It makes perfect sense. the best 2 teams are not always #1 and #2...(the whole reason the playoff expanded and you cant have #3 with out taking #4 so that is how we got to where we are, not to have a playoff that is all inclusive of undeserving teams)
It doesn't make sense because no matter how many teams are in the playoff, it will always boil down to the best 2... the 2 that beat everyone else to get there. Also, the best might not be #1 or #2... but it also might not be #3 or #4, you would never know because you don't want to see what would happen, which is weird because if the top 4 are already assumed to be the best by you, then they would win anyway and it would come down to them. So either way you would get your best 4 in the 2nd rnd of an 8 team and you would get more football - you can't lose.
Statistics prove that the more teams in a "playoff" the less likely the best team actually wins.
That also doesn't make sense. If you are the best team, you will win. If you lose... then you weren't the best team. It's very simple.
if the best team can beat any team 9 times out of 10 and the team the lose to happens to just be a team that might beat a team 5 times out of 10 then the best team doesnt win.
This is stupid. Upsets happen, it is part of the game. It is WHY you play the game because of the phrase... 'Any given Saturday'. You could be the most talented team in all of history, but if you don't bring it on that Saturday, you might lose.... a.k.a. Not the best. I don't care how many times you would beat a team if you played them 10, I care about if you can beat the team ONCE whenever they are put in front of you.
By your logic, there should be no point in playing the games. No point in a 4 team playoff. We should just have Bama and Clemson battle it out every single year, because they have shown to consistently be the best repeatedly enough recently.
It is what it is. Coastal Carolina plays nobody all year, id take most mid-tier p4 teams over them in a 9 out of 10 scenario
So mid-tier.... so like 3 loss? Are you saying you would take a 3 or even a 2 loss team over an undefeated? If that is the case, it is apparent you aren't actually worried about who is the 'best' - you are merely talking about who is the most talented - something that doesn't and shouldn't matter. For example, there is no doubt that 2001 Miami was way more talented than 95 Nebraska... but statistically, 95 Nebraska is the better team. If Coastal Carolina went undefeated... then beat the likes of Ohio St, A&M, Bama, and Notre Dame in the playoff... I highly doubt you would come in here and say they were undeserving. Coastal Carolina or UCF or Cincinnati doing that is highly unlikely, but just because it is unlikely does not mean that they don't deserve the opportunity. In the end, the 2 best will emerge anyway.... again, the 2 that beat everyone else in the playoff to be the best.
