It also proves a 12 team format is 4 teams too many. And I hear they want to add 2 more teams. What a laugher, an embarrassment. This isn't March Madness where a podunk basketball team can beat the big guys on any given night. The issue is the committee uses the ranking system which doesn't prove that a 15th ranked South Carolina is worse than Indiana. IMO, SC would knock the socks off Indiana and give Ohio State a true test. They need to fix the ranking system. The Top 5, maybe 8 sounds about right and always has, but after that I disagree with everything from 9 to 25.
6 is the sweet spot, keep the conference championship games (assuming we still had power 5) as defacto playoff games. (They are pointless in the current system) Top two seeds get a bye, and you have one remaing spot for a deserving Cinderella or a 1 loss conference championship game loser. Instead the NCAA and powers that be completely wrecked it and gave us a bunch of meaningless blowouts in the 1st rd. Good job
I think 8 teams is the sweet spot. It's enough to include conference champions and the at-large teams who have a case. It preserves some meaning for the regular season. It fits into the New Year's Six bowls perfectly. I don't know why they had to go and overinflate it to 12 teams without ever giving 8 a try.
Strange to read football fans complaining about more football. There seemed to be some excitement about the first 12-team playoff, but the first round of games ended up being clunkers ('cept the TX/Clem game). I would go with either 8 or 16 teams and do away with the bye. Under the current format, Sagarin's 11th and 28th ranked teams received a bye. Their schedules rank 39th and 86th.
The BCS gave us the top two teams. Then number 3 complained so eventually we went to playoffs with 4 teams. Then number 5 complained so now we are at 12 teams. Now number 13 and 14 are complaining. Enough already. I agree with others. 6, maybe 8 max. After that, you ain't beating the #1 or 2 teams anyway, so get over it.
