I thought the purpose of the BCS was to assure that the top two teams played each other at the end of the season. Yes, the top two in the polls, but pre-BCS it wasn’t always assured that such would be the case. At least the BCS achieved that. The playoff format is better, IMO, and maybe it could be expanded to eight teams, but given the schedules and the extra time involved, I don’t see it going beyond that. Football isn’t basketball in terms of preparation and scheduling.
Let’s say the playoffs get expanded to 8 or 16 teams.....Then what happens if the quarterback on the “best team” just so happens to get hurt in the round of 8 or 16, now that team doesn’t even get the chance to make the semi-finals.
If you do expand the playoff field, there definitely needs to be byes in place.
Of all the major sports, football is the one that functions worst in a playoff system because the season isn't long enough to eliminate imbalances in strength of schedule. College football is worse than the NFL because there are more teams, more conferences, etc. quite simply, college football was never really designed to have a single "national champion" that is crowned based on their performance on the field.
Yes but with a playoff system whether it’s 4, 8, or 12 you’re always going to have people say this team should have made it and that team shouldn’t have.
There is a bias against the SEC, but for several years the SEC, especially the West, have had the best teams, the toughest teams, and this new system was designed to make it “fair” aka give the other conferences a chance. But low and behold look who shows up at the end, Alabama. So you get comments like earlier that Alabama doesn’t deserve to be there. The thing is, if we weren’t there it would probably be Ole Miss, another SEC West team.