The bigger issue here is not the amount of money (an expanded playoff almost assuredly brings in more $$), but who controls that money. The NCAA controls the basketball tourney and thus they get to decide how to distribute the $$, and they keep a chunk of it. The FBS conferences & Notre Dame currently control football cfp & bowl $$ and their biggest fear is the NCAA taking over the football playoff and running it like the basketball tourney. This is a huge part of what has kept the antiquated bowl system afloat for so long, not the money but the control of the money. This is a big reason why we have seen the cfp creep into existence over 20+ years instead of quickly implemented. The conferences like more $$ so ultimately I suspect they will expand cfp, but each step forward is done slowly and carefully so as to keep the NCAA's grubby hands out of the football pot of $$.
Although I'm happy when Alabama gets to beat a blue blood soundly to advance, I mostly agree. I was always in favor of using a BCS type formula to determine the participants because the pull of politics is just too strong for a committee of people whose heads are filled with political considerations no matter how much they deny reality.
Not even 2nd string-they had a wideout playing corner!
The issue isn't just about making sure the 4 best teams get in each year (though that's certainly part of it). If a large percentage of the TV market is left without a chance at seeing a regional team in the cfp the ratings may dwindle, and we may even see the Big10 and PAC10 pull out of the cfp once the contract expires and go back to sending their champs to the Rose Bowl which would then garner as good if not better TV ratings than a weakened cfp. They could arguably make more $$ doing that instead of remaining in a 4-team cfp system that they see as unfair (whether or not it really is is immaterial, that's the perception). It simply is not possible to offer a realistic opportunity to all of the power 5 conferences, the group of 5 teams, and ND with only 4 slots. I don't know if expanding to 8 solves all ills, but it certainly gets all of the key players a true place at the cfp table, something that is missing with 4-team cfp.
I'm not sure I'm buying this article's argument. I think it has the benefit of hindsight for support. First, I didn't hear many people arguing that Ohio St was better than Oklahoma or more deserving. I'm not saying they weren't, I just don't recall that being part of the debate.
I think the playoff makes a fundamentally incorrect assumption, that there are four teams worthy of competing for a national title on a given year. That's not necessarily the case.
Even if it is conceded that ND earned the right to be in cfp despite many experts feeling they were not one of the best 4 teams, there's still no valid reason for the cfp committee to seed them 3rd instead of 4th. Heavily weighting record for selection is one thing, but seeding should be based on best teams, period.
Umm... Notre Dame was undefeated. You tell me what Oklahoma did to be ranked ahead of them? Oklahoma had a dreadful defense and a loss.
I would go all in that Oklahoma would beat Notre Dame. I am sure that I’m not the only one.
That was mostly because the Rose Bowl decided to lock everyone that they politically disagreed with out of what was thought of the defacto NCG, and forced the rest of the country to come up with a new metric to decide NCs while also trying to make regional alternatives to the Rose Bowl. Its why I hate that Roy Kramer brought the Rose Bowl back in the fold when they caused the craziness in the first place.
That's not a determining factor in seeding or anything else though. I could argue that Georgia could beat Clemson, but that doesn't mean Georgia belongs in over Clemson. That's never what this should be about, if it is then why are they playing regular season games if it's just an exhibition to show us how good they can be?
This has always been my greatest concern with playoff expansion. If 1-seed Bama plays a 8-seed UCF in first round (to me, a meaningless game), then loses several players to injury, then their national championship aspirations are dealt a significant blow.
There is a good flip side to that argument though. I know we have had a bad string of luck the last few years, especially with injuries on defense. But one could say that injuries are likely to happen pretty evenly across the group of teams. In that case, the team with the most depth will be least impacted and be able to move forward regardless. And that team would be us.
