vs USC first round game this year in the quick lane bowl, or Tulane vs Alabama in the r&l carriers bowl. Heck, it might even incentivize a couple of other northern bowls played at stadiums like soldier field or lambeau or Minnesota’s stadium. 

I actually agree with you. 12 is pretty insane to me. There are only even 2 deserving teams this year, giving another 10 teams a shot is crazy. 

I’m sure this is an ignorant question, but why are the playoffs expanding to 12 teams. What’s wrong with 8?

I don't miss arguing about #1 but I am not excited at all about the 12 team playoff.  The current system feels like the best compromise between the regular season mattering and still having a real playoff.  

To me the reduced volume of “who should be in” beauty contests is the best feature of an expanded playoff. I won’t miss the Nick Saban shilling at all. 

2 and 4 team playoffs have been the worst of all worlds. The bowl system was fun but once we started talking about “undisputed national championships” you need to have a real playoff big enough to capture everyone with a real argument. 

I am more a Michigan fan than I am a bowl game fan.  A 12 team playoff is a sweet spot for us.  It has enough teams so that we will have a shot at it most years, but it is restrictive enough so that not just anybody will make it in.

Loved New Years Day especially in the late seventies… the big four Bowl games … and my annual heartache after watching the Grandaddy of them All … venting at BO to throw the damn ball lol and to stop the pass !!!