Maybe Four is too many

There was not a competitive #4 this year that had the metrics to get the ranking. Not Alabama with two conference losses. Not Georgia, who had just been blown out by LSU. OU beat Baylor twice. No PAC-12 team deserved it, no other ACC team. Who else was there, if not OU?

If four is too many, what is the alternative? A bye to the championship game for #1?

1 Like

I heard the LSU assistant coaches were saying “off record” that OK was not a top 15 team. Looks like they were right.

Only part of all NCAA sports that does not have a TRUE Champion. Any sport for that matter. Bunch of Jokers pick 4 teams. :rofl:

As opposed to the basketball tournament where a bunch of jokers pick 68 teams? Or baseball with 64, 16 of whom get home field advantage?

My first response is, “so?” The second is how do you define a “true” champion? If you mean the team that won the tournament at the end of the year, yeah, that’s the champion. NCAA football has a 4-team tournament. However, anyone who thinks the year-end tournaments necessarily determine the best team or who was the best team throughout the year, you’re terribly mistaken.

This thread warms my heart. Ever since I came up with this format (no, I’m not on the committee…nor am I Larry Culpepper) 20+ years ago, and explained it to people…long before it was adopted by the NCAA…the argument I usually got was that it does not incorporate enough teams. i.e, it needs to be more than 4 team.

My response has always been that in most years, selecting four teams will result in one of two types of “errors”; either you will select too few teams (that is to say, more than 4 have a legitimate argument for being in the playoff), or - you will select too MANY teams. In some years (such as this one) 2 or 3 teams are clearly ahead of all the others.

It’s been my position that in matters regarding Championships, it’s better to err on the side of being more exclusive; that is, limiting the field at the risk of occasionally not including all contenders, rather than regularly allowing pretenders to the throne into the playoff.

For those that say, well…look at College Basketball and College Football - they are different games that allow for more than one game a week being played. In a series (Baseball) OR when a long-shot would have to win SIX consecutive games to win a Championship (March Madness), allowing some “filler” teams in isn’t such a big deal. But winning 3 games in 3 or 4 weeks (if 8 were allowed in the CFP) is doable for a “pretty good team” that gets hot or faces some teams with late-season injury problems. That doesn’t mean the 8th seed is the BEST team in the country, and they shouldn’t be in the playoff to begin with…because their regular season had not EARNED them the right to be included.

You can’t change the number of teams in the playoff every year - you have to select a number and stick to it. I think 4 is THE right number that, year after year, will best ensure that the right teams are involved without unnecessarily diluting the field with teams that don’t deserve to be there.

1 Like

It is all about money! Who ever they put in it will be all about putting rear ends in seats!
OU and Ohio State weren’t as good as their record. While OU took on LSU and got railroaded we are probably looking at watching another beat down when LSU takes on Clemson.

Uh, Army, if you have a four-team playoff you have to put in four teams. Even if one isn’t good enough. Seats have nothing to do with it. Most of the semifinal and finals tickets are pre-sold; the teams get relatively few, similar to a bowl game. But ESPN doesn’t really care if the seats are full; they make their money on the ads, which they then pay to the conferences through the CFP.