I've been beating this drum for a long time - several years before the NCAA finally adopted our present 4 team playoff structure.
While others have complained that there should be 8 or even 16 teams included in the CFB Playoff, I've maintained that 4 is THE correct number. I don't believe I've ever read an article that articulated that perspective as well as this one, written by one of the journalists (Sports Illustrated writer) that participated in a mock selection group using the 2011 season results as their hypothetical data.
What he does an excellent job of emphasizing is the point I've been harping on for these many years: it's not about how many teams could win the "tournament" if they were invited. It's about whose RESULTS on the field during the course of the ENTIRE season merited inclusion in that small, exclusive group. As I like to say it, at the end of each regular season (including Conference Championship games): "if you had to name one team, and one team only, that had earned #1 BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE DONE ALL SEASON LONG (NOT based on who you think might win a tournament of the best teams), who DESERVES that vote?" In other words, don't focus on what four teams need to be invited; think about who you would vote #1 if that was your only option - and see who that discussion settles down to.
Generally, the argument over who that team is will center on 2 or 3 teams. As the linked article demonstrates, this is what the committee is focused on - making sure all the teams that HAVE to be included are. The discussion over who the third or fourth team should be is of interest to those teams, of course; but secondary to ensuring the the truly top shelf teams BASED ON THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS on the field are involved.
Yes, I'll admit that "some day", the NCAA will probably expand the field just for the sake of TV money. But I hope not - four is the right number.
While others have complained that there should be 8 or even 16 teams included in the CFB Playoff, I've maintained that 4 is THE correct number. I don't believe I've ever read an article that articulated that perspective as well as this one, written by one of the journalists (Sports Illustrated writer) that participated in a mock selection group using the 2011 season results as their hypothetical data.
What he does an excellent job of emphasizing is the point I've been harping on for these many years: it's not about how many teams could win the "tournament" if they were invited. It's about whose RESULTS on the field during the course of the ENTIRE season merited inclusion in that small, exclusive group. As I like to say it, at the end of each regular season (including Conference Championship games): "if you had to name one team, and one team only, that had earned #1 BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE DONE ALL SEASON LONG (NOT based on who you think might win a tournament of the best teams), who DESERVES that vote?" In other words, don't focus on what four teams need to be invited; think about who you would vote #1 if that was your only option - and see who that discussion settles down to.
Generally, the argument over who that team is will center on 2 or 3 teams. As the linked article demonstrates, this is what the committee is focused on - making sure all the teams that HAVE to be included are. The discussion over who the third or fourth team should be is of interest to those teams, of course; but secondary to ensuring the the truly top shelf teams BASED ON THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS on the field are involved.
Yes, I'll admit that "some day", the NCAA will probably expand the field just for the sake of TV money. But I hope not - four is the right number.
Last edited:
