Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Madmarttigan said:

---

All of this discourse is dumb.

Don't watch the first sets of games if you hate it, but at the end of the day we will know the final 4 actually deserve it and won't be left guessing. The whole point of this is that we don't have that one team that never should have remotely been considered for the 4th slot.

---

No team ranked 5 or worse, outside of maybe us in 2012 before we even had a playoff, would have won a championship. We had enough proof with Cincinnati and TCU. Didn't need expansion to tell us what was already known.

---

I think college football hopped on the parity bus this year. I don't think we're getting off. It's a different landscape. Most teams are still sloppy 5 games into the season even. It's a new world

OBJTEX said:

---

Committee got it right. It is a mix of deserving and eyeball test. No issues. Best teams advanced. But the others earned their spot.

---

Agreed. Wins and losses have to matter to some extent.

Things that screwed up this year's CFP field:
1. A 3-loss Clemson winning the ACC by virtue of winning the ACCCG. They finished 0-3 vs SEC. Their best victory was probably SMU.

2. Alabama and Ole Miss losing games late in the season to scrub teams. Both teams had as good of victories as anyone this year but also had baaaad losses. Both of them in probably leaves Tennessee out.

3. SMU and Indiana beating the crap out of their scrub filled schedules. This allowed the committee to justify their gaudy records to be somewhat legit. Had they been squeaking by every week and getting an assist from the refs a time or two like the sips did in 2023 (although sips did have the win vs Alabama), they would not have gotten the benefit of the doubt.

4. Refs screwing South Carolina against LSU. Kept one of the hottest teams down the stretch out of the playoffs in light of the Bama and Ole MIss choke jobs.

Had SMU been able to win the ACCCG and 2 and 4 not happened, we could have weeded out 3 of the 4 blowout victims in the first round.

And as has been stated numerous times, if they just seeded teams 1-12 and not given byes automatically to conference champions, the first round games might also become more competitive.

Next year, there is going to be the same comments.

This is a playoff system designed by the conferences to keep their conference relevant as priority #1, followed by maintain the relevance of certain bowls, and then it ts to select a champion.


Furthermore, it uses teams from 5+ conferences that not only don't play the other power conferences much, but because they come from 16 to 18 team conferences and only play 8 to 9 games the conferences aren't even putting their best teams in their own CCG, so it's not surprising we aren't getting the best in the playoffs.
There just is not enough information to always select the best for the playoffs.



It would really help if the P4 conferences started using all 12 games (or at least 11) to play other P4 teams instead of Sam Houston State or the Citadel. I don't think the conferences want that, and the conferences are the biggest problem with the current playoff.